Search

Purpose: The primary objective of this randomized study was to determine whether a continuous dosing schedule (without the asparaginase-free interval) would result in less hypersensitivity reactions to PEGasparaginase (PEGasp) compared with the standard noncontinuous dosing schedule., Methods: Eight hundred eighteen patients (age 1-18 years) with ALL were enrolled in the Dutch Childhood Oncology Group-ALL11 protocol and received PEGasp. Three hundred twelve patients stratified in the medium-risk arm were randomly assigned to receive 14 individualized PEGasp doses once every two weeks in either a noncontinuous or continuous schedule after the first three doses in induction (EudraCT: 2012-000067-25). Hypersensitivity reactions were defined as allergies, allergic-like reactions, and silent inactivation. Secondary end points were other asparaginase-related toxicities, asparaginase activity and antibody levels, and outcome., Results: During induction, 27 of 818 patients (3.3%) experienced hypersensitivity reactions. After random assignment, 4 of 155 (2.6%) in the continuous treatment arm versus 17 of 157 (10.8%) patients in the noncontinuous treatment arm had hypersensitivity reactions ( P < .01), of which two (1.3%) versus 13 (8.3%) were inactivating reactions ( P < .01). The occurrence of inactivating hypersensitivity reactions was seven times lower in the continuous arm (odds ratio, 0.15 [0.032-0.653]). In addition, antibody levels were significantly lower in the continuous arm ( P < .01). With exception of a lower incidence of increased amylase in the continuous arm, there were no significant differences in total number of asparaginase-associated toxicities between arms. However, the timing of the toxicities was associated with the timing of the asparaginase administrations. No difference in 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse, death, or disease-free survival was found between both treatment arms., Conclusion: A continuous dosing schedule of PEGasp is an effective approach to prevent antibody formation and inactivating hypersensitivity reactions. The continuous PEGasp schedule did not increase toxicity and did not affect the efficacy of the therapy.

Kidney replacement therapies (KRTs) including hemodialysis (HD) are one of the treatment options for most of the patients with end-stage kidney disease. Although HD is vital for these patients, it is not hundred percent physiological, and various adverse events including hypersensitivity reactions may occur. Fortunately, these reactions are rare in total and less when compared to previous decades, but it is still very important for at least two reasons: First, the number of patients receiving kidney replacement treatment is increasing globally; and the cumulative number of these reactions may be substantial. Second, although most of these reactions are mild, some of them may be very severe and even lead to mortality. Thus, it is very important to have basic knowledge and skills to diagnose and treat these reactions. Hypersensitivity reactions can occur at any component of dialysis machinery (access, extracorporeal circuit, medications, etc.). The most important preventive measure is to avoid the allergen. However, even with very specific test, sometimes the allergen cannot be found. In mild conditions, HD can be contained with non-specific treatment (topical creams, antihistaminics, corticosteroids). In more severe conditions, treatment must be stopped immediately, blood should not be returned to patient, drugs must be stopped, and rules of general emergency treatment must be followed., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to the administration of infliximab (IFX) in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) patients are not rare and usually lead to drug discontinuation. We report data on safety and effectiveness of desensitization to IFX in patients with previous HSR., Methods: We conducted a retrospective monocentric observational study. Patients for whom a desensitization protocol to IFX was realized after a previous HSR were included. Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) and IFX trough levels at both inclusion and six months after desensitization were collected. Clinical outcomes, including recurrence of HSR were evaluated., Results: From 2005 to 2020, 27 patients (Crohn's Disease: 26 (96%) were included). Desensitization after HSR was performed after a median time of 10.4 months (2.9-33.1). Nineteen (70%) patients received immunosuppressants at time of desensitization. Eight (30%) patients presented HSR at first ( n  = 2), second ( n  = 4) or third ( n  = 2) IFX perfusion after desensitization. None led to intensive care unit transfer or death. Thirteen (48%) had clinical response at 6 months and 8 (29%) were still under IFX treatment two years after desensitization. IFX trough levels and ADA were available for 14 patients at time of desensitization. Most patients (12 out of 14) had ADA at a high level. At 6 months, among the 7 patients with long term response to IFX, 4 presented a decrease of ADA titers and 2 had a significant trough level of IFX., Conclusion: IFX desensitization in patients with IBD is a safe therapeutic alternative and represents a potential option for patients refractory to multiple biologics. What is already known? Hypersensitivity reactions to the administration of infliximab is frequent. Occurrence of hypersensitivity reaction, either immediate or delayed, usually leads to permanent drug discontinuation. What is new here? Infliximab desensitization is well tolerated with no hypersensitivity reaction recurrence in 70% of patients. Clinical success at 6 months was of 48% and around a third of patients remained under infliximab therapy two years after desensitization. Antidrug antibodies decreased and infliximab trough levels increased in these patients showing the impact of desensitization on immunogenicity. How can this study help patient care? Infliximab desensitization represents a potential option for patients refractory to multiple biologics who presented hypersensitivity reaction to the drug.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Perioperative anaphylaxis is rare and the diagnosis is difficult to distinguish from normal side effects from anaesthesia. Anaesthetists should be able to diagnose anaphylaxis and treat promptly with adrenaline and fluids. Allergy investigation should be performed subsequently. This is a case report of perioperative anaphylaxis to propofol. Propofol contains refined soya oil and egg lecithin, but no connection between allergy to soy, egg or peanut and allergy to propofol has been proven, and international guidelines recommend that propofol can be used in patients with these food allergies., (Published under Open Access CC-BY-NC-BD 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.)

