Anaphylaxis to piperacillin-tazobactam despite a negative penicillin skin test

Meropenem allergy testing performed at the bedside of hospitalized patients labelled with a penicillin allergy

BACKGROUND

Meropenem is a widely prescribed beta-lactam for hospitalized patients. There are few data on meropenem allergy assessments in inpatients with a reported history of penicillin allergy who require a treatment with meropenem. This can lead to the use of less effective second-line antibiotics that may increase antibiotic resistances. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a meropenem allergy assessment in admitted patients with a reported history of penicillin allergy that required meropenem for the treatment of an acute infection.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 182 inpatients labelled with a penicillin-allergy who received meropenem after an allergy assessment. The allergy study was performed bedside if meropenem was required urgently. The study included skin prick tests (SPTs) followed by an intradermal skin test (IDT) to meropenem, and a meropenem drug challenge test (DCT). If a non-immediate reaction to a beta-lactam was suspected, it was initiated with patch tests.

RESULTS

The median age of the patients was 59.7 years (range 28-95) and 80 (44%) were women. A total of 196 sets of diagnostic workups were performed, with 189 (96.4%) of them being tolerated. Only two patients had a positive meropenem IV DCT, both presenting a non-severe cutaneous reaction that completely resolved after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study evidenced that a bedside meropenem allergy assessment of hospitalized patients labelled with a 'penicillin allergy' who require a broad-spectrum antibiotic for empiric coverage is a safe and effective procedure, avoiding the use of second-line antimicrobial agents.

Piperacillin-Tazobactam Hypersensitivity: A Large, Multicenter Analysis

BACKGROUND

Piperacillin/tazobactam is a broad-spectrum penicillin. Hypersensitivity reactions are less commonly reported than with other penicillins except in patients with cystic fibrosis.

OBJECTIVE

Detailed clinical characterization of a patient cohort referred with suspected piperacillin-tazobactam hypersensitivity.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the demographic characteristics, clinical presentation, investigation, and management of 87 patients presenting to 5 European allergy centers. Patients underwent skin prick and intradermal testing with piperacillin/tazobactam, major (penicilloyl-polylysine) and minor (sodium penilloate) determinants, amoxicillin, benzylpenicillin, flucloxacillin, co-amoxiclav, clavulanic acid, and meropenem with immediate and, where appropriate, delayed reading of tests. Skin test-negative patients underwent drug provocation to piperacillin/tazobactam and/or other penicillins. A multistep protocol was used, depending on risk assessment.

RESULTS

Forty-eight of 87 (55%) patients were diagnosed with hypersensitivity to piperacillin/tazobactam with either positive skin or drug provocation test results, of whom 10 (21%) had a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis. Twenty-six (54%) patients presented with immediate and 22 (45%) with nonimmediate hypersensitivity. Patients with cystic fibrosis predominantly presented with nonimmediate hypersensitivity (70%). Reactions were severe in 52% of immediate reactors (Brown's anaphylaxis grade 3) and moderately severe (systemic involvement) in 75% of nonimmediate reactors. The number of patients with negative skin test results tolerating reintroduction was comparable in immediate (80%) and nonimmediate (88%) hypersensitivity. One-third of patients were cross-sensitized to other penicillins. The cross-sensitization pattern raised the possibility of tazobactam allergy in 3 patients. In 21 patients selectively sensitized to piperacillin/tazobactam (12 immediate, 9 nonimmediate), tolerance to other beta-lactams was demonstrated by drug provocation testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Piperacillin-tazobactam caused immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity with similar frequency. Most patients were selectively sensitized and tolerated other penicillins. Some patients may be allergic to the beta-lactamase inhibitor only.

Piperacillin-Tazobactam Allergies: An Exception to Usual Penicillin Allergy

Purpose

The majority of penicillin allergy labels are false, and skin tests (ST) have high negative predictive value (NPV) of up to 90%. Piperacillin-tazobactam (PT) allergy has been suspected to be an exception to this, but existing literature is scarce. We investigate the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, testing outcomes and predictive value of ST in patients referred for suspected PT allergies.

Methods

The records of all patients referred for suspected PT allergy testing and prescription rates of PT in all Hong Kong public hospitals (2015–2019) were analyzed.

Results

There was an increase in both PT prescriptions and number of newly reported PT allergies between 2015 and 2019. The majority (91.1%) of patients with suspected PT allergy had at least 1 underlying medical co-morbidity or immunosuppressant use leading to increased risk of infections. Thirty-six patients with suspected PT allergy completed ST. Two patients had positive ST, and 32/34 patients with negative ST underwent drug provocation testing (DPT). Nine of these patients were diagnosed with PT allergy based on positive DPT. Overall, 11/34 (32.4%) were diagnosed with PT allergy and the NPV of ST was 71.9%.

Conclusions

There is growing utilization of PT and corresponding cases of suspected allergies. The majority of suspected PT allergies had increased risk for recurrent infections. Unlike other penicillin allergy, there is a high rate of genuine PT allergy (up to 30%) and a poor NPV of ST (up to 70%). DPT remains the gold standard for accurate diagnosis, and all patients with a suspected allergy should undergo thorough allergy workup.

