Search

Background: Hypersensitivity to beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics is one of the most frequent reported drug allergies. In our population, it is common to find labels of BL allergy in electronic medical records (EMRs) that have not been assessed. The objective of our study was to detect patients with beta-lactam allergy labels in their EMRs and to assess how many of them are false after a correct diagnostic evaluation. Methods: A multicentre prospective study was performed with patients labelled as allergic to BLs in their EMRs in the previous 5 years. Demographical and clinical data, as well as variables regarding the BL allergy label and the characteristics of the index reaction from clinical history and EMRs, were recorded. Then, diagnostic assessments including clinical history, skin tests (STs), and drug provocation tests (DPTs) were conducted in order to confirm or exclude the diagnosis of BL allergy. Results: A total of 249 patients completed the study, of which 160 (64.3%) were women with a median age of 57 years (interquartile range [IQR], 45-68). The most frequent BL allergy labels detected were for penicillin (124), amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (61), and amoxicillin (54). Of the 204 patients who underwent STs, 20.1% were positive. DPTs were performed in 224 patients, showing good tolerance in 87.1% of cases. After the allergy diagnosis work-up, 186 patients (74.7%) were diagnosed as non-allergic to BL antibiotics. Conclusion: In our study population, the number of patients labelled as allergic to BLs in their EMRs was similar to that in previously published studies, with proportions near to 75%-80% being falsely labelled as allergic to BLs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presented a new challenge in modern medicine: the development of vaccines was followed by massive population vaccinations. A few reports on post-vaccination allergic reactions have made patients and medical personnel uneasy as to COVID-19 vaccines' allergic potential. Most of the studies in this area to date have been small, and some that were based on global databases skipped most of the allergic diseases and concentrated only on anaphylaxis. We aimed to analyze the incidence of serious allergic reactions based on the EudraVigilance (EV) database, regardless of the reported symptoms and allergy mechanism. Methods: The total number of administrated vaccine doses was extracted on 5 October 2023 from Vaccine Tracker and included all administrations since vaccinations began in the European Economic Area (EEA). Data on serious allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines were extracted from the EudraVigilance database with the same time point. The code names of 147 allergic symptoms or diseases were used. Results: The frequency of serious allergic reactions per 100,000 administered vaccine doses was 1.53 for Comirnaty, 2.16 for Spikevax, 88.6 for Vaxzevria, 2.11 for Janssen, 7.9 for Novavax, 13.3 for VidPrevtyn Beta, and 3.1 for Valneva. The most prevalent reported reactions were edema (0.46) and anaphylaxis (0.40). Only 6% of these reactions were delayed hypersensitivity-oriented. Conclusions: The overall frequency of potential serious allergic reactions to COVID-19 is very rare. Therefore, COVID-19 vaccines seem to be safe for human use. The lowest frequency of allergic reaction was observed for Comirnaty and the highest for Vaxzevria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome represents a severe form of drug hypersensitivity reaction characterized by significant morbidity, mortality, and long-term sequelae, coupled with limited therapeutic avenues. Accurate identification of the causative drug(s) is paramount for acute management, exploration of safe therapeutic alternatives, and prevention of future occurrences. However, the absence of a standardized diagnostic test and a specific causality algorithm tailored to DRESS poses a significant challenge in its clinical management. Methods: We conducted a retrospective case–control study involving 37 DRESS patients to validate a novel causality algorithm, the ALDRESS, designed explicitly for this syndrome, comparing it against the current standard algorithm, SEFV. Results: The ALDRESS algorithm showcased superior performance, exhibiting an 85.7% sensitivity and 93% specificity with comparable negative predictive values (80.6% vs. 97%). Notably, the ALDRESS algorithm yielded a substantially higher positive predictive value (75%) compared to SEFV (51.40%), achieving an overall accuracy rate of 92%. Conclusions: Our findings underscore the efficacy of the ALDRESS algorithm in accurately attributing causality to drugs implicated in DRESS syndrome. However, further validation studies involving larger, diverse cohorts are warranted to consolidate its clinical utility and broaden its applicability. This study lays the groundwork for a refined causality assessment tool, promising advancements in the diagnosis and management of DRESS syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relevance of the topic under study is due to the fact that patients receiving large or repeated doses of corticosteroids often suffer from hypersensitivity reactions or side effects from taking this category of drugs. As a result, this poses a serious problem for healthcare authorities, as the scientific understanding of this phenomenon is still at an early stage. The purpose of study is to comprehensively disclose the various types of mechanisms underlying corticosteroid hypersensitivity, as well as to develop recommendations for more accurate methods of diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of this reaction. To achieve this goal, this theoretical study used various methods, including analysis, deduction, abstraction and generalization, and the method of synthesis. The results of the study underscore the broad spectrum of applications for corticosteroid drugs in medicine, highlighting their systemic effects and potential for side effects and hypersensitivity reactions across various bodily systems. These adverse reactions encompass hyperglycemia, hypertension, respiratory issues, visual impairments, skin conditions like contact dermatitis, bone tissue complications, and behavioral disorders, notably in children. Administering corticosteroids in COVID-19 treatment necessitates caution due to the potential for life-threatening immediate hypersensitivity reactions, which may be mistaken for disease progression. The results and conclusions of this study, which were formed using the above methods, may lead to a more accurate diagnosis of hypersensitivity to drugs such as corticosteroids, and may also contribute to the development of effective preventive measures. This study is of practical importance for dermatologists, allergists and immunologists, as well as researchers working in the field of rheumatology, allergology and immunology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Drug hypersensitivity is a major global public health issue with a significant increase in prevalence in populations. Here, we provide a deep insight into the frontier hotspot and future direction in the field of drug hypersensitivity. Methods: A knowledge map is portrayed based on publications related to drug hypersensitivity from Web of Science Core Collection using CiteSpace. Co‐occurrence relationships of countries, institutes, authors, journals, references, and keywords are constructed. According to the co‐occurrence relationships, hotspots and future trends are overviewed. Results: The United States ranked first in the world and China with the second highest publications was the only developing country. Torres, Mayorga, and Blanca were highly productive authors. Harvard University was the institution with the most research publications. Keywords co‐occurrence analysis suggested applications in emerging causes, potential mechanisms, and clinical diagnosis as the research hotspots and development frontiers. Conclusion: Research on drug hypersensitivity is in a rapid development stage and an emerging trend in reports of anaphylaxis to polyethylene glycols is identified. Developing algorithms for understanding the standardization process of culprit drugs, clinical manifestations, and diagnostic methods will be the focus of future direction. In addition, a better understanding of the mechanisms to culprit drugs with immunological precise phenotypic definitions and high‐throughput platforms is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a novel human coronavirus, has caused the global COVID-19 pandemic. Allergic reactions and anaphylaxis have been reported rarely following the release of the COVID-19 vaccine. In general, administration of the second dose to patients experiencing an adverse reaction after the first dose was considered contraindicated, whereas full-dose vaccination is now recommended. Although uneventful administration of a second dose is also mentioned in the current literature, management is not standardized in this regard. Our aim was to establish a successful re-administration protocol in patients with a history of allergic reaction to the first dose of vaccine and to safely vaccinate the most people with the least amount of vaccine. Materials and Methods: Nine patients presenting to our clinic between September 2021 and November 2021 were evaluated. Allergy skin tests with PEG 3350 and PS 80 were planned. With the results, existing literature protocols were modified according to the conditions and applied with gradual dose increase/desensitization. Results: Despite the reactions that developed after the first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, 8 patients were successfully re-administered. Conclusion: We believe that recommendations for successful vaccination with gradual dose increase/desensitization will be beneficial for patients and clinicians in the treatment of patients who develop an allergic reaction with the first dose, in the current period when re-administration is advocated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fixed drug eruption (FDE) is a well-recognized, non-immediate, drug hypersensitivity reaction, often attributed to the use of various medications, most commonly non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antibiotics. Cross-reactivity between related NSAIDs in FDE has been reported, but among chemically unrelated NSAIDs, is rare. Herein, we present a rare well-documented case where a patient initially displayed tolerance to etoricoxib after experiencing a nimesulide-induced FDE. Subsequently, the patient developed an etoricoxib-induced FDE, accompanied by the development of bullous lesions. This case report and the literature review on comparable FDE occurrences shed light on the intricate nature of FDEs, suggesting the possibility of cross-reactivity between chemically related and unrelated NSAIDs or the emergence of new drug-specific T cells without cross-reactivity after multiple exposures to a drug in a susceptible patient. Our case underscores the importance of increased awareness and vigilance among both physicians and patients in the realm of personalized medicine. Further research is needed to unravel the intricate mechanisms behind these drug eruptions, improve diagnostic approaches, and enhance patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Table of contents: Poster walk 11: miscellaneous drug hypersensitivity 2 (P92–P94, P96–P101) P92 16 years of experience with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) Javier Dionicio Elera, Cosmin Boteanu, Maria Aranzazu Jimenez Blanco, Rosario Gonzalez‐Mendiola, Irene Carrasco García, Antonio Alvarez, Jose Julio Laguna Martinez P93 Allergy evaluation of quinolone induced adverse reactions Jaume Martí Garrido, Carla Torán Barona, Carolina Perales Chorda, Ramón López Salgueiro, Miguel Díaz Palacios, Dolores Hernández Fernández De Rojas P94 Bupropion‐induced acute urticaria and angioedema, a case report Emre Ali Acar, Ayse Aktas, Aylin Türel Ermertcan, Peyker Temiz P96 Delayed type hypersensitivity and study of cross‐reactivity between proton‐pump inhibitors Chien‐Yio Lin, Chung‐Yee Rosaline Hui, Ya‐Ching Chang, Chih‐Hsun Yang, Wen‐Hung Chung P97 Diagnostic work‐up in suspected hypersensitivity to proton‐pump inhibitors: looking at cross‐reactivity Fabrícia Carolino, Diana Silva, Eunice Dias De Castro, Josefina R. Cernadas P98 Management of infusion‐related hypersensitivity reactions to enzyme replacement therapy for lysosomal diseases Luis Felipe Ensina, Carolina Aranda, Ines Camelo Nunes, Alex Lacerda, Ana Maria Martins, Ekaterini Goudouris, Marcia Ribeiro, José Francisco Da Silva Franco, Leandra Queiroz, Dirceu Solé P99 Management of insulin allergy with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion Ceyda Tunakan Dalgiç, Aytül