This study investigated the characteristics and frequency of perioperative anaphylactic shock induced by cefuroxime, so as to provide a reference for the safe and rational use of cefuroxime in the perioperative period. Cases of perioperative anaphylactic shock caused by cefuroxime in our hospital from 2011 to 2021 were extracted from the Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring System. Literature reporting adverse drug reactions (ADR) including cefuroxime-induced anaphylactic shock in perioperative settings was collected from the CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, PubMed, and Web of Science databases from their respective inception to May 2022. Statistical analysis was performed for all cases of cefuroxime-induced perioperative anaphylactic shock. A total of 31 patients were included [13 men (48.1%) and 14 women (51.9%)], most of whom were over 60 years old ( n =16, 59.3%); 9 (29.0%) patients had a history of drug allergy; 5 (16.1%) patients had received skin tests, but with negative results; 28 (90.3%) patients received treatment intravenously; 22 (71.0%) patients were treated after anesthesia. For 20 (64.5%) patients the ADR occurred within 10 minutes after anesthesia. The main manifestations were hypotension, dyspnea, rash, and tachycardia. For all patients, symptoms resolved after withdrawal of the drug and active rescue, and there were no deaths. A history of allergy and skin test findings may have limitations in predicting perioperative anaphylactic shock caused by cefuroxime; greater vigilance should be exercised when using cefuroxime in the perioperative period. Close monitoring is recommended for patients undergoing treatment with cefuroxime. Rescue therapy should be administered for allergic shock, and suitable response measures must be taken in a timely manner to ensure the safety of patients.

Background: L-Asparaginase is a crucial component of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) treatment. However, hypersensitivity is a common adverse event. This study aimed to identify risk factors for L-asparaginase hypersensitivity in childhood ALL., Methods: Children treated for ALL at Chiang Mai University Hospital, Thailand, between 2005 and 2020 were included. Demographic data, clinical characteristics, and factors related to L-asparaginase were retrospectively reviewed., Results: L-Asparaginase hypersensitivity was observed in 24 of 216 children with ALL (11.1%). All patients received native L-asparaginase intramuscularly, and events occurred exclusively during the post-induction phase without concurrent corticosteroid use. Univariable analysis showed that relapsed ALL, higher accumulated doses, increased exposure days, and longer interval between drug administrations were potential risk factors. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, interruption of L-asparaginase administration for ≥ 52 weeks and exposure duration of ≥ 15 days were independent risk factors, with adjusted odds ratio of 16.481 (95% CI 3.248-83.617, p = 0.001) and 4.919 (95% CI 1.138-21.263, p = 0.033), respectively., Conclusions: Children with ALL who require re-exposure to L-asparaginase after 52-week interruption or who have received L-asparaginase for ≥ 15 exposure days are at risk of developing L-asparaginase hypersensitivity. Further management strategies in this setting should be evaluated., (© 2024. Japanese Society of Hematology.)

Background: There is increasing interest in non-desensitization protocols as a potential way to reintroduce chemotherapy following hypersensitivity reactions (HSR)., Objective: To provide insight into the potential utility of non-desensitization reintroduction, particularly at institutions where allergy consultation may not be available., Methods: For 70 patients with platinum HSR who underwent rechallenge with standard (≤2 hours), extended (1-bag, 1-step, 4-6 hours), or titrated (4-to-5-bag and -step, 6-7.5 hours) infusions between 1/2014 and 7/2019, demographics and clinical characteristics were reviewed and initial and breakthrough reactions (BTR) were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 (CTCAE v5.0). Tolerance (no BTR) and completion (dose completed despite BTR) were compared using Fisher's exact test., Results: Patients (mean [standard deviation] age 57 [13] years, initial HSR grade 2 [1]), were rechallenged with standard ( n  = 8), extended ( n  = 23), or titrated ( n  = 22) infusions after oxaliplatin HSR; and standard ( n  = 5) or titrated ( n  = 12) after carboplatin HSR. Tolerance and completion were higher for extended versus (vs) standard (tolerance-87%-vs-8%, p  < 0.005; completion-96%-vs-38%, p  < 0.005) and titrated versus standard (tolerance-76%-vs-8%, p  < 0.005; completion-79%-vs-38%, p  < 0.05) infusions., Conclusions: Extended and titrated infusions may increase reintroduction safety compared to standard infusions. Further investigation into extended infusions may provide a safe alternative to standard infusions in patients who may not have access to desensitization at their institution., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Pegaspargase is a therapeutic enzyme that is utilized in treatment regimens targeting pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia. However, many patients experience hypersensitivity reactions, requiring discontinuation of the therapy. Historically, this necessitated switching to an alternative form of the drug, most commonly asparaginase Erwinia chrysanthemi; however, in recent years this was difficult due to drug shortages and eventually commercial discontinuation. We report here our experience performing pegaspargase desensitizations in patients with prior hypersensitivity reactions., Procedure: Patients with a clinical hypersensitivity reaction to pegaspargase were identified. When due for their next dose, patients were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit, bone marrow transplant unit, or oncology unit, and underwent desensitization utilizing a rigorous premedication and multistep dilution-based protocol. Serum asparaginase activity levels were drawn after desensitization to assess for therapeutic levels of enzyme activity., Results: We identified 11 patients who underwent a total of 33 desensitizations to pegaspargase and calaspargase pegol-mknl. No patients experienced clinically significant hypersensitivity reactions necessitating stopping the infusion, nor administration of rescue medications. All serum asparaginase activity levels collected demonstrated enzyme activity levels above predefined therapeutic thresholds. Cost analysis revealed substantial savings when patients received asparaginase desensitization over the now commercially available asparaginase E. chrysanthemi (recombinant) rywn., Conclusions: Performing desensitization to pegaspargase in the pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia population is feasible, safe, and effective. It is financially advantageous over available alternative approaches, and requires fewer injections and presentations to care., (© 2024 The Authors. Pediatric Blood & Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

