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.

Epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis in France in 2017-2018: the 11th GERAP survey.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative anaphylaxis is rare but is associated with significant morbidity. This complication has been well described in France by the GERAP (Groupe d'Etude des Réactions Anaphylactiques Périopératoires), a network focused on its study. The epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis is evolving, influenced by environmental factors and clinical practice. The aim of this study was to update the epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis in France. METHODS: This multicentre retrospective study was performed in 26 allergy clinics of the GERAP network in 2017-8. RESULTS: There were 765 patients with perioperative anaphylaxis included. Most cases were severe, with 428 (56%) reactions graded as 3 or 4 according to the Ring and Messmer classification. Skin test results were available for 676 patients, with a culprit agent identified in 471 cases (70%). Neuromuscular blocking agents were the main cause of perioperative anaphylaxis (n=281; 60%), followed by antibiotics (n=118; 25%) and patent blue dye (n=11; 2%). Cefazolin was the main antibiotic responsible for perioperative anaphylaxis (52% of antibiotic-related reactions). Suxamethonium and rocuronium were the main neuromuscular blocking agents responsible for perioperative anaphylaxis with 7.1 (6.1-8.4) and 5.6 (4.2-7.4) reactions per 100,000 vials sold, respectively, whereas cefazolin-related cases were estimated at 0.7 (0.5-0.9) reactions per 100,000 vials sold. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that most commonly identified triggering agents remain neuromuscular blocking agents. Reactions to antibiotics, particularly cefazolin, are becoming increasingly frequent. The origin of sensitisation to cefazolin is unknown, as no cross-sensitisation has been described, and it should be the subject of further study. Perioperative anaphylaxis should be followed over the years and understood given the changing triggers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04654923).

Diagnostic performance of serial serum total tryptase measurement to differentiate positive from negative allergy testing among patients with suspected perioperative hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Serum total tryptase has been shown to increase during acute allergic reactions (acute tryptase, TA ); however, few studies have investigated the values of TA or a combination of TA and baseline tryptase (TB ) to discriminate positive from negative testing in perioperative hypersensitivity reaction (POH) allergy work-up. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of TA in order to differentiate positive from negative allergy testing suspected POH and analyse the diagnostic performance of serial tryptase levels using several formulas. METHODS: All patients from the University hospital of Montpellier and Strasbourg, France, who presented with suspected POH and underwent complete drug allergy work-up between March 2011 and December 2019 with available TA and TB were included. Four formulas, including a change in TA  > 11 (F1), or >2 + 1.2 × TB (F2), or >3 + TB (F3), or >120%TB (F4), were applied. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-two patients were included, and 131 of them (80.8%) had Grade III or IV reactions. Ninety patients had positive allergy testing. The optimal cut-off value of TA to distinguish positive from negative allergy testing patients was 9.8 µg/L with an AUC of 0.817 (95% CI: 0.752-0.882, p < .001). The 93% PPV threshold for TA was 33 µg/L (95.8% specificity). Paired tryptase levels according to formulas F2 and F3 yielded the highest Youden index (0.54 and 0.53, respectively). CONCLUSION: The optimal cut-off point for TA for distinguishing positive from negative allergy testing suspected POH was 9.8 µg/L. TA value of 33 µg/L was required to achieve >90% PPV.

Skin necrosis following local anesthetic: Same presentation for two different diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: Local anesthetics (LA) are widely used in medicine and are generally well tolerated. Although most adverse reactions are nonallergic, LA are a frequent reason for allergy consultation. OBJECTIVE: We want to expand the differential diagnosis of adverse reactions to LA by presenting rare diagnoses. METHODS: We present here two patients with similar clinical presentations, namely skin necrosis after local anesthesia with lidocaine, but with two different final diagnoses. RESULTS: For Patient 1, skin necrosis was imputed to the vasoconstrictor effect of epinephrine in a patient with vascular background aggravated by heavy consumption of tobacco and cannabis. Patient 2 final diagnosis was Nicolau syndrome (embolia cutis medicamentosa), a cutaneous necrosis at the site of injection. CONCLUSIONS: The allergist should be aware of these diagnoses and include them in the differential diagnosis of local anesthetic hypersensitivity.

Practice parameters for diagnosing and managing iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity.

Immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) have been reported to occur in a frequency of about 0.5%-3% of patients receiving nonionic ICM. The diagnosis and management of these patients vary among guidelines published by various national and international scientific societies, with recommendations ranging from avoidance or premedication to drug provocation test. This position paper aims to give recommendations for the management of patients with ICM hypersensitivity reactions and analyze controversies in this area. Skin tests are recommended as the initial step for diagnosing patients with immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions; besides, they may also help guide on tolerability of alternatives. Re-exposition or drug provocation test should only be done with skin test-negative ICMs. The decision for performing either re-exposition or drug provocation test needs to be taken based on a risk-benefit analysis. The role of in vitro tests for diagnosis and pretreatment for preventing reactions remains controversial.

Data-driven step doses for drug provocation tests to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

INTRODUCTION: Hypersensitivity to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is of great concern because they are frequently encountered in daily clinical practice. Drug provocation tests (DPTs) are particularly needed for NSAIDs. METHODS: The aim of this retrospective study was to detect eliciting dose thresholds during NSAIDs DPT in order to suggest optimal step doses, using the survival analysis method. Our secondary objective was to describe subgroups at higher risk during DPT and evaluate the safety of our 30 minutes incremental 1-day protocol. The study comprised all the patients attended the Allergy of the University Hospital of Montpellier (France), between 1997 and 2017 for a suspicion of drug hypersensitivity reaction to NSAIDs. RESULTS: Throughout the study period, 311 positive DPT were analyzed (accounting for 285 hypersensitive patients). We identified eliciting thresholds (dose and time), and we suggest the following steps for future DPT: for the rapid absorption group (acetylsalicylic acid, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, and tiaprofenic acid), every 30 minutes: 20%-30%-50% of daily therapeutic dose, for the moderate absorption group, every 30 minutes: for diclofenac 5%-15%-30%-50%, and for celecoxib, 20%-80%. For the slow absorption group, piroxicam, 25%-75%, was separated by a 3-hours interval. A surveillance period of 3 hours after the last dose is mandatory for patients. CONCLUSION: Drug provocation test protocols for NSAID are empirical, driven by the knowledge on patterns of DHR, cross-reactivity between NSAID and pharmacological effects of these all drugs. This is the second experience in improving DPT protocols, after BL (B-lactam) antibiotics.

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.

Pru p 7 sensitization is a predominant cause of severe, cypress pollen-associated peach allergy.

BACKGROUND: Peach is a common elicitor of food allergic reactions. Peach-induced immediate reactions may occur as benign pollen-food syndromes, usually due to birch pollen-related PR-10 cross-reactivity in temperate climates, and as potentially severe primary food allergies, predominantly related to nsLTP Pru p 3 in Mediterranean regions. The newly described peach allergen Pru p 7 has gained recent attention as a potential peach allergy severity marker. Sensitization to Pru p 7 and its allergenic homologues of the gibberellin-regulated protein family occurs in areas with high Cupressaceae tree pollen exposure. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the distribution, clinical characteristics and molecular associations of Pru p 7 sensitization among subjects with suspected peach allergy in different regions of France. METHODS: Subjects with suspected peach allergy (n = 316) were included. Diagnostic work-up was performed according to current guidelines, including open food challenge when required. IgE antibody measurements and competition experiments were performed using the ImmunoCAP assay platform. RESULTS: Sensitization to Pru p 7 was present in 171 (54%) of all subjects in the study and in 123 of 198 (62%) diagnosed as peach allergic, more than half of whom were sensitized to no other peach allergen. Frequency and magnitude of Pru p 7 sensitization were associated with the presence of peach allergy, the clinical severity of peach-induced allergic reactions and the level of cypress pollen exposure. Cypress pollen extract completely outcompeted IgE binding to Pru p 7. Pru p 7 was extremely potent in basophil activation tests. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A subtype of Cupressaceae pollinosis, characterized by Pru p 7 sensitization, can be an underlying cause of severe peach allergy.

An EAACI position paper on the investigation of perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions.

Perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions are rare. Subsequent allergy investigation is complicated by multiple simultaneous drug exposures, the use of drugs with potent effects and the many differential diagnoses to hypersensitivity in the perioperative setting. The approach to the investigation of these complex reactions is not standardized, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that collaboration between experts in the field of allergy/immunology/dermatology and anaesthesiology is needed to provide the best possible care for these patients. The EAACI task force behind this position paper has therefore combined the expertise of allergists, immunologists and anaesthesiologists. The aims of this position paper were to provide recommendations for the investigation of immediate-type perioperative hypersensitivity reactions and to provide practical information that can assist clinicians in planning and carrying out investigations.

Skin tests are important in children with ß-lactam hypersensitivity, but may be reduced in number.

