Search

Background: Carboplatin administration poses a risk of immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) that tend to increase with repeated administration and are mostly IgE-mediated., Objective: This study evaluated the usefulness of carboplatin-prescreening intradermal skin tests (IDTs)., Methods: Carboplatin-prescreening IDTs were routinely conducted in patients with a history of receiving six or more carboplatin cycles beginning in January 2021. The primary objective was to assess disparities in the incidence of unanticipated IHRs to carboplatin administration. We compared patients in the intervention group (from 2021 to 2022) and those who did not undergo prescreening IDTs under the same conditions (preintervention group, from 2019 to 2020). Secondary objectives included evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of the prescreening IDT and the incidence of carboplatin IHR according to the number of infusion cycles., Results: The intervention group was composed of 67 patients who were administered 347 carboplatin cycles whereas the preintervention group included 96 patients who were administered 464 carboplatin cycles. The risk of unanticipated carboplatin IHRs decreased by 83.2% in the intervention group compared with results in the preintervention group (preintervention group, 3.45%, n = 16 vs intervention group, 0.58%, n = 2; P = .005). The prescreening IDT showed a sensitivity and specificity of 77.78% and 99.41%, respectively. The risk of newly developed IHRs based on the number of carboplatin cycles was less than 1% (cycles 1-5), 2.11% (cycle 6), 3.90% (cycles 7-12), 2.90% (cycles 13-18), and 0.74% (cycles 19 and greater), respectively., Conclusions: Initiating carboplatin-prescreening IDTs from the seventh cycle on significantly reduced the risk of unanticipated IHRs., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This article reviews our evolving understanding of penicillin hypersensitivity at the 80th anniversary of penicillin's clinical introduction. Penicillin breakdown products covalently bond to serum proteins, leading to classic drug hypersensitivity. Penicillin remains the most frequently reported drug "allergy." Adverse reactions were presumed, in retrospect incorrectly, to implicate a risk for anaphylaxis, and therefore skin testing for IgE became the focus. Skin test positivity may wane over time. This insight has led to the radical conclusion that penicillin hypersensitivity may not be "forever." Atopic background, other drug allergies, family history, gender, and race are apparently not risk factors for penicillin hypersensitivity. Confirmed penicillin hypersensitivity has declined since the 1960s, potentially due to "cleaner" penicillin products and lower dose oral, instead of parenteral, use. Avoiding penicillins, without evaluation, caused unanticipated problems that have been appreciated only recently including longer hospital stays, increased cost of care, suboptimal outcomes from serious infections, and greater toxicities and costs with alternative antibiotics. There are personal and public health advantages with broadly implemented penicillin allergy delabeling based on a reaction history-based risk assessment. Limited skin testing followed by an oral challenge, if negative, for higher-risk histories, and direct oral challenges in lower-risk individuals are currently the reference standard tests to confirm current tolerance., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In light of the pandemic of spurious penicillin allergy, correct diagnosis of amoxicillin (AX) allergy is of great importance. The diagnosis of immediate hypersensitivity reactions relies on skin tests and specific IgE, and although reliable, these are not absolutely predictive. Therefore, drug challenges are needed in some cases, which contain the risk of severe reactions. Safe in vitro diagnostics as an alternative for the drug challenge in the diagnostic workup of AX allergy would be more than welcome to fill this gap. In this respect, the basophil activation test (BAT) has shown potential, but its clinical reliability is doubtful., Objective: To investigate the reliability of the BAT to AX and determining its exact place in the diagnostic algorithm of AX allergy., Methods: BAT for AX was performed in 70 exposed control individuals and 66 patients diagnosed according to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines for AX allergy. Upregulation of both CD63 and CD203c was flow-cytometrically assessed., Results: Analyses revealed that 1370 μmol/L and 685 μmol/L were the most discriminative stimulation concentrations for CD63 and CD203c upregulation, respectively, and a diagnostic threshold of 