Zerrin Sin, Fatma Düsünür Günsen, Gökten Bulut, Fatma Ömür Ardeniz, Okan Gülbahar, Emine Nihal Mete Gökmen, Ali Kokuludag P100 Off‐label use of icatibant for management of serious angioedema associated with angiotensin inhibitors Ana M. Montoro De Francisco, Talía Mª De Vicente Jiménez, Adriana M. Mendoza Parra, Angella M. Burgos Pimentel, Amelia García Luque P101 Thiocolchicoside anaphylaxis: an unusual suspect? Luis Amaral, Fabricia Carolino, Leonor Carneiro Leão, Eunice Castro, Josefina Cernadas Poster walk 12: betalactam hypersensitivity (P102–P111) P102 A curious delayed reading: a case report of a β‐lactam allergy in a child Nicole Pinto, Joana Belo, João Marques, Pedro Carreiro‐Martins, Paula Leiria‐Pinto P103 Betalactam‐induced hypersensitivity: a 10‐years' experience Amel Chaabane, Haifa Ben Romdhane, Nadia Ben Fredj, Zohra Chadly, Naceur A. Boughattas, Karim Aouam P104 Cefazolin hypersensitivity: towards optimized diagnosis Astrid P. Uyttebroek, Chris H. Bridts, Antonino Romano, Didier G. Ebo, Vito Sabato P105 Clavulanic acid allergy: two cases report Anabela Lopes, Joana Cosme, Rita Aguiar, Tatiana Lourenço, Maria‐João Paes, Amélia Spínola‐Santos, Manuel Pereira‐Barbosa P106 Diagnosis of betalactam allergy in an allergy department Cíntia Rito Cruz, Rute Pereira Dos Reis, Elza Tomaz, Ana Paula Pires, Filipe Inácio P107 Diagnostic work‐up of 410 patients with suspicion of betalactam antibiotic hypersensitivity Filipe Benito‐Garcia, Inês Mota, Magna Correia, Ângela Gaspar, Marta Chambel, Susana Piedade, Mário Morais‐Almeida P108 Immediate selective hypersensitivity reactions to clavulanic acid Alla Nakonechna, Yurij Antipkin, Tetiana Umanets, Fernando Pineda, Francisca Arribas, Volodymyr Lapshyn P109 Prevalence and incidence of penicillin hypersensitivity reactions in Colombia Pablo Andrés Miranda, Bautista De La Cruz Hoyos P110 Selective sensitization to amoxicilin and clavulanic acid Jose Julio Laguna Martinez, Aranzazu Jimenez Blanco, Javier Dionicio Elera, Cosmin Boteanu, Rosario Gonzalez‐Mendiola, Marta Del Pozo P111 Infliximab‐specific T cells are detectable also in treated patients who have not developed anti‐drug antibodies Alessandra Vultaggio, Francesca Nencini, Sara Pratesi, Andrea Matucci, Enrico Maggi Poster walk 13: biologicals, local anesthetics, others (P112–P118) P112 A case report of allergic immediate systemic reaction to adalimumab and certolizumab Ceyda Tunakan Dalgiç, Fatma Düsünür Günsen, Gökten Bulut, Fatma Ömür Ardeniz, Okan Gülbahar, Emine Nihal Mete Gökmen, Aytül Zerrin Sin, Ali Kokuludag P113 Allergy to local anesthetics: negative predictive value of skin tests Ivana Cegec, Danica Juricic Nahal, Viktorija Erdeljic Turk, Matea Radacic Aumiler, Ksenija Makar Ausperger, Iva Kraljickovic, Iveta Simic P114 Cutaneous adverse reactions of molecular targeted agents: a retrospective analysis in 150 patients in our department Yukie Yamaguchi, Tomoya Watanabe, Megumi Satoh, Tomohiko Tanegashima, Kayoko Oda, Hidefumi Wada, Michiko Aihara P115 Generalized paralysis induced by local lidocaine injection Jaechun Jason Lee, Jay Chol Choi, Hwa Young Lee P116 Hypersensitivity to local anaesthetics: a 10 year review Rosa‐Anita Rodrigues Fernandes, Emília Faria, Joana Pita, Nuno Sousa, Carmelita Ribeiro, Isabel Carrapatoso, Ana Todo Bom P117 Local anaesthetics: a rare culprit in hypersensitivity reactions Ana Rodolfo, Eunice Dias‐Castro, Josefina Cernadas P118 Stevens–Johnson syndrome in clinical practice: a variant of clinical course Marina Voronova Poster walk 14: RCM (P119–P128) P119 13 cases of severe anaphylactic reactions due to radiocontrast media Jaume Martí Garrido, Ramon Lopez Salgueiro, Diana Kury Valle, Verónica Pacheco Coronel, Carolina Perales Chordá, Dolores Hernandez Fernandez De Rojas P120 Anaphylactic shock after administration of iodinated contrast medium during cardiac catheterization Roselle Catherine Yu Madamba, Marta Ferrer, Maria Jose Goikoetxea, Carmen D'Amelio, Amalia Bernad, Olga Vega, Gabriel Gastaminza P121 Anaphylactic shock and cardiac arrest induced by gadolinium‐based contrast agents Beatriz Pola Bibián, Marina Lluncor Salazar, Gemma Vilà Nadal, Ana María Fiandor Roman, Javier Dominguez Ortega, Miguel Gonzalez Muñoz, Santiago Quirce Gancedo, Maria Rosario Cabañas Moreno P122 Anaphylaxis to gadobenate and cross‐reactivity to other gadolinium‐based contrast agents in two patients Kathrin Scherer Hofmeier P123 Anaphylaxis to glatiramer acetate in a patient with multiple sclerosis Fabrícia Carolino, Vladyslava Barzylovych, Josefina R. Cernadas P124 Delayed hypersensitivity reaction to radiocontrast media Fabrícia Carolino, Diana Silva, Leonor Leão, Josefina R. Cernadas P125 Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms induced by iodixanol Gemma Vilà‐Nadal, Beatriz Pola, Marina Lluncor, Ana Fiandor, Teresa Bellón, Javier Domínguez, Santiago Quirce P126 Electronic consultation support system for radiocontrast media hypersensitivity changes clinician's behavior Min‐Suk Yang, Sun‐Sin Kim, Sae‐Hoon Kim, Hye‐Ryun Kang, Heung‐Woo Park, Sang‐Heon Cho, Kyung‐Up Min, Yoon‐Seok Chang P127 Hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media: skin testing and follow‐up Danica Juricic Nahal, Ivana Cegec, Viktorija Erdeljic Turk, Iva Kraljickovic, Matea Radacic Aumiler, Ksenija Makar Ausperger, Iveta Simic P128 Would iodine allergy exist? Clémence Delahaye, Jenny Flabbee, Julie Waton, Olivia Bauvin, Annick Barbaud Poster walk 15: MPE/type 4 (P129–P137) P129 Delayed hypersensitivity cutaneous reactions: a case/control study from a tunisian database Karim Aouam, Najah Ben Fadhel, Zohra Chadly, Nadia Ben Fredj, Naceur A. Boughattas, Amel Chaabane P130 Delayed hypersensitivity reactions to cephalosporins: a review of seven cases Joana Cosme, Anabela Lopes, Amélia Spínola‐Santos, Manuel Pereira‐Barbosa P131 Diclofenac induced allergic contact dermatitis: case series of four patients Sandra Jerkovic Gulin, Anca Chiriac P132 Late‐onset maculopapular rash to irbesartan Bárbara Kong Cardoso, Elza Tomaz, Regina Viseu, Filipe Inácio P133 Nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions to betalactams: a retrospective analysis Ana Moreira, Susana Cadinha, Ana Castro Neves, Patricia Barreira, Daniela Malheiro, J. P. Moreira Da Silva P134 Occupational airborne contact dermatitis to omeprazole Ružica Jurakic‐Toncic, Suzana Ljubojevic, Petra Turcic P135 Ornidazole‐induced fixed drug eruption confirmed by positive patch test on a residual pigmented lesion Liesbeth Gilissen, Sara Huygens, An Goossens P136 Repeated delayed reaction induced by amoxicillin and amoxicillin clavulanate Inmaculada Andreu, Ramon Lopez‐Salgueiro, Alicia Martinez Romero, Pau Gomez Cabezas P137 Systemic photosensitivity from fenofibrate in a patient photo‐sensitized to ketoprofen Liesbeth Gilissen, An Goossens Poster walk 16: HLA genetics (P138–P146) P138 A copy number variation in ALOX5 and PTGER1 is associated with nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs induced urticaria and/or angioedema Pedro Ayuso Parejo, Maria Del Carmen Plaza‐Serón, Inmaculada Doña, Natalia Blanca López, Carlos Flores, Luisa Galindo, Ana Molina, James Richard Perkins, Jose Antonio Cornejo‐García, José Augusto García‐Agúndez, Elena García‐Martín, Paloma Campo, María Gabriela Canto, Miguel Blanca P139 Association of galectin‐3 (LGALS3) single nucleotide polymorphisms with non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs‐induced urticaria/angioedema José Antonio Cornejo‐Garcia, Inmaculada Doña, Rosa María Guéant‐Rodríguez, Natalia Blanca‐López, María Carmen Plaza‐Serón, Raquel Jurado‐Escobar, Esther Barrionuevo, María Salas, María Luisa Galindo, Gabriela Canto, Miguel Blanca, Jean‐Louis Guéant P140 Detection of T cell responses to ticlopidine using peripheral blood mononuclear cells from HLA‐A*33:03+ healthy donors Toru Usui, Arun Tailor, Lee Faulkner, John Farrell, Ana Alfirevic, B. Kevin Park, Dean J. Naisbitt P141 Epistasis approaches to identify novel genes potentially involved in NSAIDs hypersensitivity James Richard Perkins, Jose Antonio Cornejo García, Oswaldo Trelles, Inmaculada Doña, Esther Barrionuevo, María Salas, María Auxiliadora Guerrero, Miguel Blanca, Alex Upton P142 Genetic predisposition of cold medicine related SJS/TEN with severe ocular complications Mayumi Ueta, Hiromi Sawai, Chie Sotozono, Katushi Tokunaga, Shigeru Kinoshita P143 HLA‐B*13:01 and dapsone induced hypersensitivity in Thai population Chonlaphat Chonlaphat Sukasem, Patompong Satapornpong, Therdpong Tempark, Pawinee Rerknimitr, Kulprapat Pairayayutakul, Jettanong Klaewsongkram P144 HLA‐B*15:02 alleles and lamotrigine‐induced cutaneous adverse drug reactions in Thai Chonlaphat Sukasem, N. Koomdee, T. Jantararoungtong, S. Santon, A. Puangpetch, U. Intusoma, W. Tassaneeyakul, V. Theeramoke P145 HLA‐B*38:01 and HLA‐A*24:02 allele frequencies in Spanish patients with lamotrigine‐induced SCARs Teresa Bellón, Elena Ramirez, Alberto Manuel Borobia, Hoi Tong, Jose Luis Castañer, Francisco José De Abajo P146 Overrepresentation of a class II HLA haplotype in severe hypersensitivity type I reactions to carboplatin Violeta Régnier Galvao, Rebecca Pavlos, Elizabeth Mckinnon, Kristina Williams, Alicia Beeghly‐Fadiel, Alec Redwood, Elizabeth Phillips, Mariana Castells Poster walk 17: in vivo diagnosis + sIgE (P147–P154) P147 Absence of specific Ig‐e against beta‐lactams 9 months after an allergic reaction to amoxicillin‐clavulanic acid Elisa Boni, Marina Russello, Marina Mauro P148 Drug provocation tests in suspected opioid allergy Kok Loong Ue, Krzysztof Rutkowski P149 Improvement to the specific IgE cut‐off in the assess of β‐lactamic allergy Victor Soriano Gomis, Jorge Frances Ferre, Angel Esteban Rodriguez, Vicente Cantó Reig, Javier Fernandez Sanchez P150 Initial false negative specific IgE to gelatin in a patient with gelatin‐induced anaphylaxis Christine Breynaert, Erna Van Hoeyveld, Rik Schrijvers P151 Inmediate reactions to beta‐lactam antibiotics: pattern of skin test response over the time Jose Julio Laguna Martinez, Rosario Gonzalez Mendiola, Javier Dionicio Elera, Cosmin Boteanu, Aranzazu Jimenez Blanco, Marta Del Pozo, Raquel Fuentes Irigoyen P152 New fluorescent dendrimeric antigens for the evaluation of dendritic cell maturation as a test to detect allergy reactions to amoxicillin Daniel Collado, Yolanda Vida, Francisco Najera, Ezequiel Perez‐Inestrosa, Pablo Mesa‐Antunez, Cristobalina Mayorga, María José Torres, Miguel Blanca P153 Positive skin test or positive specific IgE to penicillin does not predict penicillin allergy Line K. Tannert, Charlotte G. Mortz, Per Stahl Skov, Carsten Bindslev‐Jensen P154 Significance of skin testing and in vitro‐analysis of neuromuscular blocking agents in diagnosis of perioperative drug hypersensitivity: evaluation of a negative control population Wolfgang Pfützner, Hannah Dörnbach, Johanna Visse, Michele Rauber, Christian Möbs Poster walk 18: in vitro/ex vivo (P155–P158, P160–P164) P155 Diagnostic value of the lymphocyte toxicity assay (LTA) and the in vitro platelet toxicity assay (IPTA) for β‐lactam allergy Abdelbaset A. Elzagallaai, Lindsey Chow, Awatif M. Abuzgaia, Michael J. Rieder P156 Enzyme linked immunospot assay used in the diagnosis of severe cutaneous adverse reactions to antimicrobials Alec Redwood, Jason Trubiano, Rebecca Pavlos, Emily Woolnough, Kaija Stautins, Christina Cheng, Elizabeth Phillips P157 Evaluation of in vitro diagnostic methods for identifying the culprit drugs in drug hypersensitivity Kenichi Kato, Hiroaki Azukizawa, Takaaki Hanafusa, Ichiro Katayama P158 Ex‐vivo expanded skin‐infiltrating T cells from severe drug eruptions are reactive with causative drugs: a possible novel method for determination of causative drugs Toshiharu Fujiyama, Hideo Hashizume, Takatsune Umayahara, Taisuke Ito, Yoshiki Tokura P160 In vitro release of IL‐2, IL‐5 and IL‐13 in diagnosis of patients with delayed‐type nickel hypersensitivity Mira Silar, Mihaela Zidarn, Helena Rupnik, Peter Korosec P161 Single cell analysis of drug responsive T cells; identification of candidate drug reactive T cell receptors in abacavir and carbamazepine hypersensitivity Alec James Redwood, Kaija Strautins, Katie White, Abha Chopra, Katherine Konvinse, Shay Leary, Rebecca Pavlos, Simon Mallal, Elizabeth Phillips P162 Specificity and sensitivity of LTT in DRESS: analysis of agreement with the Spanish pharmacovigilance system probability algorithm Rosario Cabañas, Elena Ramirez, Ana María Fiandor, Teresa Bellón P163 The role of interleukin‐22 in β‐lactam hypersensitivity Andrew Sullivan, Paul Whitaker, Daniel Peckham, B. Kevin Park, Dean J. Naisbitt P164 Vancomycin‐specific T cell responses and teicoplanin cross‐reactivity Wei Yann Haw, Marta E. Polak, Carolann Mcguire, Michael R. Ardern‐Jones Poster walk 19: BAT and biomarkers (P165–P173) P165 A combination of early