Guideline for allergological diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions: S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in cooperation with the German Dermatological Society (DDG), the Association of German Allergologists (ÄDA), the German Society for Pediatric Allergology (GPA), the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG), the German Society for Pneumology (DGP), the German Society of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, the Austrian Society of Allergology and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Austrian Society of Dermatology and Venereology (ÖGDV), the German Academy of Allergology and Environmental Medicine (DAAU), and the German Documentation Center for Severe Skin Reactions (dZh).

Not available.

Advances in the Understanding of Drug Hypersensitivity: 2012 Through 2022.

Over the last decade there have been key advances in understanding mechanisms, risk, and consequences of both true immunological drug hypersensitivity and unverified drug allergy labels that have changed clinical practice. This has been facilitated by the widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). The vast majority of EHR drug allergy labels are unverified and cause significant morbidity from unnecessary avoidance of optimal drug therapy. There has also been significant movement in our understanding of mechanisms of drug hypersensitivity that, in addition to advancing our understanding of the pathogenesis of immediate and delayed reactions, have guided preventive efforts, diagnostic procedures, and clinical management. More widespread adoption, including scale-up of "allergy" delabeling and appropriate management, specifically for antibiotics, opiates, radiocontrast, chemotherapeutics, biologics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, will be necessary to improve patient outcomes over the next decade. This will require further engagement and collaboration between primary care health care providers, allergists, and other specialists.

Delayed-Type Heparin Allergy: Intravenous Tolerance Despite Inflammatory Skin Reaction After Subcutaneous Injection.

BACKGROUND: Heparin allergy most frequently manifests as delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) causing an itchy inflammatory skin reaction at the site of subcutaneous injection. An important differential diagnosis is circumscribed skin necrosis due to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. OBJECTIVES: An inflammatory skin reaction to subcutaneously injected heparin generally entails the quest for alternative anticoagulation; concerns may particularly arise in an emergency situation requiring intravenous heparin administration. METHODS: All heparin DTH cases seen in our department over the last 17 years underwent standardized allergy diagnostics including challenge testing, that is, subcutaneous injection of fondaparinux and intravenous administration of unfractionated heparin (UFH). RESULTS: Of a total of 50 patients with confirmed heparin allergy, DTH was found in 48 (96.0%), and immediate-type, presumably IgE-mediated hypersensitivity was diagnosed in only 2 (4.0%). In the 48 DTH cases, intradermal testing revealed broad cross-reactivity between UFH and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) including nadroparin, dalteparin, and enoxaparin. Cross-reactivity with (or concomitant sensitization to) fondaparinux was seen in only 3 (6.3%) cases. Intravenous administration of UFH was tolerated by all 45 patients challenged, despite DTH to UFH and LMWH as demonstrated by intradermal testing. CONCLUSIONS: If an inflammatory skin reaction at the site of subcutaneously injected heparin is observed or reported without any evidence of skin necrosis or thrombocytopenia, intravenous administration of UFH seems to be sufficiently safe and may be considered without allergy testing if urgently indicated in an emergency situation. Fondaparinux is the most suitable alternative for subcutaneous application.

Outcome of a de-labelling algorithm compared with results of penicillin (ß-lactam) allergy testing.

BACKGROUND: Penicillin allergy labels frequently impede guideline-directed treatment with a penicillin or other ß-lactam antibiotics. Despite presumed allergy, targeted questioning may indicate a low probability of sensitization and permit reasonably safe administration of the antibiotic in question. In this study, we evaluated a standardized algorithm aiming to differentiate non-allergic patients from those with true allergic ß-lactam hypersensitivity. METHODS: We retrospectively applied a de-labelling algorithm in 800 consecutive patients with suspected ß-lactam hypersensitivity. All had undergone complete allergy work-up permitting to definitely exclude or diagnose ß-lactam allergy between 2009 and 2019. RESULTS: In 595 (74.4%) out of 800 cases evaluated, ß-lactam allergy could be excluded by negative challenge testing. IgE-mediated anaphylaxis was diagnosed in 70 (8.7%) patients, delayed-type hypersensitivity in 135 (16.9%). In 62 (88.6%) anaphylaxis cases, the algorithm correctly advised to use an alternative antibiotic. Accuracy was higher in patients with moderate to severe anaphylaxis (97.7%) compared to those with a history of mild reactions (73.1%). The algorithm correctly identified 122 (90.4%) patients with proven delayed-type hypersensitivity. It permitted de-labelling in 330 (55.5%) out of 595 patients with diagnostic exclusion of penicillin hypersensitivity, but failed to identify the remaining 265 (44.5%) as low-risk cases. CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm detected 89.8% of cases with penicillin (ß-lactam) allergy, sensitivity was optimal for moderate to severe anaphylaxis. Study data justify the implementation of a standardized de-labelling algorithm under close supervision in order to permit guideline-directed treatment and reduce the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics as part of an antibiotic stewardship program.

