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.

Removing penicillin allergy label in a hospitalized adolescent with a remote penicillin and recent cephalosporin allergy.

Background: ß-Lactam antibiotics are widely used with increased utilization in hospitalized patients. Of this population, as high as 10-20% report an allergy to ß-lactam antibiotics but <5% are at risk of developing clinically significant immunoglobulin E- or T-lymphocyte-mediated reactions. Most of the time, these reported allergies are present during an illness with no previous inquiry of their validity, which makes investigation and possible removal of this allergy label a challenge. Methods: We report a 16-year-old boy who presented with 1 week of night sweats, chills, headaches, and fatigue, followed by 1 day of fever and right knee swelling and who was diagnosed with septic bursitis. Due to concern of a penicillin allergy label, the patient was started on a cefepime infusion. Five minutes into the infusion, the patient reported puffy eyes and itchy throat, followed by a witnessed cascading flat nonpruritic erythematous rash from head to shoulders. This rash went away in 3 minutes after stopping the infusion and the patient being given 50 mg of intravenous diphenhydramine and 10 mg of oral dexamethasone. He was subsequently diagnosed with a cefepime allergy. Results: Allergy/immunology was the speciality consulted, and, by using a screening questionnaire, the patient's reported penicillin allergy was determined to be low risk. Subsequent 1-step oral challenge was the key to providing the patient with the necessary antibiotic course to resolve his infection. Conclusion: Multiple reported antibiotic allergies lead to poor antibiotic stewardship that causes impactful health and financial burden on the patient and health-care system. It is thus important to have an evidence-based systematic approach to de-label penicillin antibiotic allergy labels to reduce these potential harms.

Balancing Benefits and Risks: A Literature Review on Hypersensitivity Reactions to Human G-CSF (Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor).

Human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a granulopoietic growth factor used in the treatment of neutropenia following chemotherapy, myeloablative treatment, or healthy donors preparing for allogeneic transplantation. Few hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) have been reported, and its true prevalence is unknown. We aimed to systematically characterize G-CSF-induced HRs while including a comprehensive list of adverse reactions. We reviewed articles published before January 2024 by searching in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases using a combination of the keywords listed, selected the ones needed, and extracted relevant data. The search resulted in 68 entries, 17 relevant to our study and 7 others found from manually searching bibliographic sources. A total of 40 cases of G-CSF-induced HR were described and classified as immediate (29) or delayed (11). Immediate ones were mostly caused by filgrastim (13 minimum), with at least 9 being grade 5 on the WAO anaphylaxis scale. Delayed reactions were mostly maculopapular exanthemas and allowed for the continuation of G-CSF. Reactions after first exposure frequently appeared and were present in at least 11 of the 40 cases. Only five desensitization protocols have been found concerning the topic at hand in the analyzed data. We believe this study brings to light the research interest in this topic that could benefit from further exploration, and propose regular updating to include the most recently published evidence.

[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.

A rare case of phenobarbital-induced leukocytoclastic vasculitis.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) manifested as vasculitis are rare. Antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), sulphonamides, diuretics, immunosupressants and anticonvulsants are the most common culprits for drug-induced leukocytoclastic vasculitis (LCV) but there is scarce information about barbiturates. We present a case of 53-year-old female with severe vasculitis after phenobarbital- and NSAIDs-containing medications use. The preliminary diagnosis of drug-induced vasculitis was made based on anamnestic and clinical data. Further examinations confirmed the diagnosis of LCV and excluded other more common causes of vasculitis. The causative significance of used medications was assessed by long-term observation of the patient after the reaction, including the drug challenge series and Naranjo's Adverse Drug Reaction Probability Scale. It was concluded that phenobarbital is the most probable culprit drug. The patient's data were included in the Armenian Registry of Patients with Severe DHRs. Since then, the patient has avoided only barbiturate-containing drugs and no reactions were noted. Thus, the case indicates that even with limited diagnostic capabilities, the final diagnosis of rare drug-induced LCV and even rarer culprit drug can be established by comparing the available data. Awareness about phenobarbital and proper recording of the case are important in the management and prevention of DHRs manifested as vasculitis.

Use of oral penicillin challenge in low-risk penicillin allergy.

Overview of: Copaescu AM, Vogrin S, James F, et al. Efficacy of a clinical decision rule to enable direct oral challenge in patients with low-risk penicillin allergy: The PALACE randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2023;183:944-52.

