The use of drug provocation testing in the investigation of suspected immediate perioperative allergic reactions: current status

Perioperative Anaphylaxis: A Systematic Approach to Evaluate High-Risk Drug Allergy

Determining the etiology of perioperative anaphylaxis is a challenging task, as multiple medications are often administered simultaneously during anesthesia. This is compounded by the paucity of validated skin testing. While drug challenges are the definitive means of assessing for IgE-mediated drug allergy, they must be weighed with the risk of severe reaction. As such, multidisciplinary collaboration is warranted to ensure drug provocation testing is performed thoughtfully and safely. Here, we present a case of an 18-year-old male with juvenile kyphosis who underwent anesthesia prior to spinal fusion surgery. He was given intravenous fentanyl, propofol, dexamethasone, remifentanil, tranexamic acid, methadone, and cefazolin. Additionally, iodine, chlorhexidine, and tincture of benzoin were applied topically. Shortly after the start of anesthesia and prior to incision, he developed bronchospasm, hypoxia, hypotension, and pulseless electrical activity with a return of spontaneous circulation following cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A tryptase level drawn during the event was elevated at 23.7 μg/L (reference range: 0-11.4 μg/L). Months later, the patient underwent skin prick and intradermal testing in an allergy clinic, which was largely unrevealing for a culprit. Given the absence of validated predictive values for skin testing, drug provocation testing was performed with the patient admitted to the intensive care unit due to the high-risk nature of testing. Medications were selected for a challenge after multidisciplinary discussions with specialists in anesthesia and surgery based on the availability of alternative medications. Following negative drug provocation testing to intravenous dexamethasone, intravenous fentanyl, oral midazolam, intravenous methadone, and intravenous tranexamic acid, as well as topical challenges to chlorhexidine, iodine, and tincture of benzoin, the patient was instructed to continue to avoid cefazolin, propofol, and remifentanil and was able to subsequently undergo spinal fusion surgery safely. This case demonstrates a systematic approach for high-risk drug allergy testing that was facilitated by collaboration with allergy, intensive care, anesthesia, and surgery.

Hypotension after anesthesia induction in patients taking tricyclic antidepressants-A case series

BACKGROUND

Hypotension is commonly observed after induction of anesthesia. Risk factors for intraoperative hypotension include higher ASA class, older age, propofol use, combined general/regional anesthesia, emergency surgery, and use of antihypertensives. Patients who are treated with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) may develop severe hypotension in connection with surgery and anesthesia, not responding to vasopressors such as phenylephrine and ephedrine, and use of adrenaline or noradrenaline are necessary to restore the blood pressure. Anaphylaxis may be suspected due to the rapid onset and resistance to usual treatments leading to referral for allergy investigation. The aim of this paper was to identify and describe the clinical characteristics of patients referred to the Danish Anesthesia Allergy Center (DAAC) with perioperative hypotension, without elevation in tryptase, and with negative allergy investigations, who were on regular treatment with TCAs. The pharmacological mechanism behind this phenomenon will also be explored.

METHODS

Patients were identified from the DAAC database. Patients with hypotension (systolic blood pressure <75 mmHg) as the only symptom and negative allergy investigations and patients on antidepressants were included. The study period was 2011-2019.

RESULTS

Ten patients were identified. Hypotension occurred after anesthesia induction, the median time from induction to the onset of hypotension was 7.5 min. Eight needed adrenaline or noradrenaline to restore blood pressure. No allergen was identified on detailed investigation and serum tryptase was not significantly elevated.

CONCLUSION

Monosymptomatic perioperative hypotension without a significant increase in serum tryptase can be caused by TCAs and this is an important differential diagnosis to anaphylaxis. In patients on regular treatment with TCA perioperative hypotension responds well to noradrenaline or adrenaline but less well to vasopressors such as phenylephrine and ephedrine used perioperatively.

Drug challenge testing: a critical step in the investigation of neuromuscular blocking agent hypersensitivity

Neuromuscular blocking agents are a common cause of perioperative hypersensitivity. The sensitivity and specificity of skin tests and in vitro tests in this context have not been determined conclusively, which poses a barrier to accurate diagnosis. Use of challenge testing represents a promising development in this field and a key tool in confirming tolerance to an alternate neuromuscular blocking agent for use in future anaesthesia. However, its use is currently limited to specialised centres, and a standardised approach to testing has not yet been established. This article summarises the role of challenge testing to neuromuscular blocking agents and highlights the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches.

