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.

Developing an AI-based prediction model for anaphylactic shock from injection drugs using Japanese real-world data and chemical structure-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to develop an AI-based prediction model for injection drugs that cause anaphylactic shock using Japanese Real-World Data (JADER database) and chemical structure-based analysis. METHODS: Data sourced from the JADER database included adverse drug reaction reports from April 2004 to December 2020. Only drugs with an adverse reaction named "anaphylactic shock" were selected for analysis. For model building, various models were constructed to predict anaphylactic shock-inducing drugs, such as logistic regression, LASSO, XGBoost, RF, SVM, and NNW. These models used chemical properties and structural similarities as feature variables. Dimension reduction was applied using principal component analysis. The dataset was split into training (80%) and validation (20%) sets. Six different models were trained and optimized through fivefold cross-validation. RESULTS: From April 2004 to December 2020, 947 drugs with the adverse reaction name "anaphylactic shock" were extracted from the JADER database. 320 drugs were excluded due to analytical challenges, and another 400 were removed due to their administration route. 227 drugs were finalized as target medicines. For model validation, the performance of each model was evaluated based on metrics like AUCs of ROC curve, sensitivity, and specificity. Additionally, two ensemble models, constructed from the six models were assessed using bootstrap sampling. Interestingly, it was identified that mepivacaine structural similarity had the highest importance in the final model. CONCLUSIONS: The study successfully developed an AI-based prediction model for anaphylactic shock inducing-injection drugs. The model would offer potential for drug safety evaluation and anaphylactic shock risk assessment.

[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.

Safety of Direct Drug Provocation for the Evaluation of Penicillin Allergy in Low-Risk Adults.

BACKGROUND: About 10% of patients have a penicillin allergy label, but less than 5% of them are actually allergic. Unnecessary penicillin avoidance is associated with serious medical consequences. Given the growing number of these labels, it is imperative that our diagnostic strategy for penicillin allergy be as efficient as possible. The validity of traditionally used skin tests (STs) has been questioned, whereas drug provocation testing (DPT), the criterion standard, without previous ST appears very safe in most cases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of direct DPT without consideration for ST results and the validity of ST in the diagnosis of penicillin allergy. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study without a control group, we recruited patients consulting an allergist for penicillin allergy. Patients underwent ST followed by DPT regardless of ST results. Patients with anaphylaxis to penicillin within the past 5 years or a severe delayed reaction were excluded, as were those with significant cardiorespiratory comorbidity. RESULTS: None of the 1002 recruited patients had a serious reaction to DPT. Ten (1.0%) had a mild immediate reaction, of whom only 1 (0.1%) was considered likely IgE-mediated. The positive and negative predictive values of ST for an immediate reaction were 3.6% and 99.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a low-risk adult population reporting penicillin allergy, ST has very poor positive predictive value. Direct DPT without ST is safe and appears to be an ideal diagnostic strategy to remove penicillin allergy labels that could be implemented in first-line practice.

[Clinical case of anaphylaxis due to eye drops]. / Caso clínico de anafilaxia por gotas oftálmicas.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is a severe systemic allergic reaction that can be life-threatening, timely diagnosis and treatment is required in these patients, one of the most frequent triggers is pharmacological. OBJECTIVE: To report the case of a patient who presented anaphylaxis due to eye drops. CASE REPORT: A 7-year-old male with a history of rhinitis and asthma with good control. It started with itchy eyes, ophthalmic drops were administered, composition: Polyethylene glycol 400, 0.4%, Propylene glycol 3 mg, polyquad 0.001%, presenting at 15 minutes an episode of anaphylaxis initially characterized by pruritus and intense conjunctival erythema, later nausea, vomiting, sweating, weakness, urticaria/facial angioedema and dyspnea were added, this episode was controlled opportunely with Levocetirizine 5 mg sublingual and Betametasona 4 mg intramuscular, progressively improving over the next 2 hours. The patient was evaluated by the Allergist, written recommendations were given to the mother in case this reaction occurred again, the use of the drops was prohibited, and the performance of skin test and a probable conjunctival provocation protocolized with the ophthalmic drops were pending. Accidentally 2 months later the patient was re-exposed with the same eye drops, presenting a similar reaction 15 minutes after the administration of the medication, they went to the emergency room where he received antihistamine and corticosteroid intravenous treatment, after this re-exposure is confirmed to the ophthalmic drops mentioned above as a trigger of anaphylaxis in this patient. CONCLUSIONS: We present a case of conjunctival anaphylaxis after application of eye drops, confirmed by re-exposure to the drug. It is essential to give diagnoses, recommendations with treatments and avoidance of the probable triggering agent of the reaction. The administration of immediate medication when the allergic episode begins in these patients can be vital, even more so when they live far from a health center, as was the case in this patient.

