Passive transient transfer of peanut allergy by liver transplantation.

We report a case of transient symptomatic transferred IgE-mediated peanut allergy after elective blood-group compatible liver transplantation. We show that the allergy was transient and therefore passive, authorizing further uneventful peanut consumption. Skin tests with commercial peanut extract and native peanut were performed in the recipient. Circulating specific IgE against peanut and recombinant peanut allergens (rArah1, rArah2, rArah3) was measured in stored serum samples collected from the recipient between 6 months before and 8 months after liver transplantation. Specific IgE levels in the donor were measured at the time of multiorgan donation. In the recipient, diagnosis of IgE-mediated peanut anaphylaxis was based on the clinical history and detection of specific IgE against peanut and recombinant major peanut allergens (rArah1, rArah2 and rArah3). Skin tests were negative and specific IgE undetectable 6 months after the clinical reaction. Oral peanut challenge was negative excluding persistent peanut allergy. This case confirms that IgE-mediated peanut allergy can be transferred by liver transplantation and shows that it may be transient and therefore passively acquired.

Anaphylactic reaction after methylene blue-treated plasma transfusion.

Methylene blue-treated fresh-frozen plasma (MB-FFP) is mainly used in Europe. The advantage of the methylene blue system is that units can be treated individually. The combined action of methylene blue and illumination is a photodynamic process preventing viral RNA and DNA replication. We report the first immediate allergic hypersensitivity reaction to methylene blue-treated plasma transfusion. The clinical course and subsequent assessment of the allergic reaction, including skin tests and basophil activation test, confirmed methylene blue-induced IgE-mediated anaphylaxis. All immediate reactions after MB-FFP transfusion should be investigated to document the underlying mechanism.

[Immediate allergy to iodinated contrast agents and prevention of reactions]. / Allergie immédiate aux produits de contraste iodés et prévention des réactions.

The incidence and morbimortality of immediate hypersensitivity reactions following iodinated contrast media (ICM) injection remain unknown. The diagnosis of an immediate hypersensitivity reaction relies on a triad associating the precise description of the initial clinical manifestations and their delay of onset, the results of the biological assessment performed after the reaction including histamine and tryptase serum level measurements, and the results of skin testing with the culprit agent. Analysis of these data allows identification of the pathophysiologic mechanism of the reaction and the allergen involved in case of allergic hypersensitivity. Skin tests should be performed according to strict criteria. Cross-reactivity with ICM has to be investigated in order to propose a nonreactive ICM for future procedures. Allergic hypersensitivity to a given ICM imposes its definitive avoidance but not the avoidance of all iodinated drugs. The allergenic sequence has not yet been identified but is not the iodine atom itself. Asthma and treatment with beta-blockers are not risk factors of immediate allergic reactions to ICM per se, but may increase their severity. The various published protocols of premedication do not prevent the occurrence of an allergic/anaphylactic reaction to an ICM. The avoidance of the culprit ICM is the only way to prevent further reactions.

Non-specific cross-reactivity of hydrophobic serum IgE to hydrophobic drugs.

The purpose of this work was to study the involvement of serum hydrophobic IgE in non-specific cross-reactions with hydrophobic drugs such as cyclohexenyl derivatives. Hydrophobic IgE were detected by radioimmunoassay. The results were expressed as the percentage of labelled anti-IgE which were adsorbed to the drug solid phase via IgE of the patient serum. Phenyl-Sepharose IgE-RIA was at 4.6 +/- 0.7%, 125 +/- 6.5% and 17.8 +/- 8.9% in control subjects (n = 24), in atopic patients with positive Phadiatop (n = 30) and in patients with drug allergy (n = 23), respectively. We selected five patients who were allergic to either penicillin, propofol, glafenin or paracetamol and who had a Phenyl-Sepharose IgE-RIA greater than 20%. In these five cases, IgE-RIA were positive (percentage at least twice more than that obtained with control sera) with all the solid phases prepared with hydrophobic drugs such as penicillin, propofol, glafenin, paracetamol and mexiletine. Inhibition of IgE binding by monoethylene-glycol showed that the cross-reactivity was due to hydrophobic binding of IgE to the drug. Three of the five patients were allergic to penicillin and underwent on adverse reaction against another cyclohexenyl derivative, namely propofol and glafenin. In conclusion, we have observed the presence of 'hydrophobic IgE (with positive Phenyl-Sepharose RIA)' in 64% of patients allergic to a hydrophobic drug.