Is a Drug Allergy in a Patient's History Real? Our Experience with Diagnostic Drug Provocation Tests

Background and Objectives: Early-type drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are observed within the first 1-6 h and most commonly manifest as urticaria and/or angioedema. Detailed anamnesis, skin prick tests (SPTs), intradermal tests (IDTs), and oral/intramuscular/intravenous drug provocation tests (DPTs) can be used to identify the drug responsible. We aimed to evaluate the demographic characteristics, responsible drugs, DHR types, and DPT results used in the diagnosis of drug allergy in patients who presented to our clinic with suspected drug allergies. Materials and Methods: The medical records of patients who presented with a suspicion of an early-type DHR between February 2019 and December 2024 were retrospectively evaluated through the hospital information management system. A total of 188 adults who underwent diagnostic drug testing were included. Results: The diagnosis of drug allergy was confirmed in 51 (27%) patients. In 137 (73%) patients, the diagnosis of drug allergy was excluded after DPTs. In 78 of the 188 patients, there was a DHR to a single suspected drug. The other 110 patients had DHR histories with multiple drugs. The rate of confirmation of a drug allergy from diagnostic tests was higher in those who described a history of multiple drug allergies. Amongst the antibiotics, beta-lactam antibiotics (n = 47) were the most frequently suspected drugs. The rate of positive DPTs (n = 4; 8%) was lower in patients with suspected beta-lactam allergies than other antibiotics (p = 0.002). NSAIDs (n = 60) were the second most common group of suspected drug allergies. With regard to IgE or COX-1-mediated mechanisms, there was no statistically significant difference in DPT positivity among these NSAIDs (p = 0.414). The severity of the initial early-type DHRs were grade 1 (n = 168; 80%), grade 2 (n = 14; 7%), and grade 3 (n = 14; 7%). If the patients had redness, itching, urticaria, angioedema, dyspnea, cyanosis, desaturation, syncope, tachycardia, or hypotension during their initial DHRs, the positive diagnostic drug test rate was statistically significantly higher. However, experiencing diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting were not found to be associated with positive diagnostic drug tests. Drug allergies were confirmed with SPTs or IDTs in all patients in whom adrenaline was used during initial reactions. Conclusions: Contrary to the prevailing notion that drugs (especially beta-lactams) are the predominant cause of allergic reactions, this study demonstrated that the actual prevalence of drug allergies is, in fact, low.

Neuromuscular blocking agent drug challenge: a literature review and protocol proposal with biological evaluation

BACKGROUND

Drug challenge is the gold standard for identifying causative agents of drug allergies. Although clinical guidelines have recently been published, they do not recommend neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) drug challenges. NMBA challenges are rendered difficult by the lack of homogeneity of routine allergy work-ups and the necessity of a specialised setting. Several scenarios support NMBA challenges, such as an ambiguous allergy work-up, a high suspicion of a false-positive skin test or identification of a well tolerated alternative NMBA strategy. Furthermore, routine allergy work-ups may not recognise non-IgE mechanisms, such as IgG or MRGPRX2, whereas drug challenges may reveal them. Finally, if the culprit NMBA is not identified, subsequent anaesthesia regimens will be challenging to implement, resulting in increased risk.

OBJECTIVES

This literature review discusses the indications, strategies, doses, monitoring methods, limitations, and unresolved issues related to drug challenges for NMBAs.

DESIGN

The literature review included randomised controlled trials, observational studies, reviews, case reports, series, and comments on humans.

DATA SOURCES

Studies were retrieved from databases (PubMed) and electronic libraries (OVID, EMBASE, Scopus, etc.).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All studies that referred to the NMBA challenge were included without publication date limitations.

RESULTS

NMBA challenge may be considered in NMBA anaphylaxis patients with inconclusive or ambivalent IgE diagnostic work-up under controlled conditions (presence of anaesthetists and allergists with continuous monitoring in a secured environment). To illustrate its utility, a case report of a double NMBA challenge in a patient with NMBA cross-reactivity is presented, along with biological explorations to detect subclinical cellular activation, a novel aspect of this procedure.

CONCLUSION

Drug challenges could be implemented during the NMBA allergy work-up under strict safety conditions at specialised centres with close collaboration between anaesthetists and allergists. This could decrease uncertainty and contribute to defining a safer strategy for subsequent anaesthetic drug regimens.

Epidemiology and Triggers of Severe Perioperative Anaphylaxis: An 8-Year Single-Center Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the features, rescue measures, outcomes, re-allergic reactions, and independent risk factors associated with severe anaphylaxis during surgery.

