IFN-γ ELISpot-enabled machine learning for culprit drug identification in nonimmediate drug hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing drug-induced allergy, especially nonimmediate phenotypes, is challenging. Incorrect classifications have unwanted consequences. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the diagnostic utility of IFN-γ ELISpot and clinical parameters in predicting drug-induced nonimmediate hypersensitivity using machine learning. METHODS: The study recruited 393 patients. A positive patch test or drug provocation test (DPT) was used to define positive drug hypersensitivity. Various clinical factors were considered in developing random forest (RF) and logistic regression (LR) models. Performances were compared against the IFN-γ ELISpot-only model. RESULTS: Among the 102 patients who had 164 DPTs, most patients had severe cutaneous adverse reactions (35/102, 34.3%) and maculopapular exanthems (33/102, 32.4%). Common suspected drugs were antituberculosis drugs (46/164, 28.1%) and ß-lactams (42/164, 25.6%). Mean (SD) age of patients with DPT was 52.7 (20.8) years. IFN-γ ELISpot, fixed drug eruption, Naranjo categories, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were the most important features in all developed models. The RF and LR models had higher discriminating abilities. An IFN-γ ELISpot cutoff value of 16.0 spot-forming cells/106 PBMCs achieved 94.8% specificity and 57.1% sensitivity. Depending on clinical needs, optimal cutoff values for RF and LR models can be chosen to achieve either high specificity (0.41 for 96.1% specificity and 0.52 for 97.4% specificity, respectively) or high sensitivity (0.26 for 78.6% sensitivity and 0.37 for 71.4% sensitivity, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: IFN-γ ELISpot assay was valuable in identifying culprit drugs, whether used individually or incorporated in a prediction model. Performances of RF and LR models were comparable. Additional test datasets with DPT would be helpful to validate the model further.

Randomized Multicenter Trial for the Validation of an Easy-to-Administer Algorithm to Define Penicillin Allergy Status in Sexually Transmitted Infection Clinic Outpatients.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 15% of patients in sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics report penicillin allergies, complicating treatment for syphilis and gonorrhea. Nonetheless, >90% do not have a penicillin allergy when evaluated. We developed and validated an algorithm to define which patients reporting penicillin allergy can be safely treated at STI clinics with these drugs. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial to assess feasibility and safety of penicillin allergy evaluations in STI clinics. Participants with reported penicillin allergy answered an expert-developed questionnaire to stratify risk. Low-risk participants underwent penicillin skin testing (PST) followed by amoxicillin 250 mg challenge or a graded oral challenge (GOC)-amoxicillin 25 mg followed by 250 mg. Reactions were recorded, and participant/provider surveys were conducted. RESULTS: Of 284 participants, 72 (25.3%) were deemed high risk and were excluded. Of 206 low-risk participants, 102 (49.5%) underwent PST without reactions and 3 (3%) had mild reactions during the oral challenge. Of 104 (50.5%) participants in the GOC, 95 (91.3%) completed challenges without reaction, 4 (4.2%) had mild symptoms after 25 mg, and 4 (4.2%) after 250-mg doses. Overall, 195 participants (94.7%) successfully completed the study and 11 (5.3%) experienced mild symptoms. Of 14 providers, 12 (85.7%) completed surveys and 11 (93%) agreed on the safety/effectiveness of penicillin allergy assessment in STI clinics. CONCLUSIONS: An easy-to-administer risk-assessment questionnaire can safely identify patients for penicillin allergy evaluation in STI clinics by PST or GOC, with GOC showing operational feasibility. Using this approach, 67% of participants with reported penicillin allergy could safely receive first-line treatments for gonorrhea or syphilis. Clinical Trials Registration. Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04620746).

Flow-based basophil activation test in immediate drug hypersensitivity. An EAACI task force position paper.