["Iodine allergy": point of view]. / Allergie à l'iode: le point sur la question.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this literature review is to suggest a diagnostic and a preventive attitude in patients having presented an immediate hypersensitivity reaction due to an iodinated drug. DATA SOURCES: Literature review. Data were searched in the Medline database from 1967 to 2004 in English and French language. Complementary references were selected from the bibliography of selected references or from authors' personal databases. The following key-words were used separately or combined: Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Allergy; Contrast Media; Povidone-Iodine; Iodine; Iodine Compounds; Iodides; Amiodarone; Seafood, Parvalbumins; Tropomyosin. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized studies, epidemiological studies, original articles, clinical cases, and letters to the editor were selected. DATA SYNTHESIS: The implication of iodine has never been demonstrated during allergic hypersensitivity reactions due to iodinated drugs. However, IgE-mediated allergic hypersensitivity reactions have been published with contrast media or iodinated antiseptics and will be described in this development. In a wider sense, allergic hypersensitivity reactions due to seafood are evoked because often improperly considered as a risk factor of allergic reaction to iodinated drugs. The allergenic determinant responsible of patient sensitization is not known for iodinated contrast media, but is probably due to povidone in case of iodine povidone. In fish, the allergen is described as the protein M. There has also been strong immunological evidence that tropomyosin is a cross-reactive allergen among crustaceans and molluscs (shellfishs). In case of hypersensitivity reaction occurring with iodinated drug, an allergological assessment is required to confirm the immune mechanism, to identify the culprit drug or substance and to identify cross-reactivity especially with iodinated contrast media. CONCLUSION: Asking a patient if he/she is "allergic to iodine" is a question that should be avoided because its significance is null. A diagnosis of drug allergy, essentially relying on clinical symptoms, biological tests and cutaneous tests, is required to take adequate preventive measures.

[Value of skin tests for the choice of a neuromuscular blocking agent after an anaphylactic reaction]. / Intérêt des tests cutanés pour le choix d'un curare après une réaction anaphylactique.

We report a grade III allergic hypersensitivity reaction occurring in a 72-year-old patient immediately after anaesthesia induction. Anaphylaxis to cisatracurium was diagnosed on clinical symptoms, biological tests and positivity of the cutaneous tests to this neuromuscular blocking agent. Five days after this allergological assessment, rocuronium, a muscle relaxant for which skin tests appeared negative was used during surgery without adverse effects. The authors underline the value of a detailed allergological assessment to identify the pathophysiologic mechanism, the culprit drug and to propose a safer alternate drug that might be used.

[Prevention of severe reactions after iodinated contrast media injection: review of the literature]. / Prévention des réactions sévères après injection de produits de contraste iodés: revue de la littérature.

One of the goal of a premedication before contrast agent injection is to decrease their adverse effects. However, no randomized study was published to date on the value of a systematic premedication for the prevention of immediate severe reactions. A knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms and patients at risk seems to be essential. The allergic mechanism is probably one of the etiologic diagnosis, but this hypothesis needs to be confirmed by a multicenter prospective study. A patient who has had previous allergic reaction with contrast agent should undergo intradermal tests so as to identify and eliminate the culprit contrast medium in order to avoid any subsequent allergic accidents. Indeed, measurement of specific IgEs has not been validated for contrast media. The test dose should be discarded because it is a false security. The eventuality of adverse effects of the drugs used for premedication should not be underestimated.

[Severe reactions to iodinated contrast agents: is anaphylaxis responsible?]. / Réactions sévères avec les produits de contraste iodés: l'anaphylaxie est-elle responsable?