DESIGN

Instances of severe perioperative anaphylaxis were identified through perioperative electronic records, adverse event reporting records, and surveys of anesthesiologists. Confirmed cases were randomly matched 4:1 with control cases on the same operation day. Patient risk factors, surgery type, anesthetic technique, and perioperative medications, fluids, and blood transfusions were given in instances of severe perioperative anaphylaxis were compared with control cases.

SETTING

A tertiary hospital in China.

PATIENTS

All patients undergoing surgery and anesthesia in the operating room from January 2014 to February 2022.

MEASUREMENTS

Incidence and the independent risk factors for severe perioperative anaphylaxis.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients experienced severe perioperative allergic responses during the 266,033 surgeries performed, with an incidence rate of 3.6 per 10,000. Three of 97 anaphylaxis patients experienced a severe allergic reaction again during the second surgery. The nested case-control study revealed that the independent triggers during surgery were allergy history (odds ratio 5.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.35-11.68; p < 0.001), cisatracurium use (odds ratio 5.03; 95% CI, 1.22-20.70; p < 0.001), hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 use (odds ratio 5.36; 95% CI, 2.99-9.60; p =0.025), and allogeneic plasma (odds ratio 11.02; 95% CI, 3.78-35.95; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative severe anaphylaxis is a rare but life-threatening complication. Previous allergic history, cisatracurium, hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4, and allogeneic plasma may be the independent triggers. Early diagnosis of anaphylaxis and the timely administration of epinephrine are critical to allergic treatment. Avoiding exposure to allergens is effective for preventing severe allergic responses and the efficacy of glucocorticoids and antihistamines is controversial.

Causative agent for perioperative anaphylaxis in a child with autism successfully identified using the intradermal test under general anesthesia

BACKGROUND

The skin-prick and intradermal tests are the main diagnostic methods used to identify the causative agent in patients with suspected perioperative anaphylaxis. Although the intradermal test is more sensitive than the skin-prick test, multiple intradermal injections can be painful for children. Here, we present the case of a child with autism and suspected perioperative anaphylaxis. The causative agent was successfully identified using the intradermal test under general anesthesia.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 8-year-old boy with autism developed anaphylaxis during general anesthesia for the fourth cleft lip and palate surgery. An allergic workout was performed, but both the skin-prick and basophil activation tests for suspected causative agents yielded negative results. The patient was afraid of multiple injections, and an intradermal test was performed under general anesthesia by anesthesiologists and allergists. Piperacillin was confirmed as the causative agent, and subsequent surgery using the same anesthetic agents without piperacillin was uneventful.

CONCLUSIONS

Concerted efforts should be made to identify the causative agent for diagnosing perioperative anaphylaxis.

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

Background

Paired sampling of acute (aST) and basal (bST) serum tryptase has been recommended when investigating patients with a suspected perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) reaction. In the current consensus formula, an aST value exceeding (1.2×bST+2) confirms mast cell activation. The current consensus formula has been validated in adults but not in children.

Methods

We prospectively included 96 children who underwent uneventful anaesthesia and sampled serum tryptase at baseline and 60-90 min after induction. Tryptase changes were then compared with those in 94 children with suspected POH who were retrospectively included from four reference centres in Belgium, France, and Denmark.

Results

We observed a median decrease in serum tryptase during uneventful anaesthesia of 0.41 μg L-1 (-15.9%; P<0.001). The current consensus formula identified mast cell activation in 31.9% of paediatric POH patients. After generating receiver operating characteristic curves through 100 repeated five-fold cross-validation, aST>bST+0.71 was identified as the optimal cut-off point to identify mast cell activation. This new paediatric formula has higher sensitivity than the current consensus formula (53.2% vs 31.9%, P<0.001) with a specificity of 96.9%. Analysis in the subpopulation where a culprit was identified and in grade 3-4 reactions similarly yielded higher sensitivity for the new paediatric formula when compared with the current consensus formula (85.3% vs 61.8%; P=0.008 and 78.0% vs 48.8%; P<0.001, respectively). Internally cross-validated sensitivity and specificity were 53.3% and 93.3%, respectively.

Conclusions

This is the first study suggesting the need for an adjusted formula in children to identify perioperative mast cell activation as tryptase is significantly lowered during uneventful anaesthesia. We propose a new formula (aST>bST+0.71) which performs significantly better than the current consensus formula in our multicentric paediatric population.

