Search

Background: Idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA) is an unresolved concern. Hidden allergens may be relevant in IA and in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug hypersensitivity (NSAID-HS)., Objective: To identify hidden elicitors for IA and NSAID-HS by a skin prick test (SPT) (13 allergens) and allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) panel (12 allergens) and to determine the value of each tested allergen., Methods: We retrospectively included all patients from 2018 to 2021 referred with a suspicion of IA or NSAID-HS by history in whom SPT and/or sIgE to allergens of the IA panel were performed. Patient characteristics from patients' records included comorbidities, history and symptoms of anaphylaxis, serum baseline tryptase level, total IgE level, SPT, sIgE, challenge results, and final diagnoses., Results: A total of 134 patients (77 female, mean age 39.7 ± 14.6 years) were included. Median serum baseline tryptase and total IgE levels were 4.23 μg/L and 133.5 kU/L, respectively. Allergologic workup with the IA panel resulted in positive SPT and sIgE in 61 (47%) and 66 (60%) patients, respectively. In those, confirmation or exclusion of allergy, mostly by challenge, led to a definitive diagnosis in 61 of 134 patients (46%). Skin prick test was most frequently positive to gluten (22.4%) and sIgE to ω5-gliadin (21.6%), which correlated with the history (r = 0.310, P < .001; and r = 0.407, P < .001, respectively). In 28 of 134 patients (21%) with initially suspected IA or NSAID-HS, challenges confirmed occult food allergy in which wheat allergy dependent on augmentation factors was the most frequent cause of anaphylaxis (19%)., Conclusions: Wheat allergy dependent on augmentation factors should be considered in all patients with anaphylaxis of unknown cause or after NSAID intake., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are a matter of great concern, both for outpatient and in hospital care. The evaluation of these patients is complex, because in vivo tests have a suboptimal sensitivity and can be time-consuming, expensive and potentially risky, especially drug provocation tests. There are several currently available in vitro methods that can be classified into two main groups: those that help to characterize the active phase of the reaction and those that help to identify the culprit drug. The utility of these in vitro methods depends on the mechanisms involved, meaning that they cannot be used for the evaluation of all types of DHRs. Moreover, their effectiveness has not been defined by a consensus agreement between experts in the field. Thus, the European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has organized a task force to provide data and recommendations regarding the available in vitro methods for DHR diagnosis. We have found that although there are many in vitro tests, few of them can be given a recommendation of grade B or above mainly because there is a lack of well-controlled studies, most information comes from small studies with few subjects and results are not always confirmed in later studies. Therefore, it is necessary to validate the currently available in vitro tests in a large series of well-characterized patients with DHR and to develop new tests for diagnosis., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Skin tests are of paramount importance for the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions. Drug skin tests are often not carried out because of lack of concise information on specific test concentrations. The diagnosis of drug allergy is often based on history alone, which is an unreliable indicator of true hypersensitivity.To promote and standardize reproducible skin testing with safe and nonirritant drug concentrations in the clinical practice, the European Network and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Interest Group on Drug Allergy has performed a literature search on skin test drug concentration in MEDLINE and EMBASE, reviewed and evaluated the literature in five languages using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. Where the literature is poor, we have taken into consideration the collective experience of the group.We recommend drug concentration for skin testing aiming to achieve a specificity of at least 95%. It has been possible to recommend specific drug concentration for betalactam antibiotics, perioperative drugs, heparins, platinum salts and radiocontrast media. For many other drugs, there is insufficient evidence to recommend appropriate drug concentration. There is urgent need for multicentre studies designed to establish and validate drug skin test concentration using standard protocols. For most drugs, sensitivity of skin testing is higher in immediate hypersensitivity compared to nonimmediate hypersensitivity., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are an area of concern for pharmaceutical drug development. Among these, drug hypersensitivity reactions are neither dose-dependent nor predictable, and affect only predisposed individuals. Clinical and immunological studies suggest that IgE-mediated (type I) and cell-mediated (type-IV) pathogenic mechanisms are involved in many immediate (i.e., occurring within 1 hour after the last drug administration) and non-immediate (i.e., occurring more than 1 hour after the last drug administration) hypersensitivity reactions, respectively. Skin prick, patch, and intradermal tests are the most readily available tools for the evaluation of hypersensitivity drug reactions. The diagnostic value of skin tests for many drugs still has not been fully established. Reliable skin test procedures for the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity have been defined, and test concentrations have been validated for many drugs. Skin tests should be carried out according to the clinical features of ADRs. In immediate drug reactions, an IgE-mediated mechanism can be demonstrated by a positive skin prick and/or intradermal test after 20 minutes, whereas in non-immediate reactions, a T-cell involvement can be found by a positive patch test and/or a late-reading intradermal test. The predictive value of skin tests varies with the drug tested and is especially high with beta-lactams, muscle relaxants, insulins, platinum salts, streptokinase, and chymopapain. Further diagnostic tests are required in the assessment of drug hypersensitivity reactions. However, skin tests can provide information about the culprit drug and the mechanism involved in certain reactions. The present review addresses literature data regarding the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions by skin tests.

