Immediate local anesthetic reactions and diagnostic test results in pediatric patients.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Adverse reactions to local anesthetics are relatively common, but proven IgE-mediated allergy is extremely rare. We aimed to determine the frequency of local anesthetic allergy in pediatric patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The medical records of 73 patients who presented to our clinic with a history of suspected allergic reaction to local anesthetics and underwent diagnostic testing between 2012 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Diagnoses were based on case histories, skin tests, and subcutaneous challenge tests. RESULTS: A total of 75 test series were carried out on the 73 patients (43 boys; median [IQR] age 9.25 [7.26-14.25] years, range 3-17.8 years). The most commonly tested drugs were lidocaine (n = 38; 50.6%) and prilocaine (n = 15; 20%). Local anesthetic allergy was confirmed in one (1.3%) of the 73 patients by positive subcutaneous challenge test with mepivacaine. CONCLUSION: There are limited data in the current literature regarding local anesthetic allergies and diagnosis test results in pediatric patients. Proven local anesthetic allergy is less common than expected by society and physicians, and therefore diagnostic tests are needed for patients with no contra-indications such as severe or life-threatening reactions.

Twenty Years' Experience with Anaphylaxis-Like Reactions to Local Anesthetics: Genuine Allergy is Rare.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis-like reactions occur within minutes after the application of local anesthetics (LA), most commonly during dental interventions. Impressive symptoms including respiratory distress or loss of consciousness frequently give rise to a suspicion of allergy and may prompt patients and treating physicians to refuse future LA injections. OBJECTIVE: Nonallergic mechanisms are responsible for the majority of LA-induced immediate-type reactions. In view of the preponderance of nonallergic reactions, the question arises whether genuine LA allergy may be missed during routine testing procedures. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated clinical data and test results from patients referred to our allergy clinic within the past 20 years for diagnostic workup of LA-induced immediate-type reactions. RESULTS: Of 402 evaluated patients, 29 had an episode of acute urticaria within 30 minutes after LA injections, and the remaining 373 had a history of mainly subjective cutaneous, respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological complaints. Of the patients reporting urticaria with or without angioedema, 14 were diagnosed with a spontaneous episode of urticaria, 13 had allergic or nonallergic reactions to other agents, and 2 had IgE-mediated LA allergy. LA allergy was definitely excluded by 771 subcutaneous provocation tests with skin test negative LA, thereby demonstrating the high predictive value of negative intradermal testing. CONCLUSIONS: Skin testing and provocative LA challenge are useful to exclude LA allergy, and this testing procedure seems to be appropriate to identify the extremely rare cases with IgE-mediated LA allergy.

Local anesthetics allergy: who should be tested?

Summary: Objective. To document the test results of patients referred to our clinic for testing with local anesthetics (LAs) in real life conditions and provide data related to the necessity of these tests. Methods. All consecutive subjects who were referred to be evaluated for LA allergy during a two-year follow up were included in the analysis. All subjects underwent skin prick / intradermal tests followed by a subcutaneous provocation test with the LAs tested. Results. A total of 228 subjects were included. The main referral reason was the presence of a history of drug hypersensitivity reaction (DHR) to drugs other than LAs (n = 128; 56%), whereas a history of LA allergy constituted the second most common referral reason (n = 64, 28.1%). In the majority of cases (n = 39; 60.9%), the culprit LA was not known by the patients. Asthma was the third most common referral reason, presented in 49 cases (21.5%). Ten cases had positivity to the tested LA in skin testing / challenges. Nine out of 10 patients had a history of DHR to drugs other than LA, whereas 5 of them had also a history of DHR to LA. Six of the 10 patients had a history of multiple DHR. None of the asthma patients without any DHR history were positive in the LA tests. Eight out of 10 cases who underwent skin testing / challenge with an alternative LA, tolerated the alternative LA. Conclusion. The most common referral reason for testing with LA was a history of DHR to drugs other than LAs, whereas asthma was the third most common referral reason. Patients with a history of multiple DHR may be considered for testing with LAs. Asthmatics and those with other allergic diseases without a history of drug / LA allergy do not need to be tested with LA.

Cocaine Allergy in Drug-Dependent Patients and Allergic People.

