Perioperative anaphylactic shock caused by propofol.

Perioperative anaphylaxis is rare and the diagnosis is difficult to distinguish from normal side effects from anaesthesia. Anaesthetists should be able to diagnose anaphylaxis and treat promptly with adrenaline and fluids. Allergy investigation should be performed subsequently. This is a case report of perioperative anaphylaxis to propofol. Propofol contains refined soya oil and egg lecithin, but no connection between allergy to soy, egg or peanut and allergy to propofol has been proven, and international guidelines recommend that propofol can be used in patients with these food allergies.

Balancing Benefits and Risks: A Literature Review on Hypersensitivity Reactions to Human G-CSF (Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor).

Human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a granulopoietic growth factor used in the treatment of neutropenia following chemotherapy, myeloablative treatment, or healthy donors preparing for allogeneic transplantation. Few hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) have been reported, and its true prevalence is unknown. We aimed to systematically characterize G-CSF-induced HRs while including a comprehensive list of adverse reactions. We reviewed articles published before January 2024 by searching in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases using a combination of the keywords listed, selected the ones needed, and extracted relevant data. The search resulted in 68 entries, 17 relevant to our study and 7 others found from manually searching bibliographic sources. A total of 40 cases of G-CSF-induced HR were described and classified as immediate (29) or delayed (11). Immediate ones were mostly caused by filgrastim (13 minimum), with at least 9 being grade 5 on the WAO anaphylaxis scale. Delayed reactions were mostly maculopapular exanthemas and allowed for the continuation of G-CSF. Reactions after first exposure frequently appeared and were present in at least 11 of the 40 cases. Only five desensitization protocols have been found concerning the topic at hand in the analyzed data. We believe this study brings to light the research interest in this topic that could benefit from further exploration, and propose regular updating to include the most recently published evidence.

Removing penicillin allergy label in a hospitalized adolescent with a remote penicillin and recent cephalosporin allergy.

Background: ß-Lactam antibiotics are widely used with increased utilization in hospitalized patients. Of this population, as high as 10-20% report an allergy to ß-lactam antibiotics but <5% are at risk of developing clinically significant immunoglobulin E- or T-lymphocyte-mediated reactions. Most of the time, these reported allergies are present during an illness with no previous inquiry of their validity, which makes investigation and possible removal of this allergy label a challenge. Methods: We report a 16-year-old boy who presented with 1 week of night sweats, chills, headaches, and fatigue, followed by 1 day of fever and right knee swelling and who was diagnosed with septic bursitis. Due to concern of a penicillin allergy label, the patient was started on a cefepime infusion. Five minutes into the infusion, the patient reported puffy eyes and itchy throat, followed by a witnessed cascading flat nonpruritic erythematous rash from head to shoulders. This rash went away in 3 minutes after stopping the infusion and the patient being given 50 mg of intravenous diphenhydramine and 10 mg of oral dexamethasone. He was subsequently diagnosed with a cefepime allergy. Results: Allergy/immunology was the speciality consulted, and, by using a screening questionnaire, the patient's reported penicillin allergy was determined to be low risk. Subsequent 1-step oral challenge was the key to providing the patient with the necessary antibiotic course to resolve his infection. Conclusion: Multiple reported antibiotic allergies lead to poor antibiotic stewardship that causes impactful health and financial burden on the patient and health-care system. It is thus important to have an evidence-based systematic approach to de-label penicillin antibiotic allergy labels to reduce these potential harms.

[Retrospective analysis of perioperative anaphylactic shock induced by cefuroxime].

