Standardized testing with chlorhexidine in perioperative allergy--a large single-centre evaluation

Cutaneous hypersensitivity to chlorhexidine following facial fat grafting: a delayed intradermal response

Chlorhexidine (CHD) is commonly included in surgical antiseptics and can be associated with adverse reactions ranging from contact dermatitis to anaphylaxis. A 32-year-old female presented to the OR for facial fat grafting. Surgical sites were prepped with CHD gluconate or topical iodine. Donor and recipient sites were infiltrated with local anesthetic injection prior to fat harvest and facial injection. Eleven days later, she presented with new painful, pruritic rash over donor sites where CHD had been applied prior to local anesthetic infiltration. Treatment with topical clobetasol and prednisone taper resulted in complete symptom resolution. This patient's response most likely represented a delayed type IV, T-cell mediated hypersensitivity. CHD is a known trigger of allergic reactions. Infiltration of local anesthetic may introduce skin prep into the subcutaneous tissue akin to intradermal testing. For those with delayed cutaneous reactions, steroids may provide symptomatic relief.

Perioperative hypersensitivity in children: A prospective multidisciplinary study

BACKGROUND

There are few studies of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions in children. The diagnosis of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions may be under estimated because it is difficult to recognize the reactions. Anaphylaxis may go unnoticed because of patient unconsciousness. Urticaria may be missed due to sterile drapes. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate perioperative hypersensitivity reactions.

METHODS

In this prospective study, patients with suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions aged 0-18 years who underwent surgery at the Department of Pediatric Surgery, Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine, between 2019 and 2021 were investigated. Suspected reactions in the perioperative period were graded according to the Ring and Messmer scale. Patients with suspected reactions were examined 4-6 weeks after the reaction. If necessary, specific IgE and basophil activation tests were performed. Reactions of grades III-IV were considered anaphylaxis. If one test modality was strongly positive and there was a relevant time point or repeated allergic reactions, or at least two test modalities were positive, hypersensitivity was confirmed. In all patients, serum tryptase levels were analyzed at the time of the reaction, 2 h after the reaction, and 4-6 weeks after the reaction as part of the allergic evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 29 patients (8 female, 21 male) suspected of having an intraoperative reaction during the study were included in the analysis. Perioperative hypersensitivity reactions were noted in 1 patient. The incidence of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions was reported to be 0.03% (n = 1/2861). While anaphylaxis was confirmed in 1 patient, 5 patients were considered possible anaphylaxis cases.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative hypersensitivity reactions can be life-threatening and may recur with further administration. Collaboration between pediatric surgeons, anesthesiologists, and allergists can prevent further reactions. All suspected cases should be evaluated by an experienced allergist soon after the initial reaction.

Flow-based basophil activation test in immediate drug hypersensitivity. An EAACI task force position paper

Diagnosing immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) can pose a significant challenge and there is an urgent need for safe and reliable tests. Evidence has emerged that the basophil activation test (BAT), an in vitro assay that mirrors the in vivo response, can be a complementary test for many drugs. In this position paper, members of Task Force (TF) "Basophil activation test in the evaluation of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions" from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) present the data from a survey about the use and utility of BAT in IDHRs in Europe. The survey results indicate that there is a great interest for using BAT especially for diagnosing IDHRs. However, there are still main needs, mainly in the standardization of the protocols. Subsequently consensus-based recommendations were formulated for: (i) Technical aspects of BAT in IDHRs including type of sample, management of drugs, flow cytometry protocols, interpretation of the results; and (ii) Drug-specific aspects that should be taken into account when performing BAT in relation to betalactams, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluoroquinolones, chlorhexidine, opioids, radio contrast media, chemotherapeutics, biological agents, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, COVID vaccine, and excipients. Moreover, aspects in the evaluation of pediatric population have also been considered. All this indicates that BAT offers the clinician and laboratory a complementary tool for a safe diagnostic for IDHRs, although its place in the diagnostic algorithm depends on the drug class and patient population (phenotype, geography, and age). The standardization of BAT is important for generalizing this method beyond the individual laboratory.

The Value of Current Laboratory Tests in Diagnosing Food, Venom, and Drug Allergies

An accurate diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergies is necessary to inform risk management for severe allergic reactions including anaphylaxis for food, venom, and drug allergies. The most widely available laboratory test for allergy is serum-specific IgE testing, which is routinely used for food allergy and insect sting allergy. Testing for specific IgE is limited by high sensitivity and low specificity, resulting in concern regarding overdiagnosis. Testing of allergen components has led to improved diagnosis for some food and venom allergens. Additional options for laboratory tests, such as epitope analysis, basophil activation, and mast cell activation, are being investigated for their potential to optimize diagnosis and provide predictors for reaction severity and treatment response. In contrast, laboratory testing for drug allergy is more limited because to date, there are no well-validated commercial assays in the United States. Furthermore, it is important to diagnose delayed reactions to medications, because these also significantly affect decision-making regarding therapeutic options for infectious disorders. Reliable tests for both immediate and delayed drug hypersensitivity are much needed, because drug allergy labels can significantly limit treatment options for patients. Research in this area is emerging.

