Search

Background: Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID-19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized., Method: Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre-vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, and literature was analysed., Results: No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1-anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2-anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3-recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4-suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5-confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick-to-prick skin test with the left-over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable., Conclusions: These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated., (© 2022 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions are rare but contribute significantly to the morbidity and mortality of surgical procedures. Recent publications have highlighted the differences between countries concerning the respective risk of different drugs, and changes in patterns of causal agents and the emergence of new allergens. This review summarises recent information on the epidemiology of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions, with specific consideration of differences between geographic areas for the most frequently involved offending agents., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Anaphylaxis during anaesthesia is a serious complication for patients and anaesthetists., Methods: The 6th National Audit Project (NAP6) on perioperative anaphylaxis collected and reviewed 266 reports of Grades 3-5 anaphylaxis over 1 yr from all NHS hospitals in the UK., Results: The estimated incidence was ≈1:10 000 anaesthetics. Case exclusion because of reporting delays or incomplete data means true incidence might be ≈70% higher. The distribution of 199 identified culprit agents included antibiotics (94), neuromuscular blocking agents (65), chlorhexidine (18), and Patent Blue dye (9). Teicoplanin comprised 12% of antibiotic exposures, but caused 38% of antibiotic-induced anaphylaxis. Eighteen patients reacted to an antibiotic test dose. Succinylcholine-induced anaphylaxis, mainly presenting with bronchospasm, was two-fold more likely than other neuromuscular blocking agents. Atracurium-induced anaphylaxis mainly presented with hypotension. Non-depolarising neuromuscular blocking agents had similar incidences to each other. There were no reports of local anaesthetic or latex-induced anaphylaxis. The commonest presenting features were hypotension (46%), bronchospasm (18%), tachycardia (9.8%), oxygen desaturation (4.7%), bradycardia (3%), and reduced/absent capnography trace (2.3%). All patients were hypotensive during the episode. Onset was rapid for neuromuscular blocking agents and antibiotics, but delayed with chlorhexidine and Patent Blue dye. There were 10 deaths and 40 cardiac arrests. Pulseless electrical activity was the usual type of cardiac arrest, often with bradycardia. Poor outcomes were associated with increased ASA, obesity, beta blocker, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication. Seventy per cent of cases were reported to the hospital incident reporting system, and only 24% to Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency via the Yellow Card Scheme., Conclusions: The overall incidence of perioperative anaphylaxis was estimated to be 1 in 10 000 anaesthetics., (Copyright © 2018 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Anaphylaxis during anaesthesia is a serious complication for patients and anaesthetists., Methods: The Sixth National Audit Project (NAP6) of the Royal College of Anaesthetists examined the incidence, predisposing factors, management, and impact of life-threatening perioperative anaphylaxis in the UK. NAP6 included: a national survey of anaesthetists' experiences and perceptions; a national survey of allergy clinics; a registry collecting detailed reports of all Grade 3-5 perioperative anaphylaxis cases for 1 yr; and a national survey of anaesthetic workload and perioperative allergen exposure. NHS and independent sector (IS) hospitals were approached to participate. Cases were reviewed by a multi-disciplinary expert panel (anaesthetists, intensivists, allergists, immunologists, patient representatives, and stakeholders) using a structured process designed to minimise bias. Clinical management and investigation were compared with published guidelines. This paper describes detailed study methods and reports on project engagement by NHS and IS hospitals. The methodology includes a new classification of perioperative anaphylaxis and a new structured method for classifying suspected anaphylactic events including the degree of certainty with which a causal trigger agent can be attributed., Results: NHS engagement was complete (100% of hospitals). Independent sector engagement was limited (13% of approached hospitals). We received >500 reports of Grade 3-5 perioperative anaphylaxis, with 266 suitable for analysis. We identified 199 definite or probable culprit agents in 192 cases., Conclusions: The methods of NAP6 were robust in identifying causative agents of anaphylaxis, and support the accompanying analytical papers., (Copyright © 2018 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Anaphylaxis during anaesthesia is a serious complication for patients and anaesthetists. There is little published information on management and outcomes of perioperative anaphylaxis in the UK., Methods: The 6th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists (NAP6) collected and reviewed 266 reports of Grade 3-5 anaphylaxis from all UK NHS hospitals over 1 yr. Quality of management was assessed against published guidelines., Results: Appropriately senior anaesthetists resuscitated all patients. Immediate management was 'good' in 46% and 'poor' in 15%. Recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis were prompt in 97% and 83% of cases, respectively. Epinephrine was administered i.v. in 76%, i.m. in 14%, both in 6%, and not at all in 11% of cases. A catecholamine infusion was administered in half of cases. Cardiac arrests (40 cases; 15%) were promptly treated but cardiac compressions were omitted in half of patients with unrecordable BP. The surgical procedure was abandoned in most cases, including 10% where surgery was urgent. Of 54% admitted to critical care, 70% were level 3, with most requiring catecholamine infusions. Ten (3.8%) patents (mostly elderly with cardiovascular disease) died from anaphylaxis. Corticosteroids and antihistamines were generally administered early. We found no clear evidence of harm or benefit from chlorphenamine. Two patients received vasopressin and one glucagon. Fluid administration was inadequate in 19% of cases. Treatment included sugammadex in 19 cases, including one when rocuronium had not been administered. Adverse sequelae (psychological, cognitive, or physical) were reported in one-third of cases., Conclusions: Management of perioperative anaphylaxis could be improved, especially with respect to administration of epinephrine, cardiac compressions, and i.v. fluid. Sequelae were common., (Copyright © 2018 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Details of the current UK drug and allergen exposure were needed for interpretation of reports of perioperative anaphylaxis to the 6th National Audit Project (NAP6)., Methods: We performed a cross-sectional survey of 356 NHS hospitals determining anaesthetic drug usage in October 2016. All cases cared for by an anaesthetist were included., Results: Responses were received from 342 (96%) hospitals. Within-hospital return rates were 96%. We collected 15 942 forms, equating to an annual caseload of 3.1 million, including 2.4 million general anaesthetics. Propofol was used in 74% of all cases and 90% of general anaesthetics. Maintenance included a volatile agent in 95% and propofol in 8.7%. Neuromuscular blocking agents were used in 47% of general anaesthetics. Analgesics were used in 88% of cases: opioids, 82%; paracetamol, 56%; and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 28%. Antibiotics were administered in 57% of cases, including 2.5 million annual perioperative administrations; gentamicin, co-amoxiclav, and cefuroxime were most commonly used. Local anaesthetics were used in 74% cases and 70% of general anaesthetics. Anti-emetics were used in 73% of cases: during general anaesthesia, ondansetron in 78% and dexamethasone in 60%. Blood products were used in ≈3% of cases, gelatin <2%, starch very rarely, and tranexamic acid in ≈6%. Chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine exposures were 74% and 40% of cases, and 21% reported a latex-free environment. Exposures to bone cement, blue dyes, and radiographic contrast dye were each reported in 2-3% of cases., Conclusions: This survey provides insights into allergen exposures in perioperative care, which is important as denominator data for the NAP6 registry., (Copyright © 2018 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We describe an observational survey of diagnostic pathways in 104 patients attending four specialist allergy clinics in the United Kingdom following perioperative hypersensitivity reactions to chlorhexidine reactions. The majority were life-threatening. Men undergoing urological or cardiothoracic surgery predominated. Skin prick testing and specific immunoglobulin (sIg)E testing were the most common tests used for diagnosis. Fifty-three per cent of diagnoses were made on the basis of a single positive test. Where multiple tests were performed the sensitivity of intradermal, basophil activation and skin prick testing was 68% (50-86%), 50% (10-90%) and 35% (17-55%), respectively. Seven per cent were negative on screening tests initially, and 12 cases were only positive for a single test despite multiple testing. Intradermal tests appeared most sensitive in this context. Additional sensitization to other substances used perioperatively, particularly neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA), was found in 28 patients, emphasizing the need to test for possible allergy to all drugs to which the patient was exposed even where chlorhexidine is positive., (© 2017 British Society for Immunology.)

