Paediatric perioperative hypersensitivity: the performance of the current consensus formula and the effect of uneventful anaesthesia on serum tryptase.

Background: Paired sampling of acute (aST) and basal (bST) serum tryptase has been recommended when investigating patients with a suspected perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) reaction. In the current consensus formula, an aST value exceeding (1.2×bST+2) confirms mast cell activation. The current consensus formula has been validated in adults but not in children. Methods: We prospectively included 96 children who underwent uneventful anaesthesia and sampled serum tryptase at baseline and 60-90 min after induction. Tryptase changes were then compared with those in 94 children with suspected POH who were retrospectively included from four reference centres in Belgium, France, and Denmark. Results: We observed a median decrease in serum tryptase during uneventful anaesthesia of 0.41 µg L-1 (-15.9%; P<0.001). The current consensus formula identified mast cell activation in 31.9% of paediatric POH patients. After generating receiver operating characteristic curves through 100 repeated five-fold cross-validation, aST>bST+0.71 was identified as the optimal cut-off point to identify mast cell activation. This new paediatric formula has higher sensitivity than the current consensus formula (53.2% vs 31.9%, P<0.001) with a specificity of 96.9%. Analysis in the subpopulation where a culprit was identified and in grade 3-4 reactions similarly yielded higher sensitivity for the new paediatric formula when compared with the current consensus formula (85.3% vs 61.8%; P=0.008 and 78.0% vs 48.8%; P<0.001, respectively). Internally cross-validated sensitivity and specificity were 53.3% and 93.3%, respectively. Conclusions: This is the first study suggesting the need for an adjusted formula in children to identify perioperative mast cell activation as tryptase is significantly lowered during uneventful anaesthesia. We propose a new formula (aST>bST+0.71) which performs significantly better than the current consensus formula in our multicentric paediatric population.

Updated guidance regarding the risk of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and recommended evaluation and management: A GRADE assessment and international consensus approach.

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history.

Delabeling of Penicillin Allergy: Room for Improvement.

BACKGROUND: Penicillin allergy labels have been shown to be associated with suboptimal treatment, negative health outcomes, and increased antibiotic resistance. Many inpatients claim to have penicillin allergy, but studies show that allergy can be disproved and the label removed in up to 90% of cases. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to investigate the proportion of patients with a penicillin allergy label in a Danish hospital and to classify patients according to the risk of having penicillin allergy in "no risk," low, and high risk. METHODS: For 22 days, inpatients with penicillin allergy labels were interviewed, had their dispensed penicillin prescriptions examined, and were subsequently categorized into risk groups based on the risk evaluation criteria in national guidelines. RESULTS: In total, 260 patients had a penicillin allergy label (10% of the inpatients). Out of 151 included patients, 25 were "no risk" patients (17%), who could potentially have their penicillin allergy label removed without testing. 42 were low-risk patients (28%). 10 "no risk" patients and 20 low-risk patients had been prescribed and dispensed one or more penicillins despite an allergy label. CONCLUSION: Ten percent of inpatients have a penicillin allergy label in a Danish hospital. 17% of these could potentially have their penicillin allergy label removed without allergy testing.

Identifying and Managing Those at Risk for Vaccine-Related Allergy and Anaphylaxis.

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to vaccines, the most severe of which is anaphylaxis, are uncommon events occurring in fewer than 1 in a million doses administered. These reactions are infrequently immunoglobulin E-mediated. Because they are unlikely to recur, a reaction to a single dose of a vaccine is rarely a contraindication to redosing. This narrative review article contextualizes the recent knowledge we have gained from the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic rollout of the new mRNA platform with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines within the much broader context of what is known about immediate reactions to other vaccinations of routine and global importance. We focus on what is known about evidence-based approaches to diagnosis and management and what is new in our understanding of mechanisms of immediate vaccine reactions. Specifically, we review the epidemiology of immediate hypersensitivity vaccine reactions, differential diagnosis for immune-mediated and nonimmune reaction clinical phenotypes, including how to recognize immunization stress-related responses. In addition, we highlight what is known about mechanisms and review the rare but important contribution of excipient allergies and specifically when to consider testing for them as well as other key features that contribute to safe evaluation and management.