In vitro anti-biofilm properties of the peel of fruite wall of acorn against Streptococcus mutans

Dental caries is a multi-factorial infectious disease. The primary cause is dental plaque, a complex of biofilm. It was postulated that the ethanolic extract of fruite wall of acorn may represent a new substance to prevent caries. Hence, the study was performed to evaluate the effect of ethanolic extract of fruite wall of acorn against biofilm formation by Streptococcus mutans, which is associated with dental plaque. The cytotoxicity of the ethanolic extract was determined against Vero cells resulting in an inhibitory concentration of 50 (IC50) of 55 µg/ml. After bacterial collection, different concentrations under the IC50 from the extract were evaluated against biofilm formation of S. mutans. 3 µg/ml of the extract inhibited the biofilm formation of S. mutans, and 1 to 3 µg/ml caused a decrease in gtfB and brpA biofilm-production genes. This study showed the potency of the ethanolic extract of fruite wall of acorn against biofilm formation by S. mutans.

Tools for Etiologic Diagnosis of Drug-Induced Allergic Conditions

Drug hypersensitivity reactions are a serious concern in clinical practice because they can be severe and result in lifelong sequelae. An accurate diagnosis and identification of the culprit drug is essential to prevent future reactions as well as for the identification of safe treatment alternatives. Nonetheless, the diagnosis can be challenging. In vivo and in vitro tests can be helpful, although none are conclusive; therefore, the tests are not usually performed in isolation but as part of a diagnostic algorithm. In addition, some in vitro tests are only available in research laboratories, and standardization has not been fully accomplished. Collaborating research is needed to improve drug hypersensitivity reaction diagnosis. In this review, we update the current available in vivo and in vitro tools with their pros and cons and propose an algorithm to integrate them into clinical practice.

Immediate Hypersensitivity to Chlorhexidine: Experience from an Allergy Center in China

BACKGROUND

Chlorhexidine generally has a good safety profile. However, allergic reactions are reported with increasing frequency. In China, it is rarely reported, and its characteristics are unknown. The purpose of this study was to summarize the experience of a Chinese allergy center with chlorhexidine allergy.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent chlorhexidine allergy testing in the Allergy Center of West China Hospital, Sichuan University (Chengdu, China), in the period February 2018 to May 2022 (n = 43 patients) and included the patients diagnosed with chlorhexidine allergy for analysis.

RESULTS

Ten patients who were diagnosed by skin prick and serum-specific immunoglobulin E tests were included. They experienced a total of 30 allergic reactions to chlorhexidine (mean ± SD, 3.0 ± 1.3). Five patients experienced six allergic reactions (6 of 30, 20%) during general or local anesthesia, and they may have been exposed to chlorhexidine via different routes. Only one allergic reaction (1 of 30, 3%) was recorded with exposure via a mouthwash. The other 23 allergic reactions (23 of 30, 77%) were caused via a skin disinfectant; the route of exposure was IV cannulation in 22 allergic reactions (22 of 23, 96%) and broken skin in one allergic reaction (1 of 23, 4%). The symptoms included a quick onset and great severity. Two patients (2 of 10, 20%) had been accidentally re-exposed to chlorhexidine after diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study conducted in China showed that the majority of reactions to chlorhexidine were attributed to skin disinfectants, and IV cannulation was the most common exposure route; in general, however, chlorhexidine allergy was easily overlooked. The potential allergenicity of chlorhexidine used for skin preparation before IV cannulation or should be considered in patients who develop allergic reactions perioperatively.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

A quarter of a century fundamental and translational research in perioperative hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis at the Antwerp university hospital, a Belgian Centre of Excellence of the World Allergy Organization

Perioperative hypersensitivity constitutes an important health issue, with potential dramatic consequences of diagnostic mistakes. However, safe and correct diagnosis is not always straightforward, mainly because of the application of incorrect nomenclature, absence of easy accessible in-vitro/ex-vivo tests and uncertainties associated with the non-irritating skin test concentrations. In this editorial we summarize the time line, seminal findings, and major realizations of 25 years of research on the mechanisms, diagnosis, and management of perioperative hypersensitivity.

Ten-year outcomes of Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong (PAWS-HK): Performance of diagnostic modalities

BACKGROUND

Studies on perioperative anaphylaxis (PA) in Asia are lacking. Furthermore, allergy workup for PA has largely been limited to the "silver standard" of skin tests (ST). Using in vitro tests as an adjunct to ST may improve and overcome these diagnostic challenges.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical characteristics and diagnostic tests of patients with suspected PA through the Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong cohort.