A survey of carboplatin desensitization therapy in Japan: A multicenter retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to chemotherapy are serious adverse events associated with cancer drug therapy and can occur with any antitumor drug. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of carboplatin desensitization therapy in Japan and established a method for treating carboplatin HSRs. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with gynecological (ovarian, endometrial, or cervical) cancers who underwent carboplatin desensitization therapy between 2016 and 2020 at the Gynecologic Cancer Study Group of Japan Clinical Oncology Group were included. The carboplatin desensitization therapy at each institution and the implementation cases were registered in an online case report form. RESULTS: This retrospective study enrolled 136 patients (ovarian, 108; endometrial, 17; and cervical cancer, 11). Pre-existing allergies were present in 37 (27.2%) patients, and 32 (23.5%) patients exhibited prodromal symptoms during treatment before HSR onset. Erythema was the most common symptom at HSR onset, affecting 93 (68.4%) patients, followed by itching in 72 (52.9%) patients and decreased oxygen saturation in 43 (31.6%) patients. Loss of consciousness occurred in three (2.2%) patients. The most common timing of HSR onset was during the first recurrence treatment (47%). The mean total carboplatin dose until HSR onset was 7331 (2620-18,282) mg, and the mean number of doses was 14 (4-63). Desensitization treatment was completed in 75% of cases, and breakthrough HSRs occurred in 25% (34/136). No deaths occurred in the study cohort. The risk factors for HSRs were not identified. CONCLUSION: Although carboplatin desensitization therapy has high success rates in Japan, erythema and pruritus are important HSRs to consider.

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.

A nurse-driven penicillin allergy risk score in the preoperative setting was associated with increased cefazolin use perioperatively.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To characterize and assess the effects of a preoperative, nurse-driven penicillin allergy risk stratification tool on rates of perioperative cefazolin and second-line antibiotic use. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental quality improvement study of penicillin-allergic surgical patients undergoing procedures for which cefazolin is indicated. SETTING: Outpatient Perioperative Care Clinic (PCC) for preoperative surgical patients at a tertiary care center. PATIENTS: 670 and 1371 adult penicillin-allergic PCC attendants and non-attendants, respectively. INTERVENTION: A paper penicillin allergy risk stratification questionnaire was administered during the PCC visit. Nurses were educated on its use. MEASUREMENTS: Antibiotic (cefazolin, clindamycin, vancomycin) use rates in the 24 months before and 17 months after intervention implementation in November 2020 (November 2018 - April 2022) were assessed in penicillin-allergic PCC attendants with statistical process control charts. Multivariable logistic regression assessed antibiotic use rates pre- and post-intervention adjusting for age, sex, surgical specialty and penicillin allergy history severity. Similar analyses were done in penicillin-allergic PCC non-attendants. MAIN RESULTS: Of 670 penicillin-allergic PCC attendants, 451 (median [IQR] age, 66 (Sousa-Pinto et al., 2021 [14])) were analyzed pre-intervention and 219 (median [IQR] age, 66 (Mine et al., 1970 [13])) post-intervention. One month after implementation, process measures demonstrated an upward shift in cefazolin use for PCC attendants versus no shift or other special cause variation for PCC non-attendants. There were increased odds of cefazolin use (aOR 1.67, 95% CI [1.09-2.57], P = 0.019), decreased odds of clindamycin use (aOR 0.61, 95% CI [0.42-0.89], P = 0.010) and decreased odds of vancomycin use (aOR 0.56, 95% CI [0.35-0.88], P = 0.013) in PCC attendants post-intervention. This effect did not occur in PCC non-attendants. There was no increase in perioperative anaphylaxis post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A simple penicillin allergy risk stratification tool implemented in the preoperative setting was associated with increased use of cefazolin and decreased rates of second-line agents post implementation.

Hypersensitive Reactions During Hemodialysis Treatment: What Do We Need to Know?

Kidney replacement therapies (KRTs) including hemodialysis (HD) are one of the treatment options for most of the patients with end-stage kidney disease. Although HD is vital for these patients, it is not hundred percent physiological, and various adverse events including hypersensitivity reactions may occur. Fortunately, these reactions are rare in total and less when compared to previous decades, but it is still very important for at least two reasons: First, the number of patients receiving kidney replacement treatment is increasing globally; and the cumulative number of these reactions may be substantial. Second, although most of these reactions are mild, some of them may be very severe and even lead to mortality. Thus, it is very important to have basic knowledge and skills to diagnose and treat these reactions. Hypersensitivity reactions can occur at any component of dialysis machinery (access, extracorporeal circuit, medications, etc.). The most important preventive measure is to avoid the allergen. However, even with very specific test, sometimes the allergen cannot be found. In mild conditions, HD can be contained with non-specific treatment (topical creams, antihistaminics, corticosteroids). In more severe conditions, treatment must be stopped immediately, blood should not be returned to patient, drugs must be stopped, and rules of general emergency treatment must be followed.

