Management of Refractory Anaphylaxis: An Overview of Current Guidelines.

In this review, we compare different refractory anaphylaxis (RA) management guidelines focusing on cardiovascular involvement and best practice recommendations, discuss postulated pathogenic mechanisms underlining RA and highlight knowledge gaps and research priorities. There is a paucity of data supporting existing management guidelines. Therapeutic recommendations include the need for the timely administration of appropriate doses of aggressive fluid resuscitation and intravenous (IV) adrenaline in RA. The preferred second-line vasopressor (noradrenaline, vasopressin, metaraminol and dopamine) is unknown. Most guidelines recommend IV glucagon for patients on beta-blockers, despite a lack of evidence. The use of methylene blue or extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is also suggested as rescue therapy. Despite recent advances in understanding the pathogenesis of anaphylaxis, the factors that lead to a lack of response to the initial adrenaline and thus RA are unclear. Genetic factors, such as deficiency in platelet activating factor-acetyl hydrolase or hereditary alpha-tryptasaemia, mastocytosis may modulate reaction severity or response to treatment. Further research into the underlying pathophysiology of RA may help define potential new therapeutic approaches and reduce the morbidity and mortality of anaphylaxis.

Updated guidance regarding the risk of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and recommended evaluation and management: A GRADE assessment and international consensus approach.

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history.

Delabeling of Penicillin Allergy: Room for Improvement.

BACKGROUND: Penicillin allergy labels have been shown to be associated with suboptimal treatment, negative health outcomes, and increased antibiotic resistance. Many inpatients claim to have penicillin allergy, but studies show that allergy can be disproved and the label removed in up to 90% of cases. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to investigate the proportion of patients with a penicillin allergy label in a Danish hospital and to classify patients according to the risk of having penicillin allergy in "no risk," low, and high risk. METHODS: For 22 days, inpatients with penicillin allergy labels were interviewed, had their dispensed penicillin prescriptions examined, and were subsequently categorized into risk groups based on the risk evaluation criteria in national guidelines. RESULTS: In total, 260 patients had a penicillin allergy label (10% of the inpatients). Out of 151 included patients, 25 were "no risk" patients (17%), who could potentially have their penicillin allergy label removed without testing. 42 were low-risk patients (28%). 10 "no risk" patients and 20 low-risk patients had been prescribed and dispensed one or more penicillins despite an allergy label. CONCLUSION: Ten percent of inpatients have a penicillin allergy label in a Danish hospital. 17% of these could potentially have their penicillin allergy label removed without allergy testing.

Treatment of perioperative anaphylaxis: room for improvement?

Perioperative anaphylaxis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Prompt and appropriate treatment is required for optimal outcome. Despite general knowledge of this condition, delays occur in the administration of epinephrine and in particular the use of i.v. route of administration in the perioperative setting. Barriers should be addressed to allow prompt utilisation of i.v. epinephrine in perioperative anaphylaxis.

Mast cell activation test: A new asset in the investigation of the chlorhexidine cross-sensitization profile.

BACKGROUND: Insights into the IgE cross-sensitization and possible cross-reactivity patterns of sera reactive to chlorhexidine (CHX) are still incomplete and are likely to benefit from a functional exploration using a passive mast cell activation test (pMAT). Therefore, we want to study whether the pMAT with CHX-specific IgE (sIgE) enables to depict effector cell degranulation in response to alexidine (ALX), octenidine (OCT) and/or polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) indicative of cross-reactivity between these compounds and CHX. METHODS: Serum of 10 CHX-allergic patients, nine individuals with an isolated sIgE CHX and five healthy controls were included. Human cultured mast cells (MCs) were, before and after sensitization, challenged with CHX, ALX, OCT or PHMB. Degranulation was measured via quantification of upregulation of CD63. RESULTS: Mast cell responsiveness to ALX and OCT was demonstrable with 4/10 and 3/10 of the sera of CHX-allergic patients respectively. Percentage of degranulation varied between 12 and 34% for ALX-reactive MCs and between 4 and 22% for OCT-reactive MCs. No reactivity to ALX or OCT was demonstrable when using sera obtained from individuals with an isolated sIgE CHX or from healthy controls. Unlike CHX, ALX and OCT, PHMB turned out to be a direct MC activator via occupation of MRGPRX2. PHMB-reactive sIgEs were demonstrable in some patients with an isolated sIgE CHX but were unable to trigger PHMB-induced degranulation in MRGPRX2 knockdown MCs. CONCLUSION: Mast cells constitute an attractive tool to explore cross-reactivity between structurally similar compounds. Along with the identification of safe alternatives for the individual patient, the pMAT can advance our insights into sIgE cross-reactivity patterns including assessment of molecules not yet approved for human use.