Background: The incidence of anaphylaxis might be increasing. Data for fatal anaphylaxis are limited because of the rarity of this outcome., Objective: We sought to document trends in anaphylaxis admissions and fatalities by age, sex, and cause in England and Wales over a 20-year period., Methods: We extracted data from national databases that record hospital admissions and fatalities caused by anaphylaxis in England and Wales (1992-2012) and crosschecked fatalities against a prospective fatal anaphylaxis registry. We examined time trends and age distribution for fatal anaphylaxis caused by food, drugs, and insect stings., Results: Hospital admissions from all-cause anaphylaxis increased by 615% over the time period studied, but annual fatality rates remained stable at 0.047 cases (95% CI, 0.042-0.052 cases) per 100,000 population. Admission and fatality rates for drug- and insect sting-induced anaphylaxis were highest in the group aged 60 years and older. In contrast, admissions because of food-triggered anaphylaxis were most common in young people, with a marked peak in the incidence of fatal food reactions during the second and third decades of life. These findings are not explained by age-related differences in rates of hospitalization., Conclusions: Hospitalizations for anaphylaxis increased between 1992 and 2012, but the incidence of fatal anaphylaxis did not. This might be due to increasing awareness of the diagnosis, shifting patterns of behavior in patients and health care providers, or both. The age distribution of fatal anaphylaxis varies significantly according to the nature of the eliciting agent, which suggests a specific vulnerability to severe outcomes from food-induced allergic reactions in the second and third decades., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Summary: Background: The Royal College of Anaesthetists 6th National Audit Project examined Grade 3‐5 perioperative anaphylaxis for 1 year in the UK. Objective: To describe the causes and investigation of anaphylaxis in the NAP6 cohort, in relation to published guidance and previous baseline survey results. Methods: We used a secure registry to gather details of Grade 3‐5 perioperative anaphylaxis. Anonymous reports were aggregated for analysis and reviewed in detail. Panel consensus diagnosis, reaction grade, review of investigations and clinic assessment are reported and compared to the prior NAP6 baseline clinic survey. Results: A total of 266 cases met inclusion criteria between November 2015 and 2016, detailing reactions and investigations. One hundred and ninety‐two of 266 (72%) had anaphylaxis with a trigger identified, of which 140/192 (75%) met NAP6 criteria for IgE‐mediated allergic anaphylaxis, 13% lacking evidence of positive IgE tests were labelled “non‐allergic anaphylaxis”. 3% were non‐IgE‐mediated anaphylaxis. Adherence to guidance was similar to the baseline survey for waiting time for clinic assessment. However, lack of testing for chlorhexidine and latex, non‐harmonized testing practices and poor coverage of all possible culprits was confirmed. Challenge testing may be underused and many have unacceptably delayed assessments, even in urgent cases. Communication or information provision for patients was insufficient, especially for avoidance advice and communication of test results. Insufficient detail regarding skin test methods was available to draw conclusions regarding techniques. Conclusion and Clinical Relevance: Current clinical assessment in the UK is effective but harmonization of approach to testing, access to services and MHRA reporting is needed. Expert anaesthetist involvement should increase to optimize diagnostic yield and advice for future anaesthesia. Dynamic tryptase evaluation improves detection of tryptase release where peak tryptase is <14 μg/L and should be adopted. Standardized clinic reports containing appropriate details of tests, conclusions, avoidance, cross‐reactivity and suitable alternatives are required to ensure effective, safe future management options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Guidelines for investigation of perioperative drug allergy exist, but the quality of services is unknown. Specialist perioperative anaphylaxis services were surveyed through the Royal College of Anaesthetists 6th National Audit Project. Objectives We compare self-declared UK practice in specialist perioperative allergy services with national recommendations. Methods A SurveyMonkey™ questionnaire was distributed to providers of allergy services in the UK. Responses were assessed for adherence to the best practice recommendations of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI), the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence ( NICE) Guidance on Drug Allergy- CG183. Results