Allergy to muscle relaxants and related compounds

Drug allergy: an updated practice parameter

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) result in major health problems in the United States in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. ADRs are broadly categorized into predictable (type A and unpredictable (type B) reactions. Predictable reactions are usually dose dependent, are related to the known pharmacologic actions of the drug, and occur in otherwise healthy individuals, They are estimated to comprise approximately 80% of all ADRs. Unpredictable are generally dose independent, are unrelated to the pharmacologic actions of the drug, and occur only in susceptible individuals. Unpredictable reactions are subdivided into drug intolerance, drug idiosyncrasy, drug allergy, and pseudoallergic reactions. Both type A and B reactions may be influenced by genetic predisposition of the patient

[Problems in the use of muscle relaxants in clinical practice]

<zakljucak> U savremenoj anestezioloskoj praksi koriste se dve vrste misicnih relaksanata. Prema mehanizmu dejstva dele se na depolarizujuce i nedepolarizujuce, a prema duzini dejstva one sa kratkotrajnim (npr. sukcinilholin i mivakurijum), srednje dugim (atrakurijum, rokuronijum) i dugotrajnim dejstvom (npr. pankuronijum). Svi zauzimaju znacajno mesto, jer se kratkotrajni primenjuju za indukciju u anesteziju i kratke hirurske intervencije, a dugotrajni za odrzavanje misicne relaksacije u toku dugotrajnih hirurskih intervencija. Ispoljavaju neka nezeljena dejstva koja terapijski efekti daleko nadmasuju, sto omogucava efikasnu i bezbednu primenu.

Anaphylactic reaction to local administration of rifamycin SV

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Systemic reactions during anesthesia are commonly attributed to muscle relaxants, hypnotics, macromolecular solutions, latex, or parenteral antibiotics. After exclusion of these different components as causes, we were interested in the potential implication of rifamycin in the systemic reaction, which occurred during anesthesia, and in the immunologic mechanism by which it can trigger this reaction.

METHODS

We report four cases of systemic reactions occurring after local administration of rifamycin. Three patients needed orthopedic surgery, and the fourth needed a urethrotomy. Severe systemic reactions occurred in all four patients when the surgeon washed the incision area with a rifamycin solution. All patients correctly responded to appropriate treatment and recovered. Skin tests were performed 2 months after the incident with the drugs used during anesthesia, latex, and rifamycin. To assess the relationship with a possible IgE-mediated mechanism, two in vitro tests were concomitantly performed to evaluate the cell reactivity to rifamycin: (1) determination of histamine release from peripheral basophils and (2) platelet cytotoxicity test, which explored the presence on platelets of specific IgE antibodies bound to the low-affinity receptor for IgE.

RESULTS

Skin tests were performed with different drugs used during surgery, and results were only positive for rifamycin in the four cases, accompanied in two cases by a systemic reaction. Histamine release from basophils was positive in three of four patients. The platelet cytotoxicity test results were positive in all four cases.

CONCLUSION

It appears that rifamycin, used locally during surgery, is apt to trigger severe systemic anaphylactic reactions, which are linked to an IgE-related process. This situation is worth pointing out, especially in patients who undergo repeated orthopedic operations during which, at least in Europe, rifamycin is commonly used for the prevention of local sepsis.

Predictive value of in vitro tests for the IgE-dependent and the IgE-independent anaphylactoid reactions to muscle relaxants

Several aspects of in vitro tests for life-threatening anaphylactoid reactions (AR) to neuromuscular blockers (NMB, muscle relaxants) were addressed and highlighted. They include topics which have been under study in our centre in the past few years. Already available tests and newly developed ones were assessed for diagnostic and predictive value, as well as for usefulness in understanding of mechanism(s) of AR. The theoretical and practical aspects of radioallergosorbent tests (RAST) for antibodies to NMB (particularly IgE), their predictive value and their possible use in "screening" with the hope of preventing AR are discussed. Confirmatory tests after AR include plasma or serum histamine/methylhistamine, tryptase and possibly eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), all of which point to activation of mast cells, basophils, eosinophils and possibly other inflammatory cells. Future anesthetics after AR can be guided by measurement of the in vitro release of histamine, leukotrienes and possibly eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) and serum antibodies. Antibody studies (mainly IgE by RAST) are valuable for diagnosis and, together with other tests, can throw light on cross-reaction and further clarify the mechanisms of AR. In RAST (IgE)-negative cases of AR, which may be due to immune or nonimmune mechanisms, mediator release measurements are particularly useful. Lymphocyte stimulation tests may also be useful in such cases. RASTs cannot be advocated for general preoperative screening, as yet. Further development or selection of potentially "susceptible" subpopulations may improve the predictive value of these tests.

