Management of Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Antibiotic Allergy: Executive Summary of Guidelines from the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC), the Spanish Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (SEAIC), the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH) and the Spanish Society of Intensive Medicine and Coronary Care Units (SEMICYUC).

Suspected or confirmed antibiotic allergy is a frequent clinical circumstance that influences antimicrobial prescription and often leads to the avoidable use of less efficacious and/or more toxic or costly drugs than first-line antimicrobials. Optimizing antimicrobial therapy in patients with antibiotic allergy labels has become one of the priorities of antimicrobial stewardship programs in several countries. These guidelines aim to make recommendations for the systematic approach to patients with suspected or confirmed antibiotic allergy based on current evidence. An expert panel (11 members of various scientific societies) formulated questions about the management of patients with suspected or confirmed antibiotic allergy. A systematic literature review was performed by a medical librarian. The questions were distributed among panel members who selected the most relevant references, summarized the evidence, and formulated graded recommendations when possible. The answers to all the questions were finally reviewed by all panel members. A systematic approach to patients with suspected or confirmed antibiotic allergy was recommended to improve antibiotic selection and, consequently, clinical outcomes. A clinically oriented, 3-category risk-stratification strategy was recommended for patients with suspected antibiotic allergy. Complementary assessments should consider both clinical risk category and preferred antibiotic agent. Empirical therapy recommendations for the most relevant clinical syndromes in patients with suspected or confirmed ß-lactam allergy were formulated, as were recommendations on the implementation and monitoring of the impact of the guidelines. Antimicrobial stewardship programs and allergists should design and implement activities that facilitate the most appropriate use of antibiotics in these patients.

Management of Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Antibiotic Allergy: Executive Summary of Guidelines from the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC), the Spanish Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (SEAIC), the Spanish Society of Hospital Pharmacy (SEFH) and the Spanish Society of Intensive Medicine and Coronary Care Units (SEMICYUC)

Suspected or confirmed antibiotic allergy is a frequent clinical circumstance that influences antimicrobial prescription and often leads to the avoidable use of less efficacious and/or more toxic or costly drugs than first-line antimicrobials. Optimizing antimicrobial therapy in patients with antibiotic allergy labels has become one of the priorities of antimicrobial stewardship programs in several countries. These guidelines aim to make recommendations for the systematic approach to patients with suspected or confirmed antibiotic allergy based on current evidence. An expert panel (11 members of various scientific societies) formulated questions about the management of patients with suspected or confirmed antibiotic allergy. A systematic literature review was performed by a medical librarian. The questions were distributed among panel members who selected the most relevant references, summarized the evidence, and formulated graded recommendations when possible. The answers to all the questions were finally reviewed by all panel members. A systematic approach to patients with suspected or confirmed antibiotic allergy was recommended to improve antibiotic selection and, consequently, clinical outcomes. A clinically oriented, 3-category risk-stratification strategy was recommended for patients with suspected antibiotic allergy. Complementary assessments should consider both clinical risk category and preferred antibiotic agent. Empirical therapy recommendations for the most relevant clinical syndromes in patients with suspected or confirmed ß-lactam allergy were formulated, as were recommendations on the implementation and monitoring of the impact of the guidelines. Antimicrobial stewardship programs and allergists should design and implement activities that facilitate the most appropriate use of antibiotics in these patients (AU)

En la práctica clínica, un antecedente de alergia a los antibióticos, confirmada o sospechada, es frecuente y condiciona la selección de antibióticos, requiriendo con frecuencia el uso de fármacos menos eficaces, más tóxicos o más caros que los antibióticos de primera línea. La optimización del uso de antibióticos en pacientes con este antecedente es una de las prioridades de los programas de optimización de uso de antibióticos (PROA) en varios países. Estas guías pretenden formular recomendaciones para evaluar de una manera sistemática a estos pacientes mediante una aproximación basada en la evidencia. Un panel multidisciplinar constituido por alergólogos, infectólogos, farmacéuticos hospitalarios e intensivistas formularon una serie de preguntas sobre el manejo de estos pacientes; una documentalista realizó la revisión bibliográfica. Las preguntas se distribuyeron entre los miembros del grupo de trabajo, quienes seleccionaron las referencias más relevantes y formularon las correspondientes recomendaciones, que fueron revisadas y aprobadas por todos los miembros del grupo. Es necesaria una aproximación sistemática a los pacientes con antecedentes de alergia a antibióticos para optimizar la selección del tratamiento antibiótico y mejorar los resultados clínicos de estos pacientes cuando precisan antibioterapia. El presente documento recomienda una estrategia de estratificación clínica del riesgo en 3 categorías. La recomendación de realizar evaluaciones complementarias se basa en el riesgo clínico y el antibiótico de primera línea necesario. Además, se formulan recomendaciones de tratamiento antibiótico empírico para los principales síndromes infecciosos en pacientes con alergia confirmada o sospechada. Finalmente, se formulan recomendaciones sobre la implementación y monitorización del impacto de las recomendaciones de la guía (AU)

