Specific IgE and Basophil Activation Test by Microarray: A Promising Tool for Diagnosis of Platinum Compound Hypersensitivity Reactions.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to platinum-based compounds (PCs) are on the rise, and their personalized and safe management is essential to enable first-line treatment for these cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of the basophil activation test by flow cytometry (BAT-FC) and the newly developed sIgE-microarray and BAT-microarray in diagnosing IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to PCs. A total of 24 patients with DHRs to PCs (20 oxaliplatin and four carboplatin) were evaluated: thirteen patients were diagnosed as allergic with positive skin tests (STs) or drug provocation tests (DPTs), six patients were diagnosed as non-allergic with negative STs and DPTs, and five patients were classified as suspected allergic because DPTs could not be performed. In addition, four carboplatin-tolerant patients were included as controls. The BAT-FC was positive in 2 of 13 allergic patients, with a sensitivity of 15.4% and specificity of 100%. However, the sIgE- and BAT-microarray were positive in 11 of 13 DHR patients, giving a sensitivity of over 84.6% and a specificity of 90%. Except for one patient, all samples from the non-allergic and control groups were negative for sIgE- and BAT-microarray. Our experience indicated that the sIgE- and BAT-microarray could be helpful in the endophenotyping of IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to PCs and may provide an advance in decision making for drug provocation testing.

Asparaginase-specific basophil recognition and activation predict Asparaginase hypersensitivity in mice.

Background: Asparaginase (ASNase) is a crucial part of acute leukemia treatment, but immune responses to the agent can reduce its effectiveness and increase the risk of relapse. Currently, no reliable and validated biomarker predicts ASNase-induced hypersensitivity reactions during therapy. We aimed to identify predictive biomarkers and determine immune cells responsible for anaphylaxis using a murine model of ASNase hypersensitivity. Methods: Our preclinical study uses a murine model to investigate predictive biomarkers of ASNase anaphylaxis, including anti-ASNase antibody responses, immune complex (IC) levels, ASNase-specific binding to leukocytes or basophils, and basophil activation. Results: Our results indicate that mice immunized to ASNase exhibited dynamic IgM, IgG, and IgE antibody responses. The severity of ASNase-induced anaphylaxis was found to be correlated with levels of IgG and IgE, but not IgM. Basophils from immunized mice were able to recognize and activate in response to ASNase ex vivo, and the extent of recognition and activation also correlated with the severity of anaphylaxis observed. Using a multivariable model that included all biomarkers significantly associated with anaphylaxis, independent predictors of ASNase-induced hypersensitivity reactions were found to be ASNase IC levels and ASNase-specific binding to leukocytes or basophils. Consistent with our multivariable analysis, we found that basophil depletion significantly protected mice from ASNase-induced hypersensitivity reactions, supporting that basophils are essential and can be used as a predictive marker of ASNase-induced anaphylaxis. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the need for using tools that can detect both IC- and IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to mitigate the risk of ASNase-induced hypersensitivity reactions during treatment.

Drug Allergy Mimics.

When approaching a case of apparent drug allergy, the consulting clinician should consider a broad differential diagnosis. This article presents a series of cases that could be commonly referred to an allergist for assessment as "drug allergy," however, a real diagnosis exists that mandates a different diagnostic and treatment strategy, including a case of inducible laryngeal obstruction, multiple drug intolerance syndrome, viral rash, seizure due to metastatic malignancy, and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis initially diagnosed as drug reaction and eosinophilia with systemic symptoms. The initial misdiagnoses of these patients delayed or interfered with their medical care, emphasizing the importance of accurate diagnoses for the benefit of our patients.