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of PA over a 10-year period were recruited into the Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong. We reviewed the medical records, tryptase elevation, and diagnostic tests including ST, specific immunoglobulin E, and basophil activation tests (BAT).

RESULTS

In 151 patients with PA, diagnosis was reached in three-fourths of the cases (113/151, 74.8%). The most common culprits identified were neuromuscular blocking agents (25.8%), β lactams (17.2%) and chlorhexidine (13.9%). Severe anaphylaxis was associated with female sex, older age, elevated acute tryptase levels, and more cardiovascular manifestations during induction. Skin tests remained the most sensitive diagnostic modality overall (66.2%). BAT showed better performance for chlorhexidine and gelofusine anaphylaxis, with sensitivity of 80.0% and 79.6%, respectively. Specific Immunoglobulin E indicated even higher sensitivity (95.2%) than did ST (85.0%) and BAT (80.0%) for chlorhexidine anaphylaxis but performed poorly for other drugs.

CONCLUSION

Neuromuscular blocking agents remain the most common culprit in PA. There was a higher prevalence of gelofusine anaphylaxis in our cohort than was seen in the literature. Skin tests remain the most sensitive testing modality. In vitro tests for chlorhexidine and gelofusine showed promising results, but more studies to further elucidate its use are warranted.

Perioperative Hypersensitivity Evaluation and Management: A Practical Approach

Perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) is an uncommon, potentially life-threatening event. Identification of POH can be difficult given the lack of familiarity, physiological effects of anesthesia, draping of the patient during surgery, and potential nonimmunological factors contributing to signs and symptoms. Given the unique nature and large number of medications administered in the perioperative setting, evaluation of POH can be challenging. In this paper, we present a practical approach to management with an emphasis on understanding what happens in the operating room, the overlap of signs and symptoms between nonimmunological and immunological reactions, acute management, and subsequent evaluation. In addition, we provide a strategy for further review of an initially negative evaluation and emphasize the importance of establishing management plans for the patient as well as providing recommendations to the medical, anesthesia, and surgical teams for future surgeries. A critical factor for successful management at all points in the process is a close collaboration between the anesthesia and the allergy teams.

Allergic and other adverse reactions to drugs used in anesthesia and surgery

The list of drugs patients may be exposed to during the perioperative and postoperative periods is potentially extensive. It includes induction agents, neuromuscular blocking drugs (NMBDs), opioids, antibiotics, sugammadex, colloids, local anesthetics, polypeptides, antifibrinolytic agents, heparin and related anticoagulants, blue dyes, chlorhexidine, and a range of other agents depending on several factors related to individual patients’ clinical condition and progress in the postoperative recovery period. To avoid poor or ultrarapid metabolizers to a particular drug (for example tramadol and codeine) or possible adverse drug reactions (ADRs), some drugs may need to be avoided during or after surgery. This will be the case for patients with a history of anaphylaxis or other adverse events/intolerances to a known drug. Other drugs may be ceased for a period before surgery, e.g., anticoagulants that increase the chance of bleeding; diuretics for patients with acute renal failure; antihypertensives relative to kidney injury after major vascular surgery; and serotonergic drugs that together with some opioids may rarely induce serotonin toxicity. Studies of germline variations shown by genotyping and phenotyping to identify a predisposition of genetic factors to ADRs offer an increasingly important approach to individualize drug therapy. Studies of associations of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes with some serious delayed immune-mediated reactions are ongoing and variations of drug-metabolizing cytochrome CYP450 enzymes, P-glycoprotein, and catechol-O -methyltransferase show promise for the assessment of ADRs and non-responses to drugs, particularly opioids and other analgesics. Surveys of ADRs from an increasing number of institutions often cover small numbers of patients, are retrospective in nature, fail to clearly identify culprit drugs, and do not adequately distinguish immune-mediated from non-immune-mediated anaphylactoid reactions. From the many surveys undertaken, the large list of agents identified during and after anesthesia and surgery are examined for their ADR involvement. Drugs are classified into those most often involved, (NMBD and antibiotics); drugs that are becoming more frequently implicated, namely antibiotics (particularly teicoplanin), and blue dyes; those becoming less frequently involved; and drugs more rarely involved in perioperative, and postoperative adverse reactions but still important and necessary to keep in mind for the occasional potential sensitive patient. Clinicians should be aware of the similarities between drug-induced true allergic type I IgE/FcεRI- and pseudoallergic MRGPRX2-mediated ADRs, the clinical features of each, and their distinguishing characteristics. Procedures for identifying MRGPRX2 agonists and diagnosing and distinguishing pseudoallergic from allergic reaction mechanisms are discussed.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis

Anesthesiologists routinely manage patients receiving drugs and agents, all of which have the potential for anaphylaxis, the life-threatening presentation of an allergic reaction. Clinicians must be ready to diagnose and manage the acute cardiopulmonary dysfunction that occurs.