PURPOSE: The etiology of severe reactions following injection of iodinated contrast agents is the subject of controversy. No consensus has been established regarding the management of patients at risk, risk factors and premedication because in most cases published no diagnostic exploration has been carried out on patients who have experienced a severe reaction. MATERIAL: and Methods. Diagnosis of drug anaphylaxis is based on clinical history, proof of mediator release and drug-specific IgE antibodies (when the technique is available) or cutaneous tests (when direct technique is not available). RESULTS: This approach has been adopted for etiologic diagnosis of 5 clinical cases of severe anaphylactoid reactions (including one death) following the injection of ionic and non ionic contrast agents. Clinical symptoms, biology and cutaneous tests are consistent with anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: Any patient who has had a severe anaphylactoid reaction following injection of a contrast agent should undergo an allergological assessment to confirm the diagnosis and identify the culprit contrast agent. Indeed, no premedication has proved efficient for the prevention of subsequent allergic reactions.

[Allergic risk during paediatric anaesthesia]. / Risque allergique en anesthésie pédiatrique.

OBJECTIVES: To propose the different modalities of management of the allergic risk occurring during paediatric anaesthesia. STUDY DESIGN: Literature analysis. METHODS: Literature research using the Medline((R)) database and MeSH format according to keywords, including publications in French and English since 1982. RESULTS: The overall incidence for anaphylactic reactions was estimated at one in 7741 anaesthetic procedures during paediatric anaesthesia. Latex anaphylaxis was mostly involved with an incidence at one in 10,159 anesthetic procedures. The risk factors of latex sensitization are known. Primary latex prophylaxis is efficient in patients at risk of latex sensitization. In contrast to adults, neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are rarely involved in children, with an incidence at 1 in 81,275 anaesthetic procedures. The Ring and Messmer clinical scale allows quantifying the severity and helps managing the care of immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Clinical symptoms associate cardiovascular, respiratory and cutaneous-mucous signs according to different severity grades. Epinephrine associated to fluid loading, remains the first-line agent in case of severe reactions. The allergological assessment is key to the management of these reactions and is required in order to identify the mechanism of the reaction and the culprit drug or substance involved. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic reactions to NMBAs occurring during paediatric anaesthesia are rare whereas those with latex are more frequent. Therefore, the reduction of the allergic risk during paediatric anaesthesia essentially requires a latex-free environment.

[Mastocytosis and anaesthesia]. / Mastocytoses et anesthésie.

Mastocytosis are characterized by an accumulation of abnormal mast cells in various tissues. Their incidence is estimated at 1/150,000 patients. Pure cutaneous mastocytosis which are mainly observed during childhood may resolve spontaneously during adolescence, whereas systemic mastocytosis involving one or more organs or tissues are more observed in adults. The initial event leading to mastocytosis is believed to be related to activating mutations in c-kit receptor, thus resulting in increased proliferation of mast cells precursors, migration in various tissues and degranulation leading to clinical signs. This nosologic entity does not belong to allergic diseases. Their perioperative management involves a multidisciplinary approach. The degranulation of mast cells with subsequent clinical symptoms can be triggered by psychological, chemical, traumatic, physical (rubbing, extreme temperatures...) agents. Avoiding these triggers should be realized whenever possible according to each patient. The premedication has not proven its efficiency. Tryptase measurement is part of the preoperative biological assessment. The clinical signs severity is related to the cardiovascular homeostasis disturbances (arterial hypotension, cardiovascular collapse, cardiac arrest). The cardiovascular symptoms do not correlate to the cutaneous versus systemic description of the disease. The drug of choice for the treatment of the severe cardiovascular signs is epinephrine associated to vascular loading. The aim of this literature review is to suggest the different modalities of perioperative care of patients with mastocytosis.

Perioperative anaphylaxis.

The incidence of immune-mediated anaphylaxis during anesthesia ranges from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 20,000. Neuromuscular blocking agents represent the most frequently involved substances, followed by latex and antibiotics, but every drug or substance used may be involved. Diagnosis relies on tryptase measurements at the time of the reaction and skin tests and specific IgE or basophil activation assays.

Hypersensitivity reactions to neuromuscular blocking agents.