Infliximab desensitization in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: a safe therapeutic alternative.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to the administration of infliximab (IFX) in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) patients are not rare and usually lead to drug discontinuation. We report data on safety and effectiveness of desensitization to IFX in patients with previous HSR. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective monocentric observational study. Patients for whom a desensitization protocol to IFX was realized after a previous HSR were included. Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) and IFX trough levels at both inclusion and six months after desensitization were collected. Clinical outcomes, including recurrence of HSR were evaluated. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2020, 27 patients (Crohn's Disease: 26 (96%) were included). Desensitization after HSR was performed after a median time of 10.4 months (2.9-33.1). Nineteen (70%) patients received immunosuppressants at time of desensitization. Eight (30%) patients presented HSR at first (n = 2), second (n = 4) or third (n = 2) IFX perfusion after desensitization. None led to intensive care unit transfer or death. Thirteen (48%) had clinical response at 6 months and 8 (29%) were still under IFX treatment two years after desensitization. IFX trough levels and ADA were available for 14 patients at time of desensitization. Most patients (12 out of 14) had ADA at a high level. At 6 months, among the 7 patients with long term response to IFX, 4 presented a decrease of ADA titers and 2 had a significant trough level of IFX. CONCLUSION: IFX desensitization in patients with IBD is a safe therapeutic alternative and represents a potential option for patients refractory to multiple biologics.What is already known? Hypersensitivity reactions to the administration of infliximab is frequent. Occurrence of hypersensitivity reaction, either immediate or delayed, usually leads to permanent drug discontinuation.What is new here? Infliximab desensitization is well tolerated with no hypersensitivity reaction recurrence in 70% of patients. Clinical success at 6 months was of 48% and around a third of patients remained under infliximab therapy two years after desensitization. Antidrug antibodies decreased and infliximab trough levels increased in these patients showing the impact of desensitization on immunogenicity.How can this study help patient care? Infliximab desensitization represents a potential option for patients refractory to multiple biologics who presented hypersensitivity reaction to the drug.

Predictive factors for L-asparaginase hypersensitivity in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

BACKGROUND: L-Asparaginase is a crucial component of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) treatment. However, hypersensitivity is a common adverse event. This study aimed to identify risk factors for L-asparaginase hypersensitivity in childhood ALL. METHODS: Children treated for ALL at Chiang Mai University Hospital, Thailand, between 2005 and 2020 were included. Demographic data, clinical characteristics, and factors related to L-asparaginase were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: L-Asparaginase hypersensitivity was observed in 24 of 216 children with ALL (11.1%). All patients received native L-asparaginase intramuscularly, and events occurred exclusively during the post-induction phase without concurrent corticosteroid use. Univariable analysis showed that relapsed ALL, higher accumulated doses, increased exposure days, and longer interval between drug administrations were potential risk factors. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, interruption of L-asparaginase administration for ≥ 52 weeks and exposure duration of ≥ 15 days were independent risk factors, with adjusted odds ratio of 16.481 (95% CI 3.248-83.617, p = 0.001) and 4.919 (95% CI 1.138-21.263, p = 0.033), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Children with ALL who require re-exposure to L-asparaginase after 52-week interruption or who have received L-asparaginase for ≥ 15 exposure days are at risk of developing L-asparaginase hypersensitivity. Further management strategies in this setting should be evaluated.

Desensitization using pegaspargase in the era of commercially available Erwinia: A single-institution report on efficacy, cost, and resource utilization.