Comparison of the passive mast cell activation test with the basophil activation test for diagnosis of perioperative rocuronium hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

Rocuronium is a major cause of perioperative hypersensitivity (POH). Skin tests (STs) and quantification of specific immunoglobulin E antibodies (sIgEs) can yield incongruent results. In such difficult cases, the basophil activation test (BAT) can be helpful. Here, we evaluated the passive mast cell activation test (pMAT) as a substitute of BAT as part of the diagnostic tests for rocuronium allergy.

METHODS

Sera from patients with a suspected POH reaction potentially related to rocuronium were included. All patients had a complete diagnostic investigation, including STs, quantification of sIgEs to morphine and rocuronium, and BAT. For execution of pMAT, human mast cells were generated from healthy donor peripheral blood CD34+ progenitor cells and sensitised overnight with patient sera.

RESULTS

In total, 90 sera were studied: 41 from ST+sIgE+ patients, 13 from ST-sIgE- patients, 20 from ST+sIgE- patients, and 16 from ST-sIgE+ patients. According to BAT results, patients were further allocated into subgroups. Of the 38 BAT+ patients, 25 (66%) showed a positive pMAT as well. Of the 44 BAT- patients, 43 (98%) also showed a negative pMAT. Mast cells that were not passively sensitised did not respond to rocuronium.

CONCLUSIONS

We show that the pMAT, in many cases, can substitute for BAT in the diagnosis of rocuronium hypersensitivity and advance diagnosis in difficult cases with uncertain ST or sIgE results when BAT is not locally available.

EAACI/ENDA position paper on drug provocation testing

In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low-risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low-risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources.

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

Neuromuscular blocking agent re-exposure in a retrospective cohort with neuromuscular blocking agent-associated anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are one of the most common causes of perioperative anaphylaxis. Although skin test positivity may help identify reactive NMBAs, it is unclear whether skin test negativity can guarantee the safety of systemically administered NMBAs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the real-world safety of alternative NMBAs screened using skin tests in patients with suspected NMBA-induced anaphylaxis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of suspected NMBA-induced anaphylaxis were recruited among patients at Seoul National University Hospital from June 2009 to May 2021, and their characteristics and outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 47 cases (0.017%) of suspected anaphylaxis occurred in 282,707 patients who received NMBAs. Cardiovascular manifestations were observed in 95.7%, whereas cutaneous findings were observed in 59.6%. Whereas 83% had a history of undergoing general anesthesia, 17% had no history of NMBA use. In skin tests, the overall positivity to any NMBA was 94.6% (81.1% to culprit NMBAs) and the cross-reactivity was 75.7%, which is related to the chemical structural similarity among NMBAs; the cross-reactivity and chemical structure similarity of rocuronium were 85.3% and 0.814, respectively, with vecuronium; this is in contrast to 50% and 0.015 with cisatracurium and 12.5% and 0.208 with succinylcholine. There were 15 patients who underwent subsequent surgery with a skin test-negative NMBA; whereas 80.0% (12/15) safely completed surgery, 20.0% (3/15) experienced hypotension.

CONCLUSION

Similarities in chemical structure may contribute to the cross-reactivity of NMBAs in skin tests. Despite the high negative predictability of skin tests for suspected NMBA-induced anaphylaxis, the potential risk of recurrent anaphylaxis has not been eliminated.

Beyond the override: Using evidence of previous drug tolerance to suppress drug allergy alerts; a retrospective study of opioid alerts

OBJECTIVE

Despite the extensive literature exploring alert fatigue, most studies have focused on describing the phenomenon, but not on fixing it. The authors aimed to identify data useful to avert clinically irrelevant alerts to inform future research on clinical decision support (CDS) design.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study of opioid drug allergy alert (DAA) overrides for the calendar year of 2019 at a large academic medical center, to identify data elements useful to find irrelevant alerts to be averted.

RESULTS

Overall, 227,815 DAAs were fired in 2019, with an override rate of 91 % (n = 208196). Opioids represented nearly two-thirds of these overrides (n = 129063; 62 %) and were the drug class with the highest override rate (96 %). On average, 29 opioid DAAs were overridden per patient. While most opioid alerts (97.1 %) are fired for a possible match (the drug class of the allergen matches the drug class of the prescribed drug), they are overridden significantly less frequently for definite match (exact match between allergen and prescribed drug) (88 % vs. 95.9 %, p < 0.001). When comparing the triggering drug with previously administered drugs, override rates were equally high for both definite match (95.9 %), no match (95.5 %), and possible match (95.1 %). Likewise, when comparing to home medications, overrides were excessively high for possible match (96.3 %), no match (96 %), and definite match (94.4 %).