Patients with questionable penicillin (beta-lactam) allergy: Causes and solutions.

BACKGROUND: In Europe, North America, and Australia, 5% to 10% of the population are now classified as penicillin (ß-lactam) allergic. Only ~ 10% of these questionable diagnoses, mostly made in childhood, can be confirmed by allergy diagnostics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The aim of this review is to show causes and consequences as well as recommendations for dealing with the often questionable diagnosis of penicillin (ß-lactam) allergy (BLA). RESULTS: An incorrect BLA diagnosis may negatively impact antibiotic treatment needed in the future, by using a less effective antibiotic or using a broad-spectrum antibiotic, for example, further exacerbating the problem of increasing antibiotic resistance. Accordingly, there is growing pressure from antibiotic stewardship programs to critically challenge the BLA diagnosis. Conservatively, a suspected BLA is reviewed by an allergist using medical history, skin testing, laboratory testing, and provocation. This clarification is costly and is not remunerated in the German health care system; that is the reason why this testing is only offered in a few specialized clinics and practically not at all in general practice. In view of thousands of affected patients, additional strategies are needed to treat patients with a low risk of hypersensitivity reaction despite suspected allergy with a ß-lactam antibiotic. In recent years, various methods have been proposed to eliminate suspected allergy as promptly as possible and directly before necessary treatment with a ß-lactam antibiotic, including standardized history (also in the form of an algorithm), skin test with immediate reading after 15 minutes, or administration of a small test dose. Investigations of small case series and also multi-center studies to date have yielded promising results in terms of feasibility and safety. CONCLUSION: Of the large number of patients with (questionable) BLA, most have never been tested and - if antibiotic treatment becomes necessary - simply receive an alternative antibiotic. The diagnosis of BLA therefore requires new approaches besides classical allergy testing to critically question BLA.

Treating Through Drug-Associated Exanthems in Drug Allergy Management: Current Evidence and Clinical Aspects.

In the setting of an acute cutaneous adverse drug reaction there is increasing interest in selected phenotypes and hosts to continue drug therapy, especially in settings in which there are limited therapeutic options. This concept of "treating through," defined as the continued use of a drug in the setting of, in particular maculopapular exanthema, potentially avoids unnecessary drug discontinuation. A review of the recent literature, historical viewpoints, and expert opinion are provided within to form recommendations and algorithms for a "treating-through" approach.

Induction of penicillin tolerance during pregnancy: Allergological opinion on the recommendation of the current AWMF Guidelines on Diagnosis and Treatment of Syphilis (AWMF Registry No. 059-002).

Not available.

ß-blockers and ACE inhibitors are not a risk factor for severe systemic sting reactions and adverse events during venom immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy whether taking ß-blockers or ACE inhibitors (ACEI) is a risk factor for more severe systemic insect sting reactions (SSR) and whether it increases the number or severity of adverse events (AE) during venom immunotherapy (VIT). METHODS: In this open, prospective, observational, multicenter trial, we recruited patients with a history of a SSR and indication for VIT. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate whether patients taking ß-blockers or ACEI show more systemic AE during VIT compared to patients without such treatment. RESULTS: In total, 1,425 patients were enrolled and VIT was performed in 1,342 patients. Of all patients included, 388 (27.2%) took antihypertensive (AHT) drugs (10.4% took ß-blockers, 11.9% ACEI, 5.0% ß-blockers and ACEI). Only 5.6% of patients under AHT treatment experienced systemic AE during VIT as compared with 7.4% of patients without these drugs (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.43-1.22, p = 0.25). The severity of the initial sting reaction was not affected by the intake of ß-blockers or ACEI (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.89-1.46, p = 0.29). In total, 210 (17.7%) patients were re-stung during VIT and 191 (91.0%) tolerated the sting without systemic symptoms. Of the 19 patients with VIT treatment failure, 4 took ß-blockers, none an ACEI. CONCLUSIONS: This trial provides robust evidence that taking ß-blockers or ACEI does neither increase the frequency of systemic AE during VIT nor aggravate SSR. Moreover, results suggest that these drugs do not impair effectiveness of VIT. (Funded by Medical University of Graz, Austria; Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT04269629).

Practice parameters for diagnosing and managing iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity.

Immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) have been reported to occur in a frequency of about 0.5%-3% of patients receiving nonionic ICM. The diagnosis and management of these patients vary among guidelines published by various national and international scientific societies, with recommendations ranging from avoidance or premedication to drug provocation test. This position paper aims to give recommendations for the management of patients with ICM hypersensitivity reactions and analyze controversies in this area. Skin tests are recommended as the initial step for diagnosing patients with immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions; besides, they may also help guide on tolerability of alternatives. Re-exposition or drug provocation test should only be done with skin test-negative ICMs. The decision for performing either re-exposition or drug provocation test needs to be taken based on a risk-benefit analysis. The role of in vitro tests for diagnosis and pretreatment for preventing reactions remains controversial.

