Spanish Guidelines for Diagnosis, Management, Treatment, and Prevention of DRESS Syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome is a complex multisystemic severe drug hypersensitivity reaction whose diagnosis and management are troublesome. DRESS syndrome requires management by various specialists. The correct identification of the culprit drug is essential to ensure safe future therapeutic options for the patient. There are no previous Spanish guidelines or consensus statements on DRESS syndrome. Objective: To draft a review and guidelines on the clinical diagnosis, allergy work-up, management, treatment, and prevention of DRESS syndrome in light of currently available scientific evidence and the experience of experts from multiple disciplines. METHODS: These guidelines were drafted by a panel of allergy specialists from the Drug Allergy Committee of the Spanish Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (SEAIC), together with other medical specialists involved in the management of DRESS syndrome and researchers from the PIELenRed consortium. A review was conducted of scientific papers on DRESS syndrome, and the expert panel evaluated the quality of the evidence of the literature and provided grades of recommendation. Whenever evidence was lacking, a consensus was reached among the experts. RESULTS: The first Spanish guidelines on DRESS syndrome are now being published. Important aspects have been addressed, including practical recommendations about clinical diagnosis, identification of the culprit drug through the Spanish pharmacovigilance system algorithm, and the allergy work-up. Recommendations are provided on management, treatment, and prevention. Algorithms for the management of DRESS in the acute and recovery phases have been drawn up. Expert consensus-based stepwise guidelines for the management and treatment of DRESS syndrome are provided.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Contrast Media.

The objective of these guidelines is to ensure efficient and effective clinical practice. The panel of experts who produced this consensus document developed a research protocol based on a review of the literature. The prevalence of allergic reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) is estimated to be 1:170 000, that is, 0.05%-0.1% of patients undergoing radiologic studies with ICM (more than 75 million examinations per year worldwide). Hypersensitivity reactions can appear within the first hour after administration (immediate reactions) or from more than 1 hour to several days after administration (nonimmediate or delayed reactions). The risk factors for immediate reactions include poorly controlled bronchial asthma, concomitant medication (eg, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, ß-blockers, and proton-pump inhibitors), rapid administration of the ICM, mastocytosis, autoimmune diseases, and viral infections. The most common symptoms of immediate reactions are erythema and urticaria with or without angioedema, which appear in more than 70% of patients. Maculopapular rash is the most common skin feature of nonimmediate reactions (30%-90%). Skin and in vitro tests should be performed for diagnosis of both immediate and nonimmediate reactions. The ICM to be administered will therefore be chosen depending on the results of these tests, the ICM that induced the reaction (when known), the severity of the reaction, the availability of alternative ICM, and the information available on potential ICM cross-reactivity. Another type of contrast media, gadolinium derivatives, is used used for magnetic resonance imaging. Although rare, IgE-mediated reactions to gadolinium derivatives have been reported.

Self-Management of Anaphylaxis Is Not Optimal.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to ascertain the degree of adherence to recommendations made to patients with anaphylaxis, most of whom were attended in our allergy outpatient clinic. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 1512 patients who had experienced anaphylaxis and completed by 887. The chosen definition of anaphylaxis was that of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network Symposium. We evaluated the prescription, purchase, and use of epinephrine auto-injectors and oral drugs, as well as the avoidance of allergens involved in previous anaphylaxis episodes. RESULTS: Most patients (94.53%) reported that they had received advice on avoidance of responsible allergens after their allergy workup. Epinephrine auto-injectors and oral drugs were prescribed according to the subtype of anaphylaxis. Only 30.74% of patients used the epinephrine auto-injector; 54.26% took oral medication. Most patients (88.3%) avoided the allergen. CONCLUSIONS: Despite general agreement that anaphylaxis occurring in the community should be treated with epinephrine auto-injectors, use of these devices to treat recurrences was low in our patients. Oral medication intake was more common than the epinephrine auto-injector in all subtypes. In order to increase adherence to epinephrine auto-injectors, it is necessary to think beyond the measures recommended during regular visits to allergy outpatient clinics.