BACKGROUND: Adverse reactions to local anesthetics (LAs), especially esters, are not uncommon, but true allergy is rarely diagnosed. To our knowledge, currently there is no reliable method of determining IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to LAs and cocaine. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical value of allergy tests (prick, IgE, challenges, and arrays) in people suffering hypersensitivity reactions (asthma and anaphylaxis) during local anesthesia with cocaine derivatives and drug abusers with allergic symptoms after cocaine inhalation. METHODS: We selected cocaine-dependent patients and allergic patients who suffered severe reactions during local anesthesia from a database of 23,873 patients. The diagnostic yield (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value) of allergy tests using cocaine and coca leaf extracts in determining cocaine allergy was assessed, taking a positive challenge as the criterion standard. RESULTS: After prick tests, specific IgE, and challenge with cocaine extract, 41 of 211 patients (19.4%) were diagnosed as sensitized to cocaine. Prick tests and IgE to coca leaves (coca tea) had a good sensitivity (95.1% and 92.7%, respectively) and specificity (92.3 and 98.8%, respectively) for the diagnosis of cocaine allergy and LA-derived allergy. CONCLUSIONS: Cocaine may be an important allergen. Drug abusers and patients sensitized to local anesthesia and tobacco are at risk. Both prick tests and specific IgE against coca leaf extract detected sensitization to cocaine. The highest levels were related to severe clinical profiles.

The Importance of Prolonged Provocation in Drug Allergy - Results From a Danish Allergy Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Drug provocation is the "Gold Standard" in drug allergy investigation. Recent studies suggest that a negative drug provocation on first dose should be followed by a prolonged provocation over several days. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate drug allergy investigations on the basis of drug provocation, including prolonged provocation. METHODS: Data from adult patients investigated for drug allergy in a Danish Allergy Clinic during the period 2010 to 2014 were entered into a database. Data included clinical details and results of provocations with suspected culprit drug (for penicillins performed only in specific IgE-negative patients). If provocation was negative on first dose, treatment was continued for 3 to 10 days. RESULTS: A total of 1,913 provocations were done in 1,659 patients, median age 46 years, of whom 1,237 (74.6%) were females. Drugs investigated were antibiotics, 1,776 (92.8%), of which 1,590 (89.5%) were penicillins; analgesics, 59 (3.1%); local anesthetics, 33 (1.7%); and other drugs, 45 (2.4%). In total, 211 of 1,913 (11.0%) provocations were positive. Causes were antibiotics, 198 (93.8%), of which 167 (84.3%) were penicillins; analgesics, 7 (3.3%); local anesthetics, 0; and other drugs, 6 (2.8%). Only 43 (20.4%) provocations were positive on first dose, whereas 95 (45.0%) turned positive more than 3 days later. CONCLUSIONS: Only 11.0% of the provocations were positive. Importantly, only 1 of 5 patients tested positive on the first dose, indicating that prolonged exposure should always be considered when drug provocation is included in allergy investigations. Most provocations were with penicillins, reflecting the pattern of antibiotic use in Denmark, which differs from that in other countries, especially outside Northern Europe.

[Suspected allergy to a local anaesthetic: how often is allergy proven?]. / Verdenking op allergie voor een lokaal anestheticum: hoe vaak wordt allergie bewezen?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the percentage of proven allergy for local anaesthetics (LA) in patients who were tested because of a clinical suspicion of LA allergy. DESIGN: Retrospective multicentre case series. METHOD: All patients from two hospitals who were seen from 2004 through 2013 for a possible allergy to local anaesthetics. Their records were analyzed for the probable type of allergic reaction and allergy tests were performed. Distinction was made between skin prick tests (SPT), intradermal tests (IDT), subcutaneous provocation tests and epicutaneous tests (patch tests). RESULTS: 53 patients were included. The most common symptoms were dizziness (n = 14) and collapse (n = 12). Urticaria, oedema and/or erythema were seen in 25 patients, whilst 2 patients had a drop in blood pressure. In 4 patients an IgE-mediated allergy was proven by means of provocation testing. SPT and IDT were not predictive. In 1 patient a delayed-type allergy was established by patch testing. CONCLUSION: IgE-mediated and delayed-type allergic reactions are rarely caused by LA. IgE-mediated reactions can be proven by provocation testing. Patch testing is used when a delayed type reaction is suspected.

Positive relationship-intensity of response to p-phenylenediamine on patch testing and cross-reactions with related allergens.

BACKGROUND: Hair dye exposure is the most common cause of sensitization to p-phenylenediamine (PPD). Cross-reactions with structurally related allergens occur. OBJECTIVES: It is suggested that a stronger patch test reaction (3+ rather than 1+) to PPD (usually tested as 1% petrolatum) is associated with an increased propensity for cross-reactions. In this article we will demonstrate this association. METHODS: Of 230 patients with allergic reactions to PPD on patch testing identified during 2007-2012 from clinical records, notes for 221 were available for review. Data were collected regarding age, sex, and grade of reaction [International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) criteria] to PPD. Cross-reactions with the following allergens, found in our baseline series, were recorded: Disperse Yellow 3, N-isopropyl-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (IPPD), and caine mix. Having excluded 23 doubtful reactions, the reactions from 198 patients were further considered. RESULTS: Of the patients, 75.3% (n = 149) were female, and the mean age was 48.6 years (12-82 years). Of the patients allergic to PPD, 16.6% (n = 33) showed cross-reactions with one or more related allergens. Cross-reactions were seen in 16% with a grade of 1+, 14.5% with a grade of 2+, 28.6% with a grade of 3+ when PPD was tested 1% pet., and 50.0% when PPD was tested at 0.1-0.001%, arbitrarily considered to be 4+ (p = 0.02; Cramér's V = 0.23). CONCLUSION: An increasing likelihood of reactions to Disperse Yellow 3, IPPD or caine mix was seen with increasing strength of patch test reaction to PPD. The clinical relevance of these cross-reactions is unclear.