A multicentre observational study to investigate feasibility of a direct oral penicillin challenge in de-labelling 'low risk' patients with penicillin allergy by non-allergy healthcare professionals (SPACE study): Implications for healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVE: The huge burden of inaccurate penicillin allergy labels (PALs) is an important driver of antimicrobial resistance. This is magnified by insufficient allergy specialists and lack of 'point-of-care' tests. We investigated the feasibility of non-allergy healthcare professionals (HCPs) delivering direct oral penicillin challenges (DPCs) for penicillin allergy de-labelling. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in three hospitals in England across three settings (acute medical, pre-surgical and haematology-oncology). Patients with a PAL were screened and stratified as low risk/high risk. Low risk patients (non-immune mediated symptoms, benign rash, tolerated amoxicillin since and family history) underwent a DPC. RESULTS: N = 2257 PALs were screened, 1054 were eligible; 643 were approached, 373 declined, 270 consented and 259 risk stratified (low risk = 155; high risk = 104). One hundred and twenty-six low risk patients underwent DPC, 122 (96.8%) were de-labelled with no serious allergic reactions. Conversion rate from screening-to-consent was 12% [3.3% and 17.9% in acute and elective settings respectively; odds ratios for consent were 3.42 (p < 0.001) and 5.53 (p < 0.001) in haematology-oncology and pre-surgical setting respectively. Common reasons for failure to progress in the study included difficulty in reaching patients, clinical instability/medical reasons, lacking capacity to consent and psychological factors. INTERPRETATION: DPCs can be delivered by non-allergy HCPs. A high proportion of patients with PALs did not progress in the study pathway. Strategies to deliver DPC at optimal points of the care pathway are needed to enhance uptake. Elective settings offer greater opportunities than acute settings for DPC. The safety and simplicity of DPCs lends itself to adoption by healthcare systems beyond the UK, including in resource-limited settings.

Severe Multiple Drug Intolerance Syndrome in Fibromyalgia and Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Multiple drug intolerance syndrome (MDIS) describes patients with multiple nonimmunologically mediated adverse reactions to medications. Patients with more than 10 medication intolerance labels are considered to have severe MDIS. There is overlap in the characteristics of patients with MDIS and fibromyalgia and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Severe MDIS can limit treatment options in this already complex patient group. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the prevalence of severe MDIS in patients with fibromyalgia and IBS and its associated risk factors. METHODS: A retrospective chart review identified patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia or IBS who had been seen at a large academic center from August 2019 to July 2020. Exact birthdate- and sex-matched controls who had been seen within the same time frame were selected at random. Listed drug intolerance data and patient characteristics were then analyzed with logistic regression and χ2 testing. RESULTS: Patients with fibromyalgia and IBS were 12 and 3 times more likely to have severe MDIS compared with controls, respectively. Severe MDIS was associated with polypharmacy in both groups. Opiates were the most frequently reported drug intolerance across all participants. Although patients with IBS more often reported gastrointestinal symptoms as adverse reactions, individuals with fibromyalgia did not more frequently report pain or behavioral changes as adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: There was an increased rate of severe MDIS in patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia and IBS. Additional studies are needed to better understand the morbidity of MDIS and how it can best be managed in patients with fibromyalgia and IBS.

Local Anesthetic Hypersensitivity Reactions in Pediatric Patients: Recognition and Management.

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.

Perioperative hypersensitivity in children: A prospective multidisciplinary study.

BACKGROUND: There are few studies of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions in children. The diagnosis of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions may be under estimated because it is difficult to recognize the reactions. Anaphylaxis may go unnoticed because of patient unconsciousness. Urticaria may be missed due to sterile drapes. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate perioperative hypersensitivity reactions. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients with suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions aged 0-18 years who underwent surgery at the Department of Pediatric Surgery, Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine, between 2019 and 2021 were investigated. Suspected reactions in the perioperative period were graded according to the Ring and Messmer scale. Patients with suspected reactions were examined 4-6 weeks after the reaction. If necessary, specific IgE and basophil activation tests were performed. Reactions of grades III-IV were considered anaphylaxis. If one test modality was strongly positive and there was a relevant time point or repeated allergic reactions, or at least two test modalities were positive, hypersensitivity was confirmed. In all patients, serum tryptase levels were analyzed at the time of the reaction, 2 h after the reaction, and 4-6 weeks after the reaction as part of the allergic evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients (8 female, 21 male) suspected of having an intraoperative reaction during the study were included in the analysis. Perioperative hypersensitivity reactions were noted in 1 patient. The incidence of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions was reported to be 0.03% (n = 1/2861). While anaphylaxis was confirmed in 1 patient, 5 patients were considered possible anaphylaxis cases. CONCLUSION: Perioperative hypersensitivity reactions can be life-threatening and may recur with further administration. Collaboration between pediatric surgeons, anesthesiologists, and allergists can prevent further reactions. All suspected cases should be evaluated by an experienced allergist soon after the initial reaction.