Perioperative Anaphylaxie – alte Zöpfe und Neues zu den Auslösern

Perioperative Anaphylaxien werden mit mindestens 1:6000 angegeben. Neue Kenntnisse der Pathophysiologie der anaphylaktischen Reaktionen beziehen die Auslösung über das Mastzell-related G-Protein und die Komplementaktivierungs-abhängige Pseudoallergie mit ein. Neu beschriebene Auslöser sind das Chlorhexidin oder Gelatine-Produkte, eingesetzt zur Blutstillung oder blaue Farbstoffe zur intraoperativen Markierung. Wachsamkeit ist in Hinblick auf biphasische Reaktionen geboten. Propofol darf mittlerweile bei Ei- und Sojaallergikern eingesetzt werden.

Work-related allergy and asthma associated with cleaning agents in health workers in Southern African tertiary hospitals

BACKGROUND

Health workers (HWs) are exposed to diverse cleaning agents in large hospitals. This study determined the prevalence of work-related symptoms, allergic sensitization, and lung function abnormalities in HWs of two tertiary hospitals in Southern Africa.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of 699 HWs (South Africa: SAH, n = 346; Tanzania: TAH, n = 353) was conducted. Health outcomes were assessed using a standardized ECRHS questionnaire, immunological tests (specific IgE antibody to common aero-allergens and to occupational allergens: natural rubber latex [NRL]  Hev b5 and Hev b6.02, chlorhexidine, and ortho-phthalaldehyde [OPA]), spirometry [pre-and post- bronchodilator], methacholine challenge, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO).

RESULTS

A large proportion of participants (78%) were women. Median age was 42 years, with 76% nurses, 12% cleaners, and 5% administrative workers. Current smoking was more common in SAHWs (12%) than TAHWs (1%). The overall prevalence of doctor-diagnosed asthma was 7%. Atopy was present in 43% of HWs, while 4% were sensitized to OPA, 2% to NRL, and 1% to chlorhexidine. Prevalence of work-related ocular-nasal symptoms (16%) was higher than skin (12%) and chest (7%) symptoms. TAHWs had significantly lower mean lung volumes, higher degrees of significant airflow obstruction and impaired lung function. The prevalence of bronchial hyperresponsiveness in SAHWs (14%) was high. Overall, 23% of HWs had abnormal FeNO; 6% having high (>50 ppb) levels. FeNO was positively associated with sensitization to occupational allergens, primarily OPA and NRL.

CONCLUSIONS

HWs from both hospitals had similar prevalence of work-related respiratory symptoms. Sensitization to OPA and NRL appears to be contributing to allergic airway inflammation in these HWs.

Should oral chlorhexidine remain in ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention bundles?

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is related with high mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation and costs. Recent studies have questioned the safety and effectiveness of oral chlorhexidine to prevent VAP. We sought to verify whether the adverse effects of this substance outweigh its benefits. We searched several databases and selected studies that investigated the use of oral chlorhexidine and its impact on mortality. No association between oral chlorhexidine and lower VAP rates was found on meta-analyses of double-blind randomized trials, however significant increase in mortality was reported. It is speculated that chlorhexidine can cause damage to several organic sectors and cytotoxicity. Although it still can be beneficial in specific settings, robust evidence to recommend its routine application for all mechanically ventilated patients is lacking; therefore, given the possibility of harm, it would be better to follow the principle of non-maleficence until more studies becomes available.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening and under-recognized event most commonly caused by antibiotics, neuromuscular blocking agents, dyes, latex, and disinfectants. This review provides updates in the epidemiology and pathogenesis of perioperative anaphylaxis, discusses culprit agents, and highlights the tenets of management including a comprehensive allergy evaluation.

Diagnostic performance of serial serum total tryptase measurement to differentiate positive from negative allergy testing among patients with suspected perioperative hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

Serum total tryptase has been shown to increase during acute allergic reactions (acute tryptase, T_A ); however, few studies have investigated the values of T_A or a combination of T_A and baseline tryptase (T_B ) to discriminate positive from negative testing in perioperative hypersensitivity reaction (POH) allergy work up. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of T_A in order to differentiate positive from negative allergy testing suspected POH and analyze the diagnostic performance of serial tryptase levels using several formulas.

