Spanish Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (SEAIC) Vision of Drug Provocation Tests.

The controlled drug provocation test (DPT) is currently considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of drug allergy. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are an increasingly common presenting complaint in both primary and specialized care. In Spain, ADRs are usually assessed via the allergology department, which rules out immunological mechanisms in up to 90% of cases. An adequate approach to ADRs clearly impacts the costs and efficacy of the treatments prescribed by other specialists. Consequently, if we did not use DPTs, patients would require more expensive, more toxic, and less effective treatments in many cases. In recent years, many new drugs have been developed. This document is intended to be a practical guideline for the management of DPTs according to the vision of the Spanish Allergology Society. The diagnostic work-up begins with a detailed clinical history. Skin tests are only useful for some medications, and in most cases the diagnosis can only be confirmed by DPT. Although cross-reactivity is common, DPTs can confirm the diagnosis and help to find an alternative drug. Programmed individualized patient management based on the type of drug to be studied and the patient´s comorbidities usually enables a solution to be found in most cases.

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

The consumption of quinolones as first-line treatment has increased in recent years, leading to an increase in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to this antibiotic group. Both diagnosis and management of HSRs to quinolones are complex and controversial. These practical guidelines aim to provide recommendations for effective clinical practice. The recommendations were drafted by an expert panel that reviewed the literature regarding HSRs to quinolones and analyzed controversies in this area. Most HSRs to quinolones are immediate and severe. The risk for HSRs is higher in patients who report allergy to ß-lactams, moxifloxacininduced anaphylaxis, and immediate reactions than in patients who report reactions to quinolones inducing other symptoms. The usefulness of skin tests in diagnosing HSRs to quinolones is controversial, with sensitivity and specificity varying between studies. Most in vitro tests are produced in-house, with no validated commercial options. The basophil activation test has proven useful for diagnosing immediate reactions, albeit with diverse results regarding sensitivity. Drug provocation testing is currently the gold standard for confirming or excluding the diagnosis and for finding safe alternatives, although it is contraindicated in patients with severe reactions. Cross-reactivity between quinolones has proven controversial in several studies, with the lowest cross-reactivity reported for levofloxacin. Desensitization may be considered in allergy to quinolones when no other alternatives are available.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Quinolones

The consumption of quinolones as first-line treatment has increased in recent years, leading to an increase in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to this antibiotic group. Both diagnosis and management of HSRs to quinolones are complex and controversial. These practical guidelines aim to provide recommendations for effective clinical practice. The recommendations were drafted by an expert panel that reviewed the literature regarding HSRs to quinolones and analyzed controversies in this area. Most HSRs to quinolones are immediate and severe. The risk for HSRs is higher in patients who report allergy to ß-lactams, moxifloxacininduced anaphylaxis, and immediate reactions than in patients who report reactions to quinolones inducing other symptoms. The usefulness of skin tests in diagnosing HSRs to quinolones is controversial, with sensitivity and specificity varying between studies. Most in vitro tests are produced in-house, with no validated commercial options. The basophil activation test has proven useful for diagnosing immediate reactions, albeit with diverse results regarding sensitivity. Drug provocation testing is currently the gold standard for confirming or excluding the diagnosis and for finding safe alternatives, although it is contraindicated in patients with severe reactions. Cross-reactivity between quinolones has proven controversial in several studies, with the lowest cross-reactivity reported for levofloxacin. Desensitization may be considered in allergy to quinolones when no other alternatives are available (AU)

Spanish Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (SEAIC) Vision of Drug Provocation Tests

The controlled drug provocation test (DPT) is currently considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of drug allergy. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are an increasingly common presenting complaint in both primary and specialized care. In Spain, ADRs are usually assessed via the allergology department, which rules out immunological mechanisms in up to 90% of cases. An adequate approach to ADRs clearly impacts the costs and efficacy of the treatments prescribed by other specialists. Consequently, if we did not use DPTs, patients would require more expensive, more toxic, and less effective treatments in many cases. In recent years, many new drugs have been developed. This document is intended to be a practical guideline for the management of DPTs according to the vision of the Spanish Allergology Society. The diagnostic work-up begins with a detailed clinical history. Skin tests are only useful for some medications, and in most cases the diagnosis can only be confirmed by DPT. Although cross-reactivity is common, DPTs can confirm the diagnosis and help to find an alternative drug. Programmed individualized patient management based on the type of drug to be studied and the patient's comorbidities usually enables a solution to be found in most cases (AU)