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

Aim: To analyze the risk factors for oxaliplatin (OXA)-induced severe hypersensitivity reactions and identify the recurrence rate of the reactions after an OXA rechallenge in patients treated with hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC)., Methods: Among the 2251 patients treated with HAIC (OXA), 84 patients with gastrointestinal cancer who displayed hypersensitivity reactions between May 2013 and May 2022 were included in this study. Among the 84 patients, 23 (27.4%) developed severe anaphylactic reactions (grade III/IV), and 61 (72.6%) developed grade I/II reactions. We explored the risk factors for severe OXA-induced hypersensitivity reactions. Twenty-seven patients with grade I/II reactions underwent retreatment (HAIC with OXA), and the recurrence rate of the hypersensitivity reactions was determined. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyze the risk factors for OXA-induced hypersensitivity reaction., Results: In the study, multivariate analysis indicated that the dose of OXA (odds ratio [OR] 3.077, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.106-8.558, p = 0.031) was an independent risk factor for OXA-induced severe hypersensitivity reactions. Twenty-seven patients with non-severe hypersensitivity reactions underwent retreatment HAIC with OXA and 14 (51.9 %) experienced HSR recurrence, including 2 (7.4 %) who experienced hypersensitivity shock., Conclusions: The administration of OXA doses is a risk factor for OXA-induced severe hypersensitivity reactions in patients treated with HAIC (OXA). Rechallenging HAIC with OXA appears to be associated with a higher recurrence rate of the HSR., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Overview of: Copaescu AM, Vogrin S, James F, et al. Efficacy of a clinical decision rule to enable direct oral challenge in patients with low-risk penicillin allergy: The PALACE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2023;183:944-52., (© BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to chemotherapy are serious adverse events associated with cancer drug therapy and can occur with any antitumor drug. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of carboplatin desensitization therapy in Japan and established a method for treating carboplatin HSRs., Methods: Patients diagnosed with gynecological (ovarian, endometrial, or cervical) cancers who underwent carboplatin desensitization therapy between 2016 and 2020 at the Gynecologic Cancer Study Group of Japan Clinical Oncology Group were included. The carboplatin desensitization therapy at each institution and the implementation cases were registered in an online case report form., Results: This retrospective study enrolled 136 patients (ovarian, 108; endometrial, 17; and cervical cancer, 11). Pre-existing allergies were present in 37 (27.2%) patients, and 32 (23.5%) patients exhibited prodromal symptoms during treatment before HSR onset. Erythema was the most common symptom at HSR onset, affecting 93 (68.4%) patients, followed by itching in 72 (52.9%) patients and decreased oxygen saturation in 43 (31.6%) patients. Loss of consciousness occurred in three (2.2%) patients. The most common timing of HSR onset was during the first recurrence treatment (47%). The mean total carboplatin dose until HSR onset was 7331 (2620-18,282) mg, and the mean number of doses was 14 (4-63). Desensitization treatment was completed in 75% of cases, and breakthrough HSRs occurred in 25% (34/136). No deaths occurred in the study cohort. The risk factors for HSRs were not identified., Conclusion: Although carboplatin desensitization therapy has high success rates in Japan, erythema and pruritus are important HSRs to consider., (© 2024 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Polyethylene glycol-asparaginase (PEGAsp) is an established component of acute leukemia therapy. Hypersensitivity reactions to PEGAsp occur in 10% to 15% of patients, with polyethylene glycol suggested as the antigenic culprit. As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines contain polyethylene glycol, the safety of administration of these vaccines to patients with prior PEGAsp hypersensitivity has been questioned. Between December 21, 2020 and March 3, 2022, 66 patients with acute leukemia and PEGAsp allergy received COVID-19 vaccination. No patients (0/66 0%, 95% CI: 0%-5.4%) experienced an allergic reaction to the vaccine. COVID-19 mRNA vaccination appears to be safe in pediatric and young adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia with PEGAsp allergy., Competing Interests: N.W. was supported by T32GM008562. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are invaluable therapeutic options in a variety of dyspeptic diseases. In addition to their well-known risk profile, PPI consumption is related to food and environmental allergies, dysbiosis, osteoporosis, as well as immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). The latter, although a rare event, around 1%-3%, due to the extraordinarily high rate of prescription and consumption of PPIs are related to a substantial risk. In this Position Paper, we provide clinicians with practical evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of HSRs to PPIs. Furthermore, the unmet needs proposed in the document aim to stimulate more in-depth investigations in the topic., (© 2023 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to platinum-based drugs are heterogenous and restrict their access, and drug desensitization (DD) has provided a ground-breaking procedure for their re-introduction, although the response is heterogeneous. We aimed to identify the phenotypes, endotypes, and biomarkers of reactions to carboplatin and oxaliplatin and their response to DD., Methods: Seventy-nine patients presenting with DHRs to oxaliplatin (N = 46) and carboplatin (N = 33) were evaluated at the Allergy Departments of two tertiary care hospitals in Spain. Patient symptoms, skin testing, biomarkers, and outcomes of 267 DDs were retrospectively analyzed., Results: Oxaliplatin-reactive patients presented with type I (74%), cytokine release reaction (CRR) (11%), and mixed (Mx) (15%) phenotypes. In contrast, carboplatin reactive patients presented with predominantly type I (85%) and Mx (15%) but no CRRs. Out of 267 DDs, breakthrough reactions (BTRs) to oxaliplatin occurred twice as frequently as carboplatin (32% vs. 15%; p < .05). Phenotype switching from type I to another phenotype was observed in 46% of oxaliplatin DDs compared to 21% of carboplatin DDs. Tryptase was elevated in type I and Mx reactions, and IL-6 in CRR and Mx, indicating different mechanisms and endotypes., Conclusion: Carboplatin and oxaliplatin induced three different types of reactions with defined phenotypes and endotypes amendable to DD. Although most of the initial reactions for both were type I, oxaliplatin presented with unique CRR reactions. During DD, carboplatin reactive patients presented mostly type I BTR, while oxaliplatin-reactive patients frequently switched from type I to CRR, providing a critical difference and the need for personalized DD protocols., (© 2023 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Cetuximab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody, is utilized in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer and squamous cell head and neck cancers. Due to the risk of hypersensitivity reactions, standard premedication with a histamine-1 (H-1) antagonist is recommended prior to administration, however, there is less guidance for premedication strategies to assist with rechallenge after infusion reactions. Here, we describe two cases of successful cetuximab treatment after Grade 2 reactions, in addition to risk factors and proposed premedication strategies for successful rechallenge., Case Report: Two patients who experienced Grade 2 hypersensitivity reactions were both successfully rechallenged with increased premedications 1-2 weeks after initial infusions. The first patient was a 56-year-old male diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving cetuximab as part of a clinical trial. The second patient was a 73-year-old male diagnosed with head and neck cancer receiving cetuximab as part of standard of care concurrent with radiation., Management and Outcome: Each patient was rechallenged with an increased premedication strategy including dexamethasone, famotidine, diphenhydramine, and acetaminophen in addition to reducing the infusion rate. Both patients either continued treatment or successfully completed therapy, without any additional infusion-related reactions., Discussion: We aimed to review risk factors related to cetuximab infusion reactions and propose a premedication strategy for rechallenge postreaction. Known risk factors include male sex and the accumulation of cetuximab-specific IgE. These may be mitigated by the addition of increased premedication with dexamethasone and famotidine with concurrent reduced infusion rate., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Vitamin B 12 (Vit B 12 ) deficiency affects approximately 20% of those above the age of 60 years in the United Kingdom and United States. If untreated, it leads to detrimental health outcomes., Objective: To investigate a cohort of patients with Vit B 12 hypersensitivity (VB12H) referred to 3 UK allergy centers and design a pathway for the investigation of VB12H., Methods: A total of 29 patients seen between 2014 and 2022 underwent skin prick testing (1 mg/mL) with cyanocobalamin (CC) and hydroxycobalamin (HC) and intradermal testing (0.1 and 0.01 mg/mL). Patients with negative skin tests underwent a Vit B 12 drug provocation test (DPT) with either the index or the alternative drug., Results: Of 29 patients, 18 (62%) presented with immediate VB12H. Eight experienced anaphylaxis (4 to HC and 4 to CC) and had positive skin tests to the index drug. One patient reacted to oral and 7 patients to injectable Vit B 12 . Seven patients sensitized to one form of Vit B 12 -tolerated DPT with an alternative Vit B 12 . One patient with immediate VB12H reacted to polyethylene glycol (PEG) in oral cobalamin. Of 29 patients, 8 presented with delayed hypersensitivity reaction; 4 patients tolerated the intramuscular index formulation, whereas 2 patients tolerated the per oral formulation. One patient presented with symptoms consistent with symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema. Three patients were referred because of cobalt allergy., Conclusion: Confirmed VB12H is rare. We propose a comprehensive evaluation protocol that includes Vit B 12 skin tests and considers PEG allergy in patients presenting with VB12H., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chlorhexidine is a synthetic biguanide with a broad antibacterial activity and has become an important cause of perioperative anaphylaxis., Objective: Reactions due to chlorhexidine allergy are usually IgE-mediated. The aim of this report is to demonstrate utility of laboratory in-vitro testing for diagnosis., Methods: We report the case of a 36-year old man who experienced severe anaphylaxis during general anesthesia. He underwent skin tests, specific detection of specific IgE to chlorhexidine and basophil activation test (BAT)., Results: Skin tests gave false positive results due to dermographism. So, on the basis of a clinical reaction to chlorhexidine and positive tests for IgE to chlorexidine and BAT, we assessed the diagnosis of chlorhexidine allergy., Conclusions: Physicians should be aware of the role of chlorhexidine in the etiology of perioperative anaphylaxis. In vitro testing such specific IgE and BAT are useful in patient with suspected chlorexidine allergy and limitation to perform skin tests.