BACKGROUND: There is no perfect agreement on how to perform an allergy workup in suspected beta-lactam (BL)-allergic children, since skin test (ST)-induced pain is often a limitation. The aim of the study was to assess the possibility of reducing the number of ST in children when performing a complete allergy workup for BL hypersensitivity reactions. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients referring to the Allergy Unit of the University Hospital of Montpellier (France) with positive responses in immediateand non-immediate-reading ST to a BL over a 16-year period was performed, to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of ST. All pediatric patients with a suspected BL hypersensitivity were skin-tested with the suspected drug only, during the following 54 months. RESULTS: A total of 319 patients reporting 328 BL reactions were included in the retrospective study. The PPV of ST for the reported drug was of 99.4%. Based on the results, the number of patients to include in the prospective study was estimated to be 101. In the prospective study, 229 children were included. We diagnosed a BL hypersensitivity in 12 children (5.2%): Diagnosis was reached in 6 (50.0%) through ST (delayed reading for all) and in 6 through drug provocation test (DPT). CONCLUSION: ST with BL should therefore be performed as a screening test, before DPT, and testing only the suspected drug may be sufficient when dealing with children.

Is a Prolonged Drug Provocation Test Better Than a Single-Day Drug Provocation Test? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no standardized duration of drug provocation test (DPT) for confirming/delabeling beta-lactam hypersensitivity reaction (BL-HSR). OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to investigate the added diagnostic value of extended-day over single-day DPT for confirming/delabeling BL-HSR in adults and children. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL online databases were searched from inception to March 15, 2023, for studies that performed extended-day DPT to confirm/delabel BL-HSR. Risk difference and risk ratio were used to compare the proportions of patients with confirmed BL-HSR by single-day or extended-day DPT. RESULTS: A total of 10,371 DPTs from 42 studies were included. Extended-day DPTs ranged from 2 to 7 days, or as long as index reactions were reported (maximum 10 days). The overall prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR was 6.96% (3.31% during the first-day DPT, and 3.65% during extended-day DPT). Approximately half of the positive reactions during extended-day DPT occurred during the second/third day. The increased detected pool prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR yielded by extended-day DPT was 0.03 (95% CI, 0.02%-0.04%; I2 = 57.69%; P < .001), and the risk ratio of positive reactions between extended-day and single-day DPT was 1.94 (95% CI, 1.62-2.33; I2 = 36.26%; P < .001). The risk difference increased per 1% increase in prevalence of BL-HSR by 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4%-0.7%; P < .001). Twenty-three severe reactions occurred during DPT, and only 2 severe reactions (0.02%) occurred during extended-day DPT. An additional 28 extended-day DPTs were needed to identify 1 mild reaction. CONCLUSIONS: The increased prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR observed during extended-day DPT could be attributed to the first-day DPT. As a result, our findings do not conclusively support the use of extended-day DPT over single-day DPT. Further studies, incorporating a washout period, are required to comprehensively compare these 2 approaches.

The Safety of the Direct Drug Provocation Test in Beta-Lactam Hypersensitivity in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Direct drug provocation test (DPT) without prior skin testing (ST) has been investigated in children suspected of being at risk for beta-lactam (BL) hypersensitivity reaction (HSR). However, no systematic review and meta-analysis has investigated the efficacy and safety of direct DPT for BL-HSR in children. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence of BL-HSR by direct DPT and the safety of direct DPT in children. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL from their inception to July 23, 2022, for studies that performed direct DPT in children with suspected BL-HSR, or for studies that performed DPT in all cases with ST results, but they ignored the ST results. The true prevalence was defined as the proportion of children who experienced an HSR during direct DPT. Safety was determined according to the proportion of children who developed a dangerous reaction following DPT. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies with 8,334 direct challenges were included. Fifteen studies included patients who presented with either immediate or nonimmediate HSR, and the majority of the index reactions were nonsevere. Amoxicillin/amoxicillin-clavulanic acid was the most commonly used during the DPT. The pooled prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR was 5.23% (95% CI 4.17-6.39; I2 = 72%). Immediate and nonimmediate HSR were reported in 0.8% (95% CI 0.43-1.25; I2 = 55.1%) and 3.69% (95% CI 2.66-4.87; I2 = 79.77%), respectively. Severe reactions were found in 3 cases with the frequency of 0.036% (95% CI 0.012-0.112; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of BL-HSR by direct DPT was 5.23%, and the frequency of severe reactions from direct DPT was very low (0.036%). Our findings support direct DPT as a safe and effective delabeling tool in children with suspected nonsevere BL-HSR.