La prueba de exposición controlada a fármacos (DPT) se considera actualmente el estándar de oro para el diagnóstico de alergia amedicamentos. Las reacciones adversas inducidas por medicamentos (RAM) son un motivo creciente de consulta tanto en atención primariacomo especializada. Las consultas de Alergología en España son las que habitualmente estudian estas RAM y descartan mecanismosinmunológicos implicados hasta en el 90% de los casos consultados. Un abordaje adecuado de estos casos repercute de una maneraevidente en los costes y la eficacia de los tratamientos requeridos por otros especialistas, de modo que, si no empleáramos los DPT, lospacientes requerirían tratamientos más costosos, más tóxicos y menos eficaces en la mayoría de los casos.En los últimos años se han desarrollado un gran número de nuevos fármacos y este documento pretende ser una guía práctica en lagestión de las DPT con la visión de la Sociedad Española de Alergología. El trabajo de diagnóstico comienza con un historial detalladodel paciente. Las pruebas cutáneas solo son útiles en algunos medicamentos y, en la mayoría de los casos, el diagnóstico solo puedeconfirmarse mediante el DPT. Aunque suele haber reactividad cruzada, las DPT pueden confirmar el diagnóstico y también contribuir aencontrar un fármaco alternativo tolerable. El manejo individual de los pacientes de forma programada, teniendo en cuenta tanto eltipo de fármaco a estudiar como las comorbilidades del paciente, suele permitir encontrar una solución para la mayoría de los pacientes (AU)

Spanish Guidelines for Diagnosis, Management, Treatment, and Prevention of DRESS Syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome is a complex multisystemic severe drug hypersensitivity reaction whose diagnosis and management are troublesome. DRESS syndrome requires management by various specialists. The correct identification of the culprit drug is essential to ensure safe future therapeutic options for the patient. There are no previous Spanish guidelines or consensus statements on DRESS syndrome. Objective: To draft a review and guidelines on the clinical diagnosis, allergy work-up, management, treatment, and prevention of DRESS syndrome in light of currently available scientific evidence and the experience of experts from multiple disciplines. METHODS: These guidelines were drafted by a panel of allergy specialists from the Drug Allergy Committee of the Spanish Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (SEAIC), together with other medical specialists involved in the management of DRESS syndrome and researchers from the PIELenRed consortium. A review was conducted of scientific papers on DRESS syndrome, and the expert panel evaluated the quality of the evidence of the literature and provided grades of recommendation. Whenever evidence was lacking, a consensus was reached among the experts. RESULTS: The first Spanish guidelines on DRESS syndrome are now being published. Important aspects have been addressed, including practical recommendations about clinical diagnosis, identification of the culprit drug through the Spanish pharmacovigilance system algorithm, and the allergy work-up. Recommendations are provided on management, treatment, and prevention. Algorithms for the management of DRESS in the acute and recovery phases have been drawn up. Expert consensus-based stepwise guidelines for the management and treatment of DRESS syndrome are provided.

Spanish guidelines for diagnosis, management, treatment, and prevention of DRESS syndrome

BACKGROUND: Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome is a complex multisystemic severe drug hypersensitivity reaction whose diagnosis and management are troublesome. DRESS syndrome requires management by various specialists. The correct identification of the culprit drug is essential to ensure safe future therapeutic options for the patient. There are no previous Spanish guidelines or consensus statements on DRESS syndrome. OBJECTIVE: To draft a review and guidelines on the clinical diagnosis, allergy work-up, management, treatment, and prevention of DRESS syndrome in light of currently available scientific evidence and the experience of experts from multiple disciplines. METHODS: These guidelines were drafted by a panel of allergy specialists from the Drug Allergy Committee of the Spanish Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (SEAIC), together with other medical specialists involved in the management of DRESS syndrome and researchers from the PIELenRed consortium. A review was conducted of scientific papers on DRESS syndrome, and the expert panel evaluated the quality of the evidence of the literature and provided grades of recommendation. Whenever evidence was lacking, a consensus was reached among the experts. RESULTS: The first Spanish guidelines on DRESS syndrome are now being published. Important aspects have been addressed, including practical recommendations about clinical diagnosis, identification of the culprit drug through the Spanish pharmacovigilance system algorithm, and the allergy work-up. Recommendations are provided on management, treatment, and prevention. Algorithms for the management of DRESS in the acute and recovery phases have been drawn up. Expert consensus-based stepwise guidelines for the management and treatment of DRESS syndrome are provided