Diagnosing immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) can pose a significant challenge and there is an urgent need for safe and reliable tests. Evidence has emerged that the basophil activation test (BAT), an in vitro assay that mirrors the in vivo response, can be a complementary test for many drugs. In this position paper, members of Task Force (TF) "Basophil activation test in the evaluation of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions" from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) present the data from a survey about the use and utility of BAT in IDHRs in Europe. The survey results indicate that there is a great interest for using BAT especially for diagnosing IDHRs. However, there are still main needs, mainly in the standardization of the protocols. Subsequently consensus-based recommendations were formulated for: (i) Technical aspects of BAT in IDHRs including type of sample, management of drugs, flow cytometry protocols, interpretation of the results; and (ii) Drug-specific aspects that should be taken into account when performing BAT in relation to betalactams, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluoroquinolones, chlorhexidine, opioids, radio contrast media, chemotherapeutics, biological agents, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, COVID vaccine, and excipients. Moreover, aspects in the evaluation of pediatric population have also been considered. All this indicates that BAT offers the clinician and laboratory a complementary tool for a safe diagnostic for IDHRs, although its place in the diagnostic algorithm depends on the drug class and patient population (phenotype, geography, and age). The standardization of BAT is important for generalizing this method beyond the individual laboratory.

Changing patterns in the epidemiology of drug allergy.

Drug allergy (DA) remains a complex and unaddressed problem worldwide that often deprives patients of optimal medication choices and places them at risk for life-threatening reactions. Underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis are common and due to the lack of standardized definitions and biomarkers. The true burden of DA is unknown, and recent efforts in data gathering through electronic medical records are starting to provide emerging patterns around the world. Ten percent of the general population engaged in health care claim to have a DA, and the most common label is penicillin allergy. Up to 20% of emergency room visits for anaphylaxis are due to DA and 15%-20% of hospitalized patients report DA. It is estimated that DA will increase based on the availability and use of new and targeted antibiotics, vaccines, chemotherapies, biologicals, and small molecules, which are aimed at improving patient's options and quality of life. Global and regional variations in the prevalence of diseases such as human immunodeficiency virus and mycobacterial diseases, and the drugs used to treat these infections have an impact on DA. The aim of this review is to provide an update on the global impact of DA by presenting emerging data on drug epidemiology in adult and pediatric populations.

Biomarkers of immediate drug hypersensitivity.

Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) are a burden for patients and the health systems. This problem increases when taking into account that only a small proportion of patients initially labelled as allergic are finally confirmed after an allergological workup. The diverse nature of drugs involved will imply different interactions with the immunological system. Therefore, IDHRs can be produced by a wide array of mechanisms mediated by the drug interaction with specific antibodies or directly on effector target cells. These heterogeneous mechanisms imply an enhanced complexity for an accurate diagnosis and the identification of the phenotype and endotype at early stages of the reaction is of vital importance. Currently, several endophenotypic categories (type I IgE/non-IgE, cytokine release, Mast-related G-protein coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2) or Cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) inhibition and their associated biomarkers have been proposed. A precise knowledge of endotypes will permit to discriminate patients within the same phenotype, which is crucial in order to personalise diagnosis, future treatment and prevention to improve the patient's quality of life.

Hypersensitivity reactions to proton pump inhibitors. An EAACI position paper.

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.

EAACI/ENDA position paper on drug provocation testing.

In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low-risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low-risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources.

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.

Drug Allergy in Children: Adverse Reactions after Skin Testing.

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.

Prior drug allergies are associated with worse outcome in patients with idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury: A machine learning approach for risk stratification.

The impact of prior drug allergies (PDA) on the clinical features and outcomes of patients who develop idiosyncratic drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is largely unknown. We aimed to assess the clinical presentation and outcomes of DILI patients based on the presence or absence of PDA and explore the association between culprit drugs responsible for DILI and allergy. We analysed a well-vetted cohort of DILI cases enrolled from the Spanish DILI Registry. Bootstrap-enhanced least absolute shrinkage operator procedure was used in variable selection, and a multivariable logistic model was fitted to predict poor outcomes in DILI. Of 912 cases with a first episode of DILI, 61 (6.7%) had documented PDA. Patients with PDA were older (p = 0.009), had higher aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels (p = 0.047), lower platelet count (p = 0.011) and higher liver-related mortality than those without a history of drug allergies (11% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001). Penicillin was the most common drug associated with PDA in DILI patients (32%). A model including PDA, nR-based type of liver injury, female sex, AST, total bilirubin, and platelet count showed an excellent performance in predicting poor outcome in patients from the Spanish DILI Registry (area under the ROC curve [AUC] 0.887; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.794 - 0.981) and the LATINDILI Network (AUC 0.932; 95% CI 0.884 - 0.981). Patients with suspected DILI should be screened for PDA as they would require a close monitoring for early detection of worsening clinical course.

The importance of clinical history in the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity in children.

