Multi-centre retrospective analysis of anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia in the United Kingdom: aetiology and diagnostic performance of acute serum tryptase

This is the first multi-centre retrospective survey from the United Kingdom to evaluate the aetiology and diagnostic performance of tryptase in anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia (GA). Data were collected retrospectively (2005-12) from 161 patients [mean ± standard deviation (s.d.), 50 ± 15 years] referred to four regional UK centres. Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) were constructed to assess the utility of tryptase measurements in the diagnosis of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated anaphylaxis and the performance of percentage change from baseline [percentage change (PC)] and absolute tryptase (AT) quantitation. An IgE-mediated cause was identified in 103 patients (64%); neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) constituted the leading cause (38%) followed by antibiotics (8%), patent blue dye (6%), chlorhexidine (5%) and other agents (7%). In contrast to previous reports, latex-induced anaphylaxis was rare (0·6%). A non-IgE-mediated cause was attributed in 10 patients (6%) and no cause could be established in 48 cases (30%). Three serial tryptase measurements were available in 34% of patients and a ROC analysis of area under the curve (AUC) showed comparable performance for PC and AT. A ≥ 80% PPV for identifying an IgE-mediated anaphylaxis was achieved with a PC of >141% or an AT of >15·7 mg/l. NMBAs were the leading cause of anaphylaxis, followed by antibiotics, with latex allergy being uncommon. Chlorhexidine and patent blue dye are emerging important health-care-associated allergens that may lead to anaphylaxis. An elevated acute serum tryptase (PC >141%, AT >15·7 mg/l) is highly predictive of IgE-mediated anaphylaxis, and both methods of interpretation are comparable.

The Percutaneous shunting in Lower Urinary Tract Obstruction (PLUTO) study and randomised controlled trial: evaluation of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of percutaneous vesicoamniotic shunting for lower urinary tract obstruction

BACKGROUND

Congenital lower urinary tract obstruction (LUTO) is a disease associated with high perinatal mortality and childhood morbidity. Fetal vesicoamniotic shunting (VAS) bypasses the obstruction with the potential to improve outcome.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient acceptability of VAS for fetal LUTO.

DESIGN

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial incorporating a prospective registry, decision-analytic health economic model and preplanned Bayesian analysis using elicited opinions. Patient acceptability was evaluated by interview in a qualitative study.

SETTING

Fetal medicine departments in the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Pregnant women with a male singleton fetus with LUTO.

INTERVENTIONS

In utero percutaneous VAS compared with conservative care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was survival to 28 days. Secondary outcome measures were survival and renal function at 1 year of age, cost of care and cost per additional life-year and per disability-free survival at the end of 1 year.

RESULTS

The trial stopped early with 31 women randomised because of difficulties in recruitment. Of those randomised to VAS and conservative management, 3/16 (19%) and 2/15 (13%), respectively, did not receive their allocated intervention. Based on intention-to-treat analysis, survival at 28 days was higher if allocated VAS (50%) than conservative management (27%) [relative risk (RR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 4.96, p = 0.27]. At 12 months survival was 44% in the VAS arm and 20% in the conservative arm (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.69 to 6.94, p = 0.25). Neither difference was statistically significant. Of survivors at 1 year, two in the VAS arm had no evidence of renal impairment and four in the VAS arm and two in the conservative arm required medical management. One baby in the conservative arm had end-stage renal failure at 1 year. VAS was more expensive because of additional surgery and intensive care. VAS cost £15,500 per survivor at 1 year and £43,900 per disability-free year. Elicited expert opinions showed uncertainty in the effect of VAS at 28 days. In a Bayesian analysis combining elicited opinion with the results, uncertainty of the benefit of VAS remained (RR 1.31, 95% credible interval 0.84 to 2.18). The acceptability study identified visualisation of the fetus during ultrasound scanning, perceiving a personal benefit, and altruism as positive influences on recruitment. Fear of the VAS procedure and the perceived severity of LUTO influenced non-participation. The need for more detailed information about the condition and its implications during pregnancy and following delivery was a further important finding of this research. Recruitment was hampered by logistical and regulatory difficulties, a lower incidence of LUTO and lower antenatal diagnosis rate [estimated to be 3.34 (95% CI 2.95 to 3.72) per 10,000 total births and 47%, respectively, in an associated epidemiological study] and high termination of pregnancy rates. In the registry women also demonstrated a clear preference for conservative management.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival to 28 days and 1 year appears to be higher with VAS than with conservative management, but it is not possible to prove benefit beyond reasonable doubt. Notably, prognosis in both arms for survival and renal function is poor. VAS was substantially more costly and unlikely to be regarded as cost-effective based on the 1-year data. Parents should be counselled about the risks of pregnancy loss with or without VAS insertion. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence interventional procedures guidance (IPG 202) should be updated to reflect this new evidence. Babies in the PLUTO trial should be followed up long term for the different outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN53328556.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 17, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Retrospective case series analysis of penicillin allergy testing in a UK specialist regional allergy clinic