Differential presentation of hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin and oxaliplatin: Phenotypes, endotypes, and management with desensitization.

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.

Hypersensitivity reaction to nedaplatin: A case report and literature review.

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.

Clinical Application of In Vitro Tests for COVID-19 Vaccine Delayed Hypersensitivity Diagnostics.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions can be classified as immediate or delayed. While diagnostic options for immediate reactions are well developed and standardized, delayed reactions (in many cases type IV according to Gell and Coombs) are a challenge for allergy work-up. In recent years, some in vitro markers have been proposed and used for delayed reactions, such as contact dermatitis. Primary strategy: Avoidance is difficult to achieve, especially for COVID-19 vaccinations, when immunity against infection is extremely important. The aim of our study was to evaluate the application of in vitro delayed hypersensitivity tests in COVID-19 vaccines. Seven patients with a positive history of severe delayed drug allergy were enrolled. Vein blood was collected to stimulate cells with the tested vaccines (Comirnaty, Janssen, Spikevax) and excipients with the assessment of CD40L, CD69, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, IFNgamma, TNFalfa, and intracellular markers: granulysin and INFgamma. In addition, basophile activation tests, patch tests, skin prick tests, and intradermal tests were performed with the tested vaccine. Finally, the decision was made to either administer a vaccine or resign. Two out of seven patients were considered positive for drug hypersensitivity in the in vitro test according to the high vaccine stimulation index measured with CD69 (6.91 and 12.18) and CD40L (5.38 and 15.91). All patch tests, BATs, and skin tests were negative. Serum interleukin measurements were inconclusive as the impact of the vaccine itself on the immunity system was high. Intracellular markers gave uncertain results due to the lack of stimulation on the positive control. CD69 and CD40L could be reliable in vitro markers for delayed hypersensitivity to COVID-19 vaccines. Patch tests, skin tests, BATs, and serum interleukins did not confirm their usefulness in our study.

Delayed hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media: A diagnostic approach by skin tests.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) have risen due to their increasing use in x-ray-based imaging modalities. Delayed hypersensitivity reactions are mainly caused by nonionic monomeric compounds and represent an issue impacting the diagnostic-therapeutic pathways of cancer, cardiology and surgery patients. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate the usefulness of skin tests in delayed hypersensitivity reactions to ICM and to evaluate the tolerability of iobitridol, a monomeric nonionic low osmolality compound, as a possible safe alternative. METHODS: Patients with delayed hypersensitivity reactions to ICM referred to us from 2020 to 2022 were prospectively enrolled in the study. All patients underwent patch test and, if negative, intradermal test with the culprit ICM and iobitridol as alternative. RESULTS: A total of 37 patients (females 24, 64.9%) were enrolled in the study. Iodixanol and iomeprol were the most frequently involved ICM (48.5% and 35.2%, respectively); 62.2% of patients presented maculopapular eruption, while 37.8% reported delayed urticaria-like rash. Skin tests resulted positive to the culprit ICM in 19 patients (51.4%), 16 to patch test and 3 to intradermal test. Skin tests with iobitridol, tested as alternative, resulted positive in 3/19 patients (15.8%). All 16 patients with negative results to iobitridol were administered this ICM and tolerated it. CONCLUSIONS: In at least half of patients, delayed-type hypersensitivity was demonstrated by skin tests, particularly by patch test. This diagnostic approach resulted simple, cost-effective and safe, not only to confirm the culprit ICM but also to identify iobitridol as feasible alternative.