BACKGROUND: In case of suspected hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to drugs, a challenging area for pediatricians is detecting relevant elements in the parent-reported history, in order to reach a definite diagnosis. We analyzed the concordance between the description of the HR and the medical reports documented at the time of the event. Furthermore, we studied any correlation between clinical history variables and the prediction of true allergy. METHODS: We retrospectively collected 50 charts of children referred to our Allergy Unit, after a previous access to the Emergency Department. We compared the description of the HR at acute phase to the history told by parents. Type and timing of the HR and culprit drug were classified as "known" or "unknown." The diagnosis was confirmed or excluded at the end of the investigations. Logistic regression analysis was performed to find any significant association. RESULTS: The type of the HR was known in 74%, the timing in 28%, and the culprit drug in 98%. We showed that having had a severe HR had an increased odds of remembering the timing; being older >6 years and having had an immediate HR had an increased odds of remembering the type; time to diagnostic was lower in patients whose parents remembered the type of HR. CONCLUSION: Our paper underlines the importance of an accurate anamnesis at the time of the event. Providing the physicians with a standardized Case Report Form could be a useful tool to simplify the diagnostic work-up and minimize mistakes due to lack of memory.

Local anesthetics allergy in children: Evaluation of diagnostic tests with Real-Life data.

BACKGROUND: Local anesthetic (LA) drugs are commonly used in clinical practice to provide effective analgesia, including in dentistry and minor surgical procedures. The perception of a high risk of allergy in daily applications leads to the referral of atopic patients and those with other drug allergies to allergy clinics for the evaluation of allergic reactions to LA. The aim of this study was to determine who should be referred to the allergy clinic for LA allergy testing, assess the frequency of LA allergy in pediatric patients, and identify the negative predictive value of skin tests in diagnosis. METHODS: January 2017-July 2023, the clinical and laboratory data, as well as the results of drug allergy tests, of patients referred to our pediatric allergy clinic by dentists and physicians performing minor surgical procedures with suspected LA allergy were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: Our study included a total of 153 patients, comprising 84 girls (54.9%) and 69 boys (45.1%), with a mean age of 8.9 (±3.3) years. The most common reason for referral was a history of non-LA drug allergies (n = 66, 43.2%), followed by asthma (n = 25, 16.3%). Hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) with LA were most commonly associated with articaine (n = 7, 4.8%), followed by lidocaine (n = 6, 4.1%). When intradermal tests were evaluated, 17 patients (11.1%) had a positive test result. The positivity for lidocaine was 70.6% (n = 12), and prilocaine was 29.4% (n = 5). Subcutaneous provocation was administered to 109 patients (71.2%), and one patient exhibited local erythema and swelling with prilocaine. CONCLUSION: Although LA allergy is a rare occurrence, consultations of this nature are frequently requested from allergy clinics in real life. Considering the negative predictive value of skin tests performed with LA drugs, the reaction rate appears to be low in patients with atopy or other drug allergies. It is crucial for all relevant healthcare professionals to be knowledgeable about the appropriate approach to suspected LA allergies to avoid unnecessary tests. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the most comprehensive work in the literature that evaluates the results of diagnostic tests in children referred with a suspicion of LA allergy.

Direct oral challenge for immediate and non-immediate beta-lactam allergy in children: A real-world multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics (BLA) is frequently suspected in children, but a drug provocation test (DPT) rules it out in over 90% of cases. Direct oral DPT (DODPT), without skin or other previous tests, is increasingly been used to delabel non-immediate BLA reactions. This real-world study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of DODPT in children with immediate and non-immediate reactions to BLAs. METHODS: Ambispective registry study in children (<15 years), attended between 2016 and 2023 for suspected BLA allergy in 15 hospitals in Spain that routinely perform DODPT. RESULTS: The study included 2133 patients with generally mild reactions (anaphylaxis 0.7%). Drug provocation test with the implicated BLA was performed in 2014 patients (94.4%): 1854 underwent DODPT (86.9%, including 172 patients with immediate reactions). One hundred forty-five (7.2%) had symptoms associated with DPT, although only four reactions were severe: two episodes of anaphylaxis and two of drug-induced enterocolitis syndrome, which resolved rapidly with treatment. Of the 141 patients with mild reactions in the first DPT, a second DPT was considered in 87 and performed in 57, with 52 tolerating it without symptoms. Finally, BLA allergy was ruled out in 90.9% of the sample, confirmed in 3.4%, and remained unverified, usually due to loss to follow-up, in 5.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Direct oral DPT is a safe, effective procedure even in immediate mild reactions to BLA. Many reactions observed in DPT are doubtful and require confirmation. Severe reactions are exceptional and amenable to treatment. Direct oral DPT can be considered for BLA allergy delabeling in pediatric primary care.

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.

Hypersensitive Reactions During Hemodialysis Treatment: What Do We Need to Know?

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.

Comparison of the passive mast cell activation test with the basophil activation test for diagnosis of perioperative rocuronium hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Rocuronium is a major cause of perioperative hypersensitivity (POH). Skin tests (STs) and quantification of specific immunoglobulin E antibodies (sIgEs) can yield incongruent results. In such difficult cases, the basophil activation test (BAT) can be helpful. Here, we evaluated the passive mast cell activation test (pMAT) as a substitute of BAT as part of the diagnostic tests for rocuronium allergy. METHODS: Sera from patients with a suspected POH reaction potentially related to rocuronium were included. All patients had a complete diagnostic investigation, including STs, quantification of sIgEs to morphine and rocuronium, and BAT. For execution of pMAT, human mast cells were generated from healthy donor peripheral blood CD34+ progenitor cells and sensitised overnight with patient sera. RESULTS: In total, 90 sera were studied: 41 from ST+sIgE+ patients, 13 from ST-sIgE- patients, 20 from ST+sIgE- patients, and 16 from ST-sIgE+ patients. According to BAT results, patients were further allocated into subgroups. Of the 38 BAT+ patients, 25 (66%) showed a positive pMAT as well. Of the 44 BAT- patients, 43 (98%) also showed a negative pMAT. Mast cells that were not passively sensitised did not respond to rocuronium. CONCLUSIONS: We show that the pMAT, in many cases, can substitute for BAT in the diagnosis of rocuronium hypersensitivity and advance diagnosis in difficult cases with uncertain ST or sIgE results when BAT is not locally available.

Perioperative anaphylaxis and the principle of primum non nocere.

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a rare and unpredictable event that continues to cause patient harm. More work is needed to decrease the risk to patients through measures to limit sensitisation, optimise management and investigation, and ensure that patients are not inadvertently re-exposed to allergens. Robust epidemiological data such as that provided by the consecutive GERAP surveys over the past 30 yr have been invaluable in defining the problem, identifying emerging allergens, acting as a catalyst for change, and stimulating research.

Pholcodine and allergy to neuromuscular blocking agents: where are we and how did we get here?

Despite the purported link between pholcodine and neuromuscular blocking agent allergy, screening for prior pholcodine use offers no practical benefit to patients, and anaesthetists should continue to use a neuromuscular blocking agent where this is clinically indicated.

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.

Remimazolam anaphylaxis in a patient not allergic to brotizolam: a case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Remimazolam is a recently developed, ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine that is used as a general anesthetic. Some cases of remimazolam anaphylaxis have been reported, but its characteristics are not fully understood. We present an interesting case report and review of the literature to better understand remimazolam anaphylaxis. CASE PRESENTATION: A 75-year-old man scheduled for robot-assisted gastrectomy was administered remimazolam for the induction of general anesthesia. After intubation, low end-expiratory CO2, high airway pressure and concurrent circulatory collapse were observed. Bronchoscopy revealed marked tracheal and bronchial edema, which we diagnosed as anaphylaxis. The patient suffered cardiac arrest after bronchoscopy but recovered immediately with intravenous adrenaline administration and chest compressions. We performed skin prick tests for the drugs used during induction except for remimazolam, considering the high risk of systemic adverse reactions to remimazolam. We diagnosed remimazolam anaphylaxis because the skin prick test results for the other drugs used during anesthesia were negative, and these drugs could have been used without allergic reactions during the subsequent surgery. Furthermore, this patient had experienced severe anaphylactic-like reactions when he underwent cardiac surgery a year earlier, in which midazolam had been used, but it was not thought to be the allergen at that time. Based on these findings, cross-reactivity to remimazolam and midazolam was suspected. However, the patient had previously received another benzodiazepine, brotizolam, to which he was not allergic, suggesting that cross-reactivity of remimazolam may vary among benzodiazepines. In this article, we reviewed the 11 cases of remimazolam anaphylaxis that have been described in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam is an ultrashort-acting sedative; however, it can cause life-threatening anaphylaxis. In addition, its cross-reactivity with other benzodiazepines is not fully understood. To increase the safety of this drug, further research and more experience in its use are needed.