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

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

Post-acute phase and sequelae management of epidermal necrolysis: an international, multidisciplinary DELPHI-based consensus.

BACKGROUND: Long-term sequelae are frequent and often disabling after epidermal necrolysis (Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN)). However, consensus on the modalities of management of these sequelae is lacking. OBJECTIVES: We conducted an international multicentric DELPHI exercise to establish a multidisciplinary expert consensus to standardize recommendations regarding management of SJS/TEN sequelae. METHODS: Participants were sent a survey via the online tool "Survey Monkey" consisting of 54 statements organized into 8 topics: general recommendations, professionals involved, skin, oral mucosa and teeth, eyes, genital area, mental health, and allergy workup. Participants evaluated the level of appropriateness of each statement on a scale of 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate). Results were analyzed according to the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. RESULTS: Fifty-two healthcare professionals participated. After the first round, a consensus was obtained for 100% of 54 initially proposed statements (disagreement index < 1). Among them, 50 statements were agreed upon as 'appropriate'; four statements were considered 'uncertain', and ultimately finally discarded. CONCLUSIONS: Our DELPHI-based expert consensus should help guide physicians in conducting a prolonged multidisciplinary follow-up of sequelae in SJS-TEN.

Increasing the COVID-19 immunization rate through allergy testing.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination of the population is required to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Allergy testing could reduce anxiety towards COVID-19 vaccination and thereby may increase vaccination rate, however, its effectiveness remains unclear. METHODS: One hundred and thirty prospective real-life patients in need of but not daring to get vaccinated asked for allergy workup for COVID-19 vaccine hypersensitivity in 2021/2022. Characterization of patients, identification of anxieties, decrease of patient's anxiety levels, overall vaccination rate and adverse reactions after vaccination were assessed. RESULTS: Tested patients were characterized by being female (91.5%) and having a high rate of previous allergies (e.g. to food 55.4%, drugs 54.6%, or previous vaccinations 50%) and dermatological disease (29.2%) but not always had medical contraindications for COVID-19 vaccination. Sixty one patients (49.6%) were highly concerned (4-6, Likert scale 0-6) about vaccination and 47 (37.6%) expressed resolving thoughts about vaccinaion anaphylaxis (3-6, Likert scale 0-6). However only 35 patients (28.5%) were scared of getting COVID-19 within 2 months (4-6, Likert scale 0-6) and only 11 (9%) patients had high expectations of getting COVID-19 (4-6, Likert scale 0-6). Allergy testing significantly (p < 0.01 to p < 0.05 respectively) reduced the median anxiety of allergic symptoms following vaccination: dyspnoea (4.2-3.1), to faint (3.7-2.7), long-term consequences (3.6-2.2), pruritus (3.4-2.6), skin rash (3.3-2.6) and death (3.2-2.6). After allergy testing, most patients (108/122, 88.5%) let themselves be vaccinated within 60 days. Revaccinated patients with previous symptoms experienced a reduction of symptoms (p < 0.05) upon revaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Patients not daring to get vaccinated have more anxiety towards vaccination than to acquire COVID-19. For those, allergy testing excludes vaccine allergy, and is a tool to increase vaccination willingness and thereby helps to combat vaccination hesitancy.

Validation of dermatopathological criteria to diagnose cutaneous lesions of mastocytosis: importance of KIT D816V mutation analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous lesions of mastocytosis (CLM) are often subtle and may require biopsy. However, dermatohistopathological criteria for CLM remain undefined. OBJECTIVES: To establish criteria for CLM by validating histological and molecular parameters. METHODS: In skin samples from Caucasian patients with CLM and controls (atopic dermatitis, chronic urticaria, pruritus, tissue from tumor safety margin excisions), mast cell (MC) numbers, size, shape, distribution, immunostainability with a large panel of markers, pigmentation and presence of KIT D816V mutation were analysed. RESULTS: Forty-seven CLM patients (32 maculopapular cutaneous mastocytosis (MPCM), 15 mastocytomas) and 36 controls were included. Mastocytomas were easily identified by densely packed cuboidal MCs. In MPCM, skin MC density in CD117 stains was higher in CLM patients than in controls (P < 0.0001) and values correlated closely (r = 0.65, P < 0.0001) to results in tryptase stains. The optimized upper dermis cut-off number of 62 MC/mm2 had a sensitivity and specificity of 92% in both stainings, corresponding to approximately 12 MC/high power field (HPF). MC size was larger in MPCM than in controls (P = 0.01). Interstitial (= not perivascular or periadnexal) MCs and stronger basal pigmentation of the epidermis were indicative of MPCM (P < 0.0001 each) and clusters of >3 nucleated MC/HPF exclusively found in MCPM. Surface markers CD2, CD25 and CD30 stained T-lymphocytes, but only negligibly CLM MC. The KIT D816V mutation in formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) skin was evaluable in 87.5% of MCPM patients and had both 100% sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSIONS: MPCM can be predicted by major and minor criteria combined in a scoring model. Presence of D816V mutation in FFPE skin and MC density > 27/HPF are >95%-specific major criteria for MPCM. MC densities 12/HPF, interstitial MC, clusters and basal pigmentation are minor criteria.