9% for positivity for both markers was identified. At these concentrations, sensitivity and specificity for CD63 upregulation were 13% and 100%, respectively, and for CD203c upregulation, 23% and 98%., Conclusions: BAT with dual analysis of CD63 and CD203c is of poor performance to document AX allergy. The sensitivity is too low to let it occupy a prominent role in the diagnostic algorithm., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Over the last decade there have been key advances in understanding mechanisms, risk, and consequences of both true immunological drug hypersensitivity and unverified drug allergy labels that have changed clinical practice. This has been facilitated by the widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). The vast majority of EHR drug allergy labels are unverified and cause significant morbidity from unnecessary avoidance of optimal drug therapy. There has also been significant movement in our understanding of mechanisms of drug hypersensitivity that, in addition to advancing our understanding of the pathogenesis of immediate and delayed reactions, have guided preventive efforts, diagnostic procedures, and clinical management. More widespread adoption, including scale-up of "allergy" delabeling and appropriate management, specifically for antibiotics, opiates, radiocontrast, chemotherapeutics, biologics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, will be necessary to improve patient outcomes over the next decade. This will require further engagement and collaboration between primary care health care providers, allergists, and other specialists., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins are often labeled on the basis of a similar set of symptoms, but a key feature of these reactions that can be reproduced in diagnostic testing may be the timing of a reaction in relation to the dose administration., Objective: To determine whether the timing of a reaction in response to the last dose of a penicillin would predict the results of diagnostic testing., Methods: We evaluated 1074 patients by performing skin tests, serum specific IgE assays (ImmunoCAP), and challenges. Patients who were evaluated by us more than 6 months after their reactions and found negative were reevaluated within 2 to 4 weeks., Results: Patients who had reacted within 1 hour after the first dose, within 1 hour after subsequent doses, more than 1 hour to within 6 hours after the first dose, or more than 1 hour to within 6 hours after subsequent doses were classified as group A (758 individuals), B (92), C (67), or D (157), respectively. Penicillin hypersensitivity was diagnosed in 707 patients (65.8%) by skin tests (407 patients, 57.6%), ImmunoCAP (47, 6.6%), both tests (232, 32.8%), or challenges (21, 3%). A conversion to allergy-test positivity occurred in 7 of 10 patients with anaphylactic reactions and in 1 of 28 patients with other reactions who were reevaluated after negative challenges. The rate of penicillin-allergic patients in groups A, B, C, and D was 85%, 35.9%, 35.8%, and 3.8%, respectively. Only 1 of 107 patients reporting cutaneous reactions lasting more than 1 day had positive results to allergy tests., Conclusions: IgE-mediated hypersensitivity can be diagnosed by skin tests in about 70% of subjects who react within 1 hour (eg, patients from groups A and B). This hypersensitivity can be lost over time, as demonstrated by the negativization of allergy tests in follow-up studies. In subjects with anaphylactic reactions, however, it is advisable to not consider this phenomenon definitive. In fact, a conversion to allergy test positivity can be observed in up to 20% of such subjects retested after negative challenges., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cefazolin is a common trigger of perioperative anaphylaxis. The diagnostic approach is controversial because the optimal concentration for skin testing is uncertain, drug provocation tests (DPTs) are contraindicated in severe reactions, and in vitro tests are not thoroughly validated., Objective: We aimed to characterize a large number of patients reporting cefazolin allergic reactions and to analyze the diagnostic role of in vivo and in vitro tests., Methods: We prospectively evaluated patients with suspicion for allergic reactions to cefazolin by clinical history, skin tests (STs), and, if negative, DPT. In a subgroup of patients, basophil activation test (BAT) and radioallergosorbent test were done before allergologic workup was performed and the final diagnosis was achieved., Results: We evaluated 184 patients, 76 of whom were confirmed as allergic (41.3%), 90 were nonallergic (48.9%), and 18 were nonconfirmed (9.8%). All patients