BACKGROUND: Pegaspargase is a therapeutic enzyme that is utilized in treatment regimens targeting pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia. However, many patients experience hypersensitivity reactions, requiring discontinuation of the therapy. Historically, this necessitated switching to an alternative form of the drug, most commonly asparaginase Erwinia chrysanthemi; however, in recent years this was difficult due to drug shortages and eventually commercial discontinuation. We report here our experience performing pegaspargase desensitizations in patients with prior hypersensitivity reactions. PROCEDURE: Patients with a clinical hypersensitivity reaction to pegaspargase were identified. When due for their next dose, patients were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit, bone marrow transplant unit, or oncology unit, and underwent desensitization utilizing a rigorous premedication and multistep dilution-based protocol. Serum asparaginase activity levels were drawn after desensitization to assess for therapeutic levels of enzyme activity. RESULTS: We identified 11 patients who underwent a total of 33 desensitizations to pegaspargase and calaspargase pegol-mknl. No patients experienced clinically significant hypersensitivity reactions necessitating stopping the infusion, nor administration of rescue medications. All serum asparaginase activity levels collected demonstrated enzyme activity levels above predefined therapeutic thresholds. Cost analysis revealed substantial savings when patients received asparaginase desensitization over the now commercially available asparaginase E. chrysanthemi (recombinant) rywn. CONCLUSIONS: Performing desensitization to pegaspargase in the pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia population is feasible, safe, and effective. It is financially advantageous over available alternative approaches, and requires fewer injections and presentations to care.

Rechallenges without desensitization following platinum-based chemotherapy reactions.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in non-desensitization protocols as a potential way to reintroduce chemotherapy following hypersensitivity reactions (HSR). OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into the potential utility of non-desensitization reintroduction, particularly at institutions where allergy consultation may not be available. METHODS: For 70 patients with platinum HSR who underwent rechallenge with standard (≤2 hours), extended (1-bag, 1-step, 4-6 hours), or titrated (4-to-5-bag and -step, 6-7.5 hours) infusions between 1/2014 and 7/2019, demographics and clinical characteristics were reviewed and initial and breakthrough reactions (BTR) were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 (CTCAE v5.0). Tolerance (no BTR) and completion (dose completed despite BTR) were compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Patients (mean [standard deviation] age 57 [13] years, initial HSR grade 2 [1]), were rechallenged with standard (n = 8), extended (n = 23), or titrated (n = 22) infusions after oxaliplatin HSR; and standard (n = 5) or titrated (n = 12) after carboplatin HSR. Tolerance and completion were higher for extended versus (vs) standard (tolerance-87%-vs-8%, p < 0.005; completion-96%-vs-38%, p < 0.005) and titrated versus standard (tolerance-76%-vs-8%, p < 0.005; completion-79%-vs-38%, p < 0.05) infusions. CONCLUSIONS: Extended and titrated infusions may increase reintroduction safety compared to standard infusions. Further investigation into extended infusions may provide a safe alternative to standard infusions in patients who may not have access to desensitization at their institution.

Continuous PEGasparaginase Dosing Reduces Hypersensitivity Reactions in Pediatric ALL: A Dutch Childhood Oncology Group ALL11 Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this randomized study was to determine whether a continuous dosing schedule (without the asparaginase-free interval) would result in less hypersensitivity reactions to PEGasparaginase (PEGasp) compared with the standard noncontinuous dosing schedule. METHODS: Eight hundred eighteen patients (age 1-18 years) with ALL were enrolled in the Dutch Childhood Oncology Group-ALL11 protocol and received PEGasp. Three hundred twelve patients stratified in the medium-risk arm were randomly assigned to receive 14 individualized PEGasp doses once every two weeks in either a noncontinuous or continuous schedule after the first three doses in induction (EudraCT: 2012-000067-25). Hypersensitivity reactions were defined as allergies, allergic-like reactions, and silent inactivation. Secondary end points were other asparaginase-related toxicities, asparaginase activity and antibody levels, and outcome. RESULTS: During induction, 27 of 818 patients (3.3%) experienced hypersensitivity reactions. After random assignment, 4 of 155 (2.6%) in the continuous treatment arm versus 17 of 157 (10.8%) patients in the noncontinuous treatment arm had hypersensitivity reactions (P < .01), of which two (1.3%) versus 13 (8.3%) were inactivating reactions (P < .01). The occurrence of inactivating hypersensitivity reactions was seven times lower in the continuous arm (odds ratio, 0.15 [0.032-0.653]). In addition, antibody levels were significantly lower in the continuous arm (P < .01). With exception of a lower incidence of increased amylase in the continuous arm, there were no significant differences in total number of asparaginase-associated toxicities between arms. However, the timing of the toxicities was associated with the timing of the asparaginase administrations. No difference in 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse, death, or disease-free survival was found between both treatment arms. CONCLUSION: A continuous dosing schedule of PEGasp is an effective approach to prevent antibody formation and inactivating hypersensitivity reactions. The continuous PEGasp schedule did not increase toxicity and did not affect the efficacy of the therapy.