Treatment of perioperative anaphylaxis: room for improvement?

Perioperative anaphylaxis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Prompt and appropriate treatment is required for optimal outcome. Despite general knowledge of this condition, delays occur in the administration of epinephrine and in particular the use of i.v. route of administration in the perioperative setting. Barriers should be addressed to allow prompt utilisation of i.v. epinephrine in perioperative anaphylaxis.

Anaphylaxis to Excipients in Current Clinical Practice: Evaluation and Management.

Excipients are the inactive ingredients in a drug or product that help to stabilize, preserve, or enhance the pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of the active ingredients. Excipient allergy is rare and hence often missed or misdiagnosed due to lack of awareness of the need to carefully review all drug ingredients. For the patient, excipient allergy can be frightening and potentially disruptive to health care delivery. This narrative review provides a clinically oriented, international, collaborative perspective on excipient allergy testing, management of future health care safety, limitations in our testing modalities, and barriers to optimal care.

Mast cell activation test: A new asset in the investigation of the chlorhexidine cross-sensitization profile.

BACKGROUND: Insights into the IgE cross-sensitization and possible cross-reactivity patterns of sera reactive to chlorhexidine (CHX) are still incomplete and are likely to benefit from a functional exploration using a passive mast cell activation test (pMAT). Therefore, we want to study whether the pMAT with CHX-specific IgE (sIgE) enables to depict effector cell degranulation in response to alexidine (ALX), octenidine (OCT) and/or polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) indicative of cross-reactivity between these compounds and CHX. METHODS: Serum of 10 CHX-allergic patients, nine individuals with an isolated sIgE CHX and five healthy controls were included. Human cultured mast cells (MCs) were, before and after sensitization, challenged with CHX, ALX, OCT or PHMB. Degranulation was measured via quantification of upregulation of CD63. RESULTS: Mast cell responsiveness to ALX and OCT was demonstrable with 4/10 and 3/10 of the sera of CHX-allergic patients respectively. Percentage of degranulation varied between 12 and 34% for ALX-reactive MCs and between 4 and 22% for OCT-reactive MCs. No reactivity to ALX or OCT was demonstrable when using sera obtained from individuals with an isolated sIgE CHX or from healthy controls. Unlike CHX, ALX and OCT, PHMB turned out to be a direct MC activator via occupation of MRGPRX2. PHMB-reactive sIgEs were demonstrable in some patients with an isolated sIgE CHX but were unable to trigger PHMB-induced degranulation in MRGPRX2 knockdown MCs. CONCLUSION: Mast cells constitute an attractive tool to explore cross-reactivity between structurally similar compounds. Along with the identification of safe alternatives for the individual patient, the pMAT can advance our insights into sIgE cross-reactivity patterns including assessment of molecules not yet approved for human use.

Safe De-Labeling of Patients at Low Risk of Penicillin Allergy in Denmark.

INTRODUCTION: Penicillin allergy is suspected in 10% of hospital inpatients but can be disproved in 90% of cases. Direct oral provocation without preceding tests among low-risk patients has proven to be safe in studies of both children and adults and is gaining use across the world. The aims of this study were to investigate the rate of severe allergic reactions to direct oral drug provocation, without preceding tests, in penicillin allergy patients stratified to be at low risk, as well as to examine if these patients have barriers to penicillin allergy de-labeling and future use of penicillins. METHODS: Adult patients referred to a university hospital allergy clinic with a suspected penicillin allergy were prospectively risk evaluated. Patients stratified to be at low risk were offered a direct oral provocation with a single-dose amoxicillin followed by 4 days of continued treatment. The same risk stratification criteria were applied to a larger retrospective cohort. RESULTS: In the prospective study population, 202 patients had a direct oral drug provocation and 20 (10%) were positive. There were no cases of anaphylaxis or severe delayed hypersensitivity. Fifteen reactions were benign rashes with onset >1 day after initial dosing, and 13 of these were maculopapular rashes. The same low-risk criteria were applied retrospectively to patients in a drug provocation database, and 1,759 patients fulfilled the criteria; of these, 10% had positive provocations, and there were no cases of anaphylaxis or severe delayed hypersensitivity. De-labeled patients in the prospective study reported not to fear future penicillin intake, after prolonged provocation. CONCLUSION: The risk stratification criteria for identifying low-risk patients for the oral drug provocation test without prior skin testing were safe in terms of avoiding anaphylaxis or severe delayed hypersensitivity. Benign delayed skin reactions still occurred, and access to allergy advice and follow-up is necessary.