Hypersensitivity Reaction and Rapid Drug Desensitization with Chemotherapeutics: A Tertiary Reference Center Experiences.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy drugs have been in our lives for a long time, and all agents have the potential to develop hypersensitivity. Rapid drug desensitization is an option when hypersensitivity develops. The aim of this study was to examine the characteristics, diagnostic processes, and treatment results of patients with chemotherapeutic agent hypersensitivity who applied to our tertiary reference center. METHODS: Patients who applied to our tertiary allergy outpatient clinic between January 2016 and September 2022 due to chemotherapy-induced drug hypersensitivity were examined. Demographic data of the patients, cancer diagnoses, chemotherapy regimens, skin tests, premedication scheme, desensitization cycle were evaluated. We applied a 16-step desensitization in patients with index reaction anaphylaxis or positive skin tests. If the index reaction was not anaphylaxis or skin tests were negative, we applied a 12-step desensitization. If the prick test with chemotherapeutic drugs was negative especially with taxanes, premedication was administered. We used the montelukast, cetirizine, and methylprednisolone for premedication. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were evaluated; 35 (68.6%) were female. The most common malignancy was colorectal cancer in 17 (33.3%) patients. The most common agent responsible for hypersensitivity was oxaliplatin in 17 (33.3%) patients, followed by paclitaxel in 13 (25.4%). When the symptoms of immediate reaction to chemotherapeutic drugs were analyzed as described in the EAACI position paper, only skin and mucosal involvement was seen in 24 (46.8%) patients; only respiratory system involvement or back pain was seen in 3 (6.2%) patients; multisystem involvement meeting the criteria for anaphylaxis was seen in 24 (47%) patients. Skin test was positive in 17 (56.6%) of 30 patients who developed a reaction with platin. Prolonged anaphylaxis was developed in 1 patient, and desensitization was not performed again. Fifty of 51 patients were able to receive the target chemotherapy dose by desensitization. In total, a 172-step desensitization was applied to 51 patients. CONCLUSION: If completing the cycle is considered a treatment success, this was achieved in 98% (50/51) patients with rapid drug desensitization. This gives us the opportunity to use first-line chemotherapy agents.

Should Penicillin Allergy Testing Be Included as Part of Preoperative Testing?

INTRODUCTION: Penicillin allergy is the most commonly reported drug allergy in the United States. Patients labeled with penicillin allergy are at risk of receiving broad-spectrum antibiotics for surgical site infection prophylaxis, which can lead to increased antibiotic resistance, higher morbidity, suboptimal antibiotic therapy, and higher medical costs. This study aimed to determine the true prevalence of penicillin allergy among surgical patients and to decrease the unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of patients who underwent urogynecologic surgery in 2017. In 2018, a quality initiative was started, and all patients reporting penicillin allergies were offered antibiotic allergy testing as part of their preoperative testing. RESULTS: In 2017, 15% of patients reported penicillin allergy and 52% of them received surgical prophylaxis with broad-spectrum antibiotics. In 2018, 463 patients underwent surgery, 55 of whom reported penicillin allergy and were offered penicillin allergy testing. 35 (64%) agreed to proceed with testing, and of those tested, 33 (94%) tested negative for penicillin allergy. CONCLUSIONS: 94% of patients with stated penicillin allergy who consented to allergy testing proved to have negative test. Penicillin allergy testing should be considered as part of preoperative management.

A pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labelling project within a preoperative assessment clinic: the low-hanging fruit is within reach.

BACKGROUND: Having a false penicillin-allergy label is linked to longer hospital stays and to an increased risk of Clostridioides difficile and meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. AIM: To assess a penicillin-allergy de-labelling tool designed for use by the non-allergist. METHODS: Patients attending the surgical preoperative assessment clinic (POAC) at a large UK teaching hospital, who reported a penicillin allergy, were directly de-labelled by nursing or pharmacy staff, where appropriate. A penicillin-allergy de-labelling tool designed for use by the non-allergist was adapted and applied; nursing staff were provided with supporting information and education to enable removal of spurious labels. Antimicrobial pharmacists (AMPs) provided follow-up, cross-checked prophylactic antibiotics administered, interrogated clinical notes, and telephoned patients following their surgery, for details of any adverse reactions suffered. FINDINGS: A total of 163 patients reporting a penicillin allergy were identified for intervention. Twenty-nine (17.8%) patients reported a penicillin-allergy history appropriate for direct de-labelling, of whom eight (27.6%) declined to consent. The remaining 21 patients (12.8%) were directly de-labelled, with 12 (7.4%) patients consenting during their POAC appointment; the remaining nine (5.5%) patients were consented and de-labelled after their surgery by an AMP. CONCLUSION: The POAC was identified as an appropriate location and time-point in the patient pathway to enable the direct removal of spurious penicillin-allergy labels prior to surgery. Results suggest that this could be undertaken by nursing staff, although support from AMPs enabled a greater number of patients to be de-labelled.