Non-immediate reactions to β-lactams: diagnostic value of skin testing and drug provocation test

Diagnostic evaluation of patients with nonimmediate cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media

BACKGROUND

Nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (CM) are common. Allergological evaluation is necessary to confirm the diagnosis and to find a tolerated alternative. The aim of this study was to establish the role of skin testing and the drug provocation test (DPT) in the diagnosis of nonimmediate reactions to CM.

METHODS

Skin intradermal testing and patch testing with delayed readings were carried out with different CM (iobitridol, iomeprol, iodixanol, iohexol, ioversol, iopramide and ioxaglate). Single-blind placebo-controlled DPT was carried out in those cases with a negative skin test. In seven cases, a skin biopsy was obtained from positive skin tests and positive DPT.

RESULTS

Of the 161 subjects evaluated, 34 (21.1%) were skin-test positive, 21 (50%) to Iomeprol, 7 (16.7%) to Iodixanol, 5 (11.9%) to Iobitridol, 4 (9.5%) to Ioxaglate, 3 (7.1%) to Iohexol and 1 (2.4%) to Iopramide. DPT was positive in 44 cases (34.6%) that were skin-test negative, 38 (76%) to Iodixanol, 8 (16%) to Iomeprol and 4 (8%) to Iohexol. Of 78 cases (48.4%) with confirmed hypersensitivity, 34 (43.6%) were identified by skin testing and 44 (56.4%) by DPT. Skin biopsies showed a perivascular mononuclear cell infiltrate, mainly in the dermis, with higher levels of CD4 than CD8 T lymphocytes, with expression of activation markers and skin homing receptors.

CONCLUSION

Patients with nonimmediate reactions to CM were identified by skin testing in 43.6% and by DPT in 56.4%. The method to confirm the diagnosis differed depending on the CM involved.

Immunologic evaluation of drug allergy

Hypersensitivity drug reactions (HDR) consist of an individual abnormal response with the involvement of the immunological system. In addition to specific immunological mechanisms where specific antibodies or sensitised T cells participate, release of inflammatory mediators by non-specific immunological recognition may also occur. Within this category are one of the most common groups of drugs, the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In addition to chemical drugs new emerging ones with an increasing protagonism are biological agents like humanised antibodies and others. For IgE dependent reactions both in vivo and in vitro tests can be used for the immunological evaluation. Sensitivity of these is not optimal and very often a drug provocation test must be considered for knowing the mechanism involved and/or establishing the diagnosis. For non-immediate reactions also both in vivo and in vitro tests can be used. Sensitivity for in vivo tests is generally low and in vitro tests may be needed for the immunological evaluation. Immunohistochemical studies of the affected tissue enable a more precise classification of non-immediate reactions. The monitorization of the acute response of the reactions has given clues for understanding these reactions and has promising results for the future of the immunological evaluation of HDR.

Immunological mechanisms underlying delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions to glatiramer acetate

BACKGROUND

Delayed-type hypersensitivity to glatiramer acetate is rare, and the underlying immunological mechanisms are not completely understood.

OBJECTIVE

To study the immunologic response in 2 patients with multiple sclerosis who developed maculopapular exanthema related with the administration of glatiramer acetate.

METHODS

The allergologic study included general blood tests, viral serologic tests, and skin tests (patch and intradermal tests). The immunologic study was performed in skin biopsy specimens by immunohistochemistry and in the peripheral blood by flow cytometry and the lymphocyte transformation test.

RESULTS

Skin test results were negative in both patients, and the diagnosis was confirmed by a drug provocation test. The evaluation of the acute phase showed an increase in the percentage of CD8 T lymphocytes (>50%) and the percentage of cells expressing skin-homing receptor (cutaneous lymphocyte-associated antigen) (>70%) and chemokine receptors (CCR4 and CXCR3) at T1. A positive proliferative response was observed in T lymphocytes (stimulation index [SI] = 3.5 in patient 1 and 3.59 in patient 2), especially the CD8(+) subpopulation (SI = 5.5 and 4.6 in patients 1 and 2, respectively), and NK lymphocytes (SI = 3.9 and 8.5 in patients 1 and 2, respectively) after glatiramer acetate stimulation.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the important role of T(H)1 cells expressing skin-homing receptors in delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions to glatiramer acetate. A lymphocyte transformation test revealed a specific glatiramer acetate recognition by T lymphocytes and NK lymphocytes.