Reliability of Early and Late Testing for Suspected Perioperative Hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of diagnostic testing for perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) remains unknown. It has been recommended that investigation is best carried out at least 4 to 6 weeks after the event. On the other hand, guidelines discourage the use of in vitro tests later than 3 years after the index reaction. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study aimed to assess the reliability of early and late skin tests (STs). It also attempted to verify whether discouraging late ex vivo and in vitro tests is substantiated. METHODS: For the first aim, patients were stratified over three epochs: an early timing group, with investigations performed within 6 weeks; a recommended timing group, with tests performed between 6 weeks and 6 months; and a late timing group, tested later than 6 months after the event. For the second study purpose, we studied the reliability of specific IgE quantification and basophil activation test rocuronium within 6 weeks and after 3 years in patients who experienced an ST-proven POH to rocuronium. RESULTS: A total of 677 patients were included. Based on a positive ST result, a causative agent was found in 74.2% of the early timing group, 62.6% of the recommended timing group, and 50% of the late timing group. A positive specific IgE for rocuronium or morphine was found in 80% of patients tested within 6 weeks, 63% of patients tested between 6 weeks and 3 years, and 50% of patients tested more than 3 years after the event. A positive basophil activation test was found in 83.3%, 51%, and 20%, respectively, of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm that evaluation of drug allergy for suspected POH can be performed before 6 weeks after the event, and there is no maximal upper time limit disclosing ex vivo and in vitro testing.

Facial contact dermatitis caused by cosmetic-relevant allergens.

BACKGROUND: Facial allergic contact dermatitis caused by cosmetic products is common. New allergens in cosmetics continuously emerge. OBJECTIVES: To investigate characteristics of patients with facial dermatitis (FD) between 2010 and 2019 including patch test results from cosmetic-related allergens and a new test series with cosmetic-relevant natural ingredients (CRNIs). METHODS: This is a retrospective study analysing demographics, clinical characteristics according to MOAHLFA index (male; occupation; atopic dermatitis; hand; leg; face; age ≥ 40 years), and patch test results to 27 cosmetic-relevant allergens in FD patients. A prospective study evaluating a screening test series with CRNIs in consecutive FD patients for 1 year was also conducted. These patients received a questionnaire for collecting extra characteristics (eg, concerning quality of life). RESULTS: Of 8740 tested patients, 2292 (26.2%) had FD. Of these, 30.6% had cosmetic-induced FD. The most common cosmetic-related allergens were fragrances and preservatives. The most common patch test-positive CRNIs were hydroperoxides of limonene and linalool, and propolis. Potato and peanut were rare, but the most common prick test-positive CRNIs, however, without any relation to the use of cosmetic products. FD affected nearly all patients' quality of life and caused limitations to their daily life. CONCLUSIONS: Updated management and quick diagnosis of FD is important to avoid negative impact on patients' quality of life.

Vaccine allergy: evidence to consider for COVID-19 vaccines.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has changed our lives worldwide, we hope that vaccination can combat the disease. We propose how to evaluate suspected severe allergic reactions to the vaccines so that as many as possible may be safely vaccinated. RECENT FINDINGS: Rare cases of severe allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination have been observed, seemingly at a higher frequency than for other vaccines. Few excipients are likely to have caused these reactions. IgE-mediated reactions to polyethylene glycol (PEG) and its derivatives are the most suspected, albeit hitherto unproven, causes. We suggest to make a diagnosis based on skin tests with PEG and PEG derivatives and that these be considered in relation to the decisions required before the first and the second vaccine dose. A vaccine without these excipients is available, but published data about its side effects are limited. SUMMARY: The underlying immunological mechanisms of the rare severe allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines are poorly understood and need to be clarified. Identifying those who have an undiagnosed allergy to PEG and PEG derivatives is crucial before vaccination, and these substances are found in laxatives, cosmetics and in 30% of all our medications today.