Negative predictive value of skin tests to neuromuscular blocking agents

Severe Bronchoconstriction Caused by Administration of Rocuronium in a 3-Month-Old Infant: Case Report

We present the case of a 3-month-old infant with severe, persistent bronchoconstriction following administration of rocuronium. This observation raises awareness of a rare but potentially life-threatening reaction to neuromuscular blocking agents.

Pediatric Patients with Previous Anaphylactic Reactions to General Anesthesia: a Review of Literature, Case Report, and Anesthetic Considerations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

It is rare to see pediatric patients with previous perioperative anaphylaxis receiving future anesthesia, but it is critical to understand how to choose assessments, interpret the results, and develop a future anesthetic plan.

RECENT FINDINGS

Analysis of the results revealed that patients, at any age, regardless of sex and nationality, and the number of surgeries, have the risk of perioperative anaphylaxis while the risk of allergy increases as patients present multiple surgical events or have a previous history of atopy. 94.7% of pediatric patients with allergy testing after perioperative anaphylaxis tolerated subsequent general anesthesia without complications. Specific IgE tests, basophil activation tests, and skin tests are not available and suitable for all culprits. The early skin test could be considered a supplement for later testing. Drug challenge test is the golden standard but can only be used as the last resort. If general anesthesia is inevitable, avoidance of the culprit and use of alternative agents can help the patients prevent another potential recurrence. Full use of inhalation anesthesia without unnecessary neuromuscular blockade agents and avoidance of latex is recommended when the surgery is urgent or skin tests for children cannot be performed in time. This review summarizes characteristics of perioperative pediatric anaphylaxis, main tests for various drugs, and their sensitivities and specificities as well as recommendations as to how to implement safe anesthesia in the future.

Skin Testing to Identify Safe Drugs for Patients with Rocuronium-Induced Anaphylaxis

Among patients who develop anaphylaxis during anesthesia, anaphylaxis caused by a neuromuscular blocking agent has the highest incidence. In patients who developed IgE-mediated anaphylaxis, and cross-reactivity among NMBAs is a concern in subsequent anesthetic procedures. We present a patient who developed rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis in whom the skin prick test (SPT) and intradermal test (IDT) could identify a safe drug to use in the subsequent anesthetic procedure. A 32-year-old female developed anaphylactic shock at the induction of general anesthesia. She recovered by administration of hydrocortisone and epinephrine. Skin tests including the SPT followed by the IDT revealed rocuronium as the drug that caused anaphylaxis and vecuronium as a safe drug to use for the subsequent general anesthesia. She safely underwent surgery with general anesthesia using vecuronium one month after the skin testing. There are not many reports on the effectiveness of the SPT followed by IDT in identifying the causative drug as well as a safe drug to use in the subsequent anesthetic procedure following anaphylaxis during anesthesia. The usefulness of the SPT should be re-evaluated.

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.

Assessing cross-reactivity to neuromuscular blocking agents by skin and basophil activation tests in patients with neuromuscular blocking agent anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Following diagnosis of neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) anaphylaxis, identifying safe alternatives for subsequent anaesthesia is critical. A patient with anaphylaxis to one NMBA can also have an allergic reaction to other NMBAs (cross-reactivity). Whilst drug provocation testing is standard for identifying or excluding allergy, there is significant risk. In vitro, after an allergen activates basophils, basophils express surface activation markers that can be measured by basophil activation testing (BAT). We compared cross-reactivity between NMBAs assessed by BAT against that by skin testing.

METHODS

All patients attending an anaesthetic allergy clinic in Sydney, Australia between May 2017 and July 2018 diagnosed with NMBA anaphylaxis qualified for this study comparing intradermal skin tests and BAT with a panel of NMBAs (rocuronium, vecuronium, pancuronium, suxamethonium, cisatracurium).