reporting anaphylactic shock and most reporting anaphylaxis were confirmed to be allergic (P < .001). Forty allergic patients (52.6%) were confirmed by STs, 22 by DPT (28.9%), and 14 by clinical history (18.4%). All subjects manifesting exanthemas and pruritus were nonallergic. The BAT sensitivity was 66.7% when CD63 and CD203c were combined as activation markers. Six of 8 patients with negative STs and positive DPT had a positive BAT., Conclusions: Patients allergic to cefazolin often reported severe immediate-type reactions. Skin tests enabled a diagnosis in half of patients when using cefazolin at 20 mg/mL. Unfortunately, DPT could not be performed in all patients owing to reaction severity, which makes BAT a promising diagnostic tool. Further research is needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms, especially in severe reactions., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Excipients are necessary as a support to the active ingredients in drugs, vaccines, and other products, and they contribute to their stability, preservation, pharmacokinetics, bioavailability, appearance, and acceptability. For both drugs and vaccines, these are rare reactions; however, for vaccines, they are the primary cause of immediate hypersensitivity. Suspicion for these "hidden dangers" should be high, in particular, when anaphylaxis has occurred in association with multiple chemically distinct drugs. Common excipients implicated include gelatin, carboxymethylcellulose, polyethylene glycols, and products related to polyethylene glycols in immediate hypersensitivity reactions and propylene glycol in delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Complete evaluation of a suspected excipient reaction requires detailed information from the product monograph and package insert to identify all ingredients that are present and to understand the function and structure for these chemicals. This knowledge helps develop a management plan that may include allergy testing to identify the implicated component and to give patients detailed information for future avoidance of relevant foods, drugs, and vaccines. Excipient reactions should be particularly considered for specific classes of drugs where they have been commonly found to be the culprit (eg, corticosteroids, injectable hormones, immunotherapies, monoclonal antibodies, and vaccines). We provide a review of the evidence-based literature outlining epidemiology and mechanisms of excipient reactions and provide strategies for heightened recognition and allergy testing., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to nondextran iron products (NDIPs) are rare, but can manifest with severe signs and symptoms. Predisposing risk factors are not well understood., Objective: To characterize patients with HSRs to NDIPs, with a special focus on possible risk factors., Methods: We analyzed clinical characteristics of patients with HSRs to NDIPs referred to our allergy division between 2007 and 2019 compared with tolerant controls, including the type of the eliciting NDIP, severity and characteristics of the HSR, atopy status, history of allergies and urticaria, laboratory and skin test results, and outcome of reexposure with NDIPs., Results: We evaluated the data of 59 patients and 21 controls. Sixteen patients and 4 controls received the NDIP iron sucrose and 41 patients and 15 controls received ferric carboxymaltose. In 2 patients and in 2 controls, the culprit NDIP was not known. Twenty-seven patients (46%) experienced an anaphylactic reaction grade I, 15 (25%) a grade II reaction, and 17 (29%) a grade III reaction according to Ring and Messmer. On analyzing the history, we found that 22 patients (37%) and 3 controls (14%) reported previous HSRs to other medications. Interestingly, more than half the patients (n = 35 [59%]) compared with only 7 controls (33%) reported an episode of any type of urticaria in their previous history. Most patients (n = 15 [79%]) tolerated reexposure of an NDIP using a low-reactogenic administration protocol., Conclusions: A history of drug hypersensitivity and urticaria represent potential risk factors for HSRs to NDIPs. On the basis of our findings, we propose an algorithm for practical management of patients receiving NDIPs aiming to prevent HSRs., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few studies have assessed the diagnostic value of cephalosporin skin tests in patients with immediate reactions to these β-lactams., Objective: To evaluate the usefulness of skin tests and challenges in assessing such subjects., Methods: We conducted a prospective study of 236 consecutive subjects who had suffered 249 immediate reactions (mostly anaphylaxis) to