Safe De-Labeling of Patients at Low Risk of Penicillin Allergy in Denmark.

INTRODUCTION: Penicillin allergy is suspected in 10% of hospital inpatients but can be disproved in 90% of cases. Direct oral provocation without preceding tests among low-risk patients has proven to be safe in studies of both children and adults and is gaining use across the world. The aims of this study were to investigate the rate of severe allergic reactions to direct oral drug provocation, without preceding tests, in penicillin allergy patients stratified to be at low risk, as well as to examine if these patients have barriers to penicillin allergy de-labeling and future use of penicillins. METHODS: Adult patients referred to a university hospital allergy clinic with a suspected penicillin allergy were prospectively risk evaluated. Patients stratified to be at low risk were offered a direct oral provocation with a single-dose amoxicillin followed by 4 days of continued treatment. The same risk stratification criteria were applied to a larger retrospective cohort. RESULTS: In the prospective study population, 202 patients had a direct oral drug provocation and 20 (10%) were positive. There were no cases of anaphylaxis or severe delayed hypersensitivity. Fifteen reactions were benign rashes with onset >1 day after initial dosing, and 13 of these were maculopapular rashes. The same low-risk criteria were applied retrospectively to patients in a drug provocation database, and 1,759 patients fulfilled the criteria; of these, 10% had positive provocations, and there were no cases of anaphylaxis or severe delayed hypersensitivity. De-labeled patients in the prospective study reported not to fear future penicillin intake, after prolonged provocation. CONCLUSION: The risk stratification criteria for identifying low-risk patients for the oral drug provocation test without prior skin testing were safe in terms of avoiding anaphylaxis or severe delayed hypersensitivity. Benign delayed skin reactions still occurred, and access to allergy advice and follow-up is necessary.

Clinical manifestations and impact on daily life of allergy to polyethylene glycol (PEG) in ten patients.

BACKGROUND: Polyethylene glycols (PEGs) are widely used as excipients in drugs, cosmetics and household products. Immediate-type allergy to PEGs including anaphylaxis is rare. The recent introduction of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines has led to an increased focus on PEG as a possible culprit of allergic reactions to the vaccines. A low awareness of the allergenic potential of PEG among consumers, manufacturers and doctors leads to under-diagnosis and under-reporting of allergy to PEGs, putting patients at risk of repeated severe reactions. OBJECTIVES: To investigate clinical manifestations, time to diagnosis and impact of a PEG allergy diagnosis on the daily life of patients diagnosed with allergy to PEG from 2010 to 2019. METHOD: Ten patients diagnosed with allergy to PEG were included. Detailed clinical history was obtained, and allergy investigations had been performed at the time of diagnosis. All patients were contacted and asked to retrospectively complete a questionnaire about causes and impact on daily life of an allergy to PEG, scored on a likert scale (0-10) before and after diagnosis. RESULTS: Eight patients had experienced at least one anaphylactic reaction requiring adrenaline treatment. Anaphylaxis was primarily caused by antibiotic/analgesic tablets, depot-steroids, antacids and laxatives. Seven patients reported repeated reactions before diagnosis (median 3, range 2-6). Median time from first reaction to diagnosis was 20 months (range 2-120). None of the patients experienced severe allergic reactions after the diagnosis. Median likert score of the impact on daily life before diagnosis was 7 compared with 4 after diagnosis. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The clinical manifestations of PEG allergy are often dramatic. Improved awareness about the clinical presentation and common culprits, clear product labelling and a standardized nomenclature is needed to ensure the timely diagnosis of PEG allergy to prevent repeated anaphylactic reactions with severe impact on patients' lives.