Study Objective: To characterize and assess the effects of a preoperative, nurse-driven penicillin allergy risk stratification tool on rates of perioperative cefazolin and second-line antibiotic use., Design: Quasi-experimental quality improvement study of penicillin-allergic surgical patients undergoing procedures for which cefazolin is indicated., Setting: Outpatient Perioperative Care Clinic (PCC) for preoperative surgical patients at a tertiary care center., Patients: 670 and 1371 adult penicillin-allergic PCC attendants and non-attendants, respectively., Intervention: A paper penicillin allergy risk stratification questionnaire was administered during the PCC visit. Nurses were educated on its use., Measurements: Antibiotic (cefazolin, clindamycin, vancomycin) use rates in the 24 months before and 17 months after intervention implementation in November 2020 (November 2018 - April 2022) were assessed in penicillin-allergic PCC attendants with statistical process control charts. Multivariable logistic regression assessed antibiotic use rates pre- and post-intervention adjusting for age, sex, surgical specialty and penicillin allergy history severity. Similar analyses were done in penicillin-allergic PCC non-attendants., Main Results: Of 670 penicillin-allergic PCC attendants, 451 (median [IQR] age, 66 (Sousa-Pinto et al., 2021 [14])) were analyzed pre-intervention and 219 (median [IQR] age, 66 (Mine et al., 1970 [13])) post-intervention. One month after implementation, process measures demonstrated an upward shift in cefazolin use for PCC attendants versus no shift or other special cause variation for PCC non-attendants. There were increased odds of cefazolin use (aOR 1.67, 95% CI [1.09-2.57], P = 0.019), decreased odds of clindamycin use (aOR 0.61, 95% CI [0.42-0.89], P = 0.010) and decreased odds of vancomycin use (aOR 0.56, 95% CI [0.35-0.88], P = 0.013) in PCC attendants post-intervention. This effect did not occur in PCC non-attendants. There was no increase in perioperative anaphylaxis post-intervention., Conclusions: A simple penicillin allergy risk stratification tool implemented in the preoperative setting was associated with increased use of cefazolin and decreased rates of second-line agents post implementation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest none., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following conflicts of interest: Daniel Yo: declares no conflicts of interest. Richard D. Urman: declares unrelated research funding from Merck, AcelRx, and NIH. Marc Philip Tanedo Pimentel: declares no conflicts of interest.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) manifested as vasculitis are rare. Antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), sulphonamides, diuretics, immunosupressants and anticonvulsants are the most common culprits for drug-induced leukocytoclastic vasculitis (LCV) but there is scarce information about barbiturates. We present a case of 53-year-old female with severe vasculitis after phenobarbital- and NSAIDs-containing medications use. The preliminary diagnosis of drug-induced vasculitis was made based on anamnestic and clinical data. Further examinations confirmed the diagnosis of LCV and excluded other more common causes of vasculitis. The causative significance of used medications was assessed by long-term observation of the patient after the reaction, including the drug challenge series and Naranjo's Adverse Drug Reaction Probability Scale. It was concluded that phenobarbital is the most probable culprit drug. The patient's data were included in the Armenian Registry of Patients with Severe DHRs. Since then, the patient has avoided only barbiturate-containing drugs and no reactions were noted. Thus, the case indicates that even with limited diagnostic capabilities, the final diagnosis of rare drug-induced LCV and even rarer culprit drug can be established by comparing the available data. Awareness about phenobarbital and proper recording of the case are important in the management and prevention of DHRs manifested as vasculitis., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Tehran University of Medical Sciences.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None for all authors.

Study Objective: To compare the occurrence of cefazolin perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) in patients with and without a penicillin allergy label (PAL) to determine whether the prevalence of cefazolin POA differs based on the presence of a PAL., Design: Cross-sectional study., Setting: A large U.S. healthcare system in the Baltimore-D.C. region, July 2017 to July 2020., Patients: 112,817 surgical encounters across inpatient and outpatient settings in various specialties, involving 90,089 patients. Of these, 4876 (4.3%) encounters had a PAL., Interventions: Perioperative cefazolin administration within 4 h before surgery to 4 h after the procedure began., Measurements: The primary outcome was cefazolin POA in patients with and without PALs. Potential POA cases were identified based on tryptase orders or diphenhydramine administrations within the initial cefazolin administration to 6 h postoperatively. Verification included two validation steps. The first checked for hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) documentation, and the second, led by Allergy specialists, identified POA and the probable culprit. The secondary outcome looked at cefazolin use trends in patients with a PAL, stratified by setting and specialty., Main Results: Of 112,817 encounters, 1421 (1.3%) had possible cefazolin HSRs. Of these, 22 (1.5%) had POA, resulting in a 0.02% prevalence. Of these, 13 (59.1%) were linked to cefazolin and 9 (40.9%) attributed to other drugs. Only one cefazolin POA case had a PAL, indicating no significant difference in cefazolin POA prevalence between patients with and without PALs (p = 0.437). Perioperative cefazolin use in patients with PALs steadily increased from 2.6% to 6.0% between 2017 and 2020, specifically in academic settings., Conclusions: The prevalence of cefazolin POA does not exhibit significant differences between patients with and without PALs, and notably, the incidence remains remarkably low. Based on these findings, it is advisable to view cefazolin as an acceptable choice for prophylaxis in patients carrying a PAL., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Anticonvulsant drugs are one of the most common causes of delayed hypersensitivity reactions, such as drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). These reactions are more prevalent with aromatic anticonvulsant drugs such as phenytoin and carbamazepine. However, immediate hypersensitivity reactions such as urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylaxis with anticonvulsant drugs are rare. We describe a 51-year-old woman who developed spreading skin rashes on her wrists with urticaria and pruritus 24 h after receiving intravenous levetiracetam., Conclusion: Clinicians should be aware of immediate hypersensitivity reactions with intravenous levetiracetam., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Tehran University of Medical Sciences.)