cephalosporins. Skin tests were performed with penicillin reagents and suspected cephalosporins. Serum specific IgE assays (ImmunoCAP) were also carried out for penicillins and cefaclor. Subjects with negative results underwent challenges with the suspected cephalosporins; patients with negative results who had been assessed more than 6 months after their reactions were reevaluated., Results: In the first allergy workup, an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to cephalosporins was diagnosed in 164 (69.5%) of the 236 patients on the basis of skin test (162 patients) or cefaclor ImmunoCAP positivity (2 patients). Of the 72 patients with negative results, 55 underwent cephalosporin challenges; 3 reacted. Twenty subjects were reevaluated after cephalosporin negative challenges, with a conversion to cephalosporin skin test positivity occurring in 5 of the 6 subjects who had had anaphylactic reactions and in none of the remaining 14 subjects with other reactions. Overall, an immediate hypersensitivity to cephalosporins was diagnosed in 172 patients (of whom it was diagnosed in 5 after retesting)., Conclusions: Most immediate reactions to cephalosporins are IgE-mediated. Cephalosporin skin testing is a useful tool for evaluating these reactions. IgE-mediated cephalosporin hypersensitivity may be a transient condition; therefore, allergy examinations should be repeated in patients with negative results who experienced anaphylaxis more than 6 months before the allergy workup, including challenges., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Quinolones are the second most frequent cause of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to antibiotics. A marked increase in the number of patients with HSRs to quinolones has been detected., Objective: To describe the clinical characteristics of patients with HSRs to quinolones and present methods for their diagnosis., Methods: Patients attending the allergy unit due to reactions suggestive of HSRs to quinolones were prospectively evaluated between 2005 and 2018. Diagnosis was achieved using clinical history, skin tests (STs), basophil activation tests (BATs), and drug provocation tests (DPTs) if ST and BAT results were negative., Results: We included 128 subjects confirmed as having HSRs to quinolones and 42 found to be tolerant. Anaphylaxis was the most frequent entity in immediate HSRs and was most commonly induced by moxifloxacin. Patients were evaluated a median of 150 days (interquartile range, 60-365 days) after the reaction. Of patients who underwent ST and BAT, 40.7% and 70%, respectively, were positive. DPT with a quinolone was performed in 48 cases, giving results depending on the culprit drug: when moxifloxacin was involved, 62.5% of patients gave a positive DPT result to ciprofloxacin, whereas none reacted to levofloxacin. The risk of HSR was 96 times higher in subjects who reported moxifloxacin-induced anaphylaxis and 18 times higher in those reporting immediate reactions compared with clinical entities induced by quinolones other than moxifloxacin and nonimmediate reactions., Conclusions: The diagnosis of HSR to quinolones is complex. The use of clinical history is essential as a first step. BAT shows higher sensitivity than STs. DPTs can be useful for finding safe alternative quinolones., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome (MDHS) is defined as confirmed drug hypersensitivity (DH) to at least 2 chemically and pharmacologically unrelated drugs. Reports of MDHS are scarce and poorly specified, and studies that diagnose MDHS on the basis of positive allergy test results are lacking., Objective: To evaluate retrospectively the frequency and characteristics of patients with MDHS in a large database., Methods: We included all patients who consulted and were tested in our Allergy Unit between September 1996 and February 2018 for a suspicion of DH. Clinical history and allergy workup results compiled in our Drug Allergy and Hypersensitivity Database were reviewed, and data of patients with a diagnosis of MDHS were retrieved and analyzed., Results: During this period a total of 9250 patients were explored and 1819 tested positive for at least 1 drug. Forty-five cases, 30 female and 15 male patients cumulating 92 DHs, were confirmed as having MDHS. An immunologic mechanism, as demonstrated by positive skin testing, accounted for 59 DHs. Drug provocation tests were performed to confirm the diagnosis for the remaining 33 DHs. Of the 92 DHs in this series, 38 were classified as type IV and 21 as type I allergies; 33 remained of undetermined mechanism. Drug class occurrences seem to differ from those in monoallergic patients., Conclusions: Our data support the