METHODS

All patients from the University hospital of Montpellier and Strasbourg, France who presented with suspected POH and underwent complete drug allergy work-up between March 2011 and December 2019 with available T_A and T_B were included. Four formulas, including a change in T_A >11 (F1), or >2+1.2xT_B (F2), or >3+T_B (F3), or >120%T_B (F4), were applied.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-two patients were included, and 131 of them (80.8%) had grade III or IV reactions. Ninety patients had positive allergy testing. The optimal cut-off value of T_A to distinguish positive from negative allergy testing patients was 9.8 μg/L with an AUC of 0.817 (95%CI: 0.752-0.882, p<0.001). The 93% PPV threshold for T_A was 33 μg/L (95.8% specificity). Paired tryptase levels according to formulas F2 and F3 yielded the highest Youden index (0.54 and 0.53, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The optimal cut-off point for T_A for distinguishing positive from negative allergy testing suspected POH was 9.8 μg/L. T_A value of 33 μg/L was required to achieve >90% PPV.

Practical guidelines for the response to perioperative anaphylaxis

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a severe adverse event during anesthesia that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment by physicians, including anesthesiologists. Muscle relaxants and antibiotics are the most common drugs that cause perioperative anaphylaxis in Japan, as in many countries. In addition, sugammadex appears to be a primary causative agent. Obtaining previous anesthesia records is necessary in a patient with a history of allergic reactions during anesthesia, whenever possible, to avoid recurrence of anaphylaxis. Although medical staff are likely to notice abnormal vital signs because of complete monitoring during anesthesia, surgical drapes make it difficult to notice the appearance of skin symptoms. Even if there are no skin symptoms, anaphylaxis should be suspected, especially when hypotension resistant to inotropes and vasopressors persists. For improving the diagnostic accuracy of anaphylaxis, it is helpful to collect blood samples to measure histamine/tryptase concentrations immediately after the events and at baseline. The first-line treatment for anaphylaxis is adrenaline. In the perioperative setting, adrenaline should be administered through the intravenous route, which has a faster effect onset and is secured in most cases. Adrenaline can cause serious complications including severe arrhythmias if the appropriate dose is not selected according to the severity of symptoms. The anesthesiologist should identify the causative agent after adverse events. The gold standard for identifying the causative agent is the skin test, but in vitro tests including specific IgE antibody measurements and basophil activation tests are also beneficial. The Working Group of the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists has developed this practical guide to help appropriate prevention, early diagnosis and treatment, and postoperative diagnosis of anaphylaxis during anesthesia.Grade of recommendations and levels of evidence Anaphylaxis is a relatively rare condition with few controlled trials, and thus a so-called evidence-based scrutiny is difficult. Therefore, rather than showing evidence levels and indicating the level of recommendation, this practical guideline only describes the results of research available to date. The JSA will continue to investigate anaphylaxis during anesthesia, and the results may lead to an amendment of this practical guideline.

Asthma Phenotypes and Host Risk Factors Associated With Various Asthma-Related Outcomes in Health Workers

Background: Work-related asthma phenotypes in health workers (HWs) exposed to cleaning agents have not been investigated extensively as other occupational exposures. This study aimed to describe asthma phenotypes and to identify important host risk factors associated with various asthma-related outcomes.

Methods: A cross-sectional study of 699 HWs was conducted in two large tertiary hospitals. A total of 697 HWs completed questionnaire interviews. Sera collected from 682 HWs were analyzed for atopy (Phadiatop) and IgE to occupational allergens (NRL—Hev b5, Hev b6.02; chlorhexidine and ortho-phthalaldehyde—OPA). Methacholine (MCT), bronchodilator challenge (BDR) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were performed. An asthma symptom score (ASS) used five asthma-related symptoms reported in the past 12 months. Current asthma was based on use of asthma medication or an asthma attack or being woken up by an attack of shortness of breath in the past 12 months. Nonspecific bronchial hyperresponsiveness (NSBH) was defined as having either a positive MCT or a significant bronchodilator response. Two continuous indices of NSBH [continuous index of responsiveness (CIR) and dose-response slope (DRS)] were calculated.

Results: The prevalence of current asthma was 10%, atopic asthma (6%) and non-atopic asthma (4%). Overall, 2% of subjects had work-related asthma. There was a weak positive association between NSBH and FeNO [CIR: Beta coefficient (β) = 0.12; CI: 0.03–0.22 and DRS: β = 0.07; CI: 0.03–0.12]. Combining FeNO ≥ 50 ppb with a BDR [mean ratio (MR) = 5.89; CI: 1.02–34.14] or with NSBH (MR = 4.62; CI: 1.16–18.46) correlated better with ASS than FeNO alone (MR = 2.23; CI: 1.30–3.85). HWs with current asthma were twice as likely to be atopic. FeNO was positively associated with atopy (OR = 3.19; CI: 1.59–6.39) but negatively associated with smoking status (GMR = 0.76; CI: 0.62–0.94). Most HWs sensitized to occupational allergens were atopic.

