Ranitidine-induced anaphylaxis: clinical features, cross-reactivity, and skin testing

EAACI/ENDA position paper on drug provocation testing

In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low-risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low-risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources.

Is ranitidine necessary as premedication for regimens containing paclitaxel? A non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

Histamine type-2-receptor antagonist drugs (H2-antagonists) have been used as standard treatment to prevent hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) in paclitaxel-containing regimens, however, their use has been strongly questioned. Ranitidine has been the most widely used H2-antagonist. Therefore, especially after its withdrawal from the market, the objective of this study is to determine the impact of its elimination from premedication on HR incidence.

METHODS

A cohort, multicenter, observational, prospective, and non-inferiority study, including paclitaxel-naïve cancer patients, designed to determine the incidence of HRs of any grade associated with paclitaxel administration and analyze non-inferiority against the incidence estimated in the literature (20%), with 5% as the maximum difference (Δ). Patients with a solid neoplasm of any type/stage, who initiated treatment with paclitaxel without H2-antagonists in the premedication regimen were enrolled.

RESULTS

A total of 441 patients were included, of whom 50 presented 54 HRs of any grade. The cumulative incidence was 11.3% (95%CI 8.5-14.7), thus fulfilling the hypothesis of non-inferiority. Of the overall HRs detected, 15 were grade ≥ 3 with a cumulative incidence of 3.4% (95%CI 1.9-5.5).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the elimination of ranitidine from paclitaxel premedication schedules is non-inferior in the development of HRs of any grade compared to the administration of H2-antagonists.

Intradermal testing increases the accuracy of an immediate-type cefaclor hypersensitivity diagnosis

Background

Hypersensitivity reactions to cefaclor have increased in accordance with its frequent use. However, only limited data are available on the diagnostic value of skin tests for these conditions, particularly intradermal tests (IDTs).

Objective

To evaluate the clinical usefulness of IDT compared to the ImmunoCAP test in patients with cefaclor-induced immediate-type hypersensitivity.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review from January 2010 to June 2020 of adult subjects from 2 tertiary hospitals in Korea with a history of suspected immediate-type hypersensitivity to cefaclor, and who had undergone ImmunoCAP and IDT.

Results

Overall, 131 subjects diagnosed with cefaclor hypersensitivity were included in the analysis. Fifty-nine patients (59/131, 45.04%) were positive in both IDT and ImmunoCAP. Fifty-four (54/131, 41.22%) and 6 (6/131, 4.58%) subjects showed positive results only with IDT or the ImmunoCAP test, respectively. Twelve subjects (12/131, 9.16%) were negative by both tests but reacted positively in a drug provocation test. The frequency of IDT positivity was similar regardless of the severity of reactions. However, positivity of ImmunoCAP was lower in subjects with mild reactions compared to those with anaphylaxis. Regarding the diagnosis of cefaclor hypersensitivity, the overall sensitivity of IDT and ImmunoCAP was 0.863 and 0.496, respectively while the specificity was 1. The combination of IDT and ImmunoCAP further increased this sensitivity to 0.908.

Conclusion

IDT was more sensitive than ImmunoCAP for the diagnosis of cefaclor allergy, regardless of the severity of the hypersensitivity reaction. Therefore, we recommend a combination of IDT and ImmunoCAP for the diagnosis of cefaclor hypersensitivity.

Nationwide pharmacovigilance data for cetuximab-induced anaphylaxis and predictive model validation using prospective specific IgE detection

Background

Cetuximab (chimeric monoclonal antibody to human epidermal growth factor receptor) is used to treat colorectal and head and neck cancers. Due to cross-reactivity with galactose-α-1,3-galactose (alpha-gal), it can induce hypersensitivity even at first administration. We aimed to determine the incidence and clinical manifestation of cetuximab-induced anaphylaxis, and to establish a means of predicting its incidence in patients ahead of treatment.

