Search

Background: Drug challenge is the gold standard for identifying causative agents of drug allergies. Although clinical guidelines have recently been published, they do not recommend neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) drug challenges. NMBA challenges are rendered difficult by the lack of homogeneity of routine allergy work-ups and the necessity of a specialised setting. Several scenarios support NMBA challenges, such as an ambiguous allergy work-up, a high suspicion of a false-positive skin test or identification of a well tolerated alternative NMBA strategy. Furthermore, routine allergy work-ups may not recognise non-IgE mechanisms, such as IgG or MRGPRX2, whereas drug challenges may reveal them. Finally, if the culprit NMBA is not identified, subsequent anaesthesia regimens will be challenging to implement, resulting in increased risk., Objectives: This literature review discusses the indications, strategies, doses, monitoring methods, limitations, and unresolved issues related to drug challenges for NMBAs., Design: The literature review included randomised controlled trials, observational studies, reviews, case reports, series, and comments on humans., Data Sources: Studies were retrieved from databases (PubMed) and electronic libraries (OVID, EMBASE, Scopus, etc.)., Eligibility Criteria: All studies that referred to the NMBA challenge were included without publication date limitations., Results: NMBA challenge may be considered in NMBA anaphylaxis patients with inconclusive or ambivalent IgE diagnostic work-up under controlled conditions (presence of anaesthetists and allergists with continuous monitoring in a secured environment). To illustrate its utility, a case report of a double NMBA challenge in a patient with NMBA cross-reactivity is presented, along with biological explorations to detect subclinical cellular activation, a novel aspect of this procedure., Conclusion: Drug challenges could be implemented during the NMBA allergy work-up under strict safety conditions at specialised centres with close collaboration between anaesthetists and allergists. This could decrease uncertainty and contribute to defining a safer strategy for subsequent anaesthetic drug regimens., (Copyright © 2024 European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.)

Background: The first line of prevention of surgical site infection relies on the timely administration of antibiotic prophylaxis. First- and second-generation cephalosporins are the most recommended antibiotics in elective surgery. The incidence of cefazolin allergy has increased worldwide over the years. The sensitization mechanism of cefazolin is currently unknown, and data supporting cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins are lacking. Sensitization could occur through previous exposure either to cefazolin or to structurally related chemical agents. The objective of this study was to evaluate sensitization agents towards cefazolin., Methods: The OpenBabel chemoinformatics toolbox was used to search for similarities between cefazolin and other molecules in an extensive drug database. Using the pholcodine-rocuronium similarity score as a threshold, we selected drugs with the most similar structure to that of cefazolin. Exposure to those drugs and cefazolin was assessed in a cohort of patients with skin test-proven cefazolin allergy at a specialized allergy centre via a self-administered anonymous questionnaire., Results: Using the pholcodine-rocuronium similarity score as a threshold (score≥0.7), 42 molecules were found to be similar to cefazolin (all cephalosporins). Only 8 were marketed in France. None of the 14 cefazolin-allergic patients who answered the questionnaire (65% female, median age 56 years) reported exposure to any identified antibiotics. In contrast, 11 (78%) had at least one previous surgery requiring cefazolin before the index case., Conclusion: Direct previous cefazolin exposure was identified in 78% of cefazolin-allergic patients. Cefazolin started to take a central place in antibiotic prophylaxis after 2010, when cefamandole usage decreased drastically. Changes in antibiotic prophylaxis over the past 14 years in France could have been the turning point for the increased incidence of cefazolin allergy., (Copyright © 2024 Société française d'anesthésie et de réanimation (Sfar). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prompt diagnosis of intra-anaesthetic acute hypersensitivity reactions (AHR) is challenging because of the possible absence and/or difficulty in detecting the usual clinical signs and because of the higher prevalence of alternative diagnoses. Delayed epinephrine administration during AHR, because of incorrect/delayed diagnosis, can be associated with poor prognosis. Low end-tidal CO2 (etCO2) is known to be linked to low cardiac output. Yet, its clinical utility during suspected intra-anaesthetic AHR is not well documented., Methods: Clinical data from the 86 patients of the Neutrophil Activation in Systemic Anaphylaxis (NASA) multicentre study were analysed. Consenting patients with clinical signs consistent with intra-anaesthetic AHR to a neuromuscular blocking agent were included. Severe AHR was defined as a Grade 3-4 of the Ring and Messmer classification. Causes of AHR were explored following recommended guidelines., Results: Among the 86 patients, 50% had severe AHR and 69% had a confirmed/suspected IgE-mediated event. Occurrence and minimum values of arterial hypotension, hypocapnia and hypoxaemia increased significantly with the severity of AHR. Low etCO2 was the only factor able to distinguish mild [median 3.5 (3.2;3.9) kPa] from severe AHR [median 2.4 (1.6;3.0) kPa], without overlap in inter-quartile range values, with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.92 [95% confidence interval: 0.79-1.00]. Among the 41% of patients who received epinephrine, only half received it as first-line therapy despite international guidelines., Conclusions: An etCO2 value below 2.6 kPa (20 mm Hg) could be useful for prompt diagnosis of severe intra-anaesthetic AHR, and could facilitate early treatment with titrated doses of epinephrine., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01637220., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Aims: To determine antiplatelet efficacy after desensitization in patients with a history of aspirin hypersensitivity., Methods and Results: We conducted a case-control study to evaluate the efficacy of aspirin 1 day (D1) and 6-8 weeks (W6-8) after desensitization. We also assessed ex vivo basophil reactivity to aspirin after desensitization. Cases were patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and documented history of aspirin hypersensitivity who underwent rapid successful oral desensitization to aspirin. Controls were patients with stable CAD without hypersensitivity and receiving aspirin. Among 56 cases, 27 received aspirin for acute coronary syndromes and 29 were treated for stable CAD. Aspirin was effective (defined as light transmission aggregometry induced by arachidonic acid ≤20%) at D1 in 86% of cases (P = 0.045 vs. controls) and in 95% at W6-8, vs. 100% of controls (P = 0.39). Urinary excretion of thromboxane B2 diminished substantially in cases (P < 0.0001, D0 vs. W6-8) but remained higher than in controls (P = 0.03). Platelet reactivity (defined by platelet P-selectin expression, activated glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and platelet-monocyte aggregates) was similar in cases between D0 and D1 but decreased at W6-8. Basophil activation (quantified by upregulation of CD203c in response to aspirin) was higher in cases at W6-8 than in controls (P = 0.0002)., Conclusion: Thus, following rapid desensitization, aspirin achieves rapid biological efficacy, which is slightly lower at D1, but becomes indistinguishable from chronically treated patients at W6-8. Persistent basophil activation several weeks after desensitization suggests infraclinical hypersensitivity and the need to continue aspirin to maintain desensitization., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2016. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Background: Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) are responsible for most immediate hypersensitivity reactions during anesthesia, as a result of the presence of a quaternary ammonium ion. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a commercial immunoglobulin E (IgE) test (quaternary ammonium morphine [QAM]) for diagnosing sensitivity to NMBA., Methods: We tested 168 patients exposed to NMBAs during anesthesia. Of those patients, 54 had an uneventful procedure and 114 had immediate hypersensitivity reactions, and 57 patients had positive skin tests to the administered NMBA, whereas 57 had negative skin tests. Specific IgE concentrations determined with the QAM method based on a morphine solid phase were compared with those obtained with a recommended experimental method with a choline solid phase., Results: For the QAM test, a 0.35 kUA/l positivity cutoff was chosen from the receiver operating characteristics curve. QAM-specific IgE was found in 84.2% of skin test-positive reactors (80.7% with the recommended method; no significant difference), and binding was inhibited by the culprit NMBA in 80% of cases. The frequency of QAM-specific IgE positivity was significantly higher in skin test-negative reactors (24.6%) than in controls (9.3%), suggesting NMBA sensitivity., Conclusion: Sensitivity of the QAM test (84.2%), together with its simplicity and suitability for routine laboratory use, makes it a valuable tool, in conjunction with skin tests, for diagnosing NMBA sensitivity in patients who react after NMBA injection. The QAM test is of particular interest when skin tests are not available or not reliable or give results poorly compatible with mediator release or clinical features.