concept of MDHS as a distinct and rare subgroup of DH. The prevalence in our database was 2.5% in the total DH alleged patient population and 0.5% of the demonstrated DHs. Skin testing and drug provocation tests are mandatory for confirming the diagnosis., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Flucloxacillin is a narrow-spectrum, beta-lactamase-resistant penicillin. Type I (IgE-mediated) and type IV (T-cell-mediated) reactions are less frequently reported than with other penicillins., Objective: To undertake a detailed clinical characterization of a cohort of patients referred with suspected flucloxacillin hypersensitivity., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed demographic characteristics, presentation, investigation, and management of 108 patients presenting to 4 UK centers. Patients underwent skin prick and intradermal testing with flucloxacillin, major (benzylpenicilloyl poly-l-lysine) and minor determinants, amoxicillin, and benzylpenicillin with immediate and, where appropriate, delayed reading of the test. In the immediate group, a further 14 patients were tested to ampicillin and 16 to Augmentin (co-amoxiclav-combination of clavulanic acid and amoxicillin). Skin test-negative patients underwent oral drug provocation. A multistep protocol was used, depending on risk assessment., Results: Forty of 108 (37%) patients were diagnosed with hypersensitivity to flucloxacillin, of whom 33 (82.5%) showed immediate and 7 (17.5%) nonimmediate hypersensitivity, respectively. In the immediate group, most reactions were severe: 19 of 33 (58%). Intradermal testing had a higher negative predictive value (86%) in the immediate group than in the nonimmediate group (67%). Only a minority of patients (6 of 17 [35%]) with IgE-mediated allergy were cross-sensitized on intradermal testing with other penicillins, compared with 3 of 4 (75%) in the delayed group., Conclusions: Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to flucloxacillin are more common than delayed. Cross-sensitization to other penicillins appears higher in delayed reactions than in immediate. The negative predictive value of intradermal testing is higher in the immediate group than in the nonimmediate group. Drug provocation testing remains the diagnostic criterion standard., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There are marked geographical as well as temporal differences in patient sensitization profiles to β-lactams (BL)., Objective: To determine the utility of skin test reagents and identify a cohort of patients where skin testing can be safely omitted in a cohort of patients referred to a UK tertiary referral center., Methods: A retrospective study of the clinical characteristics of 1092 patients referred for BL allergy testing was analyzed using multivariate regression analysis. The effectiveness of skin test reagents was also evaluated., Results: Multivariate logistic regression identified that a history of anaphylaxis (odds ratio [OR] 10.98, P = .001) and the patients' recall of the index drug (apart from ampicillin and meropenem, OR 3.51-12.43, P < .05) were independent predictors of type I BL allergic status and a time of less than 1 year elapsed since index reaction significantly increasing the odds of a patient with a history of anaphylaxis, having a type I BL allergy (OR 38.66, P = .003). An absence of anaphylactic severity, unknown name of the index drug and a reaction occurring more than 1 year before testing, has a negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.4%, which was similar to the NPV of skin testing of 98.9% for type I BL allergy. The NPV of skin testing with benzylpenicillin + amoxicillin ± index BL was similar with (98.9%) or without (98.1%) the use of benzylpenicillin polylysine and minor determinant for type I BL allergy., Conclusion: We identified a "low risk" cohort of patients where the history is of similar reliability to skin testing in predicting nonallergic status for BL allergy., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Use of penicillin skin testing (PST) to rule out penicillin (PCN) allergies is safe and effective in immunocompetent patients; however, data on immunocompromised patients are limited., Objective: We aimed to determine safety, efficacy, and clinical impact of PST in immunocompromised patients with cancer., Methods: A quality improvement process establishing a PST service was implemented at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Adult patients admitted to leukemia and genitourinary medical oncology (GUMO) services with history of possible type I reactions to PCN were eligible for testing., Results: Between April and October 2017, 218 patients with reported