Single-step direct drug provocation testing is safe for delabelling selected non-low-risk penicillin allergy labels.

BACKGROUND: Penicillin allergy labels are prevalent, and removal of incorrect labels improves patient outcomes and health economics. Labels may be classified as "low-risk" or "non-low-risk," of which the symptoms of the latter chiefly suggest immunoglobulin E-mediated etiology. Traditionally, "non-low-risk" allergy labels are evaluated by penicillin skin testing followed by graded multistep penicillin drug provocation testing (DPT). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of assessing "non-low-risk" labels with single-step direct DPT. METHODS: We consecutively enrolled inpatients and outpatients of a teaching hospital in Sydney, Australia, with penicillin allergy labels requiring penicillin for first-line treatment. Patients were classified as "low-risk" or "non-low-risk" based on the allergy labels. All patients proceeded directly to amoxicillin DPT, unless there was a history of anaphylaxis within 10 years of assessment to a beta-lactam (except for cefazolin) or Gell and Coombs type 2, type 3, or severe type 4 reaction. This was followed by a course of amoxicillin. RESULTS: A total of 149 patients (41 inpatients, 108 outpatients) were enrolled. No patient was excluded from the study. No patient experienced life-threatening reactions to the protocol. There were 85 patients who reported "non-low-risk" allergy labels. One patient developed generalized pruritus and rash that resolved with standard-dose antihistamines, 2 developed delayed benign maculopapular exanthem, and 3 experienced diarrhea during the course of amoxicillin. CONCLUSION: In our cohort, direct single-step DPT was safe, with only 6 patients with "non-low-risk" allergy experiencing benign reactions. We hope that further studies can be performed into single-step direct DPT to evaluate "non-low-risk" penicillin allergy labels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: LNR/16/HAWKE/452.

Skin testing and oral amoxicillin challenge in the outpatient allergy and clinical immunology clinic in pregnant women with penicillin allergy.

BACKGROUND: Penicillin allergy is frequently reported. In pregnant women, reported penicillin allergy is associated with negative health outcomes and suboptimal group B streptococcal prophylaxis. For individuals having penicillin allergy, skin testing followed by an observed oral challenge is recommended. Previous data indicate a low risk of adverse reaction with skin testing in pregnant women, but the subsequent oral challenge was not routinely pursued. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether skin testing followed by the outpatient oral challenge is tolerated by pregnant women. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all pregnant women who underwent penicillin allergy evaluation at an outpatient allergy and clinical immunology clinic. The patients underwent oral amoxicillin challenges based on the discretion of the allergy provider. We evaluated the index reaction history, skin test results, oral challenge results, and subsequent antibiotic exposure. RESULTS: A total of 46 pregnant women underwent skin testing without adverse reactions, of whom 44 patients (95.6%) received negative results. A total of 18 women (39%) completed an oral challenge without adverse reactions. Patients challenged vs not challenged did not differ in patient age, gestational age, latency since index reaction, or reaction history risk level. Notably, 28 women received intrapartum antibiotics. There was no difference in intrapartum antibiotic administration between those who did or who did not complete an in-office oral challenge (P = .90). CONCLUSION: Penicillin skin testing and oral challenge in pregnant women can safely be performed in the outpatient setting. There was no difference in the intrapartum antibiotic use between women who were and those who were not challenged. Further research is needed to determine the utility of oral challenge in pregnant patients.

Safety and Outcomes of Oral Graded Challenges to Amoxicillin without Prior Skin Testing.

BACKGROUND: Unconfirmed penicillin allergy poses substantial public health consequences. The most widely accepted protocol to evaluate penicillin allergy is skin testing followed by an amoxicillin challenge. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of direct oral graded challenges to amoxicillin. METHODS: A prospective single-blind clinical trial with historical controls of patients ≥7 years old with historical non-life-threatening reactions to penicillin was conducted. Patients received placebo followed by a 2-step graded challenge to amoxicillin. The allergic reaction rate was compared with the rate observed in our previous study that included skin testing and with the currently reported penicillin allergy prevalence in the US population. RESULTS: Of the 155 participants who completed an amoxicillin challenge, 120 patients (77.4%) experienced no reaction whereas 31 patients (20%) experienced nonallergic reactions to either placebo (n = 16) or amoxicillin (n = 15). Four patients (2.6%) developed mild allergic reactions. Significantly (P = .03) fewer patients (4 of 155, 2.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0%, 6.5%) were determined to be allergic compared with 14 of 170 subjects (8.2%, 95% CI: 5.0%, 13.4%) in our previous study where patients were determined to be allergic based on either positive skin tests (n = 11) or allergic challenge reactions after negative skin tests (n = 3). This 2.6% reaction rate was also significantly less than the 10% reported US prevalence of penicillin allergy (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Placebo-controlled oral graded challenges to amoxicillin without prior skin testing may be safe for patients ≥7 years old with non-life-threatening historical reactions to penicillin. Amoxicillin can be tolerated by the majority of patients with self-reported penicillin allergy.

Evaluation of IFN-γ Enzyme-linked Immunospot Assay (ELISPOT) as a First-line Test in the Diagnosis of Non-Immediate Hypersensitivity to Amoxicillin and Penicillin.

The current diagnostic algorithm for beta-lactam allergy is based on skin and provocation tests, both of which carry a certain risk of inducing hypersensitivity reactions. Thus, non-invasive in vitro tests reliable enough to replace skin and provocation tests at least in a portion of patients are desirable. We aimed to verify the utility of IFN-γ ELISPOT as a first-line test in patients with suspected non-immediate hypersensitivity reaction to amoxicillin (AMX) and penicillin (PNC). The prospective observational study included 24 patients with recent, suspected non-immediate hypersensitivity reaction to AMX or PNC and 6 recently-exposed healthy subjects. In vitro tests were performed in all patients and healthy subjects: a) IFN-γ ELISPOT with PNC, AMX and amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid (AMX-CL); b) penicillin specific IgE; c) basophil activation test (BAT). Skin and provocation tests followed only in certain patients. IFN-γ ELISPOT results with PNC and AMX stimulation did not differ from the unstimulated condition. The highest IFN-γ responses to AMX-CL were close to previously published criteria in three patients; one of which had true hypersensitivity according to drug provocation tests. Five patients with confirmed hypersensitivity by skin tests showed no response to the culprit antibiotic on IFN-γ ELISPOT assay. Our results did not support the utility of IFN-γ ELISPOT in the diagnosis of mild, non-immediate hypersensitivity to amoxicillin and penicillin.

Efficacy and Safety of 5-Day Challenge for the Evaluation of Nonsevere Amoxicillin Allergy in Children.

BACKGROUND: Penicillin allergy is the most frequent drug allergy, among which aminopenicillins are reputed for causing delayed rashes in children, particularly in the context of viral infections. Despite a negative allergy evaluation, a significant proportion of individuals continue to avoid penicillin antibiotics for fear of an allergic reaction. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a 5-day challenge to amoxicillin and the proportion of subsequent use of amoxicillin. METHODS: Pediatric patients with a history of a reaction to amoxicillin were prospectively recruited in the study. All patients were challenged, and those with negative immediate challenges underwent an ambulatory 5-day challenge to amoxicillin to rule out nonimmediate reactions. Patients were called 2 years after their initial allergy evaluation to assess subsequent amoxicillin use and tolerance. RESULTS: One hundred thirty children with a history of amoxicillin allergy underwent a graded drug provocation test (DPT) to amoxicillin. Three patients had a positive immediate challenge, 3 had a positive nonimmediate challenge, and 2 were equivocal. Of the 122 patients with a negative challenge, 114 (93.4%) were reached 2 years after their initial allergy evaluation: 75 had used antibiotics since, of which only 1 (1.3%) had refused to reuse amoxicillin because of fear of an allergic reaction. Finally, the 5-day DPT resulted in a 24.1% decrease in future penicillin avoidance compared with classical single-dose graded DPT performed for 1 day in a historical cohort (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The 5-day challenge is a safe and effective way to rule out nonimmediate amoxicillin allergy, and it ensures better compliance with future penicillin use.