Short protocol for the study of paediatric patients with suspected betalactam antibiotic hypersensitivity and low risk criteria

BACKGROUND

Suspected hypersensitivity to betalactam antibiotics in children is a frequent cause of consultation that proves costly in terms of resource utilization--particularly time. Such hypersensitivity is, however, rarely confirmed.

METHODS

A short protocol was introduced in which patients at low risk (single episode with mild, non-immediate skin symptoms after the administration of a betalactam antibiotic via the oral route) were subjected to oral provocation (following the obtaining of informed consent) without any other prior evaluations. Patients failing to meet these requirements were studied according to the protocol of the EAACI (specific IgE and skin testing prior to oral provocation).

RESULTS

A total of 78 patients (56 at low risk) were studied. Five patients had tolerated the medication after the episode, while another six patients failed to complete the study. The study with oral provocation was completed in the remaining 67 patients: according to the protocol of the EAACI in 17 patients, and using the short protocol in 50 patients. Only one patient showed a positive provocation test, of a delayed and mild nature.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct oral provocation in low risk patients has been shown to be effective and safe in discarding hypersensitivity to betalactam antibiotics in the majority of the patients studied.

Drug provocation tests in hypersensitivity drug reactions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Drug provocation test (DPT) is necessary to diagnose most drug hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) due to decreased sensitivity of skin testing even when combined with in-vitro tests in immunonologic drug HSR and limited availability of these tests in nonimmunologic reaction. We review the principles and controversial issues of DPT, and recent studies using DPT as a diagnostic tool.

RECENT FINDINGS

DPT is recommended in the diagnosis of HSR to β-lactams, as well as other drug classes [such as acetylsalicylic acid-NSAIDs (ASA-NSAIDs), non-β-lactams antibiotics, heparin, glucocorticoids, and local anesthetic agents]. In view of the decreased sensitivity of skin testing, limited accessibility to new benzylpenicillin polylysine (PPL)/mixture of minor determinant (MDM) test reagents and limited availability of validated sensitive in-vitro tests, individuals who require DPT to β-lactams are increasing. The negative predictive value of allergologic work-up is very high, ranging from 94 to 98% for β-lactams and those reactions after negative tests are mostly nonimmediate and mild. Finally, DPT is recommended to ascertain tolerability of alternative compound when evaluating cross-reactivity among different classes of β-lactams, NSAIDs and glucocorticoids, and possibly iodinated contrast media.

SUMMARY

DPT is often needed when evaluating patients with suspected drug HSR. More studies regarding standardization of the various protocols are needed in order to increase its acceptance and adoption as a standard practice in the diagnostic algorithm for drug HSR.

Allergy to betalactam antibiotics in children: results of a 20-year study based on clinical history, skin and challenge tests

Studies based on skin and challenge tests have shown that 12-60% of children with suspected betalactam hypersensitivity were allergic to betalactams. Responses in skin and challenge tests were studied in 1865 children with suspected betalactam allergy (i) to confirm or rule out the suspected diagnosis; (ii) to evaluate diagnostic value of immediate and non-immediate responses in skin and challenge tests; (iii) to determine frequency of betalactam allergy in those children, and (iv) to determine potential risk factors for betalactam allergy. The work-up was completed in 1431 children, of whom 227 (15.9%) were diagnosed allergic to betalactams. Betalactam hypersensitivity was diagnosed in 50 of the 162 (30.9%) children reporting immediate reactions and in 177 of the 1087 (16.7%) children reporting non-immediate reactions (p<0.001). The likelihood of betalactam hypersensitivity was also significantly higher in children reporting anaphylaxis, serum sickness-like reactions, and (potentially) severe skin reactions such as acute generalized exanthematic pustulosis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and drug reaction with systemic symptoms than in other children (p<0.001). Skin tests diagnosed 86% of immediate and 31.6% of non-immediate sensitizations. Cross-reactivity and/or cosensitization among betalactams was diagnosed in 76% and 14.7% of the children with immediate and non-immediate hypersensitivity, respectively. The number of children diagnosed allergic to betalactams decreased with time between the reaction and the work-up, probably because the majority of children with severe and worrying reactions were referred for allergological work-up more promptly than the other children. Sex, age, and atopy were not risk factors for betalactam hypersensitivity. In conclusion, we confirm in numerous children that (i) only a few children with suspected betalactam hypersensitivity are allergic to betalactams; (ii) the likelihood of betalactam allergy increases with earliness and/or severity of the reactions; (iii) although non-immediate-reading skin tests (intradermal and patch tests) may diagnose non-immediate sensitizations in children with non-immediate reactions to betalactams (maculopapular rashes and potentially severe skin reactions especially), the diagnostic value of non-immediate-reading skin tests is far lower than the diagnostic value of immediate-reading skin tests, most non-immediate sensitizations to betalactams being diagnosed by means of challenge tests; (iv) cross-reactivity and/or cosensitizations among betalactams are much more frequent in children reporting immediate and/or anaphylactic reactions than in the other children; (v) age, sex and personal atopy are not significant risk factors for betalactam hypersensitivity; and (vi) the number of children with diagnosed allergy to betalactams (of the immediate-type hypersensitivity especially) decreases with time between the reaction and allergological work-up. Finally, based on our experience, we also propose a practical diagnostic approach in children with suspected betalactam hypersensitivity.