PCN allergies were screened; 100 met inclusion criteria and underwent PST (67 leukemia, 33 GUMO). The most common reported allergy was to PCN (64%), with 61% reporting cutaneous reactions and 79% reporting reactions more than 20 years ago. PST with oral challenge results were overwhelmingly negative (95%); only 4% tested positive, and 1 test result was indeterminate (negative histamine control). After negative PST and oral challenge results, 51% patients were transitioned to PCN-based antibiotics during the same hospitalization. During the follow-up period (median 177 days), 65 of 95 patients were readmitted (185 total readmissions), and 51 patients required antibiotic therapy, with 37 receiving a PCN-based antibiotic (accounting for 336 days of therapy). No patient who received PCN-based antibiotics experienced an immediate-type allergic reaction., Conclusions: Our findings support PST use in immunocompromised hosts. The widespread use of PST in patients with cancer will allow for optimal use of antimicrobial therapy and stewardship, which are vital in a population at increased risk for infections., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Quantification of specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies constitutes an important measure to document anesthesia-related immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs). However, only a few drug-specific assays are available and their predictive value is not known. In cases of non-IgE mediated IHRs, diagnosis might benefit from cellular tests such as basophil mediator release tests and basophil activation tests (BATs). To review the potential and limitations of quantification of sIgE, mediator release, and BAT in anesthesia-related IHRs, a literature search was conducted using the key words allergy, basophil activation, CD63, CD203c, diagnosis, drugs, hypersensitivity, flow cytometry, MRGPRX2, specific IgE antibodies, leukotrienes, histamine, and tryptase; this was complemented by the authors' experience. The drugs and compounds that have predominantly been studied are neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), β-lactams, latex, and chlorhexidine. For sIgE NMBA, sensitivity and specificity varies between 38.5% to 92% and 92% to 100%, respectively. For sIgE β-lactams, sensitivity varies between 0% to 85% and specificity between 52% to 100%. sIgE to morphine should not be used in isolation to diagnose IHRs to NMBAs or opiates. sIgE for latex, and, in difficult cases, molecular diagnosis with quantification of sIgE to Hevea components constitute reliable diagnostics. For drugs, the sensitivity of BAT varies between 50% and 60% and specificity reaches 80% to 90%. Basophil mediator release tests seem to be abandoned and supplanted by BATs., (Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Local anesthetics (LAs) are used in many health care settings and exposure during a lifetime is almost inevitable. Immediate-type allergy to LAs is considered rare among allergy experts but is commonly suspected by health care workers from other specialties, and by patients., Objective: The main aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of immediate-type allergy to LAs in our regional allergy clinic over the 5-year period 2010 to 2014., Methods: This was a retrospective single-center study of patients referred to a regional allergy clinic (excluding patients with perioperative reactions) with suspected immediate allergy to LAs, who had undergone subcutaneous provocation with 1 or more LAs. Patients were identified in the hospital clinical coding system and clinical information about the reaction and investigation results was obtained from their medical records., Results: A total of 164 patients (123 women/41 men; median age, 56 years; range, 7-89 years) who had 189 provocations with LAs were included over the 5-year period 2010 to 2014. All 164 patients had negative subcutaneous provocations to all 189 tests with LAs (95% CI, 0%-1.83%). Another allergen was identified in 10% (n = 17) of the patients., Conclusions: None of the 164 patients with suspected immediate-type allergy to LAs reacted on provocation. Thus, no patients have been diagnosed with an immediate allergy to LAs in our regional allergy clinic in the 5-year period studied, and allergy to LAs must be considered very rare. Alternative mechanisms should be considered, but if symptoms are consistent with allergy, other potential allergens should be investigated., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) has become a cornerstone in the management of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to chemotherapeutic agents. Because of the inherent risk of anaphylaxis during