Conclusion: Atopic asthma was more prevalent than non-atopic asthma in HWs. Most asthma-related outcomes were positively associated with allergic predictors suggesting a dominant role for IgE mechanisms for work-related symptoms and asthma associated with sensitization to OPA or chlorhexidine.

Vaccine allergy: evidence to consider for COVID-19 vaccines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has changed our lives worldwide, we hope that vaccination can combat the disease. We propose how to evaluate suspected severe allergic reactions to the vaccines so that as many as possible may be safely vaccinated.

RECENT FINDINGS

Rare cases of severe allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination have been observed, seemingly at a higher frequency than for other vaccines. Few excipients are likely to have caused these reactions. IgE-mediated reactions to polyethylene glycol (PEG) and its derivatives are the most suspected, albeit hitherto unproven, causes. We suggest to make a diagnosis based on skin tests with PEG and PEG derivatives and that these be considered in relation to the decisions required before the first and the second vaccine dose. A vaccine without these excipients is available, but published data about its side effects are limited.

SUMMARY

The underlying immunological mechanisms of the rare severe allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines are poorly understood and need to be clarified. Identifying those who have an undiagnosed allergy to PEG and PEG derivatives is crucial before vaccination, and these substances are found in laxatives, cosmetics and in 30% of all our medications today.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis: Evaluation and Management

Perioperative anaphylaxis (PA) is a rare but life-threatening condition that poses diagnostic and management challenges in the operating room. The incidence of severe perioperative reactions is estimated to be approximately 1:7000-10,000. Management involves both immediate stabilization of the patient and identifying the culprit agent. Identification is essential to prevent recurrence of the event in subsequent surgeries and to avoid unnecessary labeling of drug allergy. Identifying all possible exposures including medications, disinfectants, latex, and dyes and choosing the appropriate tests are essential for proper evaluation. To identify the culprit, primary testing modalities include tryptase at the time of the reaction with subsequent levels and skin testing with nonirritating concentrations to the medications and substances utilized during the procedure and those potentially used as alternates. This strategy provides guidance for future surgeries and procedures. Close collaboration between the allergy, anesthesiology, and surgery teams is essential for appropriate management of these patients at the time of the reaction, during the post event evaluation and in preparation for subsequent surgeries.

Patients with suspected allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines can be safely revaccinated after diagnostic work-up

BACKGROUND

When initiating the Danish vaccination program against COVID-19, the incidence of anaphylaxis was estimated to be 10 times higher compared to other virus-based vaccines. In this study, we present data on patients referred with suspected allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. The main purpose of the study is to investigate the incidence and severity of the allergic reactions, and to evaluate the safety of revaccination.

METHODS

All patients in the region of Southern Denmark with case histories of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines in a defined period are included in this study. Diagnostic work up consisted of a detailed case history, evaluation of Brighton level of diagnostic certainty and World Allergy Organization grade of anaphylaxis and skin prick testing- and basophil histamine release testing with COVID-19 vaccines and relevant drug excipients. Patients were revaccinated at the Allergy Center when possible.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients are included in this study. In 199,377 doses administered, nine patients fulfilled the criteria of anaphylaxis when using the Brighton Criteria (incidence being 45 per million). Of 55 patients with reactions to the first dose, 52 patients were revaccinated without adverse reactions. We found no proven cases of immediate anaphylaxis due to COVID-19 vaccines. By skin prick test, we diagnosed three patients with drug excipient allergy and further a patient with mastocytosis was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Anaphylactic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines are rare and the incidence is similar to what is seen with other virus-based vaccines. Revaccination is safe in the majority of patients; however, allergological evaluation is important since some prove to have drug excipient allergy.

Review of allergic reactions from use of chlorhexidine on medical products in clinical settings over 40 years: Risks and mitigations

Chlorhexidine is an antimicrobial agent widely used for infection prevention in medical settings. Nevertheless, allergic reactions ranging from mild to severe have been reported following its use. In this review, we analyzed all case reports published between the introduction of chlorhexidine and the end of 2019 for allergic responses associated with the use of medical devices and or other medical products containing chlorhexidine (CHX) to ascertain the prevalence of severe CHX allergic reactions and what practices might best mitigate those risks.In total, 77 publications containing 124 reported cases of allergic reactions were grouped into 3 product categories, catheters, semisolids, and fluid products. The country, type of reaction, route of sensitization, allergy confirmation, and intervention or mitigation was extracted for each case. Overall, 30 cases were associated with catheters, 46 cases were associated with semisolid products, and 48 cases were associated with the use of other medical products. Severe cases were managed with intravenous fluids, steroids, and epinephrine (adrenaline). None of the reported cases were fatal. The allergy risks can be mitigated by better warning and training clinicians and by recording and screening patient histories for CHX presensitization from prior exposure. For patients undergoing pre-use blood tests, IgE antibody screens can also be performed. Finally, as a precaution in the event a rare severe allergic reaction occurs, procedure carts and rooms can be prestocked with injectable epinephrine and other rapidly acting anti-inflammatory medications.

