Adrenaline intravenous therapy persistence grade I severe allergic reaction: A case report and literature review.

RATIONALE: At present, there is still insufficient understanding of the progression from persistent allergic reactions to severe reactions. Adrenaline remains the preferred medication for severe allergic reactions, and intramuscular injection of adrenaline can also be considered for patients with grade I reactions that are difficult to alleviate gastrointestinal symptoms. It is worth further discussing whether it is possible to break the conventional intramuscular injection recommended by the guidelines when the effect of intramuscular injection is not ideal for persistent grade I severe allergic reactions. PATIENT CONCERNS: A young male, 20 years of age, was admitted to emergency department because of repeated rash for 3 days and abdominal pain for 6 hours after taking traditional Chinese medicine. After hormone therapy, the rash continued to recur and secondary gastrointestinal symptoms occurred on the 3th day. Adrenaline intramuscular injection was given to temporarily relieve the rash and abdominal pain, but symptoms still persisted. DIAGNOSIS: The patient was diagnosed with persistent severe allergic reaction (grade I). INTERVENTIONS: Continuous intravenous infusion of low-dose adrenaline under electrocardiographic monitoring, real-time monitoring of heart rate and blood pressure, and routine treatment with methylprednisolone, diphenhydramine, calcium gluconate, and cetirizine. During this period, adrenaline intramuscular injection is temporarily added when abdominal pain symptoms are obvious. The entire treatment process used a total of 6.8 mg of adrenaline. OUTCOMES: During the entire period of adrenaline intervention, the patient did not experience any new discomfort, and there were no abnormal fluctuations in heart rate, rhythm, or blood pressure. The symptoms of rash and abdominal pain gradually improved. LESSONS: For patients with persistent grade I severe allergic reactions, intravenous administration of low-dose adrenaline under close vital sign monitoring is safe, feasible, and highly effective in preventing biphasic, persistent, or worsening allergic reactions.

Drug Reactions and Desensitization to Chemotherapeutic Agents: An Overview and Case Study.

Certain chemotherapy agents have an increased potential to cause allergic reactions. These reactions can vary in severity from mild to severe, and a change in treatment may be suggested for the patient to avoid the causative.

[Second-Generation Antihistamines for Preventing Hypersensitivity Reactions during Anticancer Therapy-A Retrospective Study].

Hypersensitivity reactions are an adverse effect of anticancer drug therapy. Prophylactic administration of antiallergic drugs and steroids is recommended when administering drugs associated with a high hypersensitivity reaction incidence. First-generation antihistamines are generally used in this setting. These medications, however, induce drowsiness and sedation due to their inhibitory effects on the central nervous system. They are contraindicated in patients with angle-closure glaucoma and prostatic hyperplasia. Second-generation antihistamines are used as alternative drugs for such cases in our hospital. This study investigated the use of second-generation antihistamines at our hospital and examined their efficacy and safety. A total of 7 second-generation antihistamines were used at our hospital. Approximately 90% of the target patients were shifted from first-generation antihistamines to bilastine or desloratadine. The most frequent reasons for changing to second- generation antihistamines were drowsiness(32.3%)and car driving(24.2%). No central inhibitory side effects were observed upon consumption of second-generation antihistamines. Only 2 patients(3.2%)developed hypersensitivity reactions after changing to second-generation antihistamines. Our findings suggest that second-generation antihistamines are effective in preventing hypersensitivity reactions. These medications may be used in patients who have concerns regarding the central inhibitory side effects of first-generation antihistamines or their potential to exacerbate comorbidities. Their use can help improve the safety of anticancer drug therapy.