This study investigated the characteristics and frequency of perioperative anaphylactic shock induced by cefuroxime, so as to provide a reference for the safe and rational use of cefuroxime in the perioperative period. Cases of perioperative anaphylactic shock caused by cefuroxime in our hospital from 2011 to 2021 were extracted from the Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring System. Literature reporting adverse drug reactions (ADR) including cefuroxime-induced anaphylactic shock in perioperative settings was collected from the CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, PubMed, and Web of Science databases from their respective inception to May 2022. Statistical analysis was performed for all cases of cefuroxime-induced perioperative anaphylactic shock. A total of 31 patients were included [13 men (48.1%) and 14 women (51.9%)], most of whom were over 60 years old (n=16, 59.3%); 9 (29.0%) patients had a history of drug allergy; 5 (16.1%) patients had received skin tests, but with negative results; 28 (90.3%) patients received treatment intravenously; 22 (71.0%) patients were treated after anesthesia. For 20 (64.5%) patients the ADR occurred within 10 minutes after anesthesia. The main manifestations were hypotension, dyspnea, rash, and tachycardia. For all patients, symptoms resolved after withdrawal of the drug and active rescue, and there were no deaths. A history of allergy and skin test findings may have limitations in predicting perioperative anaphylactic shock caused by cefuroxime; greater vigilance should be exercised when using cefuroxime in the perioperative period. Close monitoring is recommended for patients undergoing treatment with cefuroxime. Rescue therapy should be administered for allergic shock, and suitable response measures must be taken in a timely manner to ensure the safety of patients.

A rare case of phenobarbital-induced leukocytoclastic vasculitis.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) manifested as vasculitis are rare. Antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), sulphonamides, diuretics, immunosupressants and anticonvulsants are the most common culprits for drug-induced leukocytoclastic vasculitis (LCV) but there is scarce information about barbiturates. We present a case of 53-year-old female with severe vasculitis after phenobarbital- and NSAIDs-containing medications use. The preliminary diagnosis of drug-induced vasculitis was made based on anamnestic and clinical data. Further examinations confirmed the diagnosis of LCV and excluded other more common causes of vasculitis. The causative significance of used medications was assessed by long-term observation of the patient after the reaction, including the drug challenge series and Naranjo's Adverse Drug Reaction Probability Scale. It was concluded that phenobarbital is the most probable culprit drug. The patient's data were included in the Armenian Registry of Patients with Severe DHRs. Since then, the patient has avoided only barbiturate-containing drugs and no reactions were noted. Thus, the case indicates that even with limited diagnostic capabilities, the final diagnosis of rare drug-induced LCV and even rarer culprit drug can be established by comparing the available data. Awareness about phenobarbital and proper recording of the case are important in the management and prevention of DHRs manifested as vasculitis.

Is a low dose of dexamethasone sufficient to prevent paclitaxel-related hypersensitivity reactions? A retrospective study in patients with gynecologic malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) are prevalent, especially in females. The common paclitaxel pretreatment, dexamethasone, may inhibit chemotherapy efficacy and accelerate tumor progression. We aimed to balance paclitaxel HSRs and the lowest dexamethasone dose for gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: We retrospectively examined 1,074 cycles of 3-weekly paclitaxel-containing treatment for 231 gynecologic malignancies at Xiangya Hospital. HSR incidence with different dexamethasone regimens was the primary outcome. Risk factors were examined in all cycles using univariate and multivariate models with generalized estimating equations. A subgroup analysis of initial exposure to paclitaxel was also conducted. RESULTS: HSR occurred in 33 patients (14.29%) and 49 cycles (4.56%), including 69.39% in cycles 1-2. There were no severe HSRs (grade ≥3). Different premedication regimens, including dexamethasone dosage and route, ranitidine presence or absence, didn't affect HSR incidence in univariate and multivariate analyzes (p > 0.05). Premenopausal women exerted fewer HSRs (ORadj 0.22, 95%CI 0.08-0.58; p = 0.002). At the first exposure to paclitaxel, more than 10 mg of dexamethasone didn't diminish HSRs (OR 0.83, 95%CI 0.27-2.59; p = 0.753). CONCLUSIONS: In gynecologic malignancies, 10 mg dexamethasone along with 20 mg diphenhydramine may be adequate to prevent paclitaxel HSRs without ranitidine. It is necessary to reevaluate paclitaxel premedication regimens.

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.

Recurrent acquired ocular toxoplasmosis associated with Kyrieleis plaques and documented allergy to sulfonamide-A treatment proposal for two rare conditions.