Local anesthetics (LAs) are commonly used in all medical specialties, particularly in association with surgery, obstetrics, dentistry, and emergency departments. Most individuals, starting from young children, are exposed to LAs during life. LA hardly induces adverse events when used in recommended doses and with proper injection techniques. However, immediate anaphylactic reactions to LA injections may be a rare but life-threatening manifestation. A comprehensive report of the event and performing a specialist examination are crucial to prevent further episodes. The diagnosis should be based on history, medical records, skin and challenge tests.

Introduction: Iron deficiency is the most common cause of anemia in both sexes, although it is more common in women. Intravenous (IV) iron replacement is preferred in patients who cannot tolerate oral treatment or when iron stores need to be replenished rapidly. In this study, we wanted to share the ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) desensitization protocol that we self-created and successfully applied., Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients with a history of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to IV or oral iron replacement and patients who were planned to receive IV iron replacement but were referred to the allergy clinic because of have risk factors (atopic diseases, history of HSR to other drugs, high serum tryptase levels, etc.) for HSRs. Before desensitization, some of the patients underwent skin tests (skin prick test and intradermal test) with FCM, and the results were recorded. Skin tests were not performed in patients with a history of drug use (antihistamine, systemic steroid, omalizumab, etc.) that affected the results of skin tests. All patients underwent a one-bag 8-step desensitization protocol with 500 mg FCM and were observed for 2 h after desensitization., Results: A total of 15 patients (14 females and 1 male) with a mean age of 41.13 ± 11.18 years were included in the study. When the patients were evaluated in terms of the risk of allergic reactions according to their clinical history, 8 patients had a history of anaphylaxis with iron preparations (FCM, n = 4; ferric hydroxide sucrose, n = 2; iron [II] glycine sulfate, n = 1; and iron [III] hydroxide polymaltose, n = 1), and 7 patients had a history of HSR other than anaphylaxis with iron preparations (urticaria, n = 6 [FCM, n = 2; iron (II) glycine sulfate, n = 2; and iron (III) hydroxide polymaltose, n = 2] and urticaria + angioedema [ferric hydroxide sucrose, n = 1]). Desensitization was successfully completed in all patients. No HSR was observed during or after the procedure in any of the patients., Conclusion: IV iron replacement is a very effective method, especially in cases where iron stores need to be replenished more rapidly. In patients with a history of iron HSR or at risk of developing HSR, replacement can be safely performed without an allergic reaction with successful desensitization protocols., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Pegylated l-asparaginase (PEG) is integral to treatment regimens for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and lymphoma. Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to PEG are common and can preclude continued administration. Data supporting recommendations for universal premedication (UPM) prior to PEG infusion to reduce incidence of HSRs are limited; UPM has become common practice., Procedures: Two free-standing children's hospitals independently implemented UPM prior to PEG infusions in 2016 and 2019, respectively. In a side-by-side retrospective analysis, incidence and severity of HSRs were analyzed pre- and postimplementation of UPM in youth ≥1 years old treated with frontline PEG-containing ALL regimens (2015-2018, 2016-2020). All HSRs were centrally reviewed within each institution to confirm and grade the HSR (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, v5). Planned analyses of subsets at potentially greater risk for HSRs included intensive PEG regimens (≥5 doses), adolescent and young adults (AYA), Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, and obesity., Results: In 410 patients (by institution, n = 282 and n = 128), the overall incidence of Grade ≥ 3 HSRs was 20% (56 out of 282) and 18% (23 out of 128), respectively. No difference in incidence of Grade ≥ 3 HSRs in patients with versus without UPM was found at either institution (23 vs. 19%, p = .487 and 19 vs. 17%, p = .845). UPM also did not reduce the severity of HSRs, nor influence HSR risk within any patient subset., Conclusions: UPM prior to PEG infusion did not alter incidence or severity of HSRs at either institution. HSR remains a common complication of PEG therapy, impacting the patient experience. Alternative strategies to reduce HSRs are urgently required., (© 2023 The Authors. Pediatric Blood & Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Cephalosporins, β-lactam antibiotics, commonly cause allergic reactions., Objective: To assess the clinical characteristics and management of pediatric patients with suspected cephalosporin allergy using direct graded oral challenges (GOCs)., Methods: Children referred for suspected cephalosporin allergy at 4 Canadian clinics were recruited over 10 years. Data on demographics, clinical reaction characteristics, and management were collected through a questionnaire. Patients underwent a direct GOC (initially 10% of the treatment dose, then 90% after 20 min), and reactions were monitored 1 week postchallenge. Families were contacted annually for up to 5 years to detect subsequent antibiotic reactions. Logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with positive GOC reactions., Results: Among the 136 patients reporting cephalosporin allergy, 75 (55.1%) were males with a median age of 3.9 years (interquartile range 2.3-8.7). Cefprozil represented the most common cephalosporin linked to the index reaction (67.6% of cases). Of the 136 direct GOCs, 5.1% had an immediate and 4.4% a nonimmediate reaction, respectively. Positive GOCs conducted in children with a history of skin-limited nonsevere rashes were classified as mild, benign skin rashes. Positive GOCs were more likely in children with food allergies (adjusted odds ratio 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.00-1.29)., Conclusions: Direct GOCs are safe and effective for diagnosing pediatric cases that report nonvesicular skin-limited symptoms while being treated with cephalosporins., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/purpose: Cephalosporins are considered safe and first-line prophylaxis in children with non-severe penicillin allergies. However, use of second-line agents is common and is primarily driven by poor allergic response documentation and misunderstanding of cross-reactivity risk. The goal of this project was to improve compliance with cephalosporin prophylaxis through improved documentation and targeted educational efforts., Methods: A multidisciplinary working group including representatives from allergy, surgery, infectious disease, and pharmacy developed staged interventions to facilitate compliance with cephalosporin prophylaxis. These included: (1) caregiver outreach to clarify incomplete allergy documentation, (2) a decision-support algorithm for prophylaxis use in penicillin-allergic patients, (3) standardized educational resources for surgical faculty and rotating trainees, (4) email reminders with prophylaxis recommendations sent out prior to scheduled cases, and (5) EMR-based decision support during antibiotic ordering. Rates of complete allergy documentation and cephalosporin utilization were compared for general surgery procedures between a 12-month pre-intervention and 14-month post-intervention period., Results: 578 patients with penicillin allergies recorded in the EMR were included (301 pre-intervention and 277 post-intervention), 54.0% of which received prophylaxis. Compared to the pre-intervention period, complete documentation of allergic reactions increased from 57.1% to 84.2% (p < 0.001) following implementation of all interventions. Appropriate prophylaxis utilization increased from 34.5% to 88.5% following implementation of all interventions (p < 0.001), and evidence of a stepwise increase in appropriate utilization was evident with each intervention stage. Persistent compliance failures during the post-implementation period were most commonly associated with urgent and emergent add-on cases. No adverse events or allergic responses were reported before or after project implementation., Conclusions: Compliance with cephalosporin prophylaxis significantly improved following a multidisciplinary effort targeting education, allergy documentation, and clinical support at the point of care. Ongoing efforts include postoperative audits within 24 h for noncompliant cases in order to identify barriers and improve compliance for urgent and emergent add-on cases., Level of Evidence: III., Type of Study: Prospective., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Different recommendations for the classification of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug hypersensitivity reactions (NSHSR) in children have been reported but a shortage still exists. Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the inclusivity of two European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) position paper classifications and to characterize the factors that underlie classification discordance in children. Methods: Patients with a history of NSHSR were evaluated with a standardized diagnostic protocol according to EAACI/ European Network for Drug Allergy (ENDA) recommendations. Children were classified and compared according to the EAACI 2013 and the pediatric EAACI/ENDA 2018 classifications. Subjects who were unclassified and those who were classified were compared. Results: Of 232 patients (median [interquartile range] age 6 years (4-11 years) with a history of NSHSR, 52 (22.4%) were confirmed with diagnostic tests. Thirty-six (69.2%) were classified as having cross-intolerance, whereas 16 patients (30.8%) were classified as selective responders. Eleven of the confirmed cases (21.2%) could not be categorized according to the 2013 EAACI classification, whereas this number was six adolescents (11.5%) when the 2018 EAACI/ENDA pediatric classification was used. Patients who were unclassified and who were all cross-intolerant were more likely to have atopic sensitization (p = 0.001) and asthma as an underlying disease (p = 0.03), higher serum eosinophil count (p = 0.022), and total immunoglobulin E levels (p = 0.007) compared with those who fit well into the classification. In multivariate regression analysis, the presence of atopic sensitization (adjusted odds ratio 20.36 [95% confidence interval, 2.14-193.48]; p = 0.009) was found to be the only significant underlying factor for an unclassified and/or blended phenotype. Conclusion: The 2013 EAACI classification resulted in a high rate of subjects who were unclassified. Despite better clinical utility, the recent pediatric EAACI/ENDA classification system still has shortcomings in terms of inclusivity for adolescents. Mostly, children with underlying allergic diseases could not be classified by the current guidelines. We propose to classify them as a separate pediatric cross-intolerance subgroup because the underlying mechanism may involve more than cyclooxygenase 1 inhibition.