RESULTS

Of the 61 patients participating, sensitisation on skin testing and on BAT completely matched in only nine patients (15%). Sensitisation was not in agreement for pancuronium, cisatracurium and rocuronium, but was in agreement for vecuronium and suxamethonium. Nine patients with negative skin tests subsequently tolerated cisatracurium, and one false positive on BAT to cisatracurium was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The utility of BAT in identifying safe NMBAs for subsequent anaesthesia needs further evaluation. BAT detects a different cross-reactivity profile to skin tests. Negative skin testing and BAT might increase confidence in performing drug provocation testing, but this and follow-up of subsequent anaesthesia in our cohort is necessary to determine the clinical significance of BAT sensitisation.

Anaesthetic management of patients with pre-existing allergic conditions: a narrative review

This narrative review seeks to distinguish the clinical patterns of pre-existing allergic conditions from other confounding non-allergic clinical entities, and to identify the potential related risks and facilitate their perioperative management. Follow-up investigation should be performed after a perioperative immediate hypersensitivity to establish a diagnosis and provide advice for subsequent anaesthetics, the main risk factor for perioperative immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated anaphylaxis being a previous uninvestigated perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reaction. The concept of cross-reactivity between drugs used in the perioperative setting and food is often quoted, but usually not supported by evidence. There is no reason to avoid propofol in egg, soy, or peanut allergy. The allergenic determinants have been characterised for fish, shellfish, and povidone iodine, but remain unknown for iodinated contrast agents. Iodinated drugs may be used in seafood allergy. Evidence supporting the risk for protamine allergy in fish allergy and in neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin use is lacking. Conversely, cross-reactivity to gelatin-based colloid may occur in α-gal syndrome. Atopy and allergic asthma along with other non-allergic conditions, such as NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease, chronic urticaria, mastocytosis, and hereditary or acquired angioedema, are not risk factors for IgE-mediated drug allergy, but there is a perioperative risk associated with the potential for exacerbation of the various conditions.

Treatment of Anaphylaxis to Rocuronium with Sugammadex: A Case Report with Bronchospasm as the Only Symptom

Anaphylaxis during anaesthesia is a rare event occurring in up to 1:20,000 anaesthetics and in 33%-63% neuromuscular blocking agents are involved. Several case reports suggested the effectiveness of sugammadex in the treatment of rocuronium-induced anaphylactic shock refractory to conventional treatment. We report a case of anaphylactic reaction to rocuronium that caused isolated respiratory symptoms and showed no improvement in oxygen saturation after intravenous corticosteroids and intratracheal beta-2 agonists and that was successfully treated with sugammadex. The underlying pathophysiological mechanisms that explain the potential beneficial effect of sugammadex in this context are not completely known. We briefly review the literature regarding this topic.

Neuromuscular blocking agents induced anaphylaxis: Results and trends of a French pharmacovigilance survey from 2000 to 2012

BACKGROUND

Perioperative anaphylaxis mainly involves neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) with an IgE-mediated mechanism. In France, this life-threatening condition is reported by anesthetists and allergologists, and two safety alerts concerning suxamethonium were raised in 2011 and 2012. This led to start a national survey over the 2000-2012 period which objectives were to provide a descriptive analysis, to estimate incidence rates, and to analyze the trends over this period.

METHODS

The French pharmacovigilance database was retrospectively queried for all the available NMBAs. Anaphylaxis cases with elevated tryptase and positive skin tests were qualified as "confirmed cases." Subgroup analysis compared atracurium and cisatracurium vs suxamethonium and rocuronium.

RESULTS

A total of 680 confirmed cases and 944 nonconfirmed cases were identified. Suxamethonium was the most implied NMBA (64%). Incidence rates (according to sales data) of suxamethonium and rocuronium were, respectively, 10- and 13-folds higher than those of the others NMBAs, regardless the confirmed/nonconfirmed status. Cisatracurium incidence rates remained stable over the period, while suxamethonium and atracurium increased and rocuronium first decreased but re-increased after 2006. Male patients were more frequent in the subgroup "atracurium-cisatracurium" (P = .019), whereas obesity and emergency setting were more frequent in the subgroup "rocuronium-suxamethonium." Shared characteristics were the poorly documented previous exposure to NMBA(s) and an insufficient adherence of patients to perform skin tests, showing the need to improve this procedure.

