Search

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

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

Unsubstantiated penicillin-allergy labels are common in surgical patients, and can lead to significant harm through avoidance of best first-line prophylaxis of surgical site infections and increased infection with resistant bacterial strains. Up to 98% of penicillin-allergy labels are incorrect when tested. Because of the scarcity of trained allergists in all healthcare systems, only a minority of surgical patients have the opportunity to undergo testing and de-labelling before surgery. Testing pathways can be modified and shortened in selected patients. A variety of healthcare professionals can, with appropriate training and in collaboration with allergists, provide testing for selected patients. We review how patients might be assessed, the appropriate testing strategies that can be used, and the minimum standards of safe testing.

BACKGROUND: Local anaesthetics (LA) are often suspected as possible causes of allergic reactions. The Danish Anaesthesia Allergy Centre (DAAC) is the national reference centre for investigation of perioperative allergic reactions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of IgE-mediated immediate type perioperative allergic reactions to LA.METHODS: In the period 2004-2013, a total of 409 patients (244 women/165 men; median age 49 years, range 1-86 years) were investigated in DAAC on suspicion of allergy associated with anaesthesia and surgery. A total of 162 (40%) patients were exposed to one or more LA. Suspected allergy to LA was investigated by prick test, intradermal test and subcutaneous provocation with the suspected drug. Patients with positive skin tests still underwent subcutaneous provocation, as false positive skin tests can occur.RESULTS: A total of 203 test series with LA were carried out on 162 patients (89 women/73 men; mean age 49 years, range 2-85 years) with the following drugs: Lidocaine n = 80 (49%), bupivacaine n = 82 (51%), ropivacaine n = 31 (19%) and mepivacaine n = 10 (6%). All 162 patients had negative subcutaneous provocation for all tested LA (95% CI: 0-1.8%). Investigations revealed another allergen in 52 of 162 patients.CONCLUSION: None of the 162 patients with suspected perioperative allergic reactions and exposure to LA reacted on subcutaneous provocation with the relevant LA. Thus, no patients have been diagnosed with allergy to LA in DAAC in the period 2004-2013 and allergy to LA must be considered very rare in this population.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is thought to be a potential cause of allergic reactions in patients allergic to egg, soy or peanut, since current formulations contain an emulsion that includes egg lecithin and soybean oil. However, other than six case reports lacking in confirmatory evidence of an allergic reaction, there is no evidence linking the two types of allergies. The aim of this study was to examine the frequency of propofol allergy and to investigate if patients with specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) to egg, soy or peanut tolerated propofol.METHODS: Study A examined the frequency of propofol allergy in 273 patients systematically investigated for suspected perioperative allergic reactions. Of these, 153 had been exposed to propofol and underwent skin tests and intravenous provocation. Study B retrospectively investigated propofol exposure and tolerance in 520 adult patients with a positive specific IgE to egg, soy or peanut.RESULTS: Four of the 153 propofol-exposed patients (2.6%) investigated in study A were diagnosed with propofol allergy. Of these, three tested positive only on intravenous provocation. None of the four had allergic symptoms when eating egg, soy or peanut and none had detectable levels of specific IgE to egg or soy in their serum. In study B we found no signs of allergic reactions towards propofol in 171 retrieved anaesthetic charts from 99 patients with specific IgE to egg, soy or peanut.CONCLUSION: No connection between allergy to propofol and allergy to egg, soy or peanut was found. The present practice of choosing alternatives to propofol in patients with this kind of food allergy is not evidence based and should be reconsidered.

The strongest and best-documented risk factor for drug hypersensitivity (DH) is the history of a previous reaction. Accidental exposures to drugs may lead to severe or even fatal reactions in sensitized patients. Preventable prescription errors are common. They are often due to inadequate medical history or poor risk assessment of recurrence of drug reaction. Proper documentation is essential information for the doctor to make sound therapeutic decision. The European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology have formed a task force and developed a drug allergy passport as well as general guidelines of drug allergy documentation. A drug allergy passport, a drug allergy alert card, a certificate, and a discharge letter after medical evaluation are adequate means to document DH in a patient. They are to be handed to the patient who is advised to carry the documentation at all times especially when away from home. A drug allergy passport should at least contain information on the culprit drug(s) including international nonproprietary name, clinical manifestations including severity, diagnostic measures, potential cross-reactivity, alternative drugs to prescribe, and where more detailed information can be obtained from the issuer. It should be given to patients only after full allergy workup. In the future, electronic prescription systems with alert functions will become more common and should include the same information as in paper-based documentation.