Introduction: Skin tests are one of the most widely used diagnostic tools for suspected drug allergies in children. Studies on systemic reactions occurring during skin testing with allergens have mostly been conducted in pediatric and adult patient groups together. However, data on adverse reactions including allergic reactions after drug skin tests in children are scarce. It is aimed to determine the adverse reactions after skin test in children with suspected drug allergy., Methods: Patients who underwent a drug skin test due to the suspicion of drug allergy between May 2017 and June 2020 were evaluated, retrospectively. Data about adverse reactions seen after skin testing at the testing area in the clinic were analyzed., Results: The study included 1,073 children (585 [54.5%] boys and 488 [45.5%] girls) with a median age of 7.5 years. A total of 12 (1.1%) reactions were detected after skin testing, and 4 (0.4%) of them were allergic reactions. Of the allergic reactions, three were anaphylaxis and one was urticaria. Two of the reactions (1 anaphylaxis and 1 urticaria) were detected after the skin prick test and the remaining 2 were detected after intradermal test. Three of the nonallergic reactions were considered as vasovagal reactions and seven were considered as nonspecific and anxiety-related reactions., Conclusion: Although drug skin tests were generally well-tolerated and adverse reactions were rare, severe allergic reactions including anaphylaxis may ensue. Skin tests should be necessarily performed in clinical settings in experienced centers., (© 2023 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Rationale: Although rare, systemic hypersensitivity reactions to nedaplatin chemotherapy arise rapidly and can be life-threatening. The causes are unclear, and multiple potential mechanisms exist. Here, we report a case of systemic hypersensitivity reaction to nedaplatin and review the literature to establish a recommended protocol., Patient Concerns: A 62-year-old man was being treated for squamous lung cancer with multiple metastases. On the first day of chemotherapy, 5 minutes after nedaplatin infusion, he developed panic, shortness of breath, and dyspnea with rapid heart rate, reduced oxygen saturation, and elevated blood pressure., Diagnoses: The symptoms indicated that the patient had developed a severe hypersensitivity reaction to nedaplatin, which could be life-threatening without immediate intervention., Intervention: Nedaplatin was discontinued, and he was treated with oxygen, ECG monitoring, finger pulse oximeter monitoring, 10 mg dexamethasone sodium phosphate injected intravenously, 20 mg diphenhydramine hydrochloride injected intramuscularly, and 40 mg methylprednisolone sodium succinate injected intravenously., Outcome: His allergic symptoms resolved, and once his vital signs stabilized, he was given 5 mg oral desloratadine once daily and 10 mg oral ebastine once daily to alleviate the effects of the allergic reaction. Once his vital signs remained stable without any special supportive treatment, he was discharged from the hospital. His chemotherapy regimen was discontinued, with no plan for a follow-up treatment due to the possibility of cross-allergic reactions between platinum-based drugs., Lessons: Clinical use of nedaplatin should be monitored and managed intensively for prevention and treatment of hypersensitivity reactions. Care should be taken to control the titration rate during infusion while closely monitoring vital signs. Clinical staff should be prepared to treat allergic symptoms as soon as they appear. The acute phase should involve immediate discontinuation of the drug; intravenous saline infusion for volume expansion; rapid assessment of circulation, airway, respiration, state of consciousness, and skin condition; and administration of oxygen, antihistamines, and epinephrine as appropriate for anaphylaxis. More randomized clinical trials are needed to elucidate appropriate preventative and management strategies to improve patient safety and support their successful completion of clinical treatment programs., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Chlorhexidine and clindamycin, especially the latter, rarely cause anaphylaxis., Objective: To report a rare case of chlorhexidine- and clindamycin-induced anaphylaxis., Methods: Case report., Results: A 21-year-old female experienced anaphylaxis after receiving intravenous clindamycin after a left big toe fracture fixation operation; she also had a similar reaction after using a mouthwash. Therefore, we suspected the culprit might be chlorhexidine, and the skin prick and serum specific IgE test results confirmed our suspicion. Then the clindamycin provocation test verified that the patient also had hypersensitivity to clindamycin. However, the allergy tests for penicillin and cefuroxime were negative., Conclusions: Only four cases of clindamycin-induced anaphylaxis have been reported, and this is the first report of clindamycin-induced anaphylaxis verified by provocation test. The patient was given clindamycin because she was incorrectly labeled as having penicillin and cephalosporin allergies during the routine allergy test. It is essential to address this problem in China.

Objective: To assess the effects of patient variables, examination variables, and seasonality on allergic-like and physiologic reactions to iodinated contrast material (ICM)., Patients and Methods: All ICM-enhanced computed tomography (CT) examinations performed from June 1, 2009, to May 9, 2017, at our institution were included. Reactions were identified and categorized as allergic-like or physiologic and mild, moderate, or severe. The effect of patient and examination variables on reactions was evaluated by logistic regression models., Results: A total of 359,977 CT examinations performed on 176,886 unique patients were included. A total of 1150 allergic-like reactions (0.32%; 19 severe [0.005%]) and 679 physiologic reactions (0.19%; 3 severe [0.0008%]) occurred. On multivariable analysis, iopromide had higher rates of reactions compared with iohexol (allergic-like reactions: odds ratio [OR], 3.07 [95% CI, 2.37 to 3.98], P<.0001; physiologic reactions: OR, 2.60 [1.92 to 3.52], P<.0001). Non-White patients had higher rates of reactions compared with White patients (allergic-like reactions: OR, 1.77 [1.36-2.30], P<.0001; physiologic reactions: OR, 1.76 [1.27-2.42], P=.0006). Patient age, sex, prior ICM reaction, ICM dose, CT location, and CT type were also significantly associated with reactions. No significant seasonality trend was observed (P=.07 and .80)., Conclusion: Non-White patients and patients administered iopromide had higher rates of acute reactions compared with White patients and patients administered iohexol. Younger patients (<50 years vs 51 to 60 years), female sex, history of ICM allergy or other allergies, ICM dose, and contrast-enhanced CT location and type also correlated with higher acute reaction rates., (Copyright © 2023 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)