Incidence of anaphylaxis in the city of Alcorcon (Spain): a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Relatively few studies have examined the incidence of anaphylaxis in the general population. OBJECTIVE: To report the incidence of anaphylaxis among the general population of the city of Alcorcon, Spain, using various public health care databases. METHODS: Episodes of anaphylaxis were recovered using validated alphanumeric strings in different fields of electronic clinical records used in the different public health settings in the city of Alcorcon (primary care, Emergency Department, hospitalized patients and Allergy Outpatient Clinic). Patients with anaphylaxis were tracked across the different clinical settings in Alcorcon. RESULTS: The incidence of anaphylaxis in Alcorcon was 103.37 episodes per 100 000 person-years (total standardized incidence rate of 112.2). There was a peak of 313.58 episodes in the 0-4 years age group and a different distribution of incidence rates (although non-significant) among different age groups between male patients and female patients. In most age groups, incidence tended to be higher for female patients aged over 10 years. Patients were attended at two or more levels in 76.78% of episodes, and a new evaluation was often made at a primary care centre (71.43%), Allergy Outpatient Clinic (75.6%), or both after the episode (58.93%). CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study revealed a higher rate of anaphylaxis than that in previous studies, although this incidence rate is probably lower than the real incidence rate. Studies exploring potential methodological, genetic and environmental factors accounting for these higher rates of anaphylaxis are required.

Incidence of anaphylaxis and subtypes of anaphylaxis in a general hospital emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The absence of large-scale international studies means that data on anaphylaxis in emergency departments in different geographic areas are still necessary. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of anaphylaxis and subtypes of anaphylaxis and their distribution by age group in the emergency department of Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcon, Alcorcon (Madrid), Spain. METHODS: Our study was performed between 2004 and 2005. We used the definition of anaphylaxis established by the NIAID-FAAN Symposium. Patient information was collected from the electronic clinical records of the emergency department using alphanumeric strings to identify acute allergic illnesses. This strategy recovered 91.7% of all anaphylaxis episodes in a pilot study. RESULTS: We observed a crude cumulative incidence of 0.9 episodes of anaphylaxis per 1000 emergency episodes (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.1), and 0.8 episodes per 1000 people (95% CI, 0.7-0.9). Standardized cumulative incidence of anaphylaxis according to the Standardized European Population was 1.1 (95% CI, 0.9-1.2). On analyzing the 213 cases of anaphylaxis, we discovered that the main cause was food (28.6%), followed by drugs (28.2%), unknown causes (27.2%), Anisakis (10.8%), Hymenoptera venom (3.3%), exercise (2.4%), and latex (0.9%). Food-induced anaphylaxis was less frequent in all groups older than the 0-4 age group in both reference populations (people who attend the emergency department and the general population). CONCLUSIONS: The cumulative incidence of anaphylaxis in our emergency department is low. Anaphylaxis by foods is more frequent in the 0-4 year group than in the other age groups. Drugs and food are the most frequent causes of anaphylaxis in our emergency department.

Thrombocytopenia and anaphylaxis secondary to heparin in a hemodialysis patient.

AIMS: We describe a rare case of anaphylaxis and thrombocytopenia whose cause was heparin used during hemodialysis sessions. CASE REPORT: A 77-year-old woman suffered five consecutive episodes of vomiting, tachypnea, wheezing or rales, immediately after initiating hemodialysis. In the first of these episodes, arterial pressure was undetectable. In all of the episodes there was evidence of the presence of hypoxia (always below 60 mmHg) and thrombocytopenia (always below l00,000/microl,, with partial platelets recovery among episodes. The episodes started immediately after hemodialysis sessions and heparin infusion; either sodium heparin or enoxaparin was used. Utilization of different filters was not able to stop the episodes. These were stopped when a switch from heparin to hirudin was tested. Tryptase levels, as a marker of mast cells activation and anaphylaxis, were not increased in two of the episodes which were assessed. IgG antibodies against heparin-PF4 complex was detected at high levels. DISCUSSION: A diagnosis of concomitant anaphylaxis and thrombocytopenia caused by sodium heparin and a low-molecular weight heparin (enoxaparin) were assumed.