Beta-lactam allergy in Chinese patients and factors predicting genuine allergy

Introduction

Beta-lactams (BL) are the most frequently reported drug allergy, but the vast majority of patients are found not to be genuinely allergic after evaluation. Few studies have investigated the clinical predictors of genuine BL allergy, and the prevalence in hospitalized Chinese patients is unknown.

Methods

Patients admitted to a tertiary hospital in Hong Kong (HK) were analyzed to identify the prevalence and factors associated with the presence of BL allergy labels among hospitalized Chinese patients. A combined cohort of patients having completed allergy investigation for suspected BL allergies in the United Kingdom (UK) and HK were analyzed to identify predictors of genuine allergy.

Results

The prevalence of BL allergy labels in hospitalized HK Chinese was 5%, which was associated with female gender and concomitant non-BL antibiotic allergy labels. The rate of genuine BL allergy patients referred for suspected allergies in the UK and HK cohort was only 14%. History of anaphylaxis and interval of less than a year since the index reaction were independent clinical predictors of genuine BL allergy. The negative predictive value of penicillin skin testing was 90%, confirming the need for drug provocation testing after negative skin testing. There was a high rate of confirmed piperacillin-tazobactam allergy.

Discussion

The estimated true prevalence of genuine BL allergy in hospitalized HK Chinese is around 0.5%. This high rate of BL mislabeling highlights the need for comprehensive allergy evaluation and screening. History of anaphylaxis and duration since the index reaction are important predictors of genuine allergy. Piperacillin-tazobactam allergy may pose a unique challenge in this population with a high prevalence of suspected allergies, surging antibiotic resistance, and lack of testing available.

The 3 Cs of Antibiotic Allergy-Classification, Cross-Reactivity, and Collaboration

Antibiotic allergy labeling is highly prevalent and negatively impacts patient outcomes and antibiotic appropriateness. Reducing the prevalence and burden of antibiotic allergies requires the engagement of key stakeholders such as allergists, immunologists, pharmacists, and infectious diseases physicians. To help address this burden of antibiotic allergy overlabeling, we review 3 key antibiotic allergy domains: (1) antibiotic allergy classification, (2) antibiotic cross-reactivity, and (3) multidisciplinary collaboration. We review the available evidence and research gaps of currently used adverse drug reaction classification systems, antibiotic allergy cross-reactivity, and current and future models of antibiotic allergy care.

Skin testing and drug challenge outcomes in antibiotic-allergic patients with immediate-type hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

The evaluation of antibiotic immediate-type hypersensitivity is intricate because of nonstandardized skin testing and challenge method variability.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety outcomes and risk factors for antibiotic challenge reactions in patients reporting a history of antibiotic immediate-type hypersensitivity.

METHODS

A 5-year retrospective review of patients evaluated for immediate-type antibiotic allergy was conducted. Data analyzed included patient demographics, index reaction details, and outcomes of skin testing and challenges, classified as single-step or multistep.

RESULTS

Antibiotic hypersensitivity history was identified in 211 patients: 78% to penicillins, 10% to fluoroquinolones, 7.6% to cephalosporins, and 3.8% to carbapenems. In total, 179 patients completed the challenges (median age 67 years, range 50-76 years, 56% women), and compared with nonchallenged patients, they reported nonanaphylactic (P < .001) and remote index (P = .003) reactions. Sixteen patients (8.9%) experienced challenge reactions (5 of 28 for single-step challenge, 11 of 151 for multistep challenge), and 11 of these patients had negative skin testing results before the challenge. Challenge-reactive patients were significantly younger (P = .007), more often women (P = .036), and had additional reported antibiotic allergies (P = .005). No correlation was detected between the reported index and observed challenge reaction severities (κ = -0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.34 to 0.24). Anaphylactic rates were similar during single-step and multistep challenges (3.6% vs 3.3%).

CONCLUSION

In the present population, younger women with multiple reported antibiotic allergies were at greatest risk for challenge reactions. Negative skin testing results did not exclude reactions, and index severity was not predictive of challenge outcome. The multistep and full-dose methods demonstrated a comparable reaction risk for anaphylaxis.

Kounis syndrome: acute inferior myocardial infarction with atroventricular node block due to ceftriaxone: a first reported case

Cefriaxone is a third-generation cephalosporin that might rarely cause a severe allergic reaction. Acute cardiac emergencies are quite rare in the setting of drug allergies. Here, we report the first case of myocardial infarction and AV-block after intravenous cefriaxone administration.

A case of piperacillin-induced occupational anaphylaxis: detection of serum IgE to piperacillin-HSA conjugate

This is the first reported detection of serum IgE antibody to piperacillin-human serum albumin (HSA) conjugate in a patient presenting with anaphylaxis that developed after occupational exposure. A 24-yr-old nurse, who had worked at a University Hospital for 2 yr, experienced chest tightness, dizziness, generalized urticaria, abdominal pain, and diarrhea 10 min after administering a piperacillin injection. She had previously suffered from atopic dermatitis. A skin prick test for common inhalant allergens was entirely negative; in contrast, her serum total IgE was elevated (283 IU/mL). A high level of piperacillin-specific serum IgE was detected by ELISA using piperacillin-HSA conjugate. Significant inhibition upon addition of both free piperacillin and piperacillin-HSA conjugate was detected by inhibition ELISA. These data suggest that piperacillin exposure in the workplace can induce occupational anaphylaxis and urticaria mediated by an interaction of IgE with the hapten of piperacillin.