[Early biological markers of anaphylactoid reactions occurring during anesthesia]

Three markers of in vivo histamine release, i.e. plasma histamine and tryptase, and urinary methylhistamine, were assessed using sensitive radioimmunoassays in 18 patients who had experienced an adverse reaction to an anaesthetic agent. Controls were obtained from 35 patients following a general anaesthetic, which included a muscle relaxant, and who remained free from any adverse reaction. A first blood sample was obtained from all 18 patients a mean 25 +/- 26 min after the reaction, and a second one in thirteen a mean 120 +/- 65 min after the reaction. Ten patients had had a life-threatening reaction. Plasma histamine levels were increased in all these cases, and tryptase concentrations in 9 out of 10. Urinary methylhistamine rarely reached pathological levels (4 out of 10). Skin tests were positive in the four tested patients. Plasma histamine concentration was still high in 8 cases thirty minutes after the reaction, and remained increased for more than 2 h in two patients. Among the other eight patients with a moderate reaction, 3 had high histamine levels, with normal or weakly increased tryptase concentrations, and normal urinary methylhistamine. Two of these patients had positive skin tests. There were no abnormal findings in any of the investigations carried out in the other five patients, except for a slightly positive skin test to atracurium in one patient. Plasma histamine had a higher sensitivity than tryptase levels. Methylhistamine concentrations were only rarely of interest. There were no false positives with the three investigated markers.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Anaphylactic anaesthetic reactions. The value of paper radioallergosorbent tests for IgE antibodies to muscle relaxants and thiopentone

The three currently available paper radioallergosorbent tests ('suxamethonium', alcuronium and thiopentone) were evaluated. 'Suxamethonium' radioallergosorbent test (which employs choline conjugated to paper discs) proved to be reliable in the detection of allergy to neuromuscular blockers, which were confirmed as the most common cause of anaphylactic reaction during general anaesthesia. Thiopentone radioallergosorbent test may also be useful, and is recommended in conjunction with 'suxamethonium' radioallergosorbent test in the preliminary investigation of reactions. Patients with positive 'suxamethonium' radioallergosorbent test usually require further testing, including alcuronium radioallergosorbent test, skin testing with a wide range of drug concentrations or leucocyte histamine release test.

[Predictive value of intradermal tests using muscle-relaxing drugs]

A retrospective postal inquiry was carried out to find out a possible relation between the results of intradermal tests carried out for a previous anaesthetic and the course of a second anaesthetic performed afterwards. This study included 350 patients who have had an intradermal test to vecuronium, alcuronium, suxamethonium, gallamine, pancuronium, thiopentone, fentanyl and droperidol between March 1984 and November 1986. Eighty-nine did not reply (25.4%), 183 (52.3%) did not undergo new general anaesthetic since the skin tests, whilst 78 (22.3%) did. The inquiry was then sent to the 73 anaesthetists corresponding to the last group of patients. The 51 complete answers included 62 anaesthetics. Twenty-four patients had negative intradermal tests before the new anaesthetic, the other 27 having had a test positive to at least one muscle relaxant. Of these latter, 16 were given a muscle relaxant during their general anaesthetic, selected among those resulting in a negative intradermal test. Thirteen had undergone skin testing because of an anaphylactic reaction during induction. No new anaphylactic reaction was observed. Three anaesthetists only were not aware of the results of the intradermal tests at the time of the new anaesthetic. These data tend to demonstrate that a muscle relaxant could be injected in a patient who has had a previous anaphylactic reaction with positive intradermal tests, provided that the drug chosen for the new anaesthetic does not give a positive intradermal reaction.