CONCLUSION

Suxamethonium and rocuronium are markedly more involved in perioperative anaphylaxis than the other available NMBAs. Patients should be more informed about their perioperative anaphylaxis and its consequences.

Reclassifying Anaphylaxis to Neuromuscular Blocking Agents Based on the Presumed Patho-Mechanism: IgE-Mediated, Pharmacological Adverse Reaction or "Innate Hypersensitivity"?

Approximately 60% of perioperative anaphylactic reactions are thought to be immunoglobulin IgE mediated, whereas 40% are thought to be non-IgE mediated hypersensitivity reactions (both considered non-dose-related type B adverse drug reactions). In both cases, symptoms are elicited by mast cell degranulation. Also, pharmacological reactions to drugs (type A, dose-related) may sometimes mimic symptoms triggered by mast cell degranulation. In case of hypotension, bronchospasm, or urticarial rash due to mast cell degranulation, identification of the responsible mechanism is complicated. However, determination of the type of the underlying adverse drug reaction is of paramount interest for the decision of whether the culprit drug may be re-administered. Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) are among the most frequent cause of perioperative anaphylaxis. Recently, it has been shown that NMBA may activate mast cells independently from IgE antibodies via the human Mas-related G-protein-coupled receptor member X2 (MRGPRX2). In light of this new insight into the patho-mechanism of pseudo-allergic adverse drug reactions, in which as drug-receptor interaction results in anaphylaxis like symptoms, we critically reviewed the literature on NMBA-induced perioperative anaphylaxis. We challenge the dogma that NMBA mainly cause IgE-mediated anaphylaxis via an IgE-mediated mechanism, which is based on studies that consider positive skin test to be specific for IgE-mediated hypersensitivity. Finally, we discuss the question whether MRGPRX2 mediated pseudo-allergic reactions should be re-classified as type A adverse reactions.

General anaesthesia-induced anaphylaxis: impact of allergy testing on subsequent anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy to drugs and substances used during general anaesthesia as well as non-allergic drug hypersensitivity reactions may account for anaesthesia-induced anaphylaxis. As IgE-mediated anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening reaction, identification of the culprit allergen is essential to avoid anaphylaxis recurrence during subsequent general anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVE

To study whether preventive recommendations derived from allergy testing after intraoperative anaphylaxis were followed in subsequent general anaesthesia.

METHODS

Results of standardized allergy testing after anaesthesia-induced anaphylaxis and outcome of subsequent general anaesthesia were analysed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Fifty-three of 107 patients were diagnosed with IgE-mediated allergy to a drug or substance used during general anaesthesia, and 54 patients were test negative. Twenty-eight of 29 allergy patients tolerated subsequent general anaesthesia uneventfully. One patient with cefazolin allergy suffered from anaphylaxis recurrence due to accidental reapplication of cefazolin. Twenty-two of 24 test-negative patients tolerated subsequent general anaesthesia, whereas two patients again developed anaphylaxis despite pre-medication regimens.

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our results confirm the practical impact of allergy testing in general anaesthesia-induced anaphylaxis. By identification of the allergen, it is possible to avoid allergic anaphylaxis during subsequent anaesthesia. In most cases, recommended pre-medication seems to prevent the recurrence of non-allergic drug hypersensitivity reactions.

[Allergy to neuromuscular blocking agents]

Allergy to neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) has been the first cause of perioperative anaphylaxis for decades, in most countries. The most frequently involved agents are suxamethonium and rocuronium. The allergy work-up is compulsory to demonstrate or rule out allergy to NMBAs, if there is a compatible clinical history. Doing otherwise exposes the patient to death if the same or related NMBA is re-injected. In cases of true allergy, assessing cross-reactivity to other NMBAs is mandatory. The cross-sensitization hypothesis is presently being investigated and if confirmed, it could allow primary prevention measures to be implemented.