Healthcare provision for insect venom allergy patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The population prevalence of insect venom allergy ranges between 3-5%, and it can lead to potentially life-threatening allergic reactions. Patients who have experienced a systemic allergic reaction following an insect sting should be referred to an allergy specialist for diagnosis and treatment. Due to the widespread reduction in outpatient and inpatient care capacities in recent months as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the various allergy specialized centers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have taken different measures to ensure that patients with insect venom allergy will continue to receive optimal allergy care. A recent data analysis from the various centers revealed that there has been a major reduction in newly initiated insect venom immunotherapy (a 48.5% decline from March-June 2019 compared to March-June 2020: data from various centers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland). The present article proposes defined organizational measures (e.g., telephone and video appointments, rearranging waiting areas and implementing hygiene measures and social distancing rules at stable patient numbers) and medical measures (collaboration with practice-based physicians with regard to primary diagnostics, rapid COVID-19 testing, continuing already-initiated insect venom immunotherapy in the outpatient setting by making use of the maximal permitted injection intervals, prompt initiation of insect venom immunotherapy during the summer season, and, where necessary, using outpatient regimens particularly out of season) for the care of insect venom allergy patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Predominant patterns of ß-lactam hypersensitivity in a single German Allergy Center: exanthem induced by aminopenicillins, anaphylaxis by cephalosporins.

BACKGROUND: Penicillins and other ß-lactam antibiotics are the most common elicitors of allergic drug reaction. However, data on the pattern of clinical reaction types elicited by specific ß-lactams are scarce and inconsistent. We aimed to determine patterns of ß-latam allergy, i.e. the association of a clinical reaction type with a specific ß-lactam antibiotic. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated data from 800 consecutive patients with suspected ß-lactam hypersensitivity over a period of 11 years in a single German Allergy Center. RESULTS: ß-lactam hypersensitivity was definitely excluded in 595 patients, immediate-type (presumably IgE-mediated) hypersensitivity was diagnosed in 70 and delayed-type hypersensitivity in 135 cases. Most (59 out of 70, 84.3%) immediate-type anaphylactic reactions were induced by a limited number of cephalosporins. Delayed reactions were regularly caused by an aminopenicillin (127 out of 135, 94.1%) and usually manifested as a measles-like exanthem (117 out of 135, 86.7%). Intradermal testing proved to be the most useful method for diagnosing ß-lactam allergy, but prick testing was already positive in 24 out of 70 patients with immediate-type hypersensitivity (34.3%). Patch testing in addition to intradermal testing did not provide additional information for the diagnosis of delayed-type hypersensitivity. Almost all ß-lactam allergic patients tolerated at least one, usually several alternative substances out of the ß-lactam group. CONCLUSIONS: We identified two patterns of ß-lactam hypersensitivity: aminopenicillin-induced exanthem and anaphylaxis triggered by certain cephalosporins. Intradermal skin testing was the most useful method to detect both IgE-mediated and delayed-type ß-lactam hypersensitivity.

Guideline on diagnostic procedures for suspected hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibiotics: Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in collaboration with the German Society of Allergology (AeDA), German Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG), the Austrian Society for Allergology and Immunology (ÖGAI), and the Paul-Ehrlich Society for Chemotherapy (PEG).

This guideline on diagnostic procedures for suspected beta-lactam antibiotic (BLA) hypersensitivity was written by the German and Austrian professional associations for allergology, and the Paul-Ehrlich Society for Chemotherapy in a consensus procedure according to the criteria of the German Association of Scientific Medical Societies. BLA such as penicillins and cephalosporins represent the drug group that most frequently triggers drug allergies. However, the frequency of reports of suspected allergy in patient histories clearly exceeds the number of confirmed cases. The large number of suspected BLA allergies has a significant impact on, e.g., the quality of treatment received by the individual patient and the costs to society as a whole. Allergies to BLA are based on different immunological mechanisms and often manifest as maculopapular exanthema, as well as anaphylaxis; and there are also a number of less frequent special clinical manifestations of drug allergic reactions. All BLA have a beta-lactam ring. BLA are categorized into different classes: penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems, monobactams, and beta-lactamase inhibitors with different chemical structures. Knowledge of possible cross-reactivity is of considerable clinical significance. Whereas allergy to the common beta-lactam ring occurs in only a small percentage of all BLA allergic patients, cross-reactivity due to side chain similarities, such as aminopenicillins and aminocephalosporins, and even methoxyimino cephalosporins, are more common. However, the overall picture is complex and its elucidation may require further research. Diagnostic procedures used in BLA allergy are usually made up of four components: patient history, laboratory diagnostics, skin testing (which is particularly important), and drug provocation testing. The diagnostic approach - even in cases where the need to administer a BLA is acute - is guided by patient history and risk - benefit ratio in the individual case. Here again, further studies are required to extend the present state of knowledge. Performing allergy testing for suspected BLA hypersensitivity is urgently recommended not only in the interests of providing the patient with good medical care, but also due to the immense impact of putative BLA allergies on society as a whole.