The negative predictive value of typing safe local anesthetics.

BACKGROUND: Although allergy to local anesthetics (LA) is rare, patients often report unwanted reactions after their administration. A history of anaphylaxis or an atypical reaction related to LA is an indication for typing a safe anesthetic for future surgical or dental procedures. AIM: The aim of the study was to determine the negative predictive value (NPV) of typing safe LA. METHODS: A total of 154 patients with a history of an unwanted reaction to LA were enrolled into the study. Stepwise typing of a safe anesthetic included skin prick tests (SPT) and intracutaneous tests (ICT) with two or three of the following LA: lidocaine, bupivacaine, mepivacaine, and articaine. Skin tests were followed by provocations with one or two LA. Telephone follow-up visits were performed 4-12 months after drug typing. On the basis of follow-up questionnaire results, the NPV of the protocol was calculated. RESULTS: The full protocol was performed in 148 patients. Positive results of SPT were observed in 2, of ICT in 19 and of provocations in 11 cases. Lidocaine was found safe in 44, bupivacaine in 14, mepivacaine in 34 and articaine in 61 patients. The drug typed at the clinical visit was administered in 78 patients, and 76 reported no reactions (NPV = 97%). CONCLUSION: Stepwise approach including SPT, ICT and provocations is safe and allows typing a safe anesthetic in a vast majority of patients.

Adverse reactions and alleged allergy to local anesthetics: analysis of 331 patients.

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of true local anesthetic (LA) allergy among patients referred for suspected hypersensitivity and to describe the main characteristics of adverse drug reactions (ADR) induced by LA in our population. We retrospectively analyzed the medical files of patients referred to the Department of Dermatovenereology, University Hospital Center Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia, for the investigation of LA hypersensitivity in the period between January 2000 and December 2012. A total of 331 patients underwent skin testing and, in cases of negative results, subcutaneous exposition to LA. In patients with suspected delayed reaction, patch test was performed. Altogether, 331 patients reported 419 independent ADR occurring during 346 procedures. Most commonly, patients reported having only one ADR, but 41 (12.4%) of them had two reactions, 14 (4.2%) had three, five (1.5%) had four and in one patient (0.3%) five ADR to LA were observed. The majority of reactions occurred during dental procedures when most commonly lidocaine and articaine were used. Local reactions were reported in 44 patients, whereas 490 general symptoms occurred during 375 independent ADR in 287 patients. The most common symptoms were cardiovascular system reactions in 89 patients (18.2%). Allergic reaction was detected in three patients (0.91%). One patient showed immediate-type reaction to bupivacaine and two patients had a delayed-type reaction to lidocaine. Adverse reactions to LA are common and are mostly due to their pharmacological properties and drug combinations or psychogenic origin. Allergic accidents to LA are rare.

IgE-mediated reaction to local anaesthetics.

Local anaesthetics (LAs) are essential agents in daily practices of dentistry, minor surgery and dermatology. Although they have an impressive history of safety and efficacy, LAs also have the potential to produce adverse events, which are mainly of non-immune nature. The true IgE-mediated allergies are quite rare, but are more considerable in terms of ability to cause life-threatening outcomes. In this report, we present a case of IgE-mediated systemic reaction to LAs occurring during epidural anaesthesia for Cesarean section.

Contact dermatitis to topical medicaments: a retrospective chart review from the Ottawa Hospital Patch Test Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Topical medicaments are a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis. This study will evaluate the prevalence of contact allergy to a wide array of topical medicaments at the Ottawa Patch Test Clinic. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to report the results of positive patch testing to topical medicaments at the Ottawa Patch Test Clinic and identify common sensitizers in topical medicaments. METHODS: Patients were tested with the standard North American Contact Dermatitis screening series of 70 allergens plus supplementary allergens when indicated. A retrospective chart review of patients positive to topical medicaments between January 1, 2000, and September 30, 2010, was undertaken. RESULTS: The average age of patients was 49.5 years. Thirty-four percent were atopic. Common sensitizers included topical antibiotics (58%), steroids (30%), anesthetics (6%), and antifungals (6%). Patch testing showed that 61% of patients tested positive to antibiotics, 21% to topical steroids, 17% tested positive to topical anesthetics, and 1% tested positive to topical antifungals. The most common reactions were to bacitracin (44%) and neomycin (29%). The most common steroid screener was tixocortol-17-pivalate (group A) (19%), and the most common local anesthetic was lidocaine (12%). CONCLUSIONS: Topical medicaments of all kinds are common causes of allergic contact dermatitis. Those that are more readily available, in over-the-counter preparations, are the most frequent culprits.