Patch testing in drug allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The review intends to clarify understanding of when and how skin patch tests can be used to help drug allergy diagnosis and identify causally relevant drugs. It aims to give an understanding of which clinical patterns of drug reaction are produced by T-lymphocyte-mediated pathomechanisms since these are what are detected by patch tests. It also covers fundamental principles underlying patch test methodology and summarizes clinical patterns and causal drugs for which patch tests have reasonable value to diagnose culprit drugs.

RECENT FINDINGS

A number of recent studies have consolidated evidence that the use of patch tests in drug hypersensitivity diagnosis is not a robust science. The field is bedeviled by the lack of standardized approach to ascertain and define clinical entities in a sufficiently clear way that allows researchers to be confident that patch tests are used appropriately in T-cell-mediated clinical conditions. The literature is confounded by case series including patch tests from conditions which may be the wrong type of test causing the sensitivity of the test system to be measured incorrectly.

SUMMARY

For certain drug eruptions mediated by T cells (exanthemata, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, erythema multiforme/toxic epidermal necrolysis, fixed drug eruption and symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthem) patch tests can elicit positive responses in a proportion of cases. The test works best with aromatic anticonvulsants and various antibiotics but does not appear to work consistently with a wide range of drugs. A coordinated and systematic research effort is required to resolve inconsistencies to encourage greater utilization of this potentially important diagnostic methodology.

The complex clinical picture of beta-lactam hypersensitivity: penicillins, cephalosporins, monobactams, carbapenems, and clavams

Beta-lactam antibiotics are the drugs most frequently involved in drug hypersensitivity reactions that are mediated by specific immunologic mechanisms. In addition to benzylpenicillin, several chemical structures belonging to 5 major subgroups can induce reactions. The most relevant structure is that of the amoxicillin molecule. Reactions belong to the 4 major mechanisms described by Coombs and Gell, whereby type IV reactions have recently been further subclassified. The most frequent reactions are type I, which are IgE mediated, and type IV, which are nonimmediate and T-cell dependent. IgE-specific antibodies may recognize the benzylpenicilloyl structure or another part of the molecule, such as the side chain, as antigenic determinants. Depending on specific recognition, subjects can be either cross-reactors or selective responders. A variety of entities exist in T-cell reactions, ranging from mild exanthema to life-threatening, severe reactions, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis. Diagnostic tests for IgE-mediated reactions can be done in vivo by testing skin with different penicillin determinants or in vitro by quantitating specific IgE antibodies. For nonimmediate reactions, there are also in vitro and in vivo tests, with variable degrees of sensitivity and specificity. The natural history of IgE-mediated reactions indicates that the count of specific IgE antibodies decreases over time and that results of diagnostic tests can become negative.

Determining the negative predictive value of provocation tests with beta-lactams

BACKGROUND

The beta-lactam allergic work-up is mostly standardized. However, the negative predictive value of drug provocation tests is not yet well established.

METHOD

A historical-prospective multicentre cohort study was conducted in four centres (one in France, one in Portugal, two in Italy) to assess the negative predictive value of provocation tests with beta-lactams in patients initially tested for a suspicion of drug allergy/hypersensitivity. Patients were contacted at least 6 months after the work-up, between 2003 and 2007. A new allergic work-up was proposed to reacting patients.