ANTECEDENTES: La anafilaxia es una reacción alérgica sistémica severa que puede llegar a comprometer la vida. Se requiere de un diagnóstico y tratamiento oportuno en estos pacientes, uno de los desencadenantes más frecuente es el farmacológico. OBJETIVO: Reportar el caso de un paciente que presentó anafilaxia a gotas oftálmicas. REPORTE DE CASO: Varón de siete años de edad con antecedentes de rinitis y asma con buen control. Inició con picor ocular, se le administraron gotas oftálmicas, composición: Polietilenglicol 400, 0,4%, Propilenglicol 3 mg, polyquad 0,001%, y a los 15 minutos presentó un episodio de anafilaxia caracterizado, inicialmente, por prurito y eritema conjuntival intenso; posteriormente, presentó náuseas, vómito, sudoración, debilidad, urticaria/angioedema facial y disnea. Este episodio fue controlado en el momento, con tratamiento de Levoceterizina 5 mg s.l. y Betametasona 4 mg i.m., con mejoría progresiva en las siguientes dos horas. El paciente fue evaluado por la especialidad de alergología. A su madre se dieron recomendaciones por escrito, por si se presentaba nuevamente la reacción. Se prohibió la utilización de las gotas, y quedó pendiente la realización de las pruebas cutáneas y una probable provocación conjuntival protocolizada con las gotas oftálmicas. Accidentalmente, dos meses después se reexpuso al paciente con las mismas gotas oftálmicas, y a los 15 minutos de la administración del medicamento, presentó una reacción similar, por lo que acudieron a emergencias donde recibió tratamiento antihistamínico y corticoides vía i.m.; tras esta reexposición, se confirma a las gotas oftálmicas mencionadas anteriomente, como desencadenantes de anafilaxia en el paciente. CONCLUSIONES: Presentamos un caso sobre anafilaxia por vía conjuntival tras aplicación de gotas oftálmicas, confirmado por la reexposición al fármaco. Es esencial dar diagnósticos, recomendaciones con tratamientos y evitar el probable agente desencadenante de la reacción. La administración de medicación inmediata cuando inicia el episodio alérgico en estos pacientes, puede ser vital, más aún cuando viven lejos de un centro de salud, como era el caso referenciado.

Asparaginase-specific basophil recognition and activation predict Asparaginase hypersensitivity in mice.

Background: Asparaginase (ASNase) is a crucial part of acute leukemia treatment, but immune responses to the agent can reduce its effectiveness and increase the risk of relapse. Currently, no reliable and validated biomarker predicts ASNase-induced hypersensitivity reactions during therapy. We aimed to identify predictive biomarkers and determine immune cells responsible for anaphylaxis using a murine model of ASNase hypersensitivity. Methods: Our preclinical study uses a murine model to investigate predictive biomarkers of ASNase anaphylaxis, including anti-ASNase antibody responses, immune complex (IC) levels, ASNase-specific binding to leukocytes or basophils, and basophil activation. Results: Our results indicate that mice immunized to ASNase exhibited dynamic IgM, IgG, and IgE antibody responses. The severity of ASNase-induced anaphylaxis was found to be correlated with levels of IgG and IgE, but not IgM. Basophils from immunized mice were able to recognize and activate in response to ASNase ex vivo, and the extent of recognition and activation also correlated with the severity of anaphylaxis observed. Using a multivariable model that included all biomarkers significantly associated with anaphylaxis, independent predictors of ASNase-induced hypersensitivity reactions were found to be ASNase IC levels and ASNase-specific binding to leukocytes or basophils. Consistent with our multivariable analysis, we found that basophil depletion significantly protected mice from ASNase-induced hypersensitivity reactions, supporting that basophils are essential and can be used as a predictive marker of ASNase-induced anaphylaxis. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the need for using tools that can detect both IC- and IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to mitigate the risk of ASNase-induced hypersensitivity reactions during treatment.