Combined cocaine hydrolase gene transfer and anti-cocaine vaccine synergistically block cocaine-induced locomotion.

Mice and rats were tested for reduced sensitivity to cocaine-induced hyper-locomotion after pretreatment with anti-cocaine antibody or cocaine hydrolase (CocH) derived from human butyrylcholinesterase (BChE). In Balb/c mice, direct i.p. injection of CocH protein (1 mg/kg) had no effect on spontaneous locomotion, but it suppressed responses to i.p. cocaine up to 80 mg/kg. When CocH was injected i.p. along with a murine cocaine antiserum that also did not affect spontaneous locomotion, there was no response to any cocaine dose. This suppression of locomotor activity required active enzyme, as it was lost after pretreatment with iso-OMPA, a selective BChE inhibitor. Comparable results were obtained in rats that developed high levels of CocH by gene transfer with helper-dependent adenoviral vector, and/or high levels of anti-cocaine antibody by vaccination with norcocaine hapten conjugated to keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH). After these treatments, rats were subjected to a locomotor sensitization paradigm involving a "training phase" with an initial i.p. saline injection on day 1 followed by 8 days of repeated cocaine injections (10 mg/kg, i.p.). A 15-day rest period then ensued, followed by a final "challenge" cocaine injection. As in mice, the individual treatment interventions reduced cocaine-stimulated hyperactivity to a modest extent, while combined treatment produced a greater reduction during all phases of testing compared to control rats (with only saline pretreatment). Overall, the present results strongly support the view that anti-cocaine vaccine and cocaine hydrolase vector treatments together provide enhanced protection against the stimulatory actions of cocaine in rodents. A similar combination therapy in human cocaine users might provide a robust therapy to help maintain abstinence.

IgE-mediated allergy to local anaesthetics: separating fact from perception: a UK perspective.

Local anaesthetic (LA) agents have been routinely used in dentistry, ophthalmology, minor surgery, and obstetrics since the late nineteenth century. Reports relating to adverse reactions and LA allergy have appeared in the published literature for several years. However, the incidence of true, IgE-mediated LA allergy remains uncertain and is presumed to be very low. We critically reviewed the English language literature on suspected LA allergy and its investigation with the aim of estimating the reported prevalence and analysing the role of different tests currently used to identify and confirm LA allergy. Twenty-three case series involving 2978 patients were identified and analysed. Twenty-nine of these patients had true IgE-mediated allergy to LA, thus confirming the reported prevalence of LA allergy in large series to be <1% (0.97%). The protocols used in the investigation of these patients have also been discussed. Evidence from this review confirms the rarity of IgE-mediated allergy to LA and supports an investigation strategy based on using the clinical history to select patients for skin testing and challenge. We believe that such a triage process would alleviate pressures on allergy services without compromising patient safety.

Predicting the clinical efficacy and potential adverse effects of a humanized anticocaine monoclonal antibody.

The effects of a humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) having high affinity and specificity for cocaine in animal models are reviewed. The mAb reduced the concentration of cocaine in the brain of mice after intravenous injection of cocaine. In addition, the mAb increased the concentration of cocaine required to reinstate cocaine self-administration. These effects may predict clinical efficacy of a passive immunotherapy for reducing the probability of cocaine-induced relapse. However, in the presence of the mAb, once cocaine self-administration was reinstated, the consumption rate of cocaine was increased. This effect is hypothesized to result from a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic interaction. A humanized mAb should minimize adverse events related to the immunogenicity of the mAb protein, and the specificity for cocaine should avoid adverse events related to interactions with physiologically relevant endogenous proteins.

Allergic reactions to local anesthetic formulations.

True allergic reactions to local anesthetics are rare adverse reactions. At the most, they represent less than 1% of all adverse local anesthetic reactions. When true allergic reactions have been confirmed, the reactions are most commonly the type I anaphylactic and type IV delayed hypersensitivity responses. The type I immediate hypersensitivity reactions are the most severe and may be life-threatening. In the event a potential allergic reaction occurs in a dental office, the dentist needs to properly evaluate the events leading up to the reaction and provide a differential diagnosis. A referral should be given to any patient when an allergic reaction cannot be ruled out as an intravascular injection, toxic overdose, psychogenic reaction, or an idiosyncratic event.