Use of the Basophil Activation Test May Reduce the Need for Drug Provocation in Amoxicillin-Clavulanic Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Reports of selective reactions to clavulanic acid (CLV) have increased in recent decades because of its increased prescription in combination with amoxicillin (AX) as AX-CLV. Basophil activation test (BAT) is used for diagnosing beta-lactam immediate hypersensitivity and is the only available in vitro assay for diagnosing patients with immediate hypersensitivity to CLV. However, few studies, and with limited numbers of patients have been published. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish the sensitivity, specificity, and negativization rates of BAT to AX and CLV. METHODS: We studied 115 patients with immediate allergic reactions after AX-CLV treatment, 57 with selective reactions to AX (group A), 58 with selective reactions to CLV (group B), and 28 tolerant subjects. BAT was performed with AX in group A and with CLV in group B. A 4-year follow-up study was performed in patients with an initial positive BAT result. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of BAT was 55%, specificity 89%, and positive predictive value (PPV) 96%. For group A, sensitivity was 47%, specificity 93%, and PPV 93%; for group B, sensitivity was 62%, specificity 89%, and PPV 92%. Follow-up study showed a faster negativization rate of BAT for group A, with around 40% of patients becoming negative at 12 months in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The high PPV of BAT to CLV shows its potential value as a complementary tool to the allergological workup of patients with immediate allergic reactions after AX-CLV treatment. Importantly, the assay should be done within the first 12 months after the reaction to reduce false-negative results.

Immediate hypersensitivity to penicillins. Identification of a new antigenic determinant.

The study of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) constitutes a challenge in the area of Medicine. Drugs generate a large number of the total registered hypersensitivity reactions, where penicillins are responsible for more than half of them. In vitro tests in the market are not efficient enough since they lack in sensitivity and specificity. This is the reason why in vivo tests are carried out, with the subsequent danger to the patient's life. It is essential to discover new ß-lactam antigenic determinants to develop more effective detection systems and thus, obtain better explanations of the allergic mechanisms related to these drugs. We propose a strategy based on the use of "peptide probes", small labeled and chemical active peptides which have been structurally modified for reacting with the ß-lactam moiety at different conditions. The probes also contain a biotin group for application in an immunoassay format. Three different amoxicillin adducts have been obtained, purified and characterized by HPLC-MS and NMR techniques. These results have helped us to elucidate and propose a new antigenic determinant for ß-lactams, named the "penamidyl" epitope. All the adducts have been validated and evaluated with sera from different penicillin allergic patients by means of a Magneto-ELISA, immunochemical technique that has allowed us to detect specific IgEs in a very high percentage of the serum samples. An immunoassay has been developed, validated and applied as a diagnostic tool for the detection of specific IgEs in the sera of penicillin allergic patients using a new antigenic determinant.