biomarkers useful for the prediction of severe ADRs Yumi Aoyama, Tetsuo Shiohara P166 Basophil activation test in the diagnostic approach of reactions during general anaesthesia Ana Moreira, Susana Cadinha, Patrícia Barreira, Ana Castro Neves, Daniela Malheiro, Sara Correia, J. P. Moreira Da Silva P167 IL‐10 can be related to successful desensitization Asli Gelincik, Semra Demir, Fatma Sen, Hamza Ugur Bozbey, Muge Olgac, Derya Unal, Raif Coskun, Bahauddin Colakoglu, Suna Buyuozturk, Esin Çatin‐Aktas, Gunnur Deniz P168 Immediate reactions to proton pump inhibitors: value of basophil activation test Maria Salas, Jose Julio Laguna, Esther Barrionuevo, J. Dionicio, Tahia Fernandez, R. Gonzalez‐Mendiola, I. Olazabal, Maria Dolores Ruiz, Miguel Blanca, Cristobalina Mayorga, Maria José Torres P169 Improvement of the elevated tryptase criterion to discriminate IgE from non‐IgE mediated allergic reactions Gabriel Gastaminza, Alberto Lafuente, Carmen D'Amelio, Amalia Bernad, Olga Vega, Roselle Catherine Madamba, M. Jose Goikoetxea, Marta Ferrer, Jorge Núñez P170 Low expression of Tim‐3 could serve as a biomarker for control and diagnose maculopapular exanthema induced by drugs Tahia Diana Fernández, Inmaculada Doña, Francisca Palomares, Rubén Fernández, Maria Salas, Esther Barrionuevo, Maria Isabel Sanchez, Miguel Blanca, Maria José Torres, Cristobalina Mayorga P171 Role of basophil activation test using two different activation markers for the diagnosis of allergy to fluoroquinolones Esther Barrionuevo, Tahía Fernandez, Arturo Ruiz, Adriana Ariza, Maria Salas, Inmaculada Doña, Ana Molina, Miguel Blanca, Maria Jose Torres, Cristobalina Mayorga P172 The importance of basophil activation test in anaphylaxis due to celecoxib Amalia Bernad Alonso, Carmen D'Amelio Garófalo, Olga Vega Matute, Marta Ferrer Puga, María José Goikoetxea Lapresa, Roselle Catherine Yu Madamba, Gabriel Gastaminza Lasarte P173 The role of basophil activation test in the diagnosis of immediate type drug hypersensitivity to betalactam antibiotics Antonia Thinnes, Hans F. Merk, Jens Malte Baron, Martin Leverkus, Galina Balakirski Poster walk 20: TCR recognition, cellular (P174–P183) P174 Characterisation of the effect of co‐inhibitory signalling on the activation of drug‐derived antigen‐specific T‐cells Andrew Gibson, Monday Ogese, Lee Faulkner, B. Kevin Park, Dean J. Naisbitt P175 Characterization of drug hapten‐specific T cell responses in piperacillin hypersensitive patients Zaid Al‐Attar, Fiazia Yaseen, Xiaoli Meng, Rozalind Jenkins, Paul Whitaker, Daniel Peckham, Lee Faulkner, John Farrel, Kevin Park, Dean Naisbitt P176 Characterization of the response of T‐cells to telaprevir and its metabolite in normal volunteers Zaid Al‐Attar, Khetam Alhilali, Yanni Xue, John Farrell, Lee Faulkner, Kevin Park, Dean Naisbitt P177 Characterization of the T cell receptor signatures of drug‐responsive T cells Patricia Illing, Nicole Mifsud, Heidi Fettke, Jeffrey Lai, Rebecca Ho, Patrick Kwan, Anthony Purcell P178 Defining the signals between hepatocytes and immune cells in idiosyncratic drug‐induced liver injury (DILI) Monday O. Ogese, Lee Faulkner, B. Kevin Park, Catherine Betts, Dean J. Naisbitt P179 Development of novel chemicals that do not bind to HLA‐B*57:01 or activate CD8 + T‐cells through modification of the 6‐amino cyclopropyl group of abacavir Paul Thomson, John Farrell, Mohammad Alhaidari, Neill Berry, Paul M. O'Neill, B. Kevin Park, Dean J. Naisbitt P180 Generation and characterization of dapsone‐ and nitroso‐dapsone‐specific T‐cell clones using lymphocytes from healthy volunteers Abdulaziz Alzahrani, Monday O. Ogese, John Farrell, Lee Faulkner, Andrew Gibson, Arun Tailor, B. Kevin Park, Dean J. Naisbitt P181 Identification of benzylpenicillin‐hapten peptides responsible for naïve T‐cell activation and immunization of allergic patients to penicillin Marie Eliane Azoury, Lucia Fili, Rami Bechara, Noémie Scornet, Cathy Nhim, Richard Weaver, Nancy Claude, Delphine Joseph, Bernard Maillere, Paola Parronchi, Marc Pallardy P182 Massive expansion of clonotypic and polycytotoxic CD8+ T cells in toxic epidermal necrolysis Axel Patrice Villani, Aurore Rozières, Benoît Bensaïd, Mathilde Tardieu, Floriane Albert, Virginie Mutez, Tugba Baysal, Marc Pallardy, Janet Maryanski, Jean‐François Nicolas, Osami Kanagawa, Marc Vocanson P183 Pharmaco‐immunological synapse of HLA‐drug‐TCR in SCAR Shuen‐Iu Hung Poster walk 21: new in vitro methods, haptens, etc. (P184–P194) P184 Amoxicillin‐clavulanate forms distinct multiple haptenic structures on human serum albumin in patients Xiaoli Meng, Arun Tailor, Caroline J. Harrison, Rosalind E. Jenkins, Paul Whitaker, Neil S. French, Dean J. Naisbitt, B. Kevin Park P185 Dendrimeric antigens for studying the influence of penicillin determinants orientation on IgE recognition Maria Isabel Montañez, Cristobalina Mayorga, Francisco Najera, Adriana Ariza, Tahia D. Fernandez, Maria Salas, Angela Martin‐Serrano, Miguel Blanca, Ezequiel Perez‐Inestrosa, Maria Jose Torres P186 Dendrimeric antigens on solid supports: designed materials for IgE quantification Yolanda Vida, Maria Isabel Montañez, Noemi Molina, Daniel Collado, Francisco Najera, Adriana Ariza, Maria Jose Torres, Cristobalina Mayorga, Ezequiel Perez‐Inestrosa P187 Development of a screening assay for drug hypersensitivity using naïve T cells from donors with seven different HLA class I risk alleles Lee Faulkner, Sally Wood, Ana Alfirevic, Munir Pirmohamed, Dean J. Naisbitt, B. Kevin Park P188 Different patterns of recognition of structures derived from amoxicillin by IgE antibodies from patients with immediate hypersensitivity reactions to betalactams Adriana Ariza, Cristobalina Mayorga, María Isabel Montañez, María Salas, Inmaculada Doña, Ángela Martín‐Serrano, Ezequiel Pérez‐Inestrosa, Dolores Pérez‐Sala, Miguel Blanca, Antonio E. Guzmán, María José Torres P189 High‐resolution typing of HLA polymorphism and T‐cell receptor repertoire for severe adverse drug reactions based on the cost‐effective next‐generation sequencing approaches Tai‐Ming Ko, Yuan‐Tsong Chen, Jer‐Yuarn Wu P190 Identification and fate of intracellular proteins haptenated by amoxicillin Francisco J. Sánchez‐Gómez, Juan M. González‐Morena, Yolanda Vida, Ezequiel Pérez‐Inestrosa, Miguel Blanca, María J. Torres, Dolores Pérez‐Sala P191 In vitro detection of terbinafine protein adducts Arun Tailor, Toru Usui, Yanni Xue, Xiaoli Meng, Dean J. Naisbitt, B. Kevin Park P192 MicroRNAs dysregulation in PBMCs from drug hypersensitivity patients during drug challenge in vitro Alejandra Monroy Arreola, Jesus Agustin Badillo Corona, Silvia Mendez Flores, Judith Dominguez Cherit, Dean J. Naisbitt, Noe Valentin Duran Figueroa, Jose Luis Castrejon Flores P193 NSAIDs‐exacerbated cutaneous disease: high throughput gene expression profiling José Antonio Cornejo‐García, James Perkins, Natalia Blanca‐López, Diana Pérez‐Alzate, Raquel Jurado‐Escobar, Inmaculada Doña, Gador Bogas, María J. Torres, Gabriela Canto, Miguel Blanca P194 Utility of skin tests in non‐immediate reactions to amoxicillin Luis Mario Tubella Marti, Fernando Pineda De La Losa, Francisca Arribas Poves, Jaime Tubella Lopez, Teodora Lopez Santiago [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) is a rare severe cutaneous reaction. In over 90% of patients it is an adverse reaction to drugs. Delayed-type (type IV) hypersensitivity seems to play an important role in its pathophysiology. Positive patch tests have ranged from 18% to 75%, with 93 culprit drugs identified. Our case involves an 87-year-old female patient, treated for a periprosthetic joint infection with ceftriaxone and daptomycin, who developed acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis. Clinical diagnosis was confirmed by skin biopsy. Patch testing performed 5 months later confirmed sensitization to ceftriaxone. Patch testing is useful to identify the cause of AGEP when the responsible drug is unclear. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics are among the most prescribed groups of drugs worldwide and have been implicated in a variety of allergic reactions. There is a paucity of literature regarding patient adherence to prescribed instructions following comprehensive allergy assessments. Objective: The objective was to follow up the clinical course of BL allergy in patients who underwent thorough allergological investigation for suspected BL allergy at a tertiary hospital and ascertain patients' compliance with the provided written instructions. Materials: An observational study in patients referred for suspected BL allergy who underwent a comprehensive allergy workup (in vivo ± in vitro tests, DPT in culprit and/or alternative BL) and who subsequently received written instructions was conducted. Data on the nature of the reported drug hypersensitivity reaction, the culprit BL drug, the allergological workup, and the detailed instructions provided in a written drug allergy report were collected retrospectively. Patients' compliance with the instructions was recorded by a telephone survey using a pre-defined questionnaire. Results: Among the 212 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 87 patients (72.4% women; mean age 50.1 years; age range 6–84 years) responded to the telephone survey and were included in this study. Surprisingly, 45 out of 87 (51.7%) patients did not adhere to the written instructions. The primary factor contributing to non-compliance was the fear of re-occurrence of a drug-induced allergic reaction (personal and/or triggered by their treating physician reluctance), accounting for 77.7% of cases. The analysis demonstrated that the initial reaction's severity and type, as well as the outcomes of skin testing, did not correlate with compliance to instructions (p > 0.05). Surprisingly enough, a drug provocation test (DPT), irrespectively of the result, emerged as a negative predictor for adherence, with only 40.6% of DPT patients complying compared to 77.8% of those who did not undergo DPT (p = 0.005; odds ratio = 0.195; 95% confidence interval: 0.058–0.655). Variables such as performing DPT with alternative or incriminated drugs or the result of the DPT (positive–negative) were not associated with patient compliance. Conversely, the type of instructions provided exhibited a noteworthy correlation with compliance. Patients who were explicitly instructed to entirely avoid all BL antibiotics demonstrated markedly higher adherence rates (83.3%) compared to those who were advised to have a partial or complete release of BLs (31.8% and 58.1%, respectively; p < 0.05). Notably, among compliant patients who received either the original culprit drug or the alternative (32 out of 87, 36.7%), no allergic reactions were reported. In contrast, among the 12 patients with written avoidance of all BLs, subsequent BL intake led to immediate reactions (Grade I and IV) in 2 patients (16.6%). Conclusions: A notable disparity in patient adherence to written instructions prohibiting or releasing beta-lactams was demonstrated. Less than half of the patients ultimately complied with the provided instructions, underscoring the need for tailored patients' education and strategies to improve adherence in the management of suspected BL allergy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Local anesthetics are broadly used in various health care settings with high probability of lifetime exposure. The main aim of this study was to determine the characteristics and risk factors of the patients presenting to our allergy outpatient clinic due to suspected hypersensitivity to local anesthetics. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the clinical data and test results obtained from patients who had presented to our allergy outpatient clinic for allergological work-up of local anesthetics from 2015 to 2020. Results: A total of 289 subjects were included. The most common referral reason was a history of non-local anesthetic drug hypersensitivity reaction (65.7%, n=190). Twenty-five out of 289 (8.65%) patients had positivity for at least one of the tested drugs in skin prick test/ intradermal test/ subcutaneous drug provocation test. Of these 25 patients, 4 (16%) had a history of DHR to LA and 9 (36%) had a history of multiple drug hypersensitivity (MDH). Allergy to local anesthetics was observed in only 13 (18.6%) of 70 patients with a history of local anesthetic hypersensitivity reaction. Patients with atopy were 5.3 times more likely to have local anesthetic hypersensitivity (odds ratio: 5.254; 95% CI: 1.316-20.974; p=0.019). Cross-reactivity among amide-local anesthetics without a distinct predictive pattern has also been demonstrated in 3 patients. Conclusion: Most patients who report local anesthetic allergy can tolerate local anesthetics without having a hypersensitivity reaction. Atopic status is associated with increased risk of a hypersensitivity reaction to local anesthetics. Atopic patients are candidates for performing allergy tests to local anesthetics to enable appropriate counseling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adverse drug reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) have risen due to their increasing use in x‐ray‐based imaging modalities. Delayed hypersensitivity reactions are mainly caused by nonionic monomeric compounds and represent an issue impacting the diagnostic–therapeutic pathways of cancer, cardiology and surgery patients. Objectives: To prospectively evaluate the usefulness of skin tests in delayed hypersensitivity reactions to ICM and to evaluate the tolerability of iobitridol, a monomeric nonionic low osmolality compound, as a possible safe alternative. Methods: Patients with delayed hypersensitivity reactions to ICM referred to us from 2020 to 2022 were prospectively enrolled in the study. All patients underwent patch test and, if negative, intradermal test with the culprit ICM and iobitridol as alternative. Results: A total of 37 patients (females 24, 64.9%) were enrolled in the study. Iodixanol and iomeprol were the most frequently involved ICM (48.5% and 35.2%, respectively); 62.2% of patients presented maculopapular eruption, while 37.8% reported delayed urticaria‐like rash. Skin tests resulted positive to the culprit ICM in 19 patients (51.4%), 16 to patch test and 3 to intradermal test. Skin tests with iobitridol, tested as alternative, resulted positive in 3/19 patients (15.8%). All 16 patients with negative results to iobitridol were administered this ICM and tolerated it. Conclusions: In at least half of patients, delayed‐type hypersensitivity was demonstrated by skin tests, particularly by patch test. This diagnostic approach resulted simple, cost‐effective and safe, not only to confirm the culprit ICM but also to identify iobitridol as feasible alternative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Amoxicillin (AX) combined or not with clavulanic acid (CLV) is frequently involved in IgE‐mediated reactions. Drug provocation test (DPT) is considered as the gold standard for diagnosis, although contraindicated in high‐risk patients. Basophil activation test (BAT) can help diagnose immediate reactions to beta‐lactams, although controversy exists regarding the best activation marker. We have performed a real‐life study in a prospective cohort to analyze the real value of BAT as diagnostic tool and the best activation marker, CD63 and CD203c, for the evaluation of immediate reactions to these drugs. Methods: We prospectively evaluated patients with a clinical suspicion of immediate reactions after AX or AX‐CLV administration during a 6‐year period. The allergological work‐up was done following the EAACI recommendations. BAT was performed in all patients using CD63 and CD203c as activation markers. Results: In AX‐allergic patients, both activation markers, CD63 and CD203c, showed similar SE values (48.6% and 46.7%, respectively); however, specificity was of 81.1% and 94.6%, respectively, with CD203c showing good positive predictive value and like‐hood ratio. In CLV‐allergic patients, CD203c showed higher SE (50%) than CD63 (42.9%), maintaining the same value of SP (80%). Combining the results of both markers can slightly increase the sensitivity (51.4% for AX and 54.8% for CLV), although decreasing the specificity (79.7% and 73%, respectively). Interestingly, all patients with an anaphylactic shock showed a positive BAT to CLV using CD203c. Conclusions: BAT using CD203c showed a good confirmatory power, especially for AX allergy. Placing BAT as a first step in the diagnostic procedure can help reduce the need of performing a complete allergological work‐up in 46.6% of patients, diminishing the risk of reinducing allergic reactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We aimed to assess the real-life prevalence, patient profile, and clinical presentation of drug hypersensitivity to NSAIDs in children after an incidence of an adverse event during treatment, verified by a drug challenge test. Methods: We included 56 children, aged 4–18 years, referred to our allergy clinic due to the incidence of adverse reaction during treatment. Skin prick tests and a drug provocation test were performed in all patients. Diagnostics for persistent urticaria were performed. Results: In 56 patients suspected of drug allergy, we proved NSAID hypersensitivity in 17 patients (30.1%). In 84.9% (n = 47) of patients, the clinical manifestations of hypersensitivity revealed angioedema and urticaria. The most common culprit drug among NSAIDs in children was ibuprofen. Thirty-one (55.4%) reactions were immediate, and 25 (44.6%) were delayed or late. Previous history of allergy was a risk factor for NSAID hypersensitivity (p = 0.001). Vitamin D deficiency in the blood serum was a risk factor for NASID hypersensitivity (OR = 5.76 (95% Cl: 1.42–23.41)). Conclusions: Hypersensitivity to NSAIDs is a difficult diagnostic problem in pediatric allergy. The most common manifestation of hypersensitivity to ibuprofen in children is acute urticaria and angioedema. Two important problems in the differential diagnosis are cofactors such as vitamin D levels and viral infections, which require further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: On average about 10% of parents report hypersensitivity to at least 1 drug in their children. After diagnosis process a few of these reactions are being confirmed as drug hypersensitivity reactions. The aim of the study was to assess the real-life prevalence of drug hypersensitivity in children based on drug provocation tests. Material and Methods: The authors included 113 children, aged 4-18 years, referred to Pediatrics and Allergy Clinic in Łódź, Poland, due to incidence of adverse reaction during treatment. Medical history regarding allergies to drugs was taken in accordance to the form developed by the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System. Skin prick tests, intradermal test and drug provocation test were performed in all patients. Results: In all 113 patients suspected of drug allergy, after all diagnostic procedures, the authors proved IgE-mediated allergy to ß-lactams, nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs, local anesthetics in 19 patients (16.8%). Previous history of allergy was a risk factor for drug allergy in studied patients (p = 0.001). The most frequent symptoms of allergy were urticaria and erythematous papular rash. Conclusions: Drug allergy is a difficult problem in the practice of a doctor and is difficult to diagnose, especially in the pediatric population. It seems that too often isolated symptoms reported during infection or disease are taken as a symptom of drug allergy, and not as a symptom resulting from the course of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Chemotherapy drugs have been in our lives for a long time, and all agents have the potential to develop hypersensitivity. Rapid drug desensitization is an option when hypersensitivity develops. The aim of this study was to examine the characteristics, diagnostic processes, and treatment results of patients with chemotherapeutic agent hypersensitivity who applied to our tertiary reference center. Methods: Patients who applied to our tertiary allergy outpatient clinic between January 2016 and September 2022 due to chemotherapy-induced drug hypersensitivity were examined. Demographic data of the patients, cancer diagnoses, chemotherapy regimens, skin tests, premedication scheme, desensitization cycle were evaluated. We applied a 16-step desensitization in patients with index reaction anaphylaxis or positive skin tests. If the index reaction was not anaphylaxis or skin tests were negative, we applied a 12-step desensitization. If the prick test with chemotherapeutic drugs was negative especially with taxanes, premedication was administered. We used the montelukast, cetirizine, and methylprednisolone for premedication. Results: Fifty-one patients were evaluated; 35 (68.6%) were female. The most common malignancy was colorectal cancer in 17 (33.3%) patients. The most common agent responsible for hypersensitivity was oxaliplatin in 17 (33.3%) patients, followed by paclitaxel in 13 (25.4%). When the symptoms of immediate reaction to chemotherapeutic drugs were analyzed as described in the EAACI position paper, only skin and mucosal involvement was seen in 24 (46.8%) patients; only respiratory system involvement or back pain was seen in 3 (6.2%) patients; multisystem involvement meeting the criteria for anaphylaxis was seen in 24 (47%) patients. Skin test was positive in 17 (56.6%) of 30 patients who developed a reaction with platin. Prolonged anaphylaxis was developed in 1 patient, and desensitization was not performed again. Fifty of 51 patients were able to receive the target chemotherapy dose by desensitization. In total, a 172-step desensitization was applied to 51 patients. Conclusion: If completing the cycle is considered a treatment success, this was achieved in 98% (50/51) patients with rapid drug desensitization. This gives us the opportunity to use first-line chemotherapy agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drug hypersensitivity reactions are a serious concern in clinical practice because they can be severe and result in lifelong sequelae. An accurate diagnosis and identification of the culprit drug is essential to prevent future reactions as well as for the identification of safe treatment alternatives. Nonetheless, the diagnosis can be challenging. In vivo and in vitro tests can be helpful, although none are conclusive; therefore, the tests are not usually performed in isolation but as part of a diagnostic algorithm. In addition, some in vitro tests are only available in research laboratories, and standardization has not been fully accomplished. Collaborating research is needed to improve drug hypersensitivity reaction diagnosis. In this review, we update the current available in vivo and in vitro tools with their pros and cons and propose an algorithm to integrate them into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A proper allergy work‐up, based on the gold standard drug provocation test (DPT), usually rules out suspected drug hypersensitivity in children. These tests are generally open, given their high efficiency compared with double‐blind placebo‐controlled DPTs. Although their negative predictive value is excellent, no studies have calculated their positive predictive value, highly dependent on the prevalence of the disease. Most studies have found a rate of <5%–10% of true beta‐lactam hypersensitivity in children. Given this low prevalence (pre‐test probability), a few false‐positive results can significantly reduce the estimated positive predictive value. False positives may arise from the nocebo effect during the test, including nocebo by proxy, or from observer bias, which depends on professional expertise and organizational circumstances. Some studies have found a high rate of tolerance on a second DPT in children who failed the first, but these results may be affected by the interval between the two tests, of a year or more in most cases, reflecting a loss of hypersensitivity over time. Taking into account the low rate of positive DPTs, with commonly mild reactions, we suggest confirming nonsevere positive DPTs with a second provocation performed soon after the first, especially in the case of beta‐lactam antibiotics, in order to improve the diagnostic accuracy, de‐label more patients, and achieve a better estimation of true drug hypersensitivity prevalence. In case of mild immediate reactions, the potential benefits of a second DPT should be carefully weighed against the risk of anaphylaxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Denmark, tests for specific IgE to penicillins have been used routinely for many years in penicillin allergy investigation. Keywords: anaphylaxis; drug allergy; drug hypersensitivity; immediate type hypersensitivity; penicillin; penicillin allergy; penicillin minor determinants; specific IgE; specific IgE to penicillins EN anaphylaxis drug allergy drug hypersensitivity immediate type hypersensitivity penicillin penicillin allergy penicillin minor determinants specific IgE specific IgE to penicillins 887 890 4 08/14/23 20230801 NES 230801 Key points Specific IgE to penicillins have been recommended in the context of immediate-type allergic reactions. Our study shows that compared to the four commonly used specific IgE assays for penicillins specific IgE MD was positive in a further 29.4% of patients with suspicion of penicillin hypersensitivity, which might increase the sensitivity of penicillin sIgE testing. [Extracted from the article]

Anaphylaxis is a rapid-onset, life-threatening allergic reaction that needs immediate medical intervention. Typically, immunoglobulin E (IgE) mediated, these reactions necessitate skin testing for assessing drug hypersensitivity. A 31-year-old woman with cervical carcinoma, scheduled for a total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy under general anesthesia (GA), experienced preoperative urticaria and palpitations, during a blood transfusion. Administering intravenous (IV) pheniramine, ranitidine, and dexamethasone resolved symptoms, allowing surgery under GA. However, post atracurium injection, she developed generalized urticaria and mild hypotension. IV pheniramine and hydrocortisone stabilized her, prompting surgery deferral for an allergology workup. The skin testing was performed, and all drugs tested negative. To prevent non-IgE-mediated reactions, a preoperative regimen of pheniramine 25 mg, prednisolone 50 mg, and famotidine 20 mg was recommended. Subsequently, surgery was performed under GA, using propofol and rocuronium, with the whole perioperative period remaining uneventful. This case underscores the imperative role of skin testing in elucidating perioperative drug usage amid suspected or encountered drug allergies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Polish Journal of Allergology / Alergologia Polska is the property of Termedia Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Anaphylactic reactions are a well-known feature of mastocytosis, particularly in relation to hymenoptera venom stings. Although data on the frequency of drug hypersensitivity reactions is limited in mastocytosis, it is hypothesized that these patients may be predisposed to hypersensitivity reactions to certain drugs, including antibiotics. Nevertheless, this issue has not been systematically investigated. Thus, we investigate the prevalence and clinical features of hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics (HRA) in mastocytosis. Methods: A 15-year retrospective study was conducted among 239 (≥18 years old) consecutive mastocytosis patients who were investigated in our center. All patients underwent a thorough allergy work-up, where self-reported reactions were individually evaluated by an allergist. Results: Overall, 34 patients (14.2%) were deemed to have HRA. Most patients reacted with cutaneous symptoms (74%), and anaphylaxis was rare, confirmed only in two of 34 patients (0.8%). Beta-lactams were the most common elicitors (63%). There were no differences in age, gender, atopic status and tryptase levels between mastocytosis patients with and without antibiotic hypersensitivity. Conclusions: The present study indicates a similar prevalence of HRA in mastocytosis compared to those of the general population. Moreover, antibiotics appear to be rare elicitors of anaphylaxis in these patients. Hence, our results suggest that mastocytosis patients without a history of HRA may be treated with these drugs without special precautions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The list of drugs patients may be exposed to during the perioperative and postoperative periods is potentially extensive. It includes induction agents, neuromuscular blocking drugs (NMBDs), opioids, antibiotics, sugammadex, colloids, local anesthetics, polypeptides, antifibrinolytic agents, heparin and related anticoagulants, blue dyes, chlorhexidine, and a range of other agents depending on several factors related to individual patients' clinical condition and progress in the postoperative recovery period. To avoid poor or ultrarapid metabolizers to a particular drug (for example tramadol and codeine) or possible adverse drug reactions (ADRs), some drugs may need to be avoided during or after surgery. This will be the case for patients with a history of anaphylaxis or other adverse events/intolerances to a known drug. Other drugs may be ceased for a period before surgery, e.g., anticoagulants that increase the chance of bleeding; diuretics for patients with acute renal failure; antihypertensives relative to kidney injury after major vascular surgery; and serotonergic drugs that together with some opioids may rarely induce serotonin toxicity. Studies of germline variations shown by genotyping and phenotyping to identify a predisposition of genetic factors to ADRs offer an increasingly important approach to individualize drug therapy. Studies of associations of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes with some serious delayed immune-mediated reactions are ongoing and variations of drug-metabolizing cytochrome CYP450 enzymes, P-glycoprotein, and catechol-O-methyltransferase show promise for the assessment of ADRs and non-responses to drugs, particularly opioids and other analgesics. Surveys of ADRs from an increasing number of institutions often cover small numbers of patients, are retrospective in nature, fail to clearly identify culprit drugs, and do not adequately distinguish immune-mediated from non-immune-mediated anaphylactoid reactions. From the many surveys undertaken, the large list of agents identified during and after anesthesia and surgery are examined for their ADR involvement. Drugs are classified into those most often involved, (NMBD and antibiotics); drugs that are becoming more frequently implicated, namely antibiotics (particularly teicoplanin), and blue dyes; those becoming less frequently involved; and drugs more rarely involved in perioperative, and postoperative adverse reactions but still important and necessary to keep in mind for the occasional potential sensitive patient. Clinicians should be aware of the similarities between drug-induced true allergic type I IgE/FcεRI- and pseudoallergic MRGPRX2-mediated ADRs, the clinical features of each, and their distinguishing characteristics. Procedures for identifying MRGPRX2 agonists and diagnosing and distinguishing pseudoallergic from allergic reaction mechanisms are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics are the most often involved drugs in allergic reactions. Mild cutaneous reactions such as maculopapular exanthema or urticaria are the most common presenting complaints of BL allergy in the pediatric population. However, it can be challenging to distinguish BL-induced allergy from reactions due to infections or other reasons. In this study, we aimed to determine the clinical characteristics and potential risk factors of true BL allergy in children with suspected mild cutaneous reactions to BLs. Methods: We evaluated children who were admitted to our pediatric allergy clinic with suspected BL allergy in between January 2015 and March 2020. Patients with a history suggestive of immediate and non-immediate mild cutaneous reactions were included in the study. The oral challenge test (OCT) with the culprit drug was performed on all patients to confirm the diagnosis. Results: Two hundred fourteen (119 male and 95 female) patients with a median age of 4.9 years were evaluated. BL allergy was confirmed in 10.7% (23) of the patients, according to the OCT results. Most of the proven allergic reactions were of the immediate type (73.9%), and urticaria was the most common presenting complaint (60.8%) in proven BL-allergic patients. The negative predictive value of penicillin-G skin testing was 89.7% for immediate-type penicillin allergy and 93.4% for non-immediate reactions. Also, positive predictive value of penicillin-G skin testing was 50% for immediate and 25% for non-immediate reactions. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, a history of proven drug allergy (Exp (B): 7.76, 95% CI: 1.88–31.97, p = 0.005) was found to be the risk for BL allergy. Conclusion: This study highlighted that OCTs should be performed to confirm the diagnosis in patients suspected of immediate and non-immediate mild cutaneous reactions to BLs and remove the overestimated "BL allergy" label. In these patients, a history of proven drug allergy might be a risk factor for true BL allergy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drug provocation testing in the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions: general considerations. Beta-lactams (BLs) are the main suspected culprits in drug hypersensitivity in children. Oral drug challenges are the gold standard for drug hypersensitivity diagnosis and to delabel BL hypersensitivity. In studies that enrolled patients with adverse drug events that occurred >6 h after medication administration, drug hypersensitivities were generally less prevalent. [Extracted from the article]

Background: The mechanism of immediate reactions to drugs or vaccines containing polyethylene glycol (PEG) and PEG derivatives is not fully elucidated. It is considered in many instances to be IgE-mediated. Diagnosis and management of PEG allergy is topical, as BNT162b and mRNA-1273 contain PEG (2[PEG-2000]-N), and ChAdOx1-S and NVX-CoV2373 contain polysorbate 80. mRNA vaccines contain PEG 2000, which encapsulates the mRNA to impair its degradation. This PEG MW is specific to mRNA vaccines and is not used in other drugs and vaccines. PEG 2000 allergy is not well studied, as higher PEG molecular weights are implicated in most of the PEG allergy published in the literature. Methods: We performed a literature review on PEG allergy and sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of our protocol for assessment of PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80 reactions in an outpatient clinic setting. All patients referred to our drug allergy service between 1 July 2021 and 31 December 2021 with suspected immediate allergy to PEG or its derivatives were eligible for the study. Skin testing (ST) and basophil activation testing (BAT) were performed for all patients to multiple PEG molecular weights (MWs). Results: We reviewed twenty patients during the study period. Five patients were allergic. Fifteen patients had a masquerade of allergy and were enrolled as control patients. PEG 2000, polysorbate 80, BNT162b, and ChAdOx1-S had excellent performance characteristics on skin testing. BAT showed high specificity for all vaccines and PEG MWs. Discussion: In our small study, we found ST and BAT to add useful information, particularly for PEG 2000 allergy. Further study of our protocol in larger patient cohorts will provide more information on its performance characteristics and usefulness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute Localized Exanthematous Pustulosis (ALEP) is a rare skin reaction characterized by the sudden onset of multiple, small, sterile, non-follicular pustules in an erythematous and edematous base succeeding systemic drug administration. ALEP is considered a subtype of Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosis (AGEP), although the exact pathogenic mechanism of the disease remains poorly defined. Numerous drugs have been implicated in the pathogenesis of ALEP, while contact mechanisms have also been reported. Herein, we describe the first case of ALEP attributed to minoxidil in a female patient with androgenetic alopecia. The positivity of patch tests and the topical application of minoxidil proposes a contact-induced hypersensitivity reaction. Identifying new agents—including minoxidil—which serve as inducers of drug-specific T-cell-mediated responses in the clinical spectrum of ALEP, adds further value in understanding the complex, yet unknown, pathophysiological mechanisms of this rare drug hypersensitivity reaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mislabeling of drug allergic histories causes avoidable negative impacts on patients and healthcare system. Although multidisciplinary adverse drug reaction (ADR) services to verify and de-label drug allergic histories have been operated in particular hospitals in Thailand, their performances have not been reported. This research aimed to examine the effectiveness of verification of drug allergic history and de-labeling (VD) services of the physician-led multidisciplinary ADR clinic. Methods: This research was a retrospective descriptive study. Medical charts of patients with at least one drug allergic history who received VD services at the multidisciplinary clinic between January 2017 to December 2018, were reviewed. Data on the history of drug allergy, VD services, and results were analyzed and presented using descriptive statistics. Results: Seventy patients' charts were reviewed, and 171 unconfirmed drug allergic histories were identified. 