Successful Bendamustine Desensitization for a Delayed-Type Hypersensitivity Reaction

No disponible

Adherence to Anaphylaxis Guidelines: Real-World Data From the Emergency Department of a Tertiary Hospital.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Few studies have evaluated adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines in emergency departments (EDs). Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines in the ED of a tertiary hospital. METHODS: Medical records of patients attended in the ED of University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain were reviewed. Those patients fulfilling the anaphylaxis criteria proposed by the NIAID/FAAN were selected. RESULTS: During a 1-year period, we identified 89 patients (74 adults and 15 children). The anaphylactic reaction was moderate in 65% of adults, severe in 34%, and very severe in 1%. In children, all reactions were moderate. Fewer than half of the patients (42%) received adrenaline in the ED; this was administered intramuscularly in only 19% of cases. As for the severity of the reaction, 65% of patients with moderate reactions and 42% with severe reactions were not treated with adrenaline. At discharge from the ED, an adrenaline auto-injector was recommended to only 5.6% of patients. Fifty-two percent of patients received a documented allergy referral (57% adults vs 27% children, P=.047), 29% instructions about avoidance of triggers (31% adults vs 20% children, NS), and 51% written instructions for recognition of anaphylaxis warning signs (41% adults vs 100% children, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study show a large discrepancy between recommendations in guidelines and management of anaphylaxis in the ED. Additional training efforts are needed to improve the treatment of patients with anaphylactic reactions.

Adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines: real-world data from the emergency department of a tertiary hospital

Background: Few studies have evaluated adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines in emergency departments (EDs). Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate adherence to anaphylaxis guidelines in the ED of a tertiary hospital. Methods: Medical records of patients attended in the ED of University Hospital of Salamanca, Spain were reviewed. Those patients fulfilling the anaphylaxis criteria proposed by the NIAID/FAAN were selected. Results: During a 1-year period, we identified 89 patients (74 adults and 15 children). The anaphylactic reaction was moderate in 65% of adults, severe in 34%, and very severe in 1%. In children, all reactions were moderate. Fewer than half of the patients (42%) received adrenaline in the ED; this was administered intramuscularly in only 19% of cases. As for the severity of the reaction, 65% of patients with moderate reactions and 42% with severe reactions were not treated with adrenaline. At discharge from the ED, an adrenaline auto-injector was recommended to only 5.6% of patients. Fifty-two percent of patients received a documented allergy referral (57% adults vs 27% children, P=.047), 29% instructions about avoidance of triggers (31% adults vs 20% children, NS), and 51% written instructions for recognition of anaphylaxis warning signs (41% adults vs 100% children, P<.001). Conclusion: The results of the study show a large discrepancy between recommendations in guidelines and management of anaphylaxis in the ED. Additional training efforts are needed to improve the treatment of patients with anaphylactic reactions

Antecedentes: Pocos estudios han evaluado el cumplimiento de las recomendaciones de las guías clínicas de anafilaxia en los servicios de urgencias. Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio fue conocer el cumplimiento de las guías de anafilaxia en el servicio de urgencias (SU) de un hospital terciario. Métodos: Se revisaron los informes de los pacientes atendidos en el SU del Hospital Universitario de Salamanca durante un año y se seleccionaron los que cumplían los criterios de anafilaxia propuestos por el NIAID/FAAN. Resultados: Se identificaron 89 pacientes, 74 adultos y 15 niños. El 65% de los adultos presentó una reacción moderada, el 34% grave y el 1% muy grave; en todos los niños la gravedad fue moderada. Menos de la mitad de los pacientes (42%) fueron tratados con adrenalina, solo el 19% por vía intramuscular. El 65% de las reacciones moderadas y el 42% de las graves no recibieron adrenalina. Al alta, se recomendó un auto-inyector de adrenalina al 5,6% de los pacientes, se remitió al Servicio de Alergia al 52% (57% adultos frente a 27% niños, p=0,047), se dieron indicaciones para evitar posibles desencadenantes al 29% (31% adultos frente a 20% niños, p=.5) e instrucciones para reconocer los signos de alarma de una reacción anafiláctica al 51% (41% adultos frente a 100% niños, P<0,001). Conclusión: Los resultados del estudio muestran importantes discrepancias entre las recomendaciones de las guías clínicas y el manejo de la anafilaxia en un SU hospitalario. Es necesario un mayor esfuerzo en educación para mejorar el tratamiento de los pacientes con anafilaxia