The aim of this study was to describe a case of a patient with ocular toxoplasmosis, which has resulted in Kyrieleis plaques formation (segmental periarteritis associated with severe inflammation) and later follow-up and alternative treatment due to documented allergy to sulfonamide. A 33-year-old Brazilian woman diagnosed with acute toxoplasmosis, initially treated with sulfonamide, developed a critical cutaneous rash. Cotrimoxazole was changed to clindamycin and pyrimethamine, and prednisone was started. The medication was maintained for 45 days. Four months later, she developed retinal lesions suggestive of toxoplasmosis with Kyrieleis plaques in the upper temporal vessels. Pyrimethamine, clindamycin, and prednisone were initiated until healing. She presented reactivation months later, and a suppressive treatment with pyrimethamine was instituted for one year. This is the first report to use the combination of clindamycin with pyrimethamine in the treatment and recurrence prophylaxis for OT in a documented allergy to sulfonamide.

Use of oral penicillin challenge in low-risk penicillin allergy.

Overview of: Copaescu AM, Vogrin S, James F, et al. Efficacy of a clinical decision rule to enable direct oral challenge in patients with low-risk penicillin allergy: The PALACE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2023;183:944-52.

High-dose oxaliplatin induces severe hypersensitivity reactions and high recurrence rates during rechallenge in patients treated with hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy.

AIM: To analyze the risk factors for oxaliplatin (OXA)-induced severe hypersensitivity reactions and identify the recurrence rate of the reactions after an OXA rechallenge in patients treated with hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC). METHODS: Among the 2251 patients treated with HAIC (OXA), 84 patients with gastrointestinal cancer who displayed hypersensitivity reactions between May 2013 and May 2022 were included in this study. Among the 84 patients, 23 (27.4%) developed severe anaphylactic reactions (grade III/IV), and 61 (72.6%) developed grade I/II reactions. We explored the risk factors for severe OXA-induced hypersensitivity reactions. Twenty-seven patients with grade I/II reactions underwent retreatment (HAIC with OXA), and the recurrence rate of the hypersensitivity reactions was determined. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyze the risk factors for OXA-induced hypersensitivity reaction. RESULTS: In the study, multivariate analysis indicated that the dose of OXA (odds ratio [OR] 3.077, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.106-8.558, p = 0.031) was an independent risk factor for OXA-induced severe hypersensitivity reactions. Twenty-seven patients with non-severe hypersensitivity reactions underwent retreatment HAIC with OXA and 14 (51.9 %) experienced HSR recurrence, including 2 (7.4 %) who experienced hypersensitivity shock. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of OXA doses is a risk factor for OXA-induced severe hypersensitivity reactions in patients treated with HAIC (OXA). Rechallenging HAIC with OXA appears to be associated with a higher recurrence rate of the HSR.

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.

A survey of carboplatin desensitization therapy in Japan: A multicenter retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to chemotherapy are serious adverse events associated with cancer drug therapy and can occur with any antitumor drug. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of carboplatin desensitization therapy in Japan and established a method for treating carboplatin HSRs. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with gynecological (ovarian, endometrial, or cervical) cancers who underwent carboplatin desensitization therapy between 2016 and 2020 at the Gynecologic Cancer Study Group of Japan Clinical Oncology Group were included. The carboplatin desensitization therapy at each institution and the implementation cases were registered in an online case report form. RESULTS: This retrospective study enrolled 136 patients (ovarian, 108; endometrial, 17; and cervical cancer, 11). Pre-existing allergies were present in 37 (27.2%) patients, and 32 (23.5%) patients exhibited prodromal symptoms during treatment before HSR onset. Erythema was the most common symptom at HSR onset, affecting 93 (68.4%) patients, followed by itching in 72 (52.9%) patients and decreased oxygen saturation in 43 (31.6%) patients. Loss of consciousness occurred in three (2.2%) patients. The most common timing of HSR onset was during the first recurrence treatment (47%). The mean total carboplatin dose until HSR onset was 7331 (2620-18,282) mg, and the mean number of doses was 14 (4-63). Desensitization treatment was completed in 75% of cases, and breakthrough HSRs occurred in 25% (34/136). No deaths occurred in the study cohort. The risk factors for HSRs were not identified. CONCLUSION: Although carboplatin desensitization therapy has high success rates in Japan, erythema and pruritus are important HSRs to consider.