In the last few years delayed reactions several hours after the injection of radiographic and contrast materials (PRC) have been described with increasing frequency. The authors report two observations on patients with delayed reactions in whom intradermoreactions (IDR) and patch tests to a series of ionic and non ionic PRC were studied. After angiography by the venous route in patient n degree 1 a biphasic reaction with an immediate reaction (dyspnea, loss of consciousness) and delayed macro-papular rash appeared, whilst patient n degree 2 developed a generalised sensation of heat, persistent pain at the site of injection immediately and a generalised macro-papular reaction after 24 hours. The skin tests revealed positive delayed reactions of 24 hours and 48 hours by IDR and patch tests to only some PRC with common chains in their structures. The positive skin tests are in favour of immunological reactions and may help in diagnosis of allergy in the patients.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions ( DHRs) are a matter of great concern, both for outpatient and in hospital care. The evaluation of these patients is complex, because in vivo tests have a suboptimal sensitivity and can be time-consuming, expensive and potentially risky, especially drug provocation tests. There are several currently available in vitro methods that can be classified into two main groups: those that help to characterize the active phase of the reaction and those that help to identify the culprit drug. The utility of these in vitro methods depends on the mechanisms involved, meaning that they cannot be used for the evaluation of all types of DHRs. Moreover, their effectiveness has not been defined by a consensus agreement between experts in the field. Thus, the European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has organized a task force to provide data and recommendations regarding the available in vitro methods for DHR diagnosis. We have found that although there are many in vitro tests, few of them can be given a recommendation of grade B or above mainly because there is a lack of well-controlled studies, most information comes from small studies with few subjects and results are not always confirmed in later studies. Therefore, it is necessary to validate the currently available in vitro tests in a large series of well-characterized patients with DHR and to develop new tests for diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Skin tests are of paramount importance for the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions. Drug skin tests are often not carried out because of lack of concise information on specific test concentrations. The diagnosis of drug allergy is often based on history alone, which is an unreliable indicator of true hypersensitivity.To promote and standardize reproducible skin testing with safe and nonirritant drug concentrations in the clinical practice, the European Network and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology ( EAACI) Interest Group on Drug Allergy has performed a literature search on skin test drug concentration in MEDLINE and EMBASE, reviewed and evaluated the literature in five languages using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. Where the literature is poor, we have taken into consideration the collective experience of the group.We recommend drug concentration for skin testing aiming to achieve a specificity of at least 95%. It has been possible to recommend specific drug concentration for betalactam antibiotics, perioperative drugs, heparins, platinum salts and radiocontrast media. For many other drugs, there is insufficient evidence to recommend appropriate drug concentration. There is urgent need for multicentre studies designed to establish and validate drug skin test concentration using standard protocols. For most drugs, sensitivity of skin testing is higher in immediate hypersensitivity compared to nonimmediate hypersensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Iodinated contrast media cause both immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions. The aim of this prospective study was to determine the specificity and sensitivity of skin tests in patients who have experienced such reactions. Methods: Skin prick, intradermal and patch tests with a series of contrast media were conducted in 220 patients with either immediate or nonimmediate reaction. Positive skin tests were defined according to internationally accepted guidelines. Seventy-one never-exposed subjects and 11 subjects who had tolerated