ANTECEDENTES: El síndrome DRESS (Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms) es una reacción cutánea grave inducida por hipersensibilidad a fármacos, compleja y multisistémica. Su diagnóstico y manejo es difícil e implica a diferentes especialistas. Es muy importante una correcta identificación del fármaco responsable para que el paciente disponga de opciones terapéuticas seguras en el futuro. No hay guías ni documentos de consenso españoles previos sobre el síndrome DRESS. OBJETIVO: Realizar una revisión y guía sobre el diagnóstico clínico y alergológico, manejo, tratamiento y prevención del DRESS según la evidencia científica disponible y la experiencia de expertos de diferentes especialidades médicas. MÉTODOS: Esta guía ha sido elaborada por un grupo de alergólogos del Comité de Alergia a Fármacos de la SEAIC, junto a otros especialistas involucrados en el manejo del DRESS e investigadores del Consorcio PIELenRed. Se realizó una búsqueda de publicaciones científicas sobre DRESS y el grupo de expertos evaluó la evidencia científica de la literatura y aportaron grados de recomendación. Cuando no existía evidencia se alcanzó un consenso entre expertos. RESULTADOS: Se publica la guía española sobre DRESS. Incluye aspectos prácticos importantes sobre el diagnóstico clínico, la identificación de fármacos causales a través del algoritmo del Sistema Español de Farmacovigilancia y guía para el diagnóstico alergológico. Se realizan recomendaciones sobre el manejo, tratamiento y prevención del DRESS. Se aportan algoritmos sobre el manejo en la fase aguda y en la de recuperación. Se ha elaborado una guía terapéutica escalonada consensuada por expertos especialistas implicados en el tratamiento del DRESS

Occupational rhinitis due to inhaled locust bean gum: cross-reactivity with legumes and nuts

No disponible

Role of T cells in non-immediate drug allergy reactions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Nonimmediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (NI-DHR) constitute the most complex group of drug allergy, with many drugs involved. Both parent drugs and their reactive metabolites can be implicated. Although with some drugs the number of metabolites is limited, with others it is quite extensive and many still remain to be identified. The diagnostic approaches are insufficient for the diagnosis and realistic approaches that reproduce the pathological response are lacking. RECENT FINDINGS: A wider view has now been considered, with the inclusion of several mechanisms that may contribute to drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR): the classical hapten hypothesis, the danger signal and the pharmacological interaction. Monitoring the acute response provides relevant information about the mechanisms involved, with the identification of a large number of genes that can be over-expressed or under-expressed in the acute phase of the response. Assessment of risk of developing reactions can be verified by HLA associations. SUMMARY: Further knowledge of these NI-DHR, including molecular genetics and transcriptomic analysis, has enabled a better understanding and management of these reactions.

Specific immunotherapy in local allergic rhinitis: A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial with Phleum pratense subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Allergen immunotherapy has been shown to be an effective treatment for local allergic rhinitis (LAR) to house dust mites. Studies with pollen allergen immunotherapy are limited to observational studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Phleum pratense subcutaneous immunotherapy (Phl-SCIT) in LAR. METHODS: In a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study, 56 patients with moderate-severe LAR to grass pollen received Phl-SCIT with a depigmented polymerized pollen vaccine or placebo for the first year, and Phl-SCIT the second one. The blind was maintained throughout the study. Primary outcome was combined symptom medication score (CSMS) during grass pollen season (GPS). Secondary clinical outcomes included organ-specific symptoms, medication-free days, rhinitis severity and asthma control. Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), nasal allergen provocation test (NAPT), skin testing, serum levels of specific IgG4 and specific IgE and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) had a short-term and sustained effect with significant improvements of all primary and secondary clinical outcomes and RQLQ score. SCIT significantly increased serum sIgG4 levels and allergen tolerance, from the 6th to 24th months of treatment. At the end of the study, 83% of patients treated with ≥6 months of SCIT tolerated a concentration of P. pratense over 50 times higher than baseline, and 56% gave a negative NAPT. SCIT was well tolerated; six mild local reactions occurred, and there were no serious adverse events related to the study medication. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous immunotherapy with depigmented polymerized allergen extracts is a safe and clinically effective treatment for LAR to P. pratense.