The Safety of Aztreonam Versus Ceftazidime in Patients Labeled With Penicillin Allergy: A Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Penicillin allergy is the most common drug allergy among hospitalized patients. Traditionally, aztreonam is recommended for patients labeled with penicillin allergy (PLWPA) in our institutional empirical antibiotic guidelines. Due to a global aztreonam shortage in December 2022, the antimicrobial stewardship unit recommended ceftazidime as a substitute. There is a paucity of real-world data on the safety profile of ceftazidime in PLWPA. Hence, we evaluated tolerability outcomes of ceftazidime use in PLWPA. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared PLWPA in Singapore General Hospital who received aztreonam (October 2022-December 2022) or ceftazidime (December 2022-February 2023). Patients were stratified according to their risk of allergic reaction (AR) based on history of penicillin allergy. The severity of AR was based on the Delphi study grading system. The primary outcome was development of AR after initiation of aztreonam or ceftazidime. The secondary tolerability outcomes include hepatotoxicity and neurotoxicity. FINDINGS: There were 168 patients in the study; 69 were men (41.1%) and the median age was 69 years (interquartile range: 59-76 years). Incidence of AR was statistically similar in both arms: 1 of 102 patients (0.98%) in the aztreonam arm vs 2 of 66 patients (3.03%) in the ceftazidime arm (P = 0.33). The patient in the aztreonam arm was deemed at medium risk of having an AR and developed localized rashes (grade 1). Both patients in the ceftazidime arm were deemed at high risk of AR and developed localized skin reaction (grade 1). Hepatotoxicity was observed in 1 patient prescribed aztreonam. No patients in the ceftazidime arm developed adverse events. IMPLICATIONS: Ceftazidime appears to be better tolerated and cheaper compared with aztreonam in PLWPA, and serves as an antimicrobial stewardship strategy to conserve broader-spectrum antibiotics use.

[Supposed allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics: is it time for reflections and actions?] / Presunta allergia agli antibiotici beta-lattamici: è tempo di riflessioni e azioni?

The excessive, often unconfirmed suspicions of beta-lactam allergy affect up to 10% of the general population, improperly denying a significant percentage of individuals the opportunity to be treated with first-line antibiotics, forcing clinicians to resort to second-line choices that are not always equally effective, safe, and contribute to the increase in antibiotic resistance. Pediatricians and general practitioners can play a crucial role in recognizing and addressing weak suspicions of beta-lactam allergy, actively participating in removing the "label" of being allergic. The article, based on Who AWaRe Manual recommendations, presents current evidence on the issue with practical guidance to promote accurate interpretation and management of an overestimated problem that does not encourage a culture of optimal and prudent antibiotic use.

A Case Report and Pediatric Literature Review: Povidone as a Rare Cause of Anaphylaxis in Children.

Background: Povidone, a synthetic polymer commonly used in various products such as antiseptics, cosmetics, and medications, has been associated with allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. Despite its widespread use, cases of povidone-induced anaphylaxis, especially in children, are under-recognized. This case report aims to highlight the importance of considering povidone allergy in pediatric patients presenting with anaphylaxis. Case Presentation: We describe a 3-year-old boy who experienced anaphylaxis following the application of povidone-iodine antiseptic solution to a leg wound. He presented with generalized urticaria, angioedema, dyspnea, and cough. Prompt diagnosis and management were initiated in the emergency department. He experienced the second anaphylaxis with povidone-containing eye drops prescribed during an ophthalmology visit. Conclusions: Povidone allergy should be considered in pediatric patients presenting with anaphylaxis, especially those with idiopathic reactions or multiple drug allergies. Clinicians should emphasize patient education on label reading and the provision of adrenaline autoinjectors to prevent life-threatening reactions associated with povidone exposure.