Intradermal Testing Identifies 1 in 4 Patients with Nonimmediate Penicillin Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Intradermal testing with delayed reading (IDTdr), used routinely in many centers, may identify delayed reactions to penicillins. However, few studies have compared the results of IDTdr with drug provocation test (DPT). The aim of this study was to examine the proportion of provocation-positive patients testing positive on IDTdr. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with a positive DPT occurring >2 h after intake of penicillin V, dicloxacillin, pivampicillin, or amoxicillin had an IDTdr with penicillin G, amoxicillin, ampicillin, and dicloxacillin. A control group included 18 patients with negative DPTs with the suspected penicillin. RESULTS: In total 25% (n = 14) of provocation-positive patients tested positive on IDTdr. Among patients with positive IDTdr, 9/14 (64%) versus 11/43 (26%) in the IDTdr negative group (p < 0.05) had required oral steroids to treat skin reactions following DPT. No other differences between IDTdr positive and negative groups were found. No controls had a positive IDTdr. CONCLUSION: Investigating with IDTdr would have identified 25% of patients with a DPT-verified allergy with delayed reactions. It is difficult to target subgroups who will test positive on IDTdr. There were more patients who tested positive on IDT who had received oral steroids after DPT, and this may be an indication that skin reaction severity plays a role in skin testing diagnostics. Further potential predictors for positivity of IDTdr, such as duration of skin symptoms, should be assessed in large studies in order to optimize the investigations of nonimmediate drug allergic reactions.

Facial contact dermatitis caused by cosmetic-relevant allergens.

BACKGROUND: Facial allergic contact dermatitis caused by cosmetic products is common. New allergens in cosmetics continuously emerge. OBJECTIVES: To investigate characteristics of patients with facial dermatitis (FD) between 2010 and 2019 including patch test results from cosmetic-related allergens and a new test series with cosmetic-relevant natural ingredients (CRNIs). METHODS: This is a retrospective study analysing demographics, clinical characteristics according to MOAHLFA index (male; occupation; atopic dermatitis; hand; leg; face; age ≥ 40 years), and patch test results to 27 cosmetic-relevant allergens in FD patients. A prospective study evaluating a screening test series with CRNIs in consecutive FD patients for 1 year was also conducted. These patients received a questionnaire for collecting extra characteristics (eg, concerning quality of life). RESULTS: Of 8740 tested patients, 2292 (26.2%) had FD. Of these, 30.6% had cosmetic-induced FD. The most common cosmetic-related allergens were fragrances and preservatives. The most common patch test-positive CRNIs were hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool, and propolis. Potato and peanut were rare, but the most common prick test-positive CRNIs, however, without any relation to the use of cosmetic products. FD affected nearly all patients' quality of life and caused limitations to their daily life. CONCLUSIONS: Updated management and quick diagnosis of FD is important to avoid negative impact on patients' quality of life.

Treatment with a platelet-activating factor receptor antagonist improves hemodynamics and reduces epinephrine requirements, in a lethal rodent model of anaphylactic shock.

BACKGROUND: In some cases, anaphylactic shock (AS) is still lethal, despite rapid use of epinephrine. High doses of epinephrine are associated with severe complications. Platelet-activating factor (PAF) is secreted in massive amounts during AS, and a high plasma level is correlated with increased AS severity. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of ABT-491, a PAF-receptor antagonist and possible adjunct treatment, alone or in combination with epinephrine during AS. METHODS: AS was induced by intravenous injection of 1 mg ovalbumin into ovalbumin-sensitized rats. Rats were then randomly assigned to 5 groups (n = 10 per group): SHAM (vehicle only), SHOCK (no treatment), ABT (ABT-491 1 mg/kg), EPI (epinephrine 5 µg as a bolus then 10 µg kg-1  min-1 by continuous infusion, followed by a reducing protocol) and EPI-ABT (both treatments). RESULTS: Ovalbumin injection resulted in a severe decrease in mean arterial pressure, left ventricular inotropy (max dP/dt) and left ventricular shortening fraction (LVSF). All rats from the ABT group survived until the end of the experiment. ABT-491 prevented the LVSF decrease observed in the SHOCK group (at T15: ABT 50% ± 11% vs SHOCK 36% ± 9%, P = .01), significantly reduced the dose of epinephrine needed to treat anaphylactic shock (EPI-ABT 314 ± 67 µg/kg vs EPI 475 ± 69 µg/kg, P < .001) and reduced the time to restore basal MAP (ABT 23 ± 7 minutes vs EPI-ABT 13 ± 5 minutes, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: AS was characterized by early cardiac dysfunction in our model. Treatment with ABT-491 allowed survival until the end of the experiment and reduced cardiac dysfunction. Use of the PAF-R antagonist had a synergistic effect with epinephrine and allowed a significant reduction in epinephrine consumption. Use of PAF-R antagonists during AS could reduce epinephrine-related complications and improve the treatment of epinephrine refractory cases.

Towards a more precise diagnosis of hypersensitivity to beta-lactams - an EAACI position paper.