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Contrast Media.

The objective of these guidelines is to ensure efficient and effective clinical practice. The panel of experts who produced this consensus document developed a research protocol based on a review of the literature. The prevalence of allergic reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) is estimated to be 1:170 000, that is, 0.05%-0.1% of patients undergoing radiologic studies with ICM (more than 75 million examinations per year worldwide). Hypersensitivity reactions can appear within the first hour after administration (immediate reactions) or from more than 1 hour to several days after administration (nonimmediate or delayed reactions). The risk factors for immediate reactions include poorly controlled bronchial asthma, concomitant medication (eg, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, ß-blockers, and proton-pump inhibitors), rapid administration of the ICM, mastocytosis, autoimmune diseases, and viral infections. The most common symptoms of immediate reactions are erythema and urticaria with or without angioedema, which appear in more than 70% of patients. Maculopapular rash is the most common skin feature of nonimmediate reactions (30%-90%). Skin and in vitro tests should be performed for diagnosis of both immediate and nonimmediate reactions. The ICM to be administered will therefore be chosen depending on the results of these tests, the ICM that induced the reaction (when known), the severity of the reaction, the availability of alternative ICM, and the information available on potential ICM cross-reactivity. Another type of contrast media, gadolinium derivatives, is used used for magnetic resonance imaging. Although rare, IgE-mediated reactions to gadolinium derivatives have been reported.

Clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and management of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media

The objective of these guidelines is to ensure efficient and effective clinical practice. The panel of experts who produced this consensus document developed a research protocol based on a review of the literature. The prevalence of allergic reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) is estimated to be 1:170 000, that is, 0.05%-0.1% of patients undergoing radiologic studies with ICM (more than 75 million examinations per year worldwide). Hypersensitivity reactions can appear within the first hour after administration (immediate reactions) or from more than 1 hour to several days after administration (nonimmediate or delayed reactions). The risk factors for immediate reactions include poorly controlled bronchial asthma, concomitant medication (eg, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, ß-blockers, and proton-pump inhibitors), rapid administration of the ICM, mastocytosis, autoimmune diseases, and viral infections. The most common symptoms of immediate reactions are erythema and urticaria with or without angioedema, which appear in more than 70% of patients. Maculopapular rash is the most common skin feature of nonimmediate reactions (30%-90%). Skin and in vitro tests should be performed for diagnosis of both immediate and nonimmediate reactions. The ICM to be administered will therefore be chosen depending on the results of these tests, the ICM that induced the reaction (when known), the severity of the reaction, the availability of alternative ICM, and the information available on potential ICM cross-reactivity. Another type of contrast media, gadolinium derivatives, is used used for magnetic resonance imaging. Although rare, IgE-mediated reactions to gadolinium derivatives have been reported (AU)