Optimizing investigation of suspected allergy to polyethylene glycols

BACKGROUND

Polyethylene glycols (PEGs) are polymers of varying molecular weight (MW) used widely as excipients in drugs and other products, including the mRNA vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019. Allergy to PEGs is rare. Skin testing and graded challenge carries a high risk of inducing systemic reactions.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated skin prick test (SPT) results and in vitro reactivity over time to different MW PEGs and assessed cross-sensitization patterns in PEG allergy.

METHODS

Ten patients with previously diagnosed PEG allergy underwent SPT twice with PEGs 26 months apart. Lower MW (PEG 300, 3000, 6000) were tested, followed by PEG 20,000, in stepwise, increasing concentrations. Cross-sensitization to polysorbate 80 and poloxamer 407 was assessed. SPT was performed in 16 healthy controls. In vitro basophil histamine release (HR) test and passive sensitization HR test were performed in patients and controls.

RESULTS

Patients previously testing positive on SPT to PEG 3000 and/or 6000 also tested positive to PEG 20,000. Patients with a longer interval since diagnosis tested negative to lower MW PEGs and positive mainly to higher concentrations of PEG 20,000. Three patients developed systemic urticaria during SPT. Eight patients showed cross-sensitization to poloxamer 407 and 3 to polysorbate 80. All controls tested negative. In vitro tests showed limited usefulness.

CONCLUSIONS

Skin test reactivity to PEG can decrease over time, but titrated SPT with increasing concentrations of PEG 20,000 can be diagnostic when lower MW PEGs test negative. To avoid systemic reactions, stepwise SPT is mandatory.

A 48-year-old female with perioperative anaphylaxis

Identifying the culprit medication in cases of perioperative anaphylaxis can be extremely challenging. A detailed and accurate history, coupled with the appropriate testing, plays a key role in discovering the etiology of perioperative anaphylaxis. We present the case of a 48-year-old woman with a cranial meningioma who was scheduled for surgery. Chlorhexidine, midazolam, lidocaine, propofol, fentanyl, rocuronium, and furosemide were administered during the perioperative period. She developed hypotension, urticaria, bronchospasm, and other symptoms of anaphylaxis soon after general anesthesia. The serum tryptase level obtained during anaphylaxis was 119 ng/mL (normal, <11.4 ng/mL). Epinephrine was administered, and the surgery was canceled, with no cause identified. For the next surgical attempt, she was pretreated with diphenhydramine and ranitidine, and the neuromuscular blocker was withheld. Again, she developed hypotension consistent with anaphylaxis, and epinephrine was administered. She was referred for consultation. A detailed and accurate history was obtained. The baseline serum tryptase level was 6.4 ng/mL. Skin-prick puncture tests were completed, and a diagnosis was made. The surgical team was instructed to avoid the culprit medication, and the cranial surgery was successful. Although difficult, cases of perioperative anaphylaxis can be solved with a detailed history, keen detective work, and appropriate testing.

Perioperative Anaphylaxie – alte Zöpfe und Neues zu den Auslösern

Perioperative Anaphylaxien werden mit mindestens 1:6000 angegeben. Neue Kenntnisse der Pathophysiologie der anaphylaktischen Reaktionen beziehen die Auslösung über das Mastzell-related G-Protein und die Komplementaktivierungs-abhängige Pseudoallergie mit ein. Neu beschriebene Auslöser sind das Chlorhexidin oder Gelatine-Produkte, eingesetzt zur Blutstillung oder blaue Farbstoffe zur intraoperativen Markierung. Wachsamkeit ist in Hinblick auf biphasische Reaktionen geboten. Propofol darf mittlerweile bei Ei- und Sojaallergikern eingesetzt werden.

Should oral chlorhexidine remain in ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention bundles?

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is related with high mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation and costs. Recent studies have questioned the safety and effectiveness of oral chlorhexidine to prevent VAP. We sought to verify whether the adverse effects of this substance outweigh its benefits. We searched several databases and selected studies that investigated the use of oral chlorhexidine and its impact on mortality. No association between oral chlorhexidine and lower VAP rates was found on meta-analyses of double-blind randomized trials, however significant increase in mortality was reported. It is speculated that chlorhexidine can cause damage to several organic sectors and cytotoxicity. Although it still can be beneficial in specific settings, robust evidence to recommend its routine application for all mechanically ventilated patients is lacking; therefore, given the possibility of harm, it would be better to follow the principle of non-maleficence until more studies becomes available.