Anaphylaxis-induced premature uterine contractions: a case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Preterm labor is caused by multiple etiologies, including intra-amniotic infection and/or intra-amniotic inflammation, vascular disorders, cervical disease, decidual senescence, and breakdown of maternal-fetal tolerance. Accumulating evidence in vivo and in vitro has shown that an allergic reaction, including anaphylaxis, can induce preterm uterine contractions. This report describes a case of a pregnant woman who developed anaphylaxis and regular uterine contractions after the ingestion of a strawberry-coated biscuit. We also review the mechanism of allergic reaction (hypersensitivity)-induced preterm labor. Case presentation A 31-year-old woman (gravida 1, para 0) at 30+2 weeks of gestation was admitted to the labor and delivery unit with regular uterine contractions and anaphylactic symptoms after she ingested a strawberry-coated biscuit as a snack. The uterine contractions resolved after the treatment of anaphylaxis by administering antihistamines and epinephrine. The patient subsequently delivered at 39+3 weeks of gestation. The amniotic fluid profile showed no infection or inflammation. A postpartum skin-prick test confirmed a positive type 1 hypersensitivity reaction to the strawberry-coated biscuit. CONCLUSIONS: We report a case of anaphylaxis-induced uterine contractility in which uterine contractions subsided after the treatment of anaphylaxis. The absence of intra-amniotic infection and/or intra-amniotic inflammation and the cause of the anaphylaxis were confirmed. Our findings indicate that maternal allergic reactions may be one of the mechanisms of preterm labor.

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.

Free PEG Suppresses Anaphylaxis to PEGylated Nanomedicine in Swine.

Covalent conjugation of poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) is frequently employed to enhance the pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of various protein and nanoparticle therapeutics. Unfortunately, some PEGylated drugs can induce elevated levels of antibodies that can bind PEG, i.e., anti-PEG antibodies (APA), in some patients. APA in turn can reduce the efficacy and increase the risks of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. There is currently no intervention available in the clinic that specifically mitigates allergic reactions to PEGylated drugs without the use of broad immunosuppression. We previously showed that infusion of high molecular weight free PEG could safely and effectively suppress the induction of APA in mice and restore prolonged circulation of various PEGylated therapeutics. Here, we explored the effectiveness of free PEG as a prophylaxis against anaphylaxis induced by PEG-specific allergic reactions in swine. Injection of PEG-liposomes (PL) resulted in anaphylactoid shock (pseudoanaphylaxis) within 1-3 min in both naïve and PL-sensitized swine. In contrast, repeated injection of free PEG alone did not result in allergic reactions, and injection of free PEG effectively suppressed allergic reactions to PL, including in previously PL-sensitized swine. These results strongly support the further investigation of free PEG for reducing APA and allergic responses to PEGylated therapeutics.

Effective in vitro evaluation of the risk of histamine release related to valemetostat tosylate using MRGPRX2-expressing cells.

Mas-related G-protein-coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2), expressed on mast cells, is associated with drug-induced pseudo-allergic reactions. Although it is well known that there are differences of sensitivity between species in the pseudo-allergic reactions, no platform for evaluating a human risk of the pseudo-allergic reactions observed in nonclinical studies has been established. Valemetostat tosylate, developed as an anti-cancer drug, induced histamine release in a nonclinical study with dogs. The purpose of the current study was to identify the mechanism and assess the human risk of valemetostat-tosylate-induced histamine release using dog and human MRGPRX2-expressing cells. In an experiment with human or dog MRGPRX2-expressing cells, valemetostat tosylate caused activation of human and dog MRGPRX2. Importantly, the EC50 for dog MRGPRX2 was consistent with the Cmax value at which histamine release was observed in dogs. Furthermore, the EC50 for human MRGPRX2 was ca. 27-fold higher than that for dog MRGPRX2, indicating a species difference in histamine-releasing activity. In a clinical trial, histamine release was not observed in patients receiving valemetostat tosylate. In conclusion, an in vitro assay using human and animal MRGPRX2-expressing cells would be an effective platform to investigate the mechanism and predict the human risk of histamine release observed in nonclinical studies.