Neuromuscular blocking agents are the leading drugs responsible for immediate hypersensitivity reactions during anaesthesia. Most hypersensitivity reactions represent IgE-mediated allergic reactions. Their incidence is estimated to be between 1 in 3,000 to 1 in 110,000 general anaesthetics. However striking variations have been reported among countries. The mechanism of sensitisation seems to implicate the presence of a substituted ammonium ion in the molecule. Due to lack of exposure prior to the reaction in a large number of reactors, it has been hypothesised that sensitisation may involve other, as yet undefined, substituted (quaternary and tertiary) ammonium ion containing compounds such as pholcodine, present in the environment of the patient. This hypothesis is still under investigation. The mechanism of non-IgE mediated hypersensitivity reactions is less well known. Identified mechanisms correspond to direct histamine release or interactions with muscarinic and nicotinic receptors. Allergic reactions cannot be clinically distinguished from non-IgE-mediated reactions. Therefore, any suspected hypersensitivity reaction must be investigated using combined pre and postoperative testing. Because of the frequent but not systematic cross-reactivity observed with muscle relaxants, every available neuromuscular blocking agent should be tested, using intradermal tests to confirm the responsibility of the suspected drug which should be definitely excluded. Cross-sensitivity investigation will also try to identify the safety of drugs that can be potentially used in future anaesthesia. The determination of basophil activation investigations using direct leukocyte histamine release test or flow cytometry would be of particular interest to investigate cross sensitisation in complement to skin tests. There is no demonstrated evidence supporting systematic pre-operative screening in the general population at this time. However, since no specific treatment has been shown to reliably prevent anaphylaxis, allergy assessment must be performed in all high-risk patients. In view of the relative complexity of allergy investigation, and of the differences between countries, an active policy to identify patients at risk and to provide any necessary support from expert advice to anaesthetists and allergologists through the constitution of allergo-anaesthesia centres in every country should be promoted.

Anaesthetists should be aware of delayed hypersensitivity to phenylephrine.

Delayed reactions to phenylephrine, used as a mydriatic agent during ophthalmological surgical procedures, are well known. We diagnosed a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to phenylephrine included in an ophthalmic insert in a woman presenting, 24 h after surgery, with an acute blepharoconjunctivitis associated with eyelid eczema of the operated eye. The diagnosis was supported by the recognition of clinical symptoms associated with a positive patch test to phenylephrine. Patients who present with previous contact eczema to phenylephrine may develop a generalized eczema if phenylephrine is injected intravenously. Intravenous phenylephrine is increasingly being used in the operating room to treat hypotension. This case report confirms the need for systematic allergological investigation of all drugs and substances administered during the peri-operative period in order to avoid a delayed hypersensitivity reaction occurring after the peri-operative period. Anaesthetists should be aware of the possibility of delayed hypersensitivity reactions involving phenylephrine.

[Treatment of anaphylactic reaction in pre-hospital and in the emergency room: literature review]. / Prise en charge d'une réaction anaphylactique en extrahospitalier et aux urgences: revue de la littérature.

Care and therapy of patients experiencing an anaphylactic reaction should be known by the physicians working in the emergency medical unit or in pre-hospital care. The epidemiology of these reactions varies according to the countries. The main aetiologies are due to food, hymenoptera or drugs. The clinical scale proposed by Ring and Messmer aims to classify the reactions in 4 grades according to their severity and is useful to stratify therapy. According to the grade of the reaction, the drug of choice for the treatment of anaphylaxis is epinephrine associated to vascular expansion. Anaphylaxis during pregnancy is described. Patients who experienced an immediate hypersensitivity reaction should undergo an allergological investigation to prove the immune mechanism and to identify the culprit allergen. Reporting to the Drug Safety Monitoring Authorities when a drug is implicated should not be forgotten.

Anaphylactic reaction to patent blue V after sentinel lymph node biopsy.

BACKGROUND: We report a documented grade III IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction associated with the use of 2.5% patent blue V dye for sentinel lymph node biopsy during breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Immediately after the reaction, when hemodynamic stability was obtained, plasma histamine was measured whereas serum tryptase was not. Six weeks later, with the patient's consent, cutaneous tests to patent blue V dye, methylene blue dye, latex and all drugs used during surgery were performed according to standardized procedures. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Clinical symptoms, biological assessment results and cutaneous tests positivity confirmed the onset of an anaphylactic reaction due to patent blue V. Of interest, the positivity of the cutaneous tests observed with patent blue V was not found with methylene blue which might be proposed for further investigations in our patient. This case report confirms the need for systematic allergological investigation of all drugs and substances administered during the peri-operative period in case of an immediate hypersensitivity reaction occurring during anesthesia.