A recent survey of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Drug Allergy Interest Group (DAIG) on how European allergy specialists deal with beta-lactam (BL) hypersensitivity demonstrated a significant heterogeneity in current practice, suggesting the need to review and update existing EAACI guidelines in order to make the diagnostic procedures as safe and accurate, but also as cost-effective, as possible. For this purpose, a bibliographic search on large studies regarding BL hypersensitivity diagnosis was performed by an EAACI task force, which reviewed and evaluated the literature data using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. The updated guidelines provide a risk stratification in BL hypersensitivity according to index reaction(s), as well as an algorithmic approach, based on cross-reactivity studies, in patients with a suspicion of BL hypersensitivity and an immediate need for antibiotic therapy, when referral to an allergist is not feasible. Furthermore, the update addresses availability and concentrations of skin test (ST) reagents, ST and drug provocation test (DPT) protocols, and diagnostic algorithms and administration of alternative BL in allergic subjects. Specifically, distinct diagnostic algorithms are suggested depending on risk stratification of the patient into high and low risk based on the morphology and chronology of the reaction, immediate (ie, occurring within 1-6 hours after the last administered dose) or nonimmediate (ie, occurring more than 1 hour after the initial drug administration), and the reaction severity. Regarding the allergy workup, the main novelty of this document is the fact that in some low-risk nonimmediate reactions ST are not mandatory, especially in children. For DPT, further studies are necessary to provide data supporting the standardization of protocols, especially of those regarding nonimmediate reactions, for which there is currently no consensus.

Mast cell activation test in chlorhexidine allergy: a proof of concept.

BACKGROUND: Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions are an increasing public health issue and a frequent cause of life-threatening anaphylaxis. Conventional confirmatory testing include skin tests and, for a few drugs, quantification of drug-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies. However, none of these tests are absolutely predictive for the clinical outcome, and can yield false-negative and false-positive results. We performed a proof-of-concept study to assess whether a mast cell activation test could improve diagnosis of IgE-mediated chlorhexidine hypersensitivity, a common cause of perioperative anaphylaxis. METHODS: Human mast cells were generated from CD34+ progenitor cells and sensitised with patients' sera to become IgE+ human mast cells (dMCIgE+), and then incubated with chlorhexidine to assess degranulation. We compared the diagnostic performance of this mast cell activation test with serum from patients with and without positive skin test and basophil activation test to chlorhexidine. RESULTS: In dMC sensitised with sera from patients with a positive skin test and basophil activation test to chlorhexidine showed drug-specific and concentration-dependent degranulation upon stimulation with chlorhexidine, determined by surface upregulation of the degranulation marker CD63. In contrast, dMC sensitised with sera from patients with a negative skin test and basophil activation test to chlorhexidine were unresponsive in the mast cell activation test. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the mast cell activation test can be used to diagnose IgE/FcεRI-dependent immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions. It also shows potential to assess the clinical relevance of drug-specific IgE antibodies in their ability to elicit mast cell degranulation, and therefore discriminate between allergy and sensitisation. Extended studies are required to verify whether this technique can be used in other causes of perioperative anaphylaxis.

Natural ingredients in cosmetic products-A suggestion for a screening series for skin allergy.

BACKGROUND: Naturally derived cosmetic product ingredients of both plant and animal origin are being included increasingly in product formulations in order to cater to consumer preferences. They may be an overlooked cause of reactions to cosmetic products in some patients with dermatitis. OBJECTIVES: To identify naturally derived cosmetic product ingredients with allergenic potential (type I and type IV) and propose a cosmetic screening test series. METHODS: The study was conducted in two steps. The first step was a market survey using a nonprofit application helping consumers avoid problematic substances in cosmetic products. The application contained 10 067 cosmetic products that were label checked for naturally derived cosmetic product ingredients. The second step was a literature search to examine how frequently the naturally derived ingredients were described and related to allergic reactions in cosmetics or other topically administered products. RESULTS: We identified 121 different naturally derived cosmetic product ingredients that were included in at least 30 cosmetic products. In total, 22 ingredients were selected for a screening test series. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a supplemental patch test and a prick test screening series with naturally derived cosmetic product ingredients for patients with skin reactions to cosmetic products, aiming to identify a cause in more patients than is currently possible.