El contenido y las pautas recomendadas en este documento están dirigidas a lograr una práctica clínica más eficiente y eficaz. El panel de expertos que participó en esta guía de consenso desarrolló un protocolo para revisar lo publicado sobre el tema. La prevalencia de las reacciones alérgicas a medios de contraste iodados (MCI) se estima en 1:170.000, lo que representa un 0,05% -0,1% de los pacientes sometidos a estudios radiológicos con MCI (más de 75 millones de administraciones por año en todo el mundo). Las reacciones alérgicas por hipersensibilidad pueden aparecer dentro de la primera hora tras la administración (reacciones inmediatas) o en un rango de tiempo desde una hora hasta varios días después de la administración (reacciones no inmediatas o tardías). Existen factores de riesgo para las reacciones inmediatas tales como: mal control previo del asma bronquial, uso concomitante de inhibidores de la ECA, beta bloqueantes o inhibidores de la bomba de protones, administración rápida del fármaco, antecedente de mastocitosis, coexistencia de enfermedades autoinmunes o de infecciones virales. Los síntomas más comunes de las reacciones inmediatas son eritema y urticaria con o sin angioedema, apareciendo en más de un 70% de los pacientes que sufrieron reacciones. Las reacciones no inmediatas más comunes son las erupciones maculopapulares (30-90%). Para el diagnóstico de reacciones tanto inmediatas como no inmediatas se deben realizar pruebas cutáneas y pruebas in vitro. Para elegir el MCI que posteriormente puede ser administrado se tendrán en cuenta los resultados de las pruebas cutáneas e in vitro realizadas, el MCI que indujo la reacción (si se conoce), la gravedad de la misma, la disponibilidad de otros MCIs alternativos y la información disponible sobre la potencial reactividad cruzada entre los distintos MCIs. Otro tipo de medios de contraste, son los utilizados en la resonancia magnética (RMN), que son derivados de gadolinio. Aunque infrecuentes, se han descrito reacciones mediadas por IgE a estos medios de contraste (AU)

Potential hypersensitivity due to the food or food additive content of medicinal products in Spain.

The Drug Allergy Committee of the Spanish Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology reviewed the allergenic potential of several substances of food origin that are found in the composition of some drugs. Despite recent legislation on labeling, many labels do not clearly state whether the drug contains raw material (active ingredients, excipient, or other manufacturing intermediate) with an origin in any of the substances in the list of the 14 groups of food allergens that are subject to mandatory declaration. The objective of legislation is that the drug package, the Summary of Product Characteristics, and the patient information leaflet clearly state the food content in order to improve the safety of allergic patients. Therefore, any food or allergen derivative that must be declared should be clearly stated on the drug label. Of all the evaluated products, egg and milk derivatives are the most frequently discussed in literature reviews. The natural or synthetic origin of potentially allergenic substances such as lysozyme, casein, lactose, albumin, phosphatide, and aromatic essences should be clearly stated. Providing this information has 2 clear advantages. First, allergic reactions to drugs in patients with food allergy could be avoided (if the substances have a natural origin). Second, prescription would improve by not restricting drugs containing synthetic substances (which do not usually induce allergic reactions).

Alimentos transgénicos y alergia / Transgenic foods and allergy

La biotecnología consiste en la aplicación de técnicas de biología molecular y/o DNA recombinante, o la transferencia in vitro de genes (bioingeniería), para el desarrollo de nuevos productos o para dotar de nuevas características a organismos ya existentes. A pesar de los beneficios potenciales que entrañan esos métodos, han surgido elementos de preocupación tanto en lo que respecta a su repercusión para la salud como para el medio ambiente. Desde un punto de vista alergológico, esos riesgos potenciales incluyen tanto la adicción de alérgenos conocidos a alimentos previamente no alergénicos, como la formación de nuevos alérgenos y la consiguiente posibilidad de sensibilización en la población expuesta susceptible. En el conocido como Protocolo de Cartagena sobre Bioseguridad se establecieron los criterios de evaluación de los riesgos que suponen los organismos modificados genéticamente. Por otra parte, la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO), de forma conjunta con la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS), han advertido también desde un punto de vista científico sobre la necesidad de evaluar la seguridad de los alimentos derivados de animales o plantas modificados genéticamente. En la presente revisión hemos querido hacer un repaso de los métodos utilizados para evaluar los potenciales riesgos de alergenicidad de los alimentos modificados genéticamente, así como de la actual legislación europea a este respecto

Biotecnology is the application of the techniques of molecular biology and/or recombinant DNA technology, or in vitro gene transfer (bioengineering), to develop products or impart specific capabilities to organisms. Despite potential benefits of such techniques, concerns have been raised about the potential consequences on health or environment. From an allergic stanpoint, potential risks include the transfer of a known allergen from a crop into a non- allergenic crop, and the creation of neo-allergens that leads the appearance of the novo sensitizaions in the allergic population. In the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety standards for risks assessment of genetically modified organisms have been set. On the other hand, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) joined to the World Health Organization (WHO) have provided scientific advice on the safety assessment of foods derived from genetically modified animals or plants. This review presents an overview of the methods used for the assessment of the potential allergenic risk of genetically modified foods and the current European legislation on this issue

Reacciones de hipersensibilidad a fármacos quimioterápicos / No disponible

No disponible