Methods

Nationwide and single-center pharmacovigilance data from 2010 to 2017 were collected from the Korea Institute of Drug Safety-Korea Adverse Event Reporting System and Severance Regional Pharmacovigilance Center. Patients scheduled for cetuximab administration were enrolled prospectively. A skin prick test was carried out and serum IgE specific to cetuximab and cross-reactive allergens were measured. Reactions were monitored after cetuximab infusion.

Results

Over 8 years, there were 23 reports of anaphylaxis nationwide. In a single-center study, incidence of cetuximab-induced anaphylaxis was 1.1%. Most anaphylaxis occurred at first injection (93.3%), even under pretreatment with anti-allergic drugs. Four of 64 patients (6.3%) experienced severe anaphylaxis. The median cetuximab-specific IgE titer was 6.9 kU_A/L in patients experiencing anaphylaxis and 0 kU_A/L in those who did not (P < 0.001). The results of alpha-gal, beef sIgE, and cetuximab skin prick testing were similar to those of cetuximab sIgE. Patients who did not experience hypersensitivity were negative in all 4 allergy tests. Its positive and negative predictive values were 100%.

Conclusions

Specific IgE detection of cetuximab or alpha-gal can accurately predict cetuximab-induced anaphylaxis prior to first administration.

The added value of H2 antagonists in premedication regimens during paclitaxel treatment

BACKGROUND

Ranitidine, a histamine 2 blocker, is the standard of care to prevent hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) caused by paclitaxel infusion. However, the added value of ranitidine in this premedication regimen is controversial. Therefore, we compared the incidence of HSRs during paclitaxel treatment between a standard regimen including ranitidine and a regimen without ranitidine.

METHODS

This prospective, pre-post interventional, non-inferiority study compared the standard premedication regimen (N = 183) with dexamethasone, clemastine and ranitidine with a premedication regimen without ranitidine (N = 183). The primary outcome was the incidence of HSR grade ≥3. Non-inferiority was determined by checking whether the upper bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in HSR rates excluded the +6% non-inferiority margin.

RESULTS

In both the pre-intervention (with ranitidine) and post-intervention (without ranitidine) group 183 patients were included. The incidence of HSR grade ≥3 was 4.4% (N = 8) in the pre-intervention group and 1.6% (N = 3) in the post-intervention group: difference -2.7% (90% CI: -6.2 to 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

As the upper boundary of the 90% CI does not exceed the predefined non-inferiority margin of +6%, it can be concluded that a premedication regimen without ranitidine is non-inferior to a premedication regimen with ranitidine.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.trialregister.nl ; NL8173.

Current practice for diagnosing immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions in Korea

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Skin (STs) and drug provocation (DPTs) tests are essential for identifying the culprit drugs causing drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs). Several protocols have been developed for the identification of some culprit drugs, but they are neither thoroughly validated nor standardized. Furthermore, language barriers may impede the exchange of information necessary for test standardization.

METHODS

We searched the Korean literature for articles on drug hypersensitivity published from 1933 to 2016 using the KoreaMed search engine and archives of Korean journals. We reviewed and rated all articles according to the description of STs and DPTs.

RESULTS

Of the 632 articles obtained in our initial search, 34 had adequate descriptions of 15 STs and 22 DPTs. Up to 27 healthy control subjects in STs were enrolled to determine non-irritating concentrations. The concentrations used for intradermal tests were commonly a 1/10 dilution of those used for skin prick tests. The interpretations of the STs were mostly similar among researchers. For DPTs, most procedures were single-arm open-label tests of various drugs. The initial dose ranged from a quarter dose to a single therapeutic dose, depending on the severity of the original hypersensitivity reaction. The interval between doses was usually 30 to 60 minutes, and a positive reaction usually occurred within twice the time of the original reaction.

