Search

In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low‐risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low‐risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta‐lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diagnosing immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) can pose a significant challenge and there is an urgent need for safe and reliable tests. Evidence has emerged that the basophil activation test (BAT), an in vitro assay that mirrors the in vivo response, can be a complementary test for many drugs. In this position paper, members of Task Force (TF) "Basophil activation test in the evaluation of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions" from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) present the data from a survey about the use and utility of BAT in IDHRs in Europe. The survey results indicate that there is a great interest for using BAT especially for diagnosing IDHRs. However, there are still main needs, mainly in the standardization of the protocols. Subsequently consensus‐based recommendations were formulated for: (i) Technical aspects of BAT in IDHRs including type of sample, management of drugs, flow cytometry protocols, interpretation of the results; and (ii) Drug‐specific aspects that should be taken into account when performing BAT in relation to betalactams, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluoroquinolones, chlorhexidine, opioids, radio contrast media, chemotherapeutics, biological agents, nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, COVID vaccine, and excipients. Moreover, aspects in the evaluation of pediatric population have also been considered. All this indicates that BAT offers the clinician and laboratory a complementary tool for a safe diagnostic for IDHRs, although its place in the diagnostic algorithm depends on the drug class and patient population (phenotype, geography, and age). The standardization of BAT is important for generalizing this method beyond the individual laboratory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a letter to the editor discussing paradoxical urticaria reactions to H1-antihistamines. The authors report on nine patients with paradoxical urticaria who experienced hives from different classes of H1-antihistamines. The cause of this reaction is still unclear, but it may be related to mast cell degranulation or disruption of the arachidonic acid metabolism pathway. Physicians should be aware of this diagnosis and perform an allergy work-up, including skin testing, in patients suspected of having paradoxical urticaria. The letter includes a table summarizing the clinical characteristics and allergy work-up of the identified cases. [Extracted from the article]

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) is a rare, usually drug‐induced, acute pustular rash. Despite the lack of strong data supporting the effectiveness of topical or systemic corticosteroids in this drug reaction, they are widely used. More generally, there is no consensus on the diagnostic modalities and the management of patients with AGEP. We aimed to provide European expert recommendations for the diagnosis and management or patients with AGEP. Members of the ToxiTEN group of the European Reference Network (ERN)‐skin, all dermatologists and/or allergologists with expertise in drug reactions, elaborated these recommendations based on their own experience and on a review of the literature. Recommendations were separated into the following categories: professionals involved, assessment of the diagnosis of AGEP, management of the patient and allergological work‐up after the acute phase. Consensus was obtained among experts for the list of professionals involved for the diagnosis and management of AGEP, including the minimum diagnostic work‐up, the setting of management, the treatments, the modalities and the timing of allergological work‐up and follow‐up. European experts in drug allergies propose herein consensus on the diagnosis and management of patients with AGEP. A multidisciplinary approach is warranted, including dermatologists, allergologists and pharmacovigilance services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]