Position statement: The need for EU legislation to require disclosure and labelling of the composition of medical devices.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, skin reactions secondary to the use of medical devices (MD), such as allergic contact dermatitis have increasingly been observed (e.g. to continuous blood sugar monitoring systems, insulin pumps, wound dressings, medical gloves, etc.): this is regarded as a developing epidemic. Lack of labelling of the composition of MD, as well as frequent lack of cooperation of manufacturers to disclose this relevant information, even when contacted by the clinician for the individual case of an established adverse reaction, significantly impede patient care. OBJECTIVES: To advocate for full ingredient labelling in the implementation of EU regulation for MD. METHODS: This position paper reviews the scientific literature, the current regulatory framework adopted for MD to date, and the likely impact, including some costs data in case of the absence of such labelling. RESULTS: Efforts made by several scientific teams, who are trying to identify the culprit of such adverse effects, either via asking for cooperation from companies, or using costly chemical analyses of MD, can only partly, and with considerable delay, compensate for the absence of meaningful information on the composition of MD; hence, patient management is compromised. Indeed, without knowing the chemical substances present, physicians are unable to inform patients about which substances they should avoid, and which alternative MD may be suitable/tolerated. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for full and accurate labelling of the chemical composition of MD in contact with the human body.

Negative oral provocation test with porcine pancreatic enzyme plus cofactors despite confirmed Alpha-Gal syndrome

No disponible

An EAACI task force report: recognising the potential of the primary care physician in the diagnosis and management of drug hypersensitivity.

Adverse drug reactions include drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs), which can be immunologically mediated (allergy) or non-immunologically mediated. The high number of DHRs that are unconfirmed and often self-reported is a frequent problem in daily clinical practice, with considerable impact on future prescription choices and patient health. It is important to distinguish between hypersensitivity and non-hypersensitivity reactions by adopting a structured diagnostic approach to confirm or discard the suspected drug, not only to avoid life-threatening reactions, but also to reduce the frequent over-diagnosis of DHRs. Primary care physicians are often the first point of contact for the sufferer of a reaction, as such they have a key role in deciding whether to discard the diagnosis or send the patient for further investigation. In this review, we highlight the importance of diagnosing DHRs, analysing in detail the role of primary care physicians. We describe the common patterns of DHRs and signs of its progression, as well as the indications and contraindications for referring the patient to an allergist. The diagnostic process is described and the possible tests are discussed, which often depend on the drug involved and the type of DHR suspected. We also describe recommendations regarding the avoidance of medication suspected to have caused the reaction and the use of alternatives.

[Allergic emergencies]. / Notfälle in der Allergologie.

Both anaphylactic reactions and angioedema in the head and neck area can be life-threatening and require emergency treatment. Therapy needed is primarily directed by the patient's symptoms. The first measures taken should consist of immediate disruption of the allergen contact, adequate positioning of the patient, the insertion of an intravenous catheter and an emergency call. In case of cardiovascular or respiratory involvement, intramuscular ± inhalative adrenalin is the treatment of choice. In case of cardiovascular involvement, volume substitution by intravenous catheter and oxygen administration are crucial and in lower airway obstruction, additionally short-acting beta mimetics should be inhaled. Intravenous H1-antihistamines and glucocorticoids are added. Allergic reaction confined to the skin and mucosal surfaces without respiratory involvement or to the gastrointestinal tract should also be treated with intravenous H1-antihistamines and glucocorticoids. Angioedema in the head and neck area can, however, also be associated with a life-threatening upper airway obstruction. Histamine-induced angioedema should be treated as anaphylaxis involving the upper respiratory tract. In hereditary angioedema, or in unclassified angioedema unresponsive to therapy, early airway maintenance and subcutaneous injection of bradykinin-receptor antagonist icatibant, intravenous injection of C1-inhibitor concentrate or fresh frozen plasma is recommended. The same approach should be taken for severe angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor-induced angioedema with dyspnea. Intubation by skilled personal is indicated in inspiratory stridor and dyspnea at rest. In all cases of anaphylaxis or angioemdema, patients should be surveyed until a safe remission is achieved.