CONCLUSION

Efforts to distribute information are necessary to standardize protocols and better understand DHRs.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Functional Dyspepsia in Korea

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a chronic upper gastrointestinal (GI) symptom complex that routine diagnostic work-up, such as endoscopy, blood laboratory analysis, or radiological examination, fails to identify a cause. It is highly prevalent in the World population, and its response to the various available therapeutic strategies is only modest because of the heterogenous nature of its pathogenesis. Therefore, FD represents a heavy medical burden for healthcare systems. We constituted a guideline development committee to review the existing guidelines on the management of functional dyspepsia. This committee drafted statements and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of various studies, guidelines, and randomized control trials. External review was also conducted by selected experts. These clinical practice guidelines for FD were developed based on evidence recently accumulated with the revised version of FD guidelines released in 2011 by the Korean Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility. These guidelines apply to adults with chronic symptoms of FD and include the diagnostic role of endoscopy, Helicobacter pylori screening, and systematic review and meta-analyses of the various treatment options for FD (proton pump inhibitors, H.pylori eradication, and tricyclic antidepressants), especially according to the FD subtype. The purpose of these new guidelines is to aid the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of FD, and the targets of the guidelines are clinicians, healthcare workers at the forefront of patient care, patients, and medical students. The guidelines will continue to be revised and updated periodically.

[Functional Dyspepsia]

Dyspepsia is a common problem, and when dyspeptic symptoms develop within a short period of time, organic diseases such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer diseases, pancreatoduodenal diseases, and gastrointestinal cancers should be suspected. Furthermore, functional dyspepsia (FD) should be considered if chronic or recurrent symptoms persist after eliminating underlying disease. FD is classified as epigastric pain syndrome (EPS) or postprandial distress syndrome (PDS), but these two conditions may overlap. Patients with the EPS subtype can be treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), whereas patients with the PDS subtype may be managed primarily with prokinetics, and patients with EPS and PDS can be co-administered PPIs and prokinetics. Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy can be administered on a test-and-treat basis when PPIs and prokinetics are ineffective or to younger patients with chronic dyspepsia, and tricyclic antidepressants can be used as a secondary treatment because they are effective in patients with the EPS subtype. In addition, because the pathophysiology of FD is diverse, dietary education and stress management are required in addition to medical therapy, and should substantially aid treatment and long-term management. Here, we introduce and summarize recently published guidelines for the treatment of FD.

Eperisone-Induced Anaphylaxis: Pharmacovigilance Data and Results of Allergy Testing

PURPOSE

Eperisone is an oral muscle relaxant used in musculoskeletal disorders causing muscle spasm and pain. For more effective pain control, eperisone is usually prescribed together with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). As such, eperisone may have been overlooked as the cause of anaphylaxis compared with NSAIDs. This study aimed to analyze the adverse drug reaction (ADR) reported in Korea and suggest an appropriate diagnostic approach for eperisone-induced anaphylaxis.

METHODS

We reviewed eperisone-related pharmacovigilance data (Korea Institute of Drug Safety-Korea Adverse Event Reporting System [KIDS-KAERS]) reported in Korea from 2010 to 2015. ADRs with causal relationship were selected. Clinical manifestations, severity, outcomes, and re-exposure information were analyzed. For further investigation, 7-year ADR data reported in a single center were also reviewed. Oral provocation test (OPT), skin prick test (SPT) and basophil activation test (BAT) were performed in this center.

RESULTS

During the study period, 207 patients had adverse reactions to eperisone. The most common ADRs were cutaneous hypersensitive reactions (30.4%) such as urticaria, itchiness or angioedema. Fifth common reported ADR was anaphylaxis. There were 35 patients with anaphylaxis, comprising 16.9% of the eperisone-related ADRs. In the single center study, there were 11 patients with eperisone-induced anaphylaxis. All the patients underwent OPT and all the provoked patients showed a positive reaction. Four of the 11 patients with anaphylaxis also underwent SPT and BAT, which were all negative.

CONCLUSIONS

Incidence of eperisone-induced anaphylaxis calculated from the KIDS-KAERS database was 0.001%. Eperisone can cause hypersensitive reactions, including anaphylaxis, possibly by inducing non-immunoglobulin E-mediated immediate hypersensitivity.

Developments in the field of allergy in 2016 through the eyes of Clinical and Experimental Allergy

In this article, we described the development in the field of allergy as described by Clinical and Experimental Allergy in 2016. Experimental models of allergic disease, basic mechanisms, clinical mechanisms, allergens, asthma and rhinitis, and clinical allergy are all covered.