Simplified Helicobacter pylori therapy for patients with penicillin allergy: a randomised controlled trial of vonoprazan-tetracycline dual therapy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vonoprazan and tetracycline (VT) dual therapy as first-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with penicillin allergy. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, treatment-naïve adults with H. pylori infection and penicillin allergy were randomised 1:1 to receive either open-label VT dual therapy (vonoprazan 20 mg two times per day+tetracycline 500 mg three times a day) or bismuth quadruple therapy (BQT; lansoprazole 30 mg two times per day+colloidal bismuth 150 mg three times a day+tetracycline 500 mg three times a day+metronidazole 400 mg three times a day) for 14 days. The primary outcome was non-inferiority in eradication rates in the VT dual group compared with the BQT group. Secondary outcomes included assessing adverse effects. RESULTS: 300 patients were randomised. The eradication rates in the VT group and the BQT group were: 92.0% (138/150, 95% CI 86.1% to 95.6%) and 89.3% (134/150, 95% CI 83.0% to 93.6%) in intention-to-treat analysis (difference 2.7%; 95% CI -4.6% to 10.0%; non-inferiority p=0.000); 94.5% (138/146, 95% CI 89.1% to 97.4%) and 93.1% (134/144, 95% CI 87.3% to 96.4%) in modified intention-to-treat analysis (difference 1.5%; 95% CI -4.9% to 8.0%; non-inferiority p=0.001); 95.1% (135/142, 95% CI 89.7% to 97.8%) and 97.7% (128/131, 95% CI 92.9% to 99.4%) in per-protocol analysis (difference 2.6%; 95% CI -2.9% to 8.3%; non-inferiority p=0.000). The treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were significantly lower in the VT group (14.0% vs 48.0%, p=0.000), with fewer treatment discontinuations due to TEAEs (2.0% vs 8.7%, p=0.010). CONCLUSIONS: VT dual therapy demonstrated efficacy and safety as a first-line treatment for H. pylori infection in the penicillin-allergic population, with comparable efficacy and a lower incidence of TEAEs compared with traditional BQT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2300074693.

Removing penicillin allergy label in a hospitalized adolescent with a remote penicillin and recent cephalosporin allergy.

Background: ß-Lactam antibiotics are widely used with increased utilization in hospitalized patients. Of this population, as high as 10-20% report an allergy to ß-lactam antibiotics but <5% are at risk of developing clinically significant immunoglobulin E- or T-lymphocyte-mediated reactions. Most of the time, these reported allergies are present during an illness with no previous inquiry of their validity, which makes investigation and possible removal of this allergy label a challenge. Methods: We report a 16-year-old boy who presented with 1 week of night sweats, chills, headaches, and fatigue, followed by 1 day of fever and right knee swelling and who was diagnosed with septic bursitis. Due to concern of a penicillin allergy label, the patient was started on a cefepime infusion. Five minutes into the infusion, the patient reported puffy eyes and itchy throat, followed by a witnessed cascading flat nonpruritic erythematous rash from head to shoulders. This rash went away in 3 minutes after stopping the infusion and the patient being given 50 mg of intravenous diphenhydramine and 10 mg of oral dexamethasone. He was subsequently diagnosed with a cefepime allergy. Results: Allergy/immunology was the speciality consulted, and, by using a screening questionnaire, the patient's reported penicillin allergy was determined to be low risk. Subsequent 1-step oral challenge was the key to providing the patient with the necessary antibiotic course to resolve his infection. Conclusion: Multiple reported antibiotic allergies lead to poor antibiotic stewardship that causes impactful health and financial burden on the patient and health-care system. It is thus important to have an evidence-based systematic approach to de-label penicillin antibiotic allergy labels to reduce these potential harms.

Balancing Benefits and Risks: A Literature Review on Hypersensitivity Reactions to Human G-CSF (Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor).

Human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a granulopoietic growth factor used in the treatment of neutropenia following chemotherapy, myeloablative treatment, or healthy donors preparing for allogeneic transplantation. Few hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) have been reported, and its true prevalence is unknown. We aimed to systematically characterize G-CSF-induced HRs while including a comprehensive list of adverse reactions. We reviewed articles published before January 2024 by searching in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases using a combination of the keywords listed, selected the ones needed, and extracted relevant data. The search resulted in 68 entries, 17 relevant to our study and 7 others found from manually searching bibliographic sources. A total of 40 cases of G-CSF-induced HR were described and classified as immediate (29) or delayed (11). Immediate ones were mostly caused by filgrastim (13 minimum), with at least 9 being grade 5 on the WAO anaphylaxis scale. Delayed reactions were mostly maculopapular exanthemas and allowed for the continuation of G-CSF. Reactions after first exposure frequently appeared and were present in at least 11 of the 40 cases. Only five desensitization protocols have been found concerning the topic at hand in the analyzed data. We believe this study brings to light the research interest in this topic that could benefit from further exploration, and propose regular updating to include the most recently published evidence.