Direct oral challenge for immediate and non-immediate beta-lactam allergy in children: A real-world multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics (BLA) is frequently suspected in children, but a drug provocation test (DPT) rules it out in over 90% of cases. Direct oral DPT (DODPT), without skin or other previous tests, is increasingly been used to delabel non-immediate BLA reactions. This real-world study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of DODPT in children with immediate and non-immediate reactions to BLAs. METHODS: Ambispective registry study in children (<15 years), attended between 2016 and 2023 for suspected BLA allergy in 15 hospitals in Spain that routinely perform DODPT. RESULTS: The study included 2133 patients with generally mild reactions (anaphylaxis 0.7%). Drug provocation test with the implicated BLA was performed in 2014 patients (94.4%): 1854 underwent DODPT (86.9%, including 172 patients with immediate reactions). One hundred forty-five (7.2%) had symptoms associated with DPT, although only four reactions were severe: two episodes of anaphylaxis and two of drug-induced enterocolitis syndrome, which resolved rapidly with treatment. Of the 141 patients with mild reactions in the first DPT, a second DPT was considered in 87 and performed in 57, with 52 tolerating it without symptoms. Finally, BLA allergy was ruled out in 90.9% of the sample, confirmed in 3.4%, and remained unverified, usually due to loss to follow-up, in 5.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Direct oral DPT is a safe, effective procedure even in immediate mild reactions to BLA. Many reactions observed in DPT are doubtful and require confirmation. Severe reactions are exceptional and amenable to treatment. Direct oral DPT can be considered for BLA allergy delabeling in pediatric primary care.

Novel use of dynamic MR hydrography to rule out esophageal perforation post atrial fibrillation ablation in a patient with anaphylaxis to gadolinium.

Esophageal thermal injury is one of the most devastating complications of atrial radiofrequency ablation, and its diagnosis can be challenging. In this report, we highlight the novel use of free water as a contrast material to better visualize the esophageal lumen in a patient with anaphylaxis to Iodinated contrast media and Gadolinium who recently underwent atrial fibrillation ablation. This becomes particularly handy in patients with contrast allergy, and further emphasizes the role of multimodality imaging.

Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of YH35324, a novel Long-Acting High-Affinity IgETrap-Fc protein in subjects with Atopy: Results from the First-in-Human study.

BACKGROUND: YH35324, a long-acting IgETrap-Fc fusion protein, is a novel therapeutic agent for immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated allergic diseases. This randomized, double-blind, placebo/active-controlled, single ascending dose Phase 1 study assessed the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of YH35324 in subjects with atopy. METHODS: Eligible subjects were healthy subjects or atopic adults with mild allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, or urticaria, and a serum total IgE level of 30-700 IU/mL (Part A) or > 700 IU/mL (Part B). In Part A, 35 subjects in 5 cohorts received YH35324 (0.3, 1, 3, 6, and 9 mg/kg), 8 received omalizumab (300 mg), and 9 received placebo. In Part B, 8 subjects received YH35324 and 8 received omalizumab. RESULTS: Twenty subjects (38.5 %) in Part A (YH35324: 37.1 %, omalizumab: 50.0 %, placebo: 33.3 %) and 10 subjects (62.5 %) in Part B (YH35324: 100 %; omalizumab: 25.0 %) experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). TEAEs were mostly grade 1/2; no serious AEs, AE-related treatment discontinuation, or anaphylaxis were reported. YH35324 exhibited dose-proportional increase in Cmax and AUClast over the dose range of 0.3-9 mg/kg. YH35324 rapidly suppressed serum-free IgE levels to a significant extent (< 25 and < 82.8 ng/mL, both P < 0.05) and with longer duration than omalizumab. CONCLUSION: This study showed that YH35324 has a favorable safety profile and is effective in reducing serum-free IgE levels in subjects with atopic conditions.