RESULTS

Among the 457 patients included, 365 (79.9%) were followed up (159 [79.1%] from France, 153 [82.7%] from Italy and 53 [74.6%] from Portugal). Only 118 (25.8%) were re-exposed to the negatively tested beta-lactam. Nine (7.6%) reported a non-immediate (occurring more than 1 h after drug administration) reaction: five urticaria, three exanthema and one undefined cutaneous reaction. None were severe. Only four accepted a re-challenge, negative in two cases and positive in the two others. The negative predictive value was 94.1% (89.8-98.3) (111 out of 118 patients).

CONCLUSION

Although the negative predictive value of drug provocation tests may not be 100%, none of the false negative patients experienced a life-threatening reaction. This should reassure doctors who might hesitate to prescribe beta-lactams, even in patients with negative allergic work-ups.

Developments in the field of allergy in 2008 through the eyes of Clinical & Experimental Allergy

In 2008, many thousands of articles were published on the subject of allergic disease with over 200 reviews, editorials and original papers in Clinical & Experimental Allergy alone. These represent a considerable amount of data and even the most avid reader could only hope to assimilate a small fraction of this knowledge. There is therefore a pressing need for the key messages that emerge from a journal such as Clinical & Experimental Allergy to be summarized by experts in the field in a form that highlights the significance of the developments and sets them in the context of important findings in the field published in other journals. This also has the advantage of making connections between new data in conditions such as asthma, where articles often appear in different sections of the journal. As can be seen from this review, the body of work is diverse both in terms of the disease of interest and the discipline that has been used to investigate it. However, taken as a whole, we hope that the reader will gain a flavour of where the field is mature, where there remain controversies and where the cutting edge is leading.

[Drug patch tests in the investigation of cutaneous adverse drug reactions]

Cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADR) are a frequent problem in clinical medicine. Since patients are often on multiple drug regimes, it is often difficult to pinpoint the relevant drug from history alone. Besides clinical and chronological parameters, patch testing with the suspected compound has been reported as helpful in determining the cause of a CADR and in studying the physiopathological mechanisms involved in such reactions. The key advantage of drug patch tests is that they can be performed using any commercialized form of drugs and without hospital surveillance because they only rarely induce adverse reactions, which in any event are mild. The method for performing drug patch tests has been described, and requisite commercialized material is now commercially available, failing which the best approach is to dilute the drug in its commercialized form at 30% in petrolatum or in water. The results of drug patch tests depend on the drug tested and the clinical features of the initial CADR. They appear to be of value in investigating maculopapular rash, eczema at drug injection sites, photosensitivity (photopatch tests with 5J of irradiation), fixed drug eruption (testing at the sequelae site), acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis and symmetrical drug-related intertriginous flexural exanthema. Although less widely used, they are probably also of value in drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) but they are of less use in Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SSJ) and Lyell's syndrome. Many drugs have been reported as producing positive patch tests, and most of these are summarized in a summary table of this literature review.

Skin testing and drug provocation in the diagnosis of nonimmediate reactions to aminopenicillins in children

BACKGROUND

Nonimmediate allergic reactions (NIR) to aminopenicillin include several entities, the most common of which are urticaria-like and maculopapular exanthemas.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

To evaluate a group of children who developed one or more episodes of skin reactions suggestive of NIR after aminopenicillin administration.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria required negative immediate skin tests and absence of specific IgE antibodies to different penicillins. Intradermal and patch tests were carried out with delayed readings and, if negative, a drug-provocation test including a full therapeutic course of the drug was given. Two different groups were compared: A) children with positive skin testing or a positive drug-provocation test and B) children with negative skin testing and good tolerance after a drug-provocation test.

RESULTS

Group A was composed of 20 patients. Positive intradermal/patch tests were found in one patient and in the remaining 19, a positive response to a drug-provocation test confirmed the diagnosis. Group B (the control group) consisted of 19 patients with similar symptoms after aminopenicillin intake but good tolerance. No differences in age, dose or number of previous treatments were observed between the groups. The clinical entities were also similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Reproducible nonimmediate skin reactions to aminopenicillins may occur in children in spite of negative skin testing. The value of this diagnostic procedure seems to be limited in this type of reaction, with drug-provocation tests (DPT) being a reasonable and safe alternative if the diagnosis has to be confirmed.