[Update on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: joint document from the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) and Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) - Part II: etiology and diagnosis]

This second joint document, written by experts from the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) concerned with perioperative anaphylaxis, aims to review the pathophysiological reaction mechanisms, triggering agents (in adults and children), and the approach for diagnosis during and after an episode of anaphylaxis. As anaphylaxis assessment is extensive, the identification of medications, antiseptics and other substances used at each setting, the comprehensive data documentation, and the use of standardized nomenclature are key points for obtaining more consistent epidemiological information on perioperative anaphylaxis.

Update on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: joint document from the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) and Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) - Part II: etiology and diagnosis

This second joint document, written by experts from the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) concerned with perioperative anaphylaxis, aims to review the pathophysiological reaction mechanisms, triggering agents (in adults and children), and the approach for diagnosis during and after an episode of anaphylaxis. As anaphylaxis assessment is extensive, the identification of medications, antiseptics and other substances used at each setting, the comprehensive data documentation, and the use of standardized nomenclature are key points for obtaining more consistent epidemiological information on perioperative anaphylaxis.

Intradermal Tests With Drugs: An Approach to Standardization

Background: Intradermal tests (IDTs) are performed and interpreted differently in drug allergy centers making valid comparison of results difficult.

Objective: To reduce method-related and intercenter variability of IDTs by the introduction of a standardized method.

Materials and methods: In 11 centers of the European Network for Drug Allergy, IDTs were prospectively performed with saline and with amoxicillin (20 mg/ml) using (1) the local method and (2) the standardized European Network in Drug Allergy (ENDA) method (0.02 ml). The diameters of the initial injection wheal (Wi) for the different volumes and sites injected obtained from each center were analyzed.

Results: The most reproducible method was to fill a syringe with test solution, then expel the excess fluid to obtain exactly 0.02 ml. The median Wi diameter with 0.02 ml injection using the standardized method was 5 mm [range 2–10 mm; interquartile range (IQR) 5–5 mm; n = 1,096] for saline and 5 mm (range 2–9 mm; IQR = 4.5–5 mm; n = 240) for amoxicillin. IDT injection sites did not affect the Wi diameter. Training improved precision and reduced the variability of Wi diameters.

Conclusion: Using the standardized IDT method described in this multicenter study helped to reduce variability, enabling more reliable comparison of results between individuals and centers.

Chlorhexidine Allergy: Current Challenges and Future Prospects

Chlorhexidine is a synthetic bisbiguanide antiseptic and was introduced in healthcare use in 1954. Allergy to chlorhexidine has been increasingly reported particularly in the perioperative and medical procedural settings. The hypersensitivity reactions range from mild cutaneous reactions to anaphylaxis or death. There are many products and medical devices containing chlorhexidine that sometimes lack standardized labeling. With the various routes of chlorhexidine exposure, accidental or recurrent reactions in chlorhexidine-allergic patients have been reported. Therefore, we aim to review the most recent evidence in clinical manifestations, diagnostic methods, management, and preventive measures with a focus on the unique features of chlorhexidine allergy.

Functional Synergy Of Antimicrobial Peptides And Chlorhexidine Acetate Against Gram-Negative/Gram-Positive Bacteria And A Fungus In Vitro And In Vivo

Background and purpose

To reduce the resistance and allergic reaction to chlorhexidine acetate (CHA) in the current treatment of (Bacterial vaginosis) BV and (vulvovaginal candidiasis) VVC in female vaginitis. In this study, the antimicrobial activities and mechanism of action of the synergistic effects of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) HPRP-A1 and HPRP-A2, and CHA, against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, and one fungus Candida albicans (C. albicans) were investigated in vitro and in mouse and rat vaginitis infection models in vivo.

Results

HPRP-A1, HPRP-A2 and CHA showed significant synergistic effects on the antimicrobial activities against different Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria and C. albicans. The combined application of HPRP-A2 and CHA exhibited strong synergistic effects in the mouse and rat vaginitis models caused by bacteria or C. albicans.

Conclusion

This study may prompt the development of new drug combinations against vaginitis infections, including mixed bacterial and fungal infections and multi-drug-resistant infections.

An EAACI position paper on the investigation of perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions

Perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions are rare. Subsequent allergy investigation is complicated by multiple simultaneous drug exposures, the use of drugs with potent effects and the many differential diagnoses to hypersensitivity in the perioperative setting. The approach to the investigation of these complex reactions is not standardized, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that collaboration between experts in the field of allergy/immunology/dermatology and anaesthesiology is needed to provide the best possible care for these patients. The EAACI task force behind this position paper has therefore combined the expertise of allergists, immunologists and anaesthesiologists. The aims of this position paper were to provide recommendations for the investigation of immediate-type perioperative hypersensitivity reactions and to provide practical information that can assist clinicians in planning and carrying out investigations.