contrast medium exposure, served as negative controls. Results: Skin test specificity was 96–100%. For tests conducted within the time period from 2 to 6 months after the reaction, up to 50% of immediate reactors and up to 47% of nonimmediate reactors were skin test positive. For immediate reactors, the intradermal tests were the most sensitive, whereas delayed intradermal tests in combination with patch tests were needed for optimal sensitivity in nonimmediate reactors. Contrast medium cross-reactivity was more common in the nonimmediate than in the immediate group. Interestingly, 49% of immediate and 52% of nonimmediate symptoms occurred in previously unexposed patients. Many of these patients were skin test positive, indicating that they were already sensitized at the time of first contrast medium exposure. Conclusions: These data suggest that at least 50% of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media are caused by an immunological mechanism. Skin testing appears to be a useful tool for diagnosis of contrast medium allergy and may play an important role in selection of a safe product in previous reactors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

All iodinated contrast media (CM) are known to cause both immediate (≤1 h) and nonimmediate (>1 h) hypersensitivity reactions. Although for most immediate reactions an allergic hypersensitivity cannot be demonstrated, recent studies indicate that the severe immediate reactions may be IgE-mediated, while most of the nonimmediate exanthematous skin reactions, appear to be T-cell mediated. Patients who experience such hypersensitivity reactions are therefore advised to undergo an allergologic evaluation. Several investigators have found skin testing to be useful in confirming a CM allergy, especially in patients with nonimmediate skin eruptions. If a patient with confirmed allergy to a CM needs a new CM exposure, a skin test negative CM should be chosen and premedication may be tried. However, none of these precautional measures is a guarantee against a repeat reaction. More research focusing on pathomechanisms, diagnostic testing and premedication is therefore clearly needed in order to prevent CM-induced hypersensitivity reactions in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nonimmediate manifestations (i.e. occurring more than 1 h after drug administration), particularly maculopapular and urticarial eruptions, are common duringβ-lactam treatment. The mechanisms involved in most nonimmediate reactions seem to be heterogeneous and are not yet completely understood. However, clinical and immunohistological studies, as well as analysis of drug-specific T-cell clones obtained from the circulating blood and the skin, suggest that a type-IV (cell-mediated) pathogenic mechanism may be involved in some nonimmediate reactions such as maculopapular or bullous rashes and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis. In the diagnostic work-up, the patient's history is fundamental; patch testing is useful, together with delayed-reading intradermal testing. The latter appears to be somewhat more sensitive than patch testing, but also less specific. In case of negative allergologic tests, consideration should be given to provocation tests, and the careful administration of the suspect agents. With regard toin vitrotests, the lymphocyte transformation test may contribute to the identification of the responsible drug.Under the aegis of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) interest group on drug hypersensitivity and the European Network for Drug Allergy (ENDA), in this review we describe the general guidelines for evaluating subjects with nonimmediate reactions toβ-lactams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the diagnosis of immediate allergic reactions to beta-lactam antibiotics. Reflection of the changes in the consumption of betalactams in the pattern of allergic reactions; Existence of evidence for changes in the clinical pattern of skin test reactivity; Importance of the time interval between both the first and last intake of the drug and the occurrence of the reaction and the type of symptoms in clinical evaluation.

Discusses the general principles for skin test procedures in the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity. Four types of skin test methods; Common clinical indications for skin testing; Time interval between drug hypersensitivity and skin testing; Pathomechanism of the drug hypersensitivity; Establishment of besk skin test concentrations; Testing of patients at higher risk.