The Cost of Penicillin Allergy Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Unverified penicillin allergy leads to adverse downstream clinical and economic sequelae. Penicillin allergy evaluation can be used to identify true, IgE-mediated allergy. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost of penicillin allergy evaluation using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC). METHODS: We implemented TDABC throughout the care pathway for 30 outpatients presenting for penicillin allergy evaluation. The base-case evaluation included penicillin skin testing and a 1-step amoxicillin drug challenge, performed by an allergist. We varied assumptions about the provider type, clinical setting, procedure type, and personnel timing. RESULTS: The base-case penicillin allergy evaluation costs $220 in 2016 US dollars: $98 for personnel, $119 for consumables, and $3 for space. In sensitivity analyses, lower cost estimates were achieved when only a drug challenge was performed (ie, no skin test, $84) and a nurse practitioner provider was used ($170). Adjusting for the probability of anaphylaxis did not result in a changed estimate ($220); although other analyses led to modest changes in the TDABC estimate ($214-$246), higher estimates were identified with changing to a low-demand practice setting ($268), a 50% increase in personnel times ($269), and including clinician documentation time ($288). In a least/most costly scenario analyses, the lowest TDABC estimate was $40 and the highest was $537. CONCLUSIONS: Using TDABC, penicillin allergy evaluation costs $220; even with varied assumptions adjusting for operational challenges, clinical setting, and expanded testing, penicillin allergy evaluation still costs only about $540. This modest investment may be offset for patients treated with costly alternative antibiotics that also may result in adverse consequences.

Life-Threatening Atypical Case of Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosis.

Antibiotics are known to cause severe cutaneous adverse reactions, such as the rare acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). Unlike Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis, AGEP is rarely life-threatening. Systemic involvement is not typical, and if present usually coincides with a mild elevation of the hepatic enzymes and a decrease in renal function. Hence, AGEP is known to have a good prognosis and to be life-threatening only in elderly patients or patients with chronic diseases. Herein, we report a case of AGEP in a young healthy male leading to systemic inflammatory response syndrome and to treatment in an intensive care unit after being treated with 5 different antibiotics. Initial symptoms were not indicative for AGEP and the patient's course of disease led promptly to critical cardiorespiratory symptoms and systemic inflammatory response syndrome. We assume that the administration of the 5 different antibiotics resulted in type IV allergy as well as secondary infection with Enterococcus faecium and Staphylococcus aureus, while the underlying periodontitis also contributed to the severity of this case.

The utility of the basophil activation test in the diagnosis of immediate amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanate hypersensitivity in children and adults.

BACKGROUND: The basophil activation test (BAT), has been proposed as a possible assay for the diagnosis of immediate-type allergy to beta-lactams (BLs). The aim of this study was to assess the utility of BAT in the diagnosis of amoxicillin (AMX) or AMX-clavulanate (AMX-C) IgE-mediated hypersensitivity in children and adults. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighteen children and 21 adults, with clinical history of immediate reactions to AMX or AMX-C, were referred to Anna Meyer Children's Hospital and San Giovanni di Dio Hospital, respectively. They underwent in vivo tests (skin prick test and intradermal test). Moreover, BAT with AMX or AMX-C was performed within 6 months from the reaction. RESULTS: In the pediatric group, the concordance between the skin tests (ST) and BAT results was 83.3%. Upon comparing the symptom grades and ST results to the BAT results, we found that the reaction severity and ST positivity did not correlate with BAT results in children. In the adult group, the concordance between the ST and BAT results was 61.9%. Upon comparing patients with severe reactions and patients with mild reactions in terms of BAT results, we found a BAT sensitivity of 38.5% and a specificity of 100%. When comparing the symptom grades to the BAT results, we found that no patients with mild symptoms had a positive BAT result, whereas 38.5% of patients with severe symptoms had a positive BAT result. CONCLUSIONS: BAT does not seem to be a useful tool to increase the sensitivity of an allergy work-up to diagnose immediate hypersensitivity to AMX or AMX-C.