Low Incidence of Biphasic Allergic Reactions in Patients Admitted to Intensive Care after Anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Biphasic allergic reactions-recurrence of allergy symptoms after a symptom-free period-are reported to occur in 1 to 23% of allergic reactions. Patients admitted to an intensive care unit after anaphylaxis potentially have more severe reactions and a higher risk of biphasic allergic reactions. The purpose of this study was to examine incidence, triggers, symptoms, and treatment of biphasic allergic reactions, in patients admitted to an intensive care unit. METHODS: Records of patients admitted to intensive care units with anaphylaxis from 2011 to 2014 were reviewed. Only patients with a reaction fulfilling internationally accepted criteria for anaphylaxis were included. Potential biphasic allergic reactions, defined as renewed allergy symptoms 1 to 72 h after initial symptoms had resolved, without further exposure to the trigger, were identified. RESULTS: A total of 83 cases of anaphylaxis were identified, and the most frequent triggers were medications (58 of 83 [70%]). Skin symptoms occurred in 69 (83%) cases, and circulatory and respiratory symptoms in 48 (58%) and 45 (54%) cases, respectively. In total, 82 (99%), 80 (96%), and 66 (80%) were treated with antihistamines, corticosteroids, and epinephrine, respectively. Only 10 patients presented with one or more relevant symptoms after the initial allergic reaction. Of these, three were possible, and one was a probable biphasic allergic reaction, giving a total incidence of 4 of 83 (4.8% [95% CI, 1.6 to 12.5]) or 1 of 83 (1.2% [95% CI, 0.1 to 7.46]), respectively. All cases were mild, presenting with skin symptoms only, occurring on average 14 h after initial reactions. CONCLUSIONS: The authors observed a low incidence of biphasic reactions in patients admitted to an intensive care unit after anaphylaxis, at a rate equivalent to that reported in other patient groups.

The use of drug provocation testing in the investigation of suspected immediate perioperative allergic reactions: current status.

Suspected perioperative allergic reactions are often severe. To avoid potentially life-threatening re-exposure to the culprit drug, establishing a firm diagnosis and identifying the culprit is crucial. Drug provocation tests are considered the gold standard in drug allergy investigation but have not been recommended in the investigation of perioperative allergy, mainly because of the pharmacological effects of drugs such as induction agents and neuromuscular blocking agents. Some specialised centres have reported benefits of provocation testing in perioperative allergy investigation, but the literature on the subject is limited. Here we provide a status update on the use of drug provocation testing in perioperative allergy, including its use in specific drug groups. This review is based on a literature search and experiences of the authors comprising anaesthesiologists and allergists with experience in perioperative allergy investigation. In addition, 19 participating centres in the International Suspected Perioperative Allergic Reaction Group were surveyed on the use of provocation testing in perioperative allergy investigation. A response was received from 13 centres in eight European countries, New Zealand, and the USA. Also, 21 centres from the Australian and New Zealand Anaesthetic Allergy Group were surveyed. Two centres performed provocation routinely and seven centres performed no provocations at all. Nearly half of the centres reported performing provocations with induction agents and neuromuscular blocking agents. Drug provocation testing is being used in perioperative allergy investigation in specialised centres, but collaborations between relevant specialties and multicentre studies are necessary to determine indications and establish common testing protocols.

Management of suspected immediate perioperative allergic reactions: an international overview and consensus recommendations.

Suspected perioperative allergic reactions are rare but can be life-threatening. The diagnosis is difficult to make in the perioperative setting, but prompt recognition and correct treatment is necessary to ensure a good outcome. A group of 26 international experts in perioperative allergy (anaesthesiologists, allergists, and immunologists) contributed to a modified Delphi consensus process, which covered areas such as differential diagnosis, management during and after anaphylaxis, allergy investigations, and plans for a subsequent anaesthetic. They were asked to rank the appropriateness of statements related to the immediate management of suspected perioperative allergic reactions. Statements were selected to represent areas where there is a lack of consensus in existing guidelines, such as dosing of epinephrine and fluids, the management of impending cardiac arrest, and reactions refractory to standard treatment. The results of the modified Delphi consensus process have been included in the recommendations on the management of suspected perioperative allergic reactions. This paper provides anaesthetists with an overview of relevant knowledge on the immediate and postoperative management of suspected perioperative allergic reactions based on current literature and expert opinion. In addition, it provides practical advice and recommendations in areas where consensus has been lacking in existing guidelines.

Comparative epidemiology of suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions.

Suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions are rare but contribute significantly to the morbidity and mortality of surgical procedures. Recent publications have highlighted the differences between countries concerning the respective risk of different drugs, and changes in patterns of causal agents and the emergence of new allergens. This review summarises recent information on the epidemiology of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions, with specific consideration of differences between geographic areas for the most frequently involved offending agents.