RDD, biomarkers to predict patients at risk of developing such severe reactions are needed. The basophil activation test (BAT) has been used in DHRs as a diagnostic tool., Objective: We evaluated basophil CD63 and CD203c expression (BAT) as a biomarker to assess the safety and effectiveness of RDD in platinum compounds-allergic patients., Methods: Patients allergic to platinum compounds (n = 15) undergoing RDD were assessed through clinical history, skin testing, serum tryptase levels, and BAT. BAT was performed immediately before RDD, assessing CD203c and CD63 expression on basophils. BAT was also performed in 6 patients tolerant to platinum compounds and in 6 healthy volunteers., Results: BAT was positive to CD203c or CD63 in 11 out of 15 patients allergic to platinum compounds (73%), with increased expression of CD203c and CD63 in 11 (73%) and 6 (40%) patients, respectively. Increased CD63 expression tended to be associated with more severe initial reactions. All controls had negative test results. Reactions during RDD were associated with BAT positivity and increased tryptase levels. Only 1 of 4 patients with negative BAT had a mild reaction during RDD. BAT remained positive in multiple sequential RDD., Conclusions: BAT identified patients allergic to platinum compounds with an increased risk of reactions during desensitization and higher CD63 expression was observed in severe reactions. Multiple RDDs to platinum compounds did not induce persistent hyporesponsiveness on basophils. BAT is a potential biomarker for RDD., (Copyright © 2016 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients can react to amoxicillin (AX) and clavulanic acid (CLV) taken in combination because of selective reactions to either drug. However, scant information exists concerning patients who react simultaneously to both compounds., Objective: To analyze the mechanisms involved in 4 patients who developed allergic reactions to AX-CLV administration (3 with immediate IgE-mediated reaction and 1 with nonimmediate T-cell-mediated reaction) and who responded specifically to both AX and CLV., Methods: Skin tests with benzylpenicillin (BP), AX, and CLV were done and, if necessary, drug provocation tests with BP/penicillin V, AX, and AX-CLV were carried out. In immediate reactors, serum specific IgE to benzylpenicilloyl and amoxicilloyl was determined by using the CAP-FEIA system (Pharmacia Diagnostics, Uppsala, Sweden), and basophil activation test to BP, AX, CLV, and AX-CLV was done. In nonimmediate reactors, immunohistochemistry of skin biopsy and analysis of dendritic cell maturation and T-cell-specific response to BP, AX, CLV, and AX-CLV at both acute and resolution phases of the reaction were conducted., Results: All patients with immediate reactions (N = 3) had good tolerance to BP and penicillin V. Two cases also had specific IgE to AX and all had a basophil activation test positive to AX, CLV, and AX-CLV. The patient with a nonimmediate reaction exhibited dendritic cell and T-lymphocyte responses specific to both AX and CLV. Finally, the analysis of the cells infiltrating the skin and peripheral blood during the acute phase indicated a T H 1 pattern response., Conclusions: Our study provides evidence that reactions to both AX and CLV can appear in the same patient., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Hypersensitivity reactions to β-lactam and non-β-lactam antibiotics are commonly reported. They can be classified as immediate or nonimmediate according to the time interval between the last drug administration and their onset. Immediate reactions occur within 1 hour after the last drug administration and are manifested clinically by urticaria and/or angioedema, rhinitis, bronchospasm, and anaphylactic shock; they may be mediated by specific IgE-antibodies. Nonimmediate reactions occur more than 1 hour after the last drug administration. The most common manifestations are maculopapular exanthems; specific T lymphocytes may be involved in this type of manifestation. The diagnostic evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics is usually complex. The patient's history is fundamental; the allergic examination is based mainly on in vivo tests selected on the basis of the clinical features and the type of reaction, immediate or nonimmediate. Immediate reactions can be assessed by immediate-reading skin tests and, in selected cases, drug provocation tests. Nonimmediate reactions can be assessed by delayed-reading skin tests, patch tests, and drug provocation tests. However, skin tests have been well validated mainly for β-lactams but less for other classes of antibiotics., (Copyright © 2014 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)