Patients Taking Amoxicillin-Clavulanic Can Become Simultaneously Sensitized to Both Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Patients can react to amoxicillin (AX) and clavulanic acid (CLV) taken in combination because of selective reactions to either drug. However, scant information exists concerning patients who react simultaneously to both compounds. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the mechanisms involved in 4 patients who developed allergic reactions to AX-CLV administration (3 with immediate IgE-mediated reaction and 1 with nonimmediate T-cell-mediated reaction) and who responded specifically to both AX and CLV. METHODS: Skin tests with benzylpenicillin (BP), AX, and CLV were done and, if necessary, drug provocation tests with BP/penicillin V, AX, and AX-CLV were carried out. In immediate reactors, serum specific IgE to benzylpenicilloyl and amoxicilloyl was determined by using the CAP-FEIA system (Pharmacia Diagnostics, Uppsala, Sweden), and basophil activation test to BP, AX, CLV, and AX-CLV was done. In nonimmediate reactors, immunohistochemistry of skin biopsy and analysis of dendritic cell maturation and T-cell-specific response to BP, AX, CLV, and AX-CLV at both acute and resolution phases of the reaction were conducted. RESULTS: All patients with immediate reactions (N = 3) had good tolerance to BP and penicillin V. Two cases also had specific IgE to AX and all had a basophil activation test positive to AX, CLV, and AX-CLV. The patient with a nonimmediate reaction exhibited dendritic cell and T-lymphocyte responses specific to both AX and CLV. Finally, the analysis of the cells infiltrating the skin and peripheral blood during the acute phase indicated a TH1 pattern response. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence that reactions to both AX and CLV can appear in the same patient.

Amoxicillin haptenates intracellular proteins that can be transported in exosomes to target cells.

BACKGROUND: Allergic reactions to ß-lactams are among the most frequent causes of drug allergy and constitute an important clinical problem. Drug covalent binding to endogenous proteins (haptenation) is thought to be required for activation of the immune system. Nevertheless, neither the nature nor the role of the drug protein targets involved in this process is fully understood. Here, we aim to identify novel intracellular targets for haptenation by amoxicillin (AX) and their cellular fate. METHODS: We have treated B lymphocytes with either AX or a biotinylated analog (AX-B). The identification of protein targets for haptenation by AX has been approached by mass spectrometry and immunoaffinity techniques. In addition, intercellular communication mediated by the delivery of vesicles loaded with AX-B-protein adducts has been explored by microscopy techniques. RESULTS: We have observed a complex pattern of AX-haptenated proteins. Several novel targets for haptenation by AX in B lymphocytes have been identified. AX-haptenated proteins were detected in cell lysates and extracellularly, either as soluble proteins or in lymphocyte-derived extracellular vesicles. Interestingly, exosomes from AX-B-treated cells showed a positive biotin signal in electron microscopy. Moreover, they were internalized by endothelial cells, thus supporting their involvement in intercellular transfer of haptenated proteins. CONCLUSIONS: These results represent the first identification of AX-mediated haptenation of intracellular proteins. Moreover, they show that exosomes can constitute a novel vehicle for haptenated proteins, and raise the hypothesis that they could provide antigens for activation of the immune system during the allergic response.

The influence of the carrier molecule on amoxicillin recognition by specific IgE in patients with immediate hypersensitivity reactions to betalactams.

The optimal recognition of penicillin determinants, including amoxicillin (AX), by specific IgE antibodies is widely believed to require covalent binding to a carrier molecule. The nature of the carrier and its contribution to the antigenic determinant is not well known. Here we aimed to evaluate the specific-IgE recognition of different AX-derived structures. We studied patients with immediate hypersensitivity reactions to AX, classified as selective or cross-reactors to penicillins. Competitive immunoassays were performed using AX itself, amoxicilloic acid, AX bound to butylamine (AXO-BA) or to human serum albumin (AXO-HSA) in the fluid phase, as inhibitors, and amoxicilloyl-poli-L-lysine (AXO-PLL) in the solid-phase. Two distinct patterns of AX recognition by IgE were found: Group A showed a higher recognition of AX itself and AX-modified components of low molecular weights, whilst Group B showed similar recognition of both unconjugated and conjugated AX. Amoxicilloic acid was poorly recognized in both groups, which reinforces the need for AX conjugation to a carrier for optimal recognition. Remarkably, IgE recognition in Group A (selective responders to AX) is influenced by the mode of binding and/or the nature of the carrier; whereas IgE in Group B (cross-responders to penicillins) recognizes AX independently of the nature of the carrier.