Over 1200 patients were evaluated in 44 centres annually. Variation in workload, waiting times, access, staffing and diagnostic approach was noted. Paediatric centres had the longest routine waiting times (most wait >13 weeks) in contrast to adult centres (most wait <12 weeks). Service leads are allergists/immunologists (91%) or anaesthetists (7%). Potentially important differences were seen in: testing repertoire [10/44 (23%) lacked BSACI compliant neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) panels and 17/44 (39%) lacked a NAP6-defined extended panel; many failed to screen all cases for chlorhexidine 19/44 (43%) or latex 21/44 (48%)], staffing [only 26/44 (59%) had specialist nurses and 18/44 (41%) an anaesthetist] and provision of information [18/44 (41%) gave immediate information in clinic and 5/44 (11%) sign-posted support groups]. Most centres were able to provide diagnostic challenges to antibiotics [40/44 (91%]) and local anaesthetics [41/44 (93%)]. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance Diagnostic testing is not harmonized, with marked variability in the NMBA panels used to identify safe alternatives. Chlorhexidine and latex are not part of routine testing in many centres. Poor access to services and patient information provision require attention. Harmonization of diagnostic approach is desirable, particularly with regard to a minimum NMBA panel for identification of safe alternatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anaphylaxis to teicoplanin appears to be extremely rare, with only one confirmed case report worldwide. Two anaesthetic allergy clinics in the UK have received a number of suspected cases referred for investigation, and we present here the first case series of teicoplanin allergy.Methods: We investigated 20 cases of suspected teicoplanin allergy, identified from the two clinics over a period of two years. We devised a set of five criteria to categorize the certainty of their diagnosis. These included: (1) reaction within 15 min of administration of teicoplanin, (2) ≥2 features of anaphylaxis present, (3) positive skin testing or challenge testing, (4) raised serum mast cell tryptase (MCT), (5) alternative diagnosis excluded. Based on these criteria we defined the likelihood of IgE-mediated allergy to teicoplanin as: definite-met all criteria; probable-met criteria 1.2 and 5, plus 3 or 4; uncertain-met criteria 1.2 and 5; excluded- any others.Results: We identified 7 'definite', 7 'probable' and 2 'uncertain' cases of teicoplanin allergy. Four cases were excluded.Conclusions: IgE-mediated anaphylaxis to teicoplanin appears to be more common than previously thought. This is true even if only definitive cases are considered. Investigation of teicoplanin allergy is hampered by the lack of standardized skin test concentrations. In some cases, there was a severe clinical reaction, but without any skin test evidence of histamine release. The mechanism of reaction in these cases is not known and requires further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Grading schemes for severity of suspected allergic reactions have been applied to the perioperative setting, but there is no scoring system that estimates the likelihood that the reaction is an immediate hypersensitivity reaction. Such a score would be useful in evaluating current and proposed tests for the diagnosis of suspected perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions and culprit agents.Methods: We conducted a Delphi consensus process involving a panel of 25 international multidisciplinary experts in suspected perioperative allergy. Items were ranked according to appropriateness (on a scale of 1-9) and consensus, which informed development of a clinical scoring system. The scoring system was assessed by comparing scores generated for a series of clinical scenarios against ratings of panel members. Supplementary scores for mast cell tryptase were generated.Results: Two rounds of the Delphi process achieved stopping criteria for all statements. From an initial 60 statements, 43 were rated appropriate (median score 7 or more) and met agreement criteria (disagreement index <0.5); these were used in the clinical scoring system. The rating of clinical scenarios supported the validity of the scoring system. Although there was variability in the interpretation of changes in mast cell tryptase by the panel, we were able to include supplementary scores for mast cell tryptase.Conclusion: We used a robust consensus development process to devise a clinical scoring system for suspected perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions. This will enable objectivity and uniformity in the assessment of the sensitivity of diagnostic tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]