Hypersensitivity reaction to Abiraterone, successful desensitization protocol in prostate cancer patient.

INTRODUCTION: In prostate cancer, androgens are key in the growth of both normal prostate and cancer cells. Abiraterone acetate inhibits CYP17, an important target in prostate cancer given its central role in the production of adrenal and tumor-derived androgens. Although abiraterone is generally well tolerated, common adverse effects such as hypertension, hypokalemia, and hepatotoxicity have been reported. CLINICAL CASE: We present the case of an 83-year-old Mexican man with high-volume EC IV prostate cancer resistant to castration, orchiectomy, and bone, liver, and lung metastases. First-line treatment with the CHAARTED scheme was indicated, by patient decision refuse chemotherapy treatment. On the fourth day of starting treatment, he developed pruritic erythematous macular skin lesions and urticaria on the posterior chest that resolved spontaneously. A generalized erythematous and pruritic maculopapular rash appeared 12 days after starting abiraterone, for which she was referred to allergies. MANAGEMENT AND RESULTS: An oral provocation test was performed for two days, presenting localized macular lesions eight hours after the administration of abiraterone. An oral desensitization protocol was carried out for ten days in which no hypersensitivity reactions were observed, thus achieving the successful administration of abiraterone.

A successful desensitization in an adult patient with ARA-C infusion reaction.

INTRODUCTION: Cytarabine (ARA-C) is an antimetabolite agent used especially in the treatment of hematologic malignancies. Infusion reactions have an important place among the side effects that may occur due to treatment. Clinical findings of infusion reactions resemble allergic reactions. CASE REPORT: 47-year-old male patient with a diagnosis of B-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia developed infusion reaction during ARA-C treatment. MANAGEMENT & OUTCOME: There was no alternative treatment option for his existing malignant disease, we decided ARA-C desensitization. DISCUSSION: We would like to describe a successful desensitization protocol in an adult patient who experienced a reaction during ARA-C infusion.

A nurse-driven penicillin allergy risk score in the preoperative setting was associated with increased cefazolin use perioperatively.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To characterize and assess the effects of a preoperative, nurse-driven penicillin allergy risk stratification tool on rates of perioperative cefazolin and second-line antibiotic use. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental quality improvement study of penicillin-allergic surgical patients undergoing procedures for which cefazolin is indicated. SETTING: Outpatient Perioperative Care Clinic (PCC) for preoperative surgical patients at a tertiary care center. PATIENTS: 670 and 1371 adult penicillin-allergic PCC attendants and non-attendants, respectively. INTERVENTION: A paper penicillin allergy risk stratification questionnaire was administered during the PCC visit. Nurses were educated on its use. MEASUREMENTS: Antibiotic (cefazolin, clindamycin, vancomycin) use rates in the 24 months before and 17 months after intervention implementation in November 2020 (November 2018 - April 2022) were assessed in penicillin-allergic PCC attendants with statistical process control charts. Multivariable logistic regression assessed antibiotic use rates pre- and post-intervention adjusting for age, sex, surgical specialty and penicillin allergy history severity. Similar analyses were done in penicillin-allergic PCC non-attendants. MAIN RESULTS: Of 670 penicillin-allergic PCC attendants, 451 (median [IQR] age, 66 (Sousa-Pinto et al., 2021 [14])) were analyzed pre-intervention and 219 (median [IQR] age, 66 (Mine et al., 1970 [13])) post-intervention. One month after implementation, process measures demonstrated an upward shift in cefazolin use for PCC attendants versus no shift or other special cause variation for PCC non-attendants. There were increased odds of cefazolin use (aOR 1.67, 95% CI [1.09-2.57], P = 0.019), decreased odds of clindamycin use (aOR 0.61, 95% CI [0.42-0.89], P = 0.010) and decreased odds of vancomycin use (aOR 0.56, 95% CI [0.35-0.88], P = 0.013) in PCC attendants post-intervention. This effect did not occur in PCC non-attendants. There was no increase in perioperative anaphylaxis post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A simple penicillin allergy risk stratification tool implemented in the preoperative setting was associated with increased use of cefazolin and decreased rates of second-line agents post implementation.