79.53% of the reported reactions involved skin and soft tissues. The most found adverse skin reactions were maculopapular rash, pruritic and erythematous rash, and angioedema. The remaining 20.47% were systemic reactions which included drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), anaphylaxis, and nausea/vomiting was the most prevalent. Antituberculosis, beta-lactam antibiotics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the most reported suspected drugs. Drug allergic history reviewing by physicians or pharmacists could confirm and de-label for 3 and 20 reactions, respectively. Seven and one reactions were confirmed by enzyme‐linked immunospot assay and patch test, respectively. The provocation tests with the suspected or alternative drug were conducted in 64 reactions. Twelve reactions were confirmed, and 45 reactions were de-labeled. Totally, 65/171 (38.01%) allergic histories were successfully de-labeled, 23/171 (13.45%) were confirmed, and 83/171 (48.53%) were inconclusive. Conclusions: More than half of drug allergic histories were successfully confirmed or de-labeled by the multidisciplinary ADR team. The collaborative activities of various healthcare professionals, consisting of physicians, nurse, and pharmacists as presented in the study were effective in VD services and should be implemented in other healthcare settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Drug patch testing has been proposed as a helpful investigation upon suspecting drug allergy. We evaluated the value of drug patch testing in Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions (CADRs). Methods: All patients with a diagnosis of CADRs were patch tested with suspected drugs. Results: Of 122 patients with CADRs, 44.3% had at least one positive result after drug patch testing, P value = 0.312. Drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptom (DRESS) rendered the highest positive patch testing at 53.9%, followed by a maculopapular rash (MP) at 49.0%, fixed drug eruption (FDE) at 48.3%, lichenoid drug eruption and Stevens‐Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN) at 25.0% each. Lichenoid drug eruption had the longest mean onset of almost 2.5 years. One hundred and twenty‐eight drugs and herbal medicines were tested. About 32.8% of these drugs gave a positive result, P value = 0.041. Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the most common positive drug especially for fixed drug eruption (FDE), followed by antiretroviral and antibiotics, which were the most common positive drugs for MP. While anti‐Tuberculosis (anti‐TB) drugs and antihypertensives together with lipid‐lowering drugs were the most common for DRESS and lichenoid eruption, respectively. Subgroup analysis among HIV patients showed a 61.5% positive patch test. The median CD4 count in the positive group was 43.5 cells/mm3. Conclusion: We recommend drug patch testing as a safe method to identify the culprit drug in CADRs, especially DRESS, MP, and FDE. In HIV patients, the positive test was associated with low CD4 count and copositive reaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drug hypersensitivity reactions are classified into immediate and delayed types, according to the onset time. In contrast to the immediate type, delayed drug hypersensitivity mainly involves T lymphocyte recognition of the drug antigens and cell activation. The clinical presentations of such hypersensitivity are various and range from mild reactions (e.g., maculopapular exanthema (MPE) and fixed drug eruption (FDE)), to drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) (e.g., Stevens–Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP)). The common culprits of delayed drug hypersensitivity include anti-epileptics, antibiotics, anti-gout agents, anti-viral drugs, etc. Delayed drug hypersensitivity is proposed to be initiated by different models of molecular recognition, composed of drug/metabolite antigen and endogenous peptide, HLA presentation, and T cell receptor (TCR) interaction. Increasing the genetic variants of HLA loci and drug metabolic enzymes has been identified to be responsible for delayed drug hypersensitivity. Furthermore, preferential TCR clonotypes, and the activation of cytotoxic proteins/cytokines/chemokines, are also involved in the pathogenesis of delayed drug hypersensitivity. This review provides a summary of the current understanding of the molecular recognition, genetic susceptibility, and immune mediators of delayed drug hypersensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Frequent mislabelled causal relationship between drug hypersensitivity reactions and culprit drugs reinforces the need for an accurate diagnosis. The systematic reviews and meta-analyses of in vitro assays published so far focused on immediate reactions and the most severe delayed reactions, while the most frequent drug-induced delayed reactions—nonsevere exanthemas—have been underestimated. We aim to fill this gap. A systematic review of studies on in vitro assays used in the diagnosis of nonsevere drug-induced delayed reactions was conducted following the methodology of Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Statement. The EMBASE and PubMed databases were searched. We have included 33 studies from which we extracted the data, then performed meta-analysis where possible, or synthesised the evidence narratively. The quality of the analysed studies was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. The tests identified the most frequently were lymphocyte transformation test (LTT), ELISpot, and ELISA. In the meta-analysis carried out for LTT in reactions induce by beta-lactams, the pool estimate of sensitivity and specificity amounted to 49.1% (95% CI: 14.0%, 85.0%) and 94.6% (95% CI: 81.7%, 98.6%), respectively. The studies showed heterogeneity in study design and laboratory settings, which resulted in a wide range of specificity and sensitivity of testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccine components are rare but should be considered. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is responsible for anaphylaxis in mRNA vaccines. Skin tests have been used in the allergological work-up programs for COVID-19 vaccine evaluation. However, the reproducibility of the skin prick test is time-dependent and the reactivity declines over time. Therefore, we combined the administration of the skin tests with the basophil activation test (BAT) using PEG2000, PEG4000 and DMG-PEG2000, where the BAT was considered positive when the percentage of activated basophils was higher than 6%, 5% and 6.5%, for PEG 4000, PEG2000 and DMG-PEG2000, respectively. To this end, among the subjects that underwent allergy counseling at the Allergy Unit of our Institution during the 2020/2021 vaccination campaign, 13 patients had a suggested medical history of PEG/drug hypersensitivity and were enrolled together with 10 healthy donors. Among the enrolled patients 2 out of 13 tested patients were positive to the skin test. The BAT was negative in terms of the percentages of activated basophils in all analyzed samples, but the stimulation index (SI) was higher than 2.5 in 4 out of 13 patients. These data evidenced that, when the SI is higher than 2.5, even in the absence of positivity to BAT, the BAT to PEG may be a useful tool to be coupled to skin tests to evidence even low-grade reactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Dermatologie Pro Praxi is the property of SOLEN sro and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are a type of adverse drug reactions with heterogeneous pathophysiological mechanisms and a broad spectrum of clinical manifestations. Since over-diagnosing is common in children, a complete allergy work-up is needed. A cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary care institution, covering the five-year period. Five hundred and four patients of both sexes, mean age 7.5 and with a medical history suggestive of DHR were evaluated. ENDA/EAACI guidelines were used for a diagnostic algorithm. Single drug hypersensitivity was registered in 375 patients and multiple drug hypersensitivity in 129. The main culprits in medical history were antibiotics (83%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (8.4%) and analgoantipyretics (3.8%). Skin involvement was registered in 96.2%. DHRs were confirmed in 4.4% patients—six patients had positive skin tests and 13 had a positive drug provocation test. In the proven DHRs group, the main agents were antibiotics (72.7%), followed by NSAIDs (8.3%), and of all the skin manifestations, urticaria was most common (78.2%), followed by exanthema (10.5%) and angioedema (5.3%). Considering the above, anticipating DHRs and a proper referral of children to an allergologist is a key step in the assessment of drug hypersensitivity. A complete allergy work-up prevents unnecessary drug exclusion and allows most children to safely continue the use of first-line medications when needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oral drug provocation tests (DPT) are the basic diagnostic tool for the detection of hypersensitivity to non-opioid analgesics and for selecting a safe alternative for a patient. They are of great practical importance due to their common use, but the data on the follow-up of patients after negative DPT are still very scarce. We examined the further fate of 164 such adult patients after negative NSAID or paracetamol tests and analyzed which excipients in the studied drugs they could be exposed to after the diagnostic workup. A structured medical interview was performed 32.9 months (mean) after the provocation tests. Of the 164 patients, 131 (79.9%) retook the tested drug and 12 developed another hypersensitivity reaction, giving the estimated negative predictive value of 90.8%. These reactions were induced by acetylsalicylic acid, paracetamol, meloxicam, and diclofenac, and were clinically similar to the initial ones (most commonly urticaria and angioedema). There are 93 generics of these drugs on the local market, containing a total of 33 excipients for which hypersensitivity reactions have been reported. All available generics contain such excipients. Thirty-one patients (20.1%) did not take the previously tested drug again, most often because it was not needed or because they were afraid of another reaction. DPT with analgesics has a high diagnostic performance. A minority of patients had relapsed after reexposure. One of the underestimated reasons for this may be drug excipients provoking a reaction, so it is advisable to use exactly the same medical product that has been negatively tested. Many patients avoid reexposure to a given drug, despite negative tests, therefore very reliable patient education in connection with DPT is highly needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypersensitivity reactions to drugs are increasing worldwide. They display a large degree of variability in the immunological mechanisms involved, which impacts both disease severity and the optimal diagnostic procedure. Therefore, drug hypersensitivity diagnosis relies on both in vitro and in vivo assessments, although most of the methods are not well standardized. Moreover, several biomarkers can be used as valuable parameters for precision medicine that provide information on the endotypes, diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction of drug hypersensitivity development, as well on the identification of therapeutic targets and treatment efficacy monitoring. Furthermore, in the last 2 years, the SARS‐CoV‐2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus) pandemic has had an important impact on health system, leading us to update approaches on how to manage hypersensitivity reactions to drugs used for its treatment and on COVID‐19 (Coronavirus disease) vaccines used for its prevention. This article reviews recent advances in these 3 areas regarding drug hypersensitivity: in vitro tools for drug hypersensitivity diagnosis, recently identified biomarkers that could guide clinical decision making and management of hypersensitivity reactions to drugs and vaccines used for COVID‐19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research on the increasing incidence of allergic diseases evidenced the role of diet as a potential key factor. Diet can modulate the low-grade systemic inflammation related to obesity and several diseases. There are no published data on drug allergy. Aim: To investigate a potential association between diet, including dietary inflammatory index (DII), and drug allergy. Also, to evaluate correlations between diet and obesity, inflammatory and metabolic parameters in patients with drug allergy. Methods: Ninety consecutive patients studied for suspected drug allergy were evaluated in terms of dietary parameters, anthropometric measurements, bioimpedance and biochemical analysis. DII was calculated based on information collected from a food frequency questionnaire. Results: After diagnostic work-up, 39 patients had confirmed drug allergy and 45 excluded, representing the study group and the control group, respectively. The majority (79%) were female, with mean age of 39.58±13.3 years. The 84 subjects revealed an anti-inflammatory diet pattern. No significative difference was found in DII scores between drug