Risk factors and indicators of severe systemic insect sting reactions.

Hymenoptera venom allergy ranks among the top three causes of anaphylaxis worldwide, and approximately one-quarter of sting-induced reactions are classified as severe. Fatal sting reactions are exceedingly rare, but certain factors may entail a considerably higher risk. Delayed administration of epinephrine and upright posture are situational risk factors which may determine an unfavorable outcome of the acute anaphylactic episode and should be addressed during individual patient education. Systemic mastocytosis and senior age are major, unmodifiable long-term risk factors and thus reinforce the indication for venom immunotherapy. Vespid venom allergy and male sex likewise augment the risk of severe or even fatal reactions. Further studies are required to assess the impact of specific cardiovascular comorbidities. Available data regarding potential effects of beta-blockers and/or ACE inhibitors in coexisting venom allergy are inconclusive and do not justify recommendations to discontinue guideline-directed antihypertensive treatment. The absence of urticaria/angioedema during sting-induced anaphylaxis is indicative of a severe reaction, serum tryptase elevation, and mast cell clonality. Determination of basal serum tryptase levels is an established diagnostic tool for risk assessment in Hymenoptera venom-allergic patients. Measurement of platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase activity represents a complementary approach but is not available for routine diagnostic use.

Radiocontrast Media Hypersensitivity: Skin Testing Differentiates Allergy From Nonallergic Reactions and Identifies a Safe Alternative as Proven by Intravenous Provocation.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity reactions occurring within minutes after intravascular injection of iodinated radiocontrast media (RCM) are not rare and have been previously considered to be nonallergic. However, in the last decades, evidence is increasing that genuine RCM allergy may present as either full-blown anaphylaxis or delayed exanthematous skin reaction. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess whether allergy diagnostics including skin and provocation testing can differentiate between nonallergic and allergic RCM hypersensitivity by identifying the causative RCM as well as tolerated alternative RCM. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated clinical and diagnostic data from 45 consecutive patients with RCM hypersensitivity. RESULTS: Immediate nonallergic RCM hypersensitivity was diagnosed in 21 patients, immediate-type RCM allergy in 11, delayed-type RCM allergy in 11, and delayed-type iodine allergy in 2. All patients with immediate-type RCM allergy had a history of moderate to severe anaphylaxis. Eleven of 13 patients with delayed-type allergic reactions including the 2 cases of iodine allergy suffered from maculopapular exanthem developing several hours to days after exposure, 1 was a systemic hypersensitivity syndrome, and 1 a fixed drug eruption. Of 18 RCM-allergic patients tested, all tolerated an alternative RCM in the intravenous provocation. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic sensitivity of intradermal RCM testing to identify allergic patients is high in both immediate-type and delayed-type RCM allergy. Intravenous provocation with a skin test-negative RCM is safe and enables identification of a tolerated alternative RCM. Additional skin testing of iodine solution is required to identify patients with iodine allergy.

Differential diagnosis of late-type reactions to injected local anaesthetics: Inflammation at the injection site is the only indicator of allergic hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis-like reactions developing within a few minutes are the most frequent complications of subcutaneous or submucosal injections of local anaesthetics (LAs), and topically applied LAs are potential contact allergens. In addition, injected LAs have been reported to induce delayed reactions, including local inflammation at the injection site, and various general symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the frequency and symptoms of late-type hypersensitivity occurring several hours after LA injections. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated clinical data and test results from all patients referred to our allergy clinic in a period of 20 years for diagnostic work-up of LA-associated late-type reactions. RESULTS: Of 202 patients reporting symptoms with onset at least 1 hour after LA injection, 40 had cutaneous inflammation confined to the injection site, and 162 reported various systemic symptoms. LA hypersensitivity could be excluded in all patients with systemic complaints by means of skin testing and subsequent subcutaneous provocation. In 8 of the 40 patients (20%) with local inflammatory reactions, late-type allergic LA hypersensitivity was confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: Late-type LA allergy commonly causes inflammatory skin reactions confined to the injection site. Conversely, LAs are highly unlikely to trigger delayed systemic symptoms such as urticarial or exanthematous skin eruptions.