A Case of Severe Lethal Allergic Reaction Caused by Iodixanol After Digital Subtraction Angiography.

BACKGROUND: Severe lethal allergic reactions triggered by iodixanol following digital subtraction angiography (DSA) are rare. The majority of skin reactions associated with iodixanol were mild, and the prognosis was favorable. Moreover, a case of serious skin adverse events caused by iodixanol has been documented. METHODS: A 61-year-old woman underwent surgery for a cerebral hemorrhage in another hospital. Upon the surgery, the patient's state of impaired consciousness did not show any improvement. Head computed tomography angiography on admission: right middle cerebral artery M1 segment enlargement, left posterior cerebral artery P2 stenosis. Following undergoing DSA with iodixanol, the patient experienced severe and fatal drug eruptions, which represents a serious and uncommon complication associated with iodixanol. RESULTS: This paper describes the experience in the treatment and nursing of severe allergic reactions. Despite the fact that the patient was discharged automatically and eventually died, there are valuable lessons to be learned from this case that can inform and guide future clinical practices. CONCLUSIONS: Iodixanol adverse reactions were rare, and severe fatal adverse reactions were seldom reported. Consequently, the authors conclude that the potential adverse reaction risk of iodixanol contrast agent should be taken into consideration in future endeavors, and the skin and allergy of patients should be monitored following DSA. In an allergy, prompt and proactive treatment is essential to prevent worsening and dissemination.

Perioperative anaphylactic shock caused by propofol.

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.

[Retrospective analysis of perioperative anaphylactic shock induced by cefuroxime].

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.

Promoting penicillin allergy de-labeling for children attending a hematology clinic.

BACKGROUND: Up to 10% of children are reported to be allergic to penicillin, but many allergy labels are unverified and may require formal testing. Inaccurate drug allergy labels are associated with a range of adverse clinical outcomes. Patients with hematological disorders may experience frequent and severe infections; those who have been incorrectly labeled penicillin allergic may benefit from allergy de-labeling (ADL) efforts to facilitate access to beta-lactam antibiotics. We developed a multidisciplinary, pharmacist-driven process that enabled non-allergist trained providers to assess and de-label penicillin allergies in a pediatric hematology center. METHODS: Volunteers, including physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, and pharmacists, were trained in skin testing and oral challenge procedures. Patients were identified by review of electronic medical records for penicillin or penicillin-derivative allergy. Patient and family interviews were conducted in cases where a true penicillin allergy was deemed uncertain based on chart review. If allergy could not be de-labeled by chart review or interview alone, patients were offered skin and/or oral challenge testing. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were initially labeled as penicillin allergic. Allergy labels of 11 (19%) were removed by chart review only, and 15 (25%) after conducting interviews. A total of two (3%) patients were ineligible due to contraindications, and five (9%) declined participation. Twenty-six patients (44%) underwent allergy testing (50% skin testing, 50% oral challenge) of which 23 (88%) were negative. CONCLUSIONS: ADL was possible in most patients previously identified as penicillin allergic. Testing was well tolerated with no serious adverse effects.

Recurrent acquired ocular toxoplasmosis associated with Kyrieleis plaques and documented allergy to sulfonamide-A treatment proposal for two rare conditions.

The aim of this study was to describe a case of a patient with ocular toxoplasmosis, which has resulted in Kyrieleis plaques formation (segmental periarteritis associated with severe inflammation) and later follow-up and alternative treatment due to documented allergy to sulfonamide. A 33-year-old Brazilian woman diagnosed with acute toxoplasmosis, initially treated with sulfonamide, developed a critical cutaneous rash. Cotrimoxazole was changed to clindamycin and pyrimethamine, and prednisone was started. The medication was maintained for 45 days. Four months later, she developed retinal lesions suggestive of toxoplasmosis with Kyrieleis plaques in the upper temporal vessels. Pyrimethamine, clindamycin, and prednisone were initiated until healing. She presented reactivation months later, and a suppressive treatment with pyrimethamine was instituted for one year. This is the first report to use the combination of clindamycin with pyrimethamine in the treatment and recurrence prophylaxis for OT in a documented allergy to sulfonamide.