allergic patients and controls (-3.37±0.95 vs -3.39±0.86, p = 0.985). However, the patients with drug allergy revealed higher obesity and inflammatory parameters. A significative negative correlation was found between DII and adiponectin levels, in the control group (r = -0.311, p = 0.040). In the patient group, a significative positive correlation was observed between DII and triglycerides (r = 0.359, p = 0.032). No other correlations were found between DII and the assessed parameters. Patients with drug allergy presented a significative higher intake of mono-unsaturated fatty-acids comparing to controls (19.8±3.7 vs 17.8 ± 4.0, p = 0.021). No other statistically significant differences were achieved in dietary parameters, between patients and controls. Conclusion: The population assessed in this study revealed an anti-inflammatory diet profile. Although we have found in a previous work that the same patients with drug allergy revealed higher obesity and inflammatory parameters, the DII did not allow to distinguish between patients with drug allergy or controls. The DII scores correlated with triglycerides levels in the drug allergy patients and inversely with adiponectin levels in the control group. Larger studies are needed to clarify the potential role of the diet in drug allergy and its outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) to antibiotics are common and a substantial issue in managing patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). This study aimed to assess the prevalence and clinical features as well as risk factors of DHR to antibiotics in CF. Method: A 20‐year retrospective study was conducted among 226 CF patients (100 children and 126 adults) attending our centre. The Swedish Registry for Cystic Fibrosis and electronic medical records enabled us to ascertain the number and routes of antibiotic courses. All suspected DHR were evaluated. Results: The patients had a total of 16 910 antibiotic courses, of which 6832 (40%) were intravenously administered. Of 226 enrolled CF patients, 70 (31%) developed overall 131 DHR to antibiotics. The prevalence of DHR increased with advancing age (P <.001). Beta‐lactams elicited 71% of all DHR and piperacillin was the most common single culprit (30% of intravenous and 24% of all DHR). Reactions were mild to moderate and mostly limited to skin; no severe cutaneous adverse reactions were observed. Additionally, anaphylaxis was rare, constituting 2.3% (3/131) of all DHR. Patients with DHR were exposed to significantly more courses of antibiotics than those without DHR (median 124 vs. 46, retrospectively, P <.001). Conclusions: DHR to antibiotics, particularly to beta‐lactams, are increased in CF patients, and associated with a higher number of cumulative exposures because of recurrent infections. However, severe cutaneous or systemic DHR, such as anaphylaxis, appear to be rare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) is an in vitro assay used to diagnose drug induced hypersensitivity reactions by detecting the activation and expansion of drug-specific memory T cells to the suspected implicated drug. Traditionally radiolabelled thymidine (3H-thymidine) has been used but requires the handling and disposal of radioactive materials. Objective: To examine safe alternatives to 3H-thymidine, test assay modifications for improved assay sensitivity and evaluate the modified LTT in patients with DRESS and AGEP. Methods: Four proliferation detection assays (BRDU, CyQUANT™, MTT and XTT) were screened for LTT sensitivity. XTT the most sensitive and practical was selected for further evaluation Modifications like autologous serum (AS) and regulatory T cell depletion (T-REG) were tested for improved assay sensitivity. Finally, an initial evaluation of the XTT–LTT was performed in 8 patients with DRESS and 2 with AGEP including cytokine testing. Results: Of the non-radioactive alternatives we tested, XTT a colorimetric assay was the most sensitive and practical to move to evaluation. The addition of AS increased background signal. Depletion of T-REGs improved sensitivity but cell sorting time and risk of contamination limited benefit. Of eight patients diagnosed with DRESS and 2 with AGEP tested with XTT–LTT assay results showed our assay matched clinical findings of implicated drugs in 8/10 patients when using a stimulation index (SI) ≥ 2 and 8/10 with analysis by ANOVA. All ten patients were correctly diagnosed by either analysis. Conclusion: XTT appears to be a safe, viable alternative to 3H-thymidine, with high sensitivity and allowing direct cytokine quantification on specific patient cells. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recurrence of DRESS syndrome is poorly characterized, and dermatologists must be prepared to predict, identify, and manage patients after treatment of the initial presentation. In this study, a primary literature search was conducted using PubMed, capturing all articles recording cases of DRESS syndrome recurrence. Forty-two articles were included for review comprising a total of 60 patients. The average age of patients was 46.3 years and time to recurrence was 123 days. Recurrent episodes presented more frequently with a higher fever and eosinophil absolute peak. Relapse was most often attributed to the introduction of a new medication (n = 18). Of the 17 cases in which outcome data were available, the survival rate of those experiencing recurrence was 71%. Viral reactivation with HHV-6 and organ involvement of the liver were frequently recorded complications. In essence, viral reactivation, severe internal organ involvement, and hematological abnormalities all portended a poorer prognosis in those experiencing DRESS syndrome recurrence. An adequate course of treatment should be maintained until clinical and laboratory parameters normalize, with a slow taper to minimize the likelihood of relapse in those most at risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Allergic patients may develop reactions following COVID-19 vaccination more frequently than non-allergic individuals. The aim of our study was to assess the risk of reactions in high-risk allergic patients vaccinated for COVID-19 at the University Health Agency Giuliano-Isontina (ASUGI) of Trieste (northeastern Italy). Methods. Patients were considered at high risk for allergic reactions in case of: prior anaphylactic reaction to any drug/vaccine; multiple drug allergy; intolerance to polyethylene glycol (PEG) or polysorbate 80 (PS80) containing drugs; and mast cell disorders. High-risk allergic patients were immunized in hospital by a dedicated allergy team supported by resuscitation staff. Patients were interviewed over the phone one month after vaccination to complete a structured questionnaire investigating signs and symptoms developed after immunization. Results. From March 2021 to February 2022, 269 patients with a history of severe allergic reactions were assessed, of whom 208 (77.3%) eventually received COVID-19 vaccination, 50 (18.6%) refused to be immunized, 10 (3.7%) were deferred for medical reasons and one was declared exempted due to testing positive for PS80. Mild reactions (urticaria, angioedema, rhinitis, erythema) to COVID-19 vaccines were reported by 30.3% of patients, 8.7% within 4 h and 21.6% > 4 h after immunization. No anaphylactic events were observed. Although they were 80 times (3.8%) more prevalent than in COVID-19 vaccinees from the general population (0.047%), vaccine allergic reactions in high-risk patients were mainly mild and late, more likely affecting women (OR = 3.05; 95% CI 1.22–7.65). Conclusions. High-risk allergic patients with urticaria and angioedema may experience mild flare-ups of mast cell activation-like symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination, supporting antihistamine premedication before vaccination and to be continued for one week afterwards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Drug hypersensitivity reactions are immunologically mediated reactions resulting in the production of drug-specific antibodies and/or T-cells and constituting only <15% of all drug reactions. Based on the clinical observations, both patients and their parents refer to any undesirable drug reactions as drug allergy, regardless of whether the underlying mechanism is immunological or not. After allergy examinations, only a small percentage of the patients who were reported positive for drug reactions based on their clinical history are actually confirmed to have hypersensitivity. This study aims to determine the actual frequency of drug allergies in children, the drugs that cause the most common allergies in patients with a complaint of drug allergy and evaluate the accompanying demographic and clinical features. Methods: The study evaluated data from a total of 266 patients (ages of 0-18) with suspected drug allergy during a 3-year period. Twenty-four patients with doctor-diagnosed drug-related anaphylaxis and 85 patients who did not accept diagnostic tests were excluded from the study and the study continued with a total of 157 patients. The allergy work-up consisted of in vivo and in vitro tests, in accordance with the recommendations of the ENDA/EAACI guidelines. Results: Data from a group of 157 patients (M [54.6%]; F [45.4%]) were retrospectively analyzed. Beta-lactams (BLs) were the most common drugs involved in the reported clinical history followed by non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Allergic reactions occurred on the median 1st day (min: 1-max: 8) after drug intake and were most frequently observed as urticaria (55.3%). Immediate reactions (IRs) were observed in 53.5% and non-IRs in 46.5% of the patients. Conclusion: Our data demonstrated that only 15.5% of patients confirmed to be positive to allergy during testing which is in line with the data in the literature. An allergy work-up is mandatory for excluding suspected hypersensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most severe forms of cutaneous adverse drug reactions is "drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms" (DRESS), hence subsequent avoidance of the causal drug is imperative. However, attribution of drug culpability in DRESS is challenging and standard skin allergy tests are not recommended due to patient safety reasons. Whilst incidence of DRESS is relatively low, between 1:1000 and 1:10 000 drug exposures, antibiotics are a commoner cause of DRESS and absence of confirmatory diagnostic test can result in unnecessary avoidance of efficacious treatment. We therefore sought to identify potential biomarkers for development of a diagnostic test in antibiotic-associated DRESS. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells from a "discovery" cohort (n  = 5) challenged to causative antibiotic or control were analyzed for transcriptomic profile. A panel of genes was then tested in a validation cohort (n  = 6) and compared with tolerant controls and other inflammatory conditions which can clinically mimic DRESS. A scoring system to identify presence of drug hypersensitivity was developed based on gene expression alterations of this panel. The DRESS transcriptomic panel identified antibiotic-DRESS cases in a validation cohort but was not altered in other inflammatory conditions. Machine learning or differential expression selection of a biomarker panel consisting of 6 genes (STAC, GPR183, CD40, CISH, CD4, and CCL8) showed high sensitivity and specificity (100% and 85.7%–100%, respectively) for identification of the culprit drug in these cohorts of antibiotic-associated DRESS. Further work is required to determine whether the same panel can be repeated for larger cohorts, different medications, and other T-cell-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is Known and Objective: Allopurinol‐induced drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a rare but serious and potentially life‐threatening drug hypersensitivity syndrome. In this study, we aimed to investigate the clinical features, treatment outcomes, and prognostic factors of allopurinol‐induced DRESS. Methods: Case reports of allopurinol‐induced DRESS published by China from January 2000 to August 2021 were retrieved from CNKI, Wan Fang, VIP, and PubMed databases for analysis. Results and Discussion: This study included 52 patients, consisting of 41 (78.8%) males and 11 (21.2%) females (M:F = 3.7:1). The mean of age was 56.1 ± 17.1 years (range: 18–86 years). The mean of latency periods was 24.6 ± 15.0 days (range:1‐63 days). Most patients presented with fever, cutaneous eruption, eosinophilia, lymphadenopathy, and facial edema. 36/52 (69.2%) patients showed two or more internal organs involved. Liver and kidney injuries were the most common visceral manifestation. Pulmonary involvement (34.6%), cardiac involvement (25.0%) and gastrointestinal involvement (21.2%) were relatively less known but severe complications. 