Immediate Reactions to More Than 1 NSAID Must Not Be Considered Cross-Hypersensitivity Unless Tolerance to ASA Is Verified.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Individuals who develop drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to chemically unrelated nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are considered cross-hypersensitive. The hallmark for this classification is that the patient presents a reaction after intake of or challenge with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA). Whether patients react to 2 or more NSAIDs while tolerating ASA remains to be studied (selective reactions, SRs). Objective: To identify patients with SRs to 2 or more NSAIDs including strong COX-1 inhibitors. METHODS: Patients who attended the Allergy Service of Hospital Infanta Leonor, Madrid, Spain with DHRs to NSAIDs between January 2011 and December 2014 were evaluated. Those with 2 or more immediate reactions occurring in less than 1 hour after intake were included. After confirming tolerance to ASA, the selectivity of the response to 2 or more NSAIDs was demonstrated by in vivo and/or in vitro testing or by controlled administration. RESULTS: From a total of 203 patients with immediate DHRs to NSAIDs, 16 (7.9%) met the inclusion criteria. The patients presented a total of 68 anaphylactic or cutaneous reactions (mean [SD], 4.2 [2.1]). Most reactions were to ibuprofen and other arylpropionic acid derivatives and to metamizole. Two different NSAIDs were involved in 11 patients and 3 in 5 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with NSAID-induced anaphylaxis or urticaria/angioedema should not be considered cross-hypersensitive unless tolerance to ASA is verified.

Immediate reactions to more than 1 NSAID must not be considered cross-hypersensitivity unless tolerance to ASA is verified

Background: Individuals who develop drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to chemically unrelated nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are considered cross-hypersensitive. The hallmark for this classification is that the patient presents a reaction after intake of or challenge with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA). Whether patients react to 2 or more NSAIDs while tolerating ASA remains to be studied (selective reactions, SRs). Objective: To identify patients with SRs to 2 or more NSAIDs including strong COX-1 inhibitors. Methods: Patients who attended the Allergy Service of Hospital Infanta Leonor, Madrid, Spain with DHRs to NSAIDs between January 2011 and December 2014 were evaluated. Those with 2 or more immediate reactions occurring in less than 1 hour after intake were included. After confirming tolerance to ASA, the selectivity of the response to 2 or more NSAIDs was demonstrated by in vivo and/or in itro testing or by controlled administration. Results: From a total of 203 patients with immediate DHRs to NSAIDs, 16 (7.9%) met the inclusion criteria. The patients presented a total of 68 anaphylactic or cutaneous reactions (mean [SD], 4.2 [2.1]). Most reactions were to ibuprofen and other arylpropionic acid derivatives and to metamizole. Two different NSAIDs were involved in 11 patients and 3 in 5 patients. Conclusions: Patients with NSAID-induced anaphylaxis or urticaria/angioedema should not be considered cross-hypersensitive unless tolerance to ASA is verified (AU)

Introducción: Los individuos que desarrollan reacciones de hipersensibilidad a antiinflamatorios no esteroideos (AINE) no relacionados químicamente se consideran intolerantes cruzados. La característica esencial para ser incluidos en esta categoría es que presenten un resultado positivo tras la administración de AAS. La cuestión de si estos pacientes responden a dos o más AINE y toleran AAS no ha sido estudiada (reacciones selectivas a múltiples AINE, RS). Objetivos: Identificar pacientes con RS a dos o más AINE, incluidos inhibidores potentes de COX-1. Métodos: Se evaluaron los pacientes que acudieron al servicio de alergia del Hospital Infanta Leonor con una historia de hipersensibilidad a AINE desde enero de 2011 a diciembre de 2014. Únicamente se consideraron los casos con dos o más reacciones a AINE diferentes y que se produjeron durante la primera hora tras la ingesta del fármaco (reacciones inmediatas). Tras confirmar la tolerancia a AAS, se evaluó la selectividad de la reacción mediante pruebas in vivo/in vitro o administración controlada del medicamento. Resultados: De un total de 203 pacientes con reacciones inmediatas a AINE 16 (7,9%) se ajustaron a los criterios establecidos. Los pacientes presentaron 68 reacciones anafilácticas o urticaria/angioedema (media de 4,2±2,1). El ibuprofeno y otros derivados arilpropiónicos y el metamizol fueron los fármacos más frecuentemente implicados. En 11 pacientes las reacciones fueron inducidas por dos AINE diferentes, mientras que en otros 5 fueron tres los medicamentos implicados. Conclusiones: Los pacientes con anafilaxia o urticaria/angioedema a diferentes AINE no deben ser incluidos dentro del grupo de intolerancia cruzada hasta verificar su tolerancia a AAS (AU)