COVID-19 vaccine safety: Background incidence rates of anaphylaxis, myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, and mortality in South Korea using a nationwide population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To properly assess an association between vaccines and specific adverse events requires a comparison between the observed and background rates; however, studies in South Korea are currently limited. Therefore, in this study, we estimated the background incidence of anaphylaxis, myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), and mortality in South Korea. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the National Sample Cohort (NSC) data. Using NSC, the background incidence rate was estimated by dividing the number of episodes during 2009-2019 by the total population by year and then multiplying by 100,000. Using Statistics Korea data, the background mortality rate was estimated by dividing the number of deaths, during 2009-2019 by the standard population for that year and then multiplying by 100,000. Using background mortality rates, we predicted mortality rates for 2021 using autoregressive integrated moving average models. Further, the expected mortality rates were compared with observed mortality rates. RESULTS: The age-adjusted incidence rate (AIR) of anaphylaxis increased from 4.28 to 22.90 cases per 100,000 population (p = 0.003); myocarditis showed no significant increase, changing from 0.56 to 1.26 cases per 100,000 population (p = 0.276); pericarditis increased from 0.94 to 1.88 cases per 100,000 population (p = 0.005); and GBS increased from 0.78 to 1.21 cases per 100,000 population (p = 0.013). The age-adjusted mortality rate decreased from 645.24 to 475.70 deaths per 100,000 population (p <0.001). The 2021 observed/expected mortality rates for overall (ratio: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07-1.08), men (ratio: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.07-1.08), and women (ratio: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.07-1.09), were all significantly higher. When stratified by age group, those aged ≥80 (ratio: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.15-1.17), 60-69 (ratio: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.10-1.13), and 20-29 years old (ratio: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02-1.13) were also significantly higher. CONCLUSION: Through the estimation of background rates related to anaphylaxis, myocarditis, pericarditis, GBS, and mortality, we established a reference point for evaluating the potential excess occurrence of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination. This reference point serves as substantive evidence supporting the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines.

Anaphylaxis and Severe Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Due to Remdesivir.

A 69-year-old woman suffering with multiple myeloma developed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Shortly after administration of remdesivir, she presented with symptoms of facial flushing, wheezing, and hypoxemia. Subsequently, thrombocytopenia and hypofibrinogenemia rapidly manifested, leading to a diagnosis of enhanced fibrinolytic-type disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC). This clinical presentation was considered an immediate hypersensitivity reaction with associated coagulation abnormalities induced by remdesivir. Although remdesivir is generally considered safe and efficacious in the treatment of COVID-19, physicians should remain vigilant regarding the potential for severe adverse events associated with this medication.

Examining cefazolin utilization and perioperative anaphylaxis in patients with and without a penicillin allergy label: A cross-sectional study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the occurrence of cefazolin perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) in patients with and without a penicillin allergy label (PAL) to determine whether the prevalence of cefazolin POA differs based on the presence of a PAL. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A large U.S. healthcare system in the Baltimore-D.C. region, July 2017 to July 2020. PATIENTS: 112,817 surgical encounters across inpatient and outpatient settings in various specialties, involving 90,089 patients. Of these, 4876 (4.3%) encounters had a PAL. INTERVENTIONS: Perioperative cefazolin administration within 4 h before surgery to 4 h after the procedure began. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was cefazolin POA in patients with and without PALs. Potential POA cases were identified based on tryptase orders or diphenhydramine administrations within the initial cefazolin administration to 6 h postoperatively. Verification included two validation steps. The first checked for hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) documentation, and the second, led by Allergy specialists, identified POA and the probable culprit. The secondary outcome looked at cefazolin use trends in patients with a PAL, stratified by setting and specialty. MAIN RESULTS: Of 112,817 encounters, 1421 (1.3%) had possible cefazolin HSRs. Of these, 22 (1.5%) had POA, resulting in a 0.02% prevalence. Of these, 13 (59.1%) were linked to cefazolin and 9 (40.9%) attributed to other drugs. Only one cefazolin POA case had a PAL, indicating no significant difference in cefazolin POA prevalence between patients with and without PALs (p = 0.437). Perioperative cefazolin use in patients with PALs steadily increased from 2.6% to 6.0% between 2017 and 2020, specifically in academic settings. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of cefazolin POA does not exhibit significant differences between patients with and without PALs, and notably, the incidence remains remarkably low. Based on these findings, it is advisable to view cefazolin as an acceptable choice for prophylaxis in patients carrying a PAL.