BACKGROUND: The impact of migration on the risk of anaphylaxis is unknown. We hypothesized that non-Western immigrants have a lower incidence of anaphylaxis compared to Danish-born. We investigated variations in hospital attendance for anaphylaxis between immigrants and Danish-born including time- and age- trends. METHODS: A register-based, historical prospective cohort design. Refugees or family reunified immigrants (n=127,250) who, between January 1,1994 and December 31, 2010, obtained residency permits in Denmark were included and matched in a 1:6 ratio on age and sex with Danish-born individuals (n=740,600). Personal identification numbers were cross-linked to the Danish National Patient Registry identifying all first-time hospital attendances for anaphylaxis from January 1,1994 and December 31, 2010. Incidence rate ratios were estimated stratified for sex and region of birth, adjusting for age using a Cox regression model including the influence of duration of residence and age when residence was obtained. RESULTS: In total 1,053 hospital attendances for anaphylaxis were identified: 89 among non-Western immigrants, 9 among Western immigrants and 955 among Danish-born patients. Both male (RR=0.65; 95%CI: 0.46;0.90) and female (RR=0.64; 95%CI: 0.48;0.85) non-Western immigrants had a significantly lower risk ratio of hospital attendance for anaphylaxis compared to Danish-born. Compared to Danish-born, non-Western immigrants living in Denmark during the entire follow-up period also showed a decreased risk (RR=0.65; 95%CI: 0.34;1.25). Compared to Danish-born, non-Western immigrants who obtained residence permission as children had a decreased risk of hospital attendance for anaphylaxis (RR=0.48; 95%CI: 0.25;0.91). CONCLUSION: This Danish register-based study using nationwide data revealed fewer hospital attendances for anaphylaxis among non-Western immigrants compared to Danish-born; however this protection was lost ove, Background: The impact of migration on the risk of anaphylaxis remains unknown. We hypothesized that non-Western immigrants have a lower incidence of anaphylaxis compared to Danish-born. We investigated variations in hospital attendance for anaphylaxis between immigrants and Danish-born including time- and age- trends. Methods: A register-based, historical prospective cohort design. Refugees or family reunified immigrants (n = 127 250) who, between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 2010, obtained residency permits in Denmark were included and matched in a 1 : 6 ratio on age and sex with Danish-born individuals (n = 740 600). Personal identification numbers were cross-linked to the Danish National Patient Registry identifying all first-time hospital attendances for anaphylaxis from January 1, 1994 and December 31, 2010. Incidence rate ratios were estimated, stratified for sex and region of birth, adjusting for age using a Cox regression model including the influence of duration of residence and age when residence was obtained. Results: In total 1053 hospital attendances for anaphylaxis were identified: 89 among non-Western immigrants, 9 among Western immigrants and 955 among Danish-born patients. Both male (RR = 0.65; 95%CI: 0.46;0.90) and female (RR = 0.64; 95%CI: 0.48;0.85) non-Western immigrants had a significantly lower risk ratio of hospital attendance for anaphylaxis compared to Danish-born. Compared to Danish-born, non-Western immigrants living in Denmark during the entire follow-up period also showed a decreased risk (RR = 0.65; 95%CI: 0.34;1.25). Compared to Danish-born, non-Western immigrants who obtained residence permission as children had a decreased risk of hospital attendance for anaphylaxis (RR = 0.48; 95%CI: 0.25;0.91). Conclusion: This Danish register-based study using nationwide data revealed fewer hospital attendances for anaphylaxis among non-Western immigrants compared to Danish-born; however this protection was lost over time.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Transfusion-associated anaphylaxis (TAA) is a severe adverse reaction reported to occur in 1:9000-90 000 transfusions. According to the Danish Registration of Transfusion Risks (DART), the frequency is 1:300 000 transfusions, which suggests insufficient reporting of TAA in Denmark. Our aims were to identify possible cases of TAA, to characterize their symptoms and tryptase levels and to investigate the reporting of TAA to the haemovigilance systems.MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed 245 patients with suspected allergic reactions during anaesthesia and surgery, investigated at the Danish Anaesthesia Allergy Centre (DAAC). Based on the outcome of this investigation, the patients were classified as DAAC positive (confirmed hypersensitivity to identified agent, n = 112), or DAAC negative (no confirmed hypersensitivity, n = 133). Data on case history, details of blood transfusion and results of laboratory and clinical investigations were collected. TAA cases were identified according to the recommendations of the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT).RESULTS: Ten possible TAA cases (30% of all transfused patients) were identified, all DAAC negative. The frequency of elevated serum tryptase, hypotension and male sex was significantly higher among these cases compared with the remaining DAAC negative (P < 0·05), but not different from the DAAC-positive patients. One case had been reported to the Blood Bank haemovigilance system and none to DART.CONCLUSION: We identified unreported cases of possible TAA, which resembled the DAAC-positive patients with respect to elevated tryptase and symptoms. By applying the ISBT criteria of adverse transfusion reactions, we conclude that TAA during anaesthesia and surgery is likely to be underreported in Denmark.

The aim of this study was to test, on a multinational level, the pholcodine (PHO) hypothesis, i.e. that the consumption of PHO-containing cough mixtures could cause higher prevalence of IgE antibodies to PHO, morphine (MOR) and suxamethonium (SUX). As a consequence the risk of anaphylaxis to neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) will be increased.

Udgivelsesdato: 2009-Mar, Neuromuscular blocking drugs are designed to bind to the nicotinic receptor at the neuromuscular junction. However, they also interact with other acetylcholine receptors in the body. Binding to these receptors causes adverse effects that vary with the specificity for the cholinergic receptor in question. Moreover, all neuromuscular blocking drugs may cause hypersensitivity reactions. Often the symptoms are mild and self-limiting but massive histamine release can cause systematic reactions with circulatory and respiratory symptoms and signs. At the end of anaesthesia, no residual effect of a neuromuscular blocking drug should be present. However, the huge variability in response to neuromuscular blocking drugs makes it impossible to predict which patient will suffer postoperative residual curarization. This article discusses the undesirable effects of the currently available neuromuscular blocking drugs including the definitions, diagnosis and causes of hypersensitivity reactions and postoperative residual curarisation.