Predictive value of allergy tests for neuromuscular blocking agents: tackling an unmet need

BACKGROUND

Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are a predominant cause of perioperative anaphylaxis in Europe. Diagnosis of NMBA allergy relies upon the careful review of the anaesthetic report complemented with skin tests. Additional diagnostic tests are quantification of specific IgE antibodies (sIgE) and basophil activation test (BAT). However, data on the predictive value of the skin tests, the BAT and the sIgE assays (drug-specific and substituted ammonium structures) are limited or not available, mainly because such exploration requires dangerous NMBA provocation tests.

METHODS

In this study, the predictive value of skin test, BAT and measurement of sIgE to substituted ammonium structures is gathered from a review of anaesthetic records of subsequent surgical procedures with NMBA administration and/or occurrence of perioperative incidents.

RESULTS

We investigated a series of 272 patients with perioperative anaphylaxis, of whom 100 had undergone second general anaesthesia. Negative skin test and negative BAT assisted the selection of alternative NMBA, which were well tolerated in all cases. Five patients with a positive sIgE to rocuronium but with negative skin testing and BAT safely received rocuronium during second anaesthesia. Twelve patients with sIgE reactivity to morphine, but negative skin test and BAT to benzylisoquinolines, tolerated administration of cisatracurium or atracurium. Alternatively, benzylisoquinoline allergy went undetected in the morphine solid-phase assay.

CONCLUSIONS

Skin test and BAT have an excellent negative predictive value in our series. The uneventful re-exposure of rocuronium in patients with an isolated positive sIgE result to rocuronium calls into question the predictive value of this assay and suggests sIgE serology to be less clinically predictive than the functional investigations relying upon activation of mast cells or basophils. The presence of a positive sIgE to substituted ammonium structures such as morphine does not preclude further use of benzylisoquinolines.

Anaphylactic bronchospasm during general anesthesia is not related to asthma

In the general population, a history of asthma (HA) is associated with a higher risk of mortality of anaphylactic shock (AS), but it is unknown whether this association remains valid for intra-operative AS. The goal of this retrospective study was to investigate whether a HA was associated with a higher risk of bronchospasm during intra-operative AS. We analyzed 106 patients (January 2009-December 2012) with intra-operative AS: 57% of them had a confirmed IgE-mediated reaction and 27% had a HA. On logistic regression, the only factor statistically associated with bronchospasm was a neuromuscular blocking drug, with both IgE- or non-IgE-mediated reactions. These results suggest that the mechanisms of bronchospasm in AS may be different from those of asthma and that, in the presence of bronchospasm during anesthesia, AS should be considered to be the most likely cause.

World Allergy Organization Anaphylaxis Guidelines: 2013 update of the evidence base

The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis are a widely disseminated and used resource for information about anaphylaxis. They focus on patients at risk, triggers, clinical diagnosis, treatment in health care settings, self-treatment in the community, and prevention of recurrences. Their unique strengths include a global perspective informed by prior research on the global availability of essentials for anaphylaxis assessment and management and a global agenda for anaphylaxis research. Additionally, detailed colored illustrations are linked to key concepts in the text [Simons et al.: J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011;127:593.e1-e22]. The recommendations in the original WAO Anaphylaxis Guidelines for management of anaphylaxis in health care settings and community settings were based on evidence published in peer-reviewed, indexed medical journals to the end of 2010. These recommendations remain unchanged and clinically relevant. An update of the evidence base was published in 2012 [Simons et al.: Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2012;12:389-399]. In 2012 and early 2013, major advances were reported in the following areas: further characterization of patient phenotypes; development of in vitro tests (for some allergens) that help distinguish clinical risk of anaphylaxis from asymptomatic sensitization; epinephrine (adrenaline) research, including studies of a new epinephrine auto-injector for use in community settings, and randomized controlled trials of immunotherapy to prevent food-induced anaphylaxis. Despite these advances, the need for additional prospective studies, including randomized controlled trials of interventions in anaphylaxis is increasingly apparent. This 2013 Update highlights publications from 2012 and 2013 that further contribute to the evidence base for the recommendations made in the original WAO Anaphylaxis Guidelines. Ideally, it should be used in conjunction with these Guidelines and with the 2012 Guidelines Update.