DNA methylation profiling reveals potential biomarkers of ß-lactams induced fatal anaphylactic shock.

Anaphylaxis is a serious reaction of systemic hypersensitivity with that rapid onset and sudden death. Drug hypersensitivity, particularly induced by ß-lactams, is one of the most frequent causes of anaphylaxis in adults. But identification of anaphylactic shock, in forensic sciences recently, is difficult, because it mainly depends on nonspecific characteristic morphological changes, as well as exclusion and circumstantial evidence. Here, we detected DNA methylation signatures of ß-lactams-induced fatal anaphylactic shock with the Illumina Infinium Human Methylation EPIC BeadChip, to screen potential forensic biomarkers and reveal the molecular mechanisms of drug-induced anaphylaxis with fatal shock and sudden death. Our results indicated that DNA methylation was associated with ß-lactams-induced fatal anaphylactic shock, in which the hypomethylation played a vital role. We found that 1459 differentially methylated positions (DMPs) were mainly involved in ß-lactams-induced fatal anaphylactic shock by regulating MAPK and other signaling pathways. 18 DNA methylation signatures that could separate ß-lactams-induced anaphylactic shock from healthy individuals were identified. The altered methylation of DMPs can affect the transcription of corresponding genes and promote ß-lactams-induced fatal anaphylactic shock. The results suggest that DNA methylation can detect forensic identification markers of drug-induced anaphylaxis with fatal shock and sudden death, and it is an effective method for the forensic diagnosis.

Hoigné's syndrome, an uncommon mimicker of anaphylaxis: Systematic literature review.

The term Hoigné's syndrome denotes a mimicker of anaphylaxis, which occurs immediately after the parenteral administration of a drug and is likely caused by non-thrombotic pulmonary and systemic drug micro-embolization. It has so far been documented uniquely in case reports and small case series. Because this condition has never been systematically evaluated, we performed a structured literature review (pre-registered as CRD42023392962). The search was carried out in Excerpta Medica, National Library of Medicine, and Google Scholar. Cases with features consistent with anaphylaxis, urticaria, angioedema, asthma, syncope, anxiety, or panic attack triggered by needle phobia, and local anesthetic systemic toxicity were excluded. For the final analysis, we retained reports published between 1951 and 2021, which presented 247 patients with Hoigné's syndrome: 37 children and 211 adults with a male: female ratio of 2.1 : 1.0. The patients presented within 1 min after parenteral administration of a drug (intramuscular penicillin in 90 % of the cases) with chest discomfort, shortness of breath, fear of death, psychomotor agitation, and auditory or visual hallucinations and impairment. Recovery occurred within 30 min. The diagnosis of Hoigné's syndrome was also established in five patients 66-91 years of age with pre-existing cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases, who suddenly died after the administration of penicillin despite not exhibiting the aforementioned symptoms. It was therefore speculated that pulmonary drug micro-embolization induced a lethal cardiovascular compromise in these individuals. Histologic investigations supporting this hypothesis were performed in only one case. The diagnosis of Hoigné's pulmonary drug micro-embolization was established also in five patients with pre-existing cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases, who suddenly died after the administration of penicillin despite not exhibiting the afore mentioned symptoms. Histologic investigations supporting this hypothesis were performed in only one case. In conclusion, Hoigné's syndrome is an uncommon non-immune-mediated reaction. This report seeks to promote broader awareness and knowledge regarding this alarming mimicker of anaphylaxis. Diagnosis relies solely on clinical evaluation.