Component Resolved Diagnosis in Hymenoptera Anaphylaxis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hymenoptera anaphylaxis is one of the leading causes of severe allergic reactions and can be fatal. Venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT) can prevent a life-threatening reaction; however, confirmation of an allergy to a Hymenoptera venom is a prerequisite before starting such a treatment. Component resolved diagnostics (CRD) have helped to better identify the responsible allergen. RECENT FINDINGS: Many new insect venom allergens have been identified within the last few years. Commercially available recombinant allergens offer new diagnostic tools for detecting sensitivity to insect venoms. Additional added sensitivity to nearly 95% was introduced by spiking yellow jacket venom (YJV) extract with Ves v 5. The further value of CRD for sensitivity in YJV and honey bee venom (HBV) allergy is more controversially discussed. Recombinant allergens devoid of cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants often help to identify the culprit venom in patients with double sensitivity to YJV and HBV. CRD identified a group of patients with predominant Api m 10 sensitization, which may be less well protected by VIT, as some treatment extracts are lacking this allergen. The diagnostic gap of previously undetected Hymenoptera allergy has been decreased via production of recombinant allergens. Knowledge of analogies in interspecies proteins and cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants is necessary to distinguish relevant from irrelevant sensitizations.

[Triggers of exanthematous drug eruptions: Stop intake, treat through or desensitization?] / Auslöser von Arzneiexanthemen: Absetzen, durchbehandeln oder desensibilisieren?

Drug hypersensitivity reactions affect over 7% of the population and are problematic both for patients and doctors. They frequently occur in the form of exanthematous drug eruptions. The clinical manifestation of delayed hypersensitivity reactions is very variable ranging from localized fixed drug eruptions to life-threatening, severe bullous mucocutaneous eruptions or systemic drug hypersensitivity syndromes. In the case of suspicion of an exanthematous drug eruption, the causality should initially be assessed according to the proposed algorithm. If both the chronology and the clinical symptoms are indicative of a delayed drug hypersensitivity reaction, the suspected drug should be avoided. Only in cases of urgent therapeutic indications and if alternative drugs are not available, the options of "treating through" and temporary tolerance induction by "desensitization" should be considered after an individual risk-benefit analysis.

Drug allergy passport and other documentation for patients with drug hypersensitivity - An ENDA/EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group Position Paper.

The strongest and best-documented risk factor for drug hypersensitivity (DH) is the history of a previous reaction. Accidental exposures to drugs may lead to severe or even fatal reactions in sensitized patients. Preventable prescription errors are common. They are often due to inadequate medical history or poor risk assessment of recurrence of drug reaction. Proper documentation is essential information for the doctor to make sound therapeutic decision. The European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology have formed a task force and developed a drug allergy passport as well as general guidelines of drug allergy documentation. A drug allergy passport, a drug allergy alert card, a certificate, and a discharge letter after medical evaluation are adequate means to document DH in a patient. They are to be handed to the patient who is advised to carry the documentation at all times especially when away from home. A drug allergy passport should at least contain information on the culprit drug(s) including international nonproprietary name, clinical manifestations including severity, diagnostic measures, potential cross-reactivity, alternative drugs to prescribe, and where more detailed information can be obtained from the issuer. It should be given to patients only after full allergy workup. In the future, electronic prescription systems with alert functions will become more common and should include the same information as in paper-based documentation.