2/52 (3.8%) patients showed nervous system involved, presenting as leukoencephalopathy or peripheral neuropathy. 2/52 (3.8%) patients presented with secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis.1/52 (1.9%) patient developed pure red cell aplasia and 1/52 (1.9%) patient developed painless thyroiditis. HLA*B 58:01 allele was tested in 18/52 (34.6%) patients. 16/18 (88.9%) cases were positive. 48/52 (92.3%) patients were treated with systemic corticosteroids. 16/52 (30.8%) patients were cured, 23/52 (44.2%) patients received partial recovery, and 13/52 (25.0%) patients were died. Septic shock, gastrointestinal bleeding and multiple organ failure were the leading causes of death. Advanced age, underlying cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease and high dose of allopurinol, infection and internal organ involvement (including kidney, heart, lung and gastrointestinal tract) were risk factors for death. What is New and Conclusion: We explored clinical features, treatment outcomes and prognostic factors of 52 allopurinol‐induced DRESS cases in China. Ethnicity, especially Han Chinese, and positive HLA‐B*58:01 allele are the clearest risk factors so far. Advanced age, underlying cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease and high dose of allopurinol, infection and internal organ involvement (including kidney, heart, lung and gastrointestinal tract) were associated with poorer outcomes. Early identification and discontinuation of the causative drug are crucial to the management of DRESS. For patients with severe disease, corticosteroids are recommended as the first‐line therapy. However, further studies are needed to address diagnostic criteria of DRESS for early diagnosis, as well as to develop standardized corticosteroid treatment regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To date, no study has identified a clear relationship between drug and a specific clinical presentation of DRESS. Objectives: To investigate the particularities of DRESS and analyze the variation of DRESS pattern according to culprit drugs. Methods: We analyzed cases of DRESS notified to the Department of Clinical Pharmacology at the University Hospital of Monastir over a 15-year period. The statistical study was performed using the comparative and multivariate analysis. Results: DRESS was mostly induced by anticonvulsive agents (27%) followed by allopurinol (26.3%) and antibiotics (24%): For anticonvulsive agents, the occurrence of lymphadenopathy was higher, renal involvement was rare and mild, and positive skin tests were more frequent. The allopurinol group was associated with the patient's older age and a lower incidence of lymphadenopathy and kidney injury. For antibiotics, eosinophilia rate was lower, time to recovery was shorter, and RegiSCAR score was low. The multivariate analysis showed a link of allopurinol with severe renal impairment, antibiotics with short latency period and low RegiSCAR score, and anticonvulsants with high propensity of positive skin test. Conclusion: We report the largest African and south Mediterranean cohort of DRESS and evaluated the usefulness of skin tests in identifying the culprit drug. The prominent finding was that latency period and renal involvement may independently differ according to culprit drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anaphylaxis is a rare side-effect of COVID-19 vaccines. To (a) provide direct advice and reassurance to certain persons with a history of anaphylaxis/complex allergy, in addition to that available in national guidelines, and (b) to provide a medically supervised vaccination, a specialist regional vaccine allergy clinic was established. The main objective was to determine if risk stratification through history can lead to safe COVID-19 vaccination for maximum population coverage. A focused history was taken to establish contraindications to giving COVID-19 vaccines. People who reported a high-risk allergy history were given a vaccine not containing the excipient thought to have directly caused previous anaphylaxis. All vaccines were monitored for 30 min after administration. A total of 206 people were vaccinated between 6 July 2021 and 31 August 2021; Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) (n = 34), and Janssen (n = 172). In total, 78% were women. Ninety-two people (45%) reported a high-risk allergy history. There were no cases of anaphylaxis. Three people developed urticaria and one of these also developed transient tachycardia. One vaccinee developed a pseudoseizure. Two of 208 people (<1%) referred during this time declined vaccination based on personal preference, despite the assessment of low clinical risk. In our experience, all vaccines with high-risk allergy histories were administered Pfizer BioNTech or Janssen Covid-19 vaccines uneventfully following screening based on allergy-focussed history. Our data support that drug allergy is not associated with a higher risk of vaccine-related anaphylaxis but may act to guide the administration of alternate vaccines to people with polyethylene glycol/polysorbate 80/trometamol allergies or anaphylaxis after the first dose. Individuals with complex allergy histories have experienced COVID-19 vaccine delay and there have been many reports of both immediate and delayed reactions to prior COVID-19 vaccination doses. The study demonstrates a successful strategy for vaccinating the majority of people with documented allergy history, showing those deemed high-risk can be vaccinated safely following screening based on an allergy-focussed history, without need for allergy investigation (e.g. skin prick testing) prior to vaccination. The results of this study act as reassurance of vaccine safety and can be used to guide future community vaccination management of persons reporting drug/food allergy history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multiple drug allergy and multiple drug intolerance syndrome (MDAS/MDIS) labels are an impediment to clinical care and knowledge regarding these conditions is limited. This systematic review investigated the characterization, epidemiology, risk factors, clinical impact and pharmaco‐economics of MDAS and MDIS. Methods: Systematic literature search across 11 databases (01 January 2000–06 November 2020) for MDIS, MDAS and related terminology. Studies were reviewed for quality of evidence and risk of bias by employing Critical Appraisal Skills Programme cohort study checklist. A narrative synthesis approach facilitated by systematic textual descriptions, tabulation and thematic analysis was adopted. Results: There was heterogeneity in terminology and methodology. Few studies applied standard drug allergy diagnostic methods. There is some evidence to suggest that multiple drug hypersensitivity syndrome (MDHS; i.e., confirmed allergies in MDAS) is a distinct clinical entity. Prevalence of MDIS and MDAS labels in unselected & selected populations varied between 2.1%–6.4% & 4.9%–90% and 1.2% & 0%–36% respectively. Reported risk factors included female gender, increasing age, body mass index, anxiety, depression, co‐morbidities, concurrent allergies and increased healthcare utilization. Drugs commonly implicated were antibiotics and non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs. No studies relating to clinical impact and pharmaco‐economics were found. Conclusion: There is considerable burden of MDAS and MDIS labels. Data needs cautious interpretation as majority of studies described involved unverified labels. Despite this limitation and heterogeneity of studies, there is some evidence to suggest that MDHS is a distinct clinical entity. Well‐designed multi‐centre studies applying standardized terminology and diagnostic methodology are needed to gain further insight into these conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Antibiotics are one of the most frequently prescribed drugs. Unfortunately, they also are the most common cause for self-reported drug allergy, limiting the use of effective therapies. However, evidence shows that more than 90% of patients labeled as allergic to antibiotics are not allergic. Importantly, the label of antibiotic allergy, whether real or not, constitutes a major public health problem as it directly impacts antimicrobial stewardship: it has been associated with broad-spectrum antibiotic use, often resulting in the emergence of bacterial resistance. Therefore, an accurate diagnosis is crucial for de-labeling patients who claim to be allergic but are not really allergic. This review presents allergy methods for achieving successful antibiotic allergy de-labeling. Patient clinical history is often inaccurately reported, thus not being able to de-label most patients. In vitro testing offers a complementary approach but it shows limitations. Immunoassay for quantifying specific IgE is the most used one, although it gives low sensitivity and is limited to few betalactams. Basophil activation test is not validated and not available in all centers. Therefore, true de-labeling still relies on in vivo tests including drug provocation and/or skin tests, which are not risk-exempt and require specialized healthcare professionals for results interpretation and patient management. Moreover, differences on the pattern of antibiotic consumption cause differences in the diagnostic approach among different countries. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended to reduce the risks associated with the reported penicillin allergy label. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report a 26-year-old female patient who developed anaphylaxis after the use of pantoprazole and esomeprazole and was successfully desensitized with rabeprazole. The patient, who was diagnosed with duodenal ulcer by gastroscopy, was prescribed pantoprazole 40 mg tablet for treatment. Thirty minutes after taking the first dose of pantoprazole, generalized urticaria, angioedema of the lips, abdominal pain, diarrhea, shortness of breath and hypotension (blood pressure: 80/40 mmHg) developed. No loss of consciousness developed. Since dyspeptic complaints continued, esomeprazole 40 mg tablet was prescribed to the patient 1 month later. Generalized urticaria, abdominal pain, diarrhea and dyspnea developed 40 minutes after taking the first dose of esomeprazole. As hypersensitivity to PPIs was considered, skin tests were performed with all PPIs to detect alternative PPIs, as skin tests are safe and specific. A positive reaction was detected to all PPIs in the skin tests, so no oral provocation was performed with PPIs. Desensitization was planned because treatment with PPI was necessary and there was no alternative treatment. This patient who developed anaphylaxis with pantoprazole and esomeprazole was successfully desensitized with rabeprazole. In conclusion, in cases of hypersensitivity to PPIs, the possibility of cross-reactivity should be kept in mind and skin tests with PPIs should be performed before performing oral provocation testing. If no alternative is found, a PPI desensitization protocol can be applied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diagnosis of type I hypersensitivity reactions (IgE-mediated reactions) to penicillins is based on clinical history, skin tests (STs), and drug provocation tests (DPTs). Among in vitro complementary tests, the fluoro-enzyme immunoassay (FEIA) ImmunoCAP® (Thermo-Fisher, Waltham, MA, USA) is the most widely used commercial method for detecting drug-specific IgE (sIgE). In this study, we aimed to analyze the utility of ImmunoCAP® for detecting sIgE to penicillin G (PG) and amoxicillin (AX) in patients with confirmed penicillin allergy. The study includes 139 and 250 patients evaluated in Spain and Italy, respectively. All had experienced type I hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins confirmed by positive STs. Additionally, selective or cross-reactive reactions were confirmed by DPTs in a subgroup of patients for further analysis. Positive ImmunoCAP® results were 39.6% for PG and/or AX in Spanish subjects and 52.4% in Italian subjects. When only PG or AX sIgE where analyzed, the percentages were 15.1% and 30.4%, respectively, in Spanish patients; and 38.9% and 46% in Italian ones. The analysis of positive STs showed a statistically significant higher percentage of positive STs to PG determinants in Italian patients. False-positive results to PG (16%) were detected in selective AX patients with confirmed PG tolerance. Low and variable sensitivity values observed in a well-defined population with confirmed allergy diagnosis, as well as false-positive results to PG, suggest that ImmunoCAP® is a diagnostic tool with relevant limitations in the evaluation of subjects with type I hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]