INTRODUCTION

Penicillin allergy is the most common drug allergy. Skin testing for the major (PPL) and minor determinants (MDMs) of penicillin offers increased sensitivity and specificity over in vitro testing alone. Following a worldwide absence of reagents, a new kit was licensed in the UK in 2008 (Diater, Spain) and this report evaluates its use in a UK specialist allergy clinic.

METHODS

Prospective data on 50 consecutive patients tested with the new reagents were collected. The departmental protocol is adapted from the 2003 EAACI position paper.

RESULTS

14% (7/50) and 12% (6/50) of patients were diagnosed with immediate and non-immediate reactions respectively. The negative predictive value of the PPL and MDM reagents at the neat concentration for an immediate reaction was 93% (true negatives 37, false negatives 3). Two patients experienced systemic reactions to DPT in the absence of demonstrable specific IgE. None of the patients were diagnosed using skin prick testing alone or at lower concentrations of IDT. Five patients were diagnosed at the IDT stage and two at the DPT stage in the absence of demonstrable specific IgE. Six patients were diagnosed with non-immediate reactions, two on IDT alone and four following IDT and DPT.

CONCLUSION

The new PPL and MDM determinants offer enhanced sensitivity when evaluating β-lactam hypersensitivity; however, there are limitations to the current testing regimens. The UK would benefit from local guidelines, which incorporate the new reagents and acknowledge the high amoxicillin prescription rate and the relatively lower specialist-to-patient ratio in this country.

Practice of venom immunotherapy in the United Kingdom: a national audit and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the only effective treatment for prevention of serious allergic reactions to bee and wasp stings in sensitized individuals. However, controversies exist relating to diagnosis, indications for treatment and treatment schedules. We audited current practice of VIT in the United Kingdom to evaluate adherence to international guidelines.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was sent to all clinicians practising immunotherapy identified on the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology website. Eighty-six questionnaires were sent and 53 responses (61.6%) were received. Of these, 48 (85%) carried out VIT at their centre.

RESULTS

Skin prick tests (SPT) and serum venom-specific IgE (SSIgE) were equally preferred as first-line investigation. Fifty percent of the respondents perform intradermal tests if both SPT and SSIgE are negative. While 8% of respondents commence VIT in patients with negative SSIgE and a history of severe reaction, 57% prefer to repeat the tests in 6-12 months if serum tryptase is elevated. If the insect responsible is uncertain and SSIgE is detected against bee and wasp venoms, 22% of the respondents will desensitize to both while 32% initiate treatment against the venom with the higher SSIgE. A protocol of weekly up-dosing for 12 weeks is preferred for induction and only 25% of respondents have ever used rush or ultra-rush protocols. Three years is thought to be optimum duration of VIT by most (56%). Eleven percent perform sting challenges at the end of treatment. Although 47% measure SSIgE at the end of treatment, only 3% use these results as a basis for discontinuing VIT.

CONCLUSION

Currently there is considerable variation in the diagnosis and management of hymenoptera venom allergy in the United Kingdom. This audit has demonstrated that the current international guidelines for the diagnosis and management of hymenoptera venom allergy are not being followed by UK allergy practitioners.