In vitro tests for drug hypersensitivity reactions: an ENDA/EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group position paper.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are a matter of great concern, both for outpatient and in hospital care. The evaluation of these patients is complex, because in vivo tests have a suboptimal sensitivity and can be time-consuming, expensive and potentially risky, especially drug provocation tests. There are several currently available in vitro methods that can be classified into two main groups: those that help to characterize the active phase of the reaction and those that help to identify the culprit drug. The utility of these in vitro methods depends on the mechanisms involved, meaning that they cannot be used for the evaluation of all types of DHRs. Moreover, their effectiveness has not been defined by a consensus agreement between experts in the field. Thus, the European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has organized a task force to provide data and recommendations regarding the available in vitro methods for DHR diagnosis. We have found that although there are many in vitro tests, few of them can be given a recommendation of grade B or above mainly because there is a lack of well-controlled studies, most information comes from small studies with few subjects and results are not always confirmed in later studies. Therefore, it is necessary to validate the currently available in vitro tests in a large series of well-characterized patients with DHR and to develop new tests for diagnosis.

Added sensitivity of component-resolved diagnosis in hymenoptera venom-allergic patients with elevated serum tryptase and/or mastocytosis.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis caused by hymenoptera venom allergy is associated with elevation of baseline serum tryptase (sBT) and/or mastocytosis in about 5% of patients. Up to now, no information has become available on single venom allergen sIgE reactivity and the usefulness of component-resolved approaches to diagnose this high-risk patient group. To address the component-resolved sIgE sensitization pattern and diagnostic sensitivity in hymenoptera venom-allergic patients with elevated sBT levels and/or mastocytosis, a panel of yellow jacket and honeybee venom allergens was applied on a widely used IgE immunoassay platform. METHODS: Fifty-three patients with mastocytosis and/or elevated sBT tryptase level and systemic reactions to hymenoptera venoms were analyzed for their IgE reactivity to recombinant yellow jacket and honeybee venom allergens by Immulite3 g. RESULTS: sIgE reactivity to Ves v 1, Ves v 5, Api m 1 to Api m 4 and Api m 10 was found at a similar frequency in hymenoptera venom-allergic patients with and without elevated sBT levels and/or mastocytosis. However, the use of the recombinant allergens and a diagnostic cutoff of 0.1 kUA /L allowed the diagnosis of patients with otherwise undetectable IgE to venom extract. The diagnostic sensitivity of yellow jacket venom allergy using the combination of Ves v 1 and Ves v 5 was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients with elevated sBT levels and/or mastocytosis, the use of molecular components and decreasing the threshold sIgE level to 0.1 kUA /L may be needed to avoid otherwise undetectable IgE to hymenoptera venom extracts in about 8% of such patients.

Hydrolysed egg displays strong decrease in allergenicity and is well tolerated by egg-allergic patients.

Food allergies are believed to be on the rise, and currently, management relies on the avoidance of the food. Hen's egg allergy is after cow's milk allergy the most common food allergy; eggs are used in many food products and thus difficult to avoid. A technological process using a combination of enzymatic hydrolysis and heat treatment was designed to produce modified hen's egg with reduced allergenic potential. Biochemical (SDS-PAGE, Size exclusion chromatography and LC-MS/MS) and immunological (ELISA, immunoblot, RBL-assays, animal model) analysis showed a clear decrease in intact proteins as well as a strong decrease of allergenicity. In a clinical study, 22 of the 24 patients with a confirmed egg allergy who underwent a double-blind food challenge with the hydrolysed egg remained completely free of symptoms. Hydrolysed egg products may be beneficial as low-allergenic foods for egg-allergic patients to extent their diet.

Drug hypersensitivity in children: report from the pediatric task force of the EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group.

When questioned, about 10% of the parents report suspected hypersensitivity to at least one drug in their children. However, only a few of these reactions can be confirmed as allergic after a diagnostic workup. There is still a lack of knowledge on drug hypersensitivity (DH) epidemiology, clinical spectrum, and appropriate diagnostic methods particularly in children. Meanwhile, the tools used for DH management in adults are applied also for children. Whereas this appears generally acceptable, some aspects of DH and management differ with age. Most reactions in children are still attributed to betalactams. Some manifestations, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated angioedema and serum sickness-like reactions, are more frequent among young patients as compared to adults. Risk factors such as viral infections are particularly frequent in children, making the diagnosis challenging. The practicability and validity of skin test and other diagnostic procedures need further assessment in children. This study presents an up-to-date review on epidemiology, clinical spectrum, diagnostic tools, and current management of DH in children. A new general algorithm for the study of these reactions in children is proposed. Data are presented focusing on reported differences between pediatric and adult patients, also identifying unmet needs to be addressed in further research.