CONCLUSION

We estimate that 74.5% of opioid DAAs (46.4% of all DAAs) at our institution could be relatively safely averted, since they either have a definite match for previous inpatient administrations suggesting drug tolerance or are fired as possible match with low risk of cross-sensitivity. Future research should focus on identifying other relevant data elements ideally with automated methods and use of emerging standards to empower CDS systems to suppress false-positive alerts while avoiding safety hazards.

Perioperative anaphylaxis: when the allergological work-up goes negative

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) is rare but is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Patients are referred to the allergist to identify the mechanism of the reaction, the causative agent and make recommendations regarding subsequent anaesthesia. Despite a well conducted allergological evaluation, the causative agent is not found in 30-60% of these reactions, leaving patients without a well established diagnosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several mechanisms can induce POA. In addition to the well known IgE-mediated reactions, IgG-mediated reaction, MRGPR-X2-related reaction or nonspecific histamine release may be involved. These situations are not easily assessed by the allergological workup.

SUMMARY

When the allergological workup is negative, the situation should be reassessed with the team present at the time of the reaction to confirm the reality of the hypersensitivity reaction and to search for a possible differential diagnosis. If POA is confirmed, the allergological evaluation should be repeated, ensuring proper execution according to current guidelines and including the search for hidden allergens. Specific IgE assays or basophil activation tests may be of interest. In case of negative results, a closely monitored drug challenge test, in coordination with the anaesthesia teams, may be useful to avoid the exclusion of any drug injected during the reaction.

Suspected perioperative anaphylaxis: are we making the correct diagnosis?

We provide a commentary on aspects of a prospective study of the epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis in Japan (Japanese Epidemiologic Study for Perioperative Anaphylaxis [JESPA]). Accurate diagnosis of perioperative anaphylaxis is important for research but essential for clinical safety. We evaluate the diagnostic approach used in the JESPA study and caution against over-reliance on diagnostic tests that lack sensitivity and specificity when clinical data suggest an immediate perioperative hypersensitivity reaction is likely.

A quarter of a century fundamental and translational research in perioperative hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis at the Antwerp university hospital, a Belgian Centre of Excellence of the World Allergy Organization

Perioperative hypersensitivity constitutes an important health issue, with potential dramatic consequences of diagnostic mistakes. However, safe and correct diagnosis is not always straightforward, mainly because of the application of incorrect nomenclature, absence of easy accessible in-vitro/ex-vivo tests and uncertainties associated with the non-irritating skin test concentrations. In this editorial we summarize the time line, seminal findings, and major realizations of 25 years of research on the mechanisms, diagnosis, and management of perioperative hypersensitivity.

Neuromuscular blocking agent induced hypersensitivity reaction exploration: an update

Acute hypersensitivity reactions (AHRs) occurring in present-day anaesthesia can have severe, sometimes fatal, consequences and their incidence is increasing. The most frequent allergens responsible for AHR during anaesthesia are neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) (70% of the cases) followed by antibiotics (18%), patent blue dye and methylene blue dye (5%), and latex (5%). Following an AHR, strategies for subsequent anaesthetic procedures (especially the choice of an NMBA) may be difficult to formulate due to inconclusive diagnostic analysis in up to 30% of AHRs. Current diagnosis of AHR relies on the detection of mast cell degranulation products and drug-specific type E immunoglobulins (IgE) in order to document an IgE-mediated anaphylaxis (IgE endotype). Nonetheless, other IgE-independent pathways can be involved in AHR, but their detection is not currently available in standard situations. The different mechanisms (endotypes) involved in peri-operative AHR may contribute to the inconclusive diagnostic work-up and this generates uncertainty concerning the culpable drug and strategy for subsequent anaesthetic procedures. This review provides details on the IgE endotype; an update on non-IgE related endotypes and the novel diagnostic tools that could characterise them. This detailed update is intended to provide explicit clinical reasoning tools to the anaesthesiologist faced with an incomplete AHR diagnostic work-up and to facilitate the decision-making process regarding anaesthetic procedures following an AHR to NMBAs.

The Nonirritating Concentrations of Neuromuscular Blocking Agents and Related Compounds

BACKGROUND

Skin testing (ST) concentrations of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), NMBA-reversal agents, and the sugammadex-rocuronium inclusion complex (S-R-Cx) vary widely among reports.

OBJECTIVE

To determine maximal ST nonirritant concentrations (NICs) of NMBAs (cisatracurium, rocuronium, succinylcholine, and vecuronium), NMBA-reversal agents (neostigmine and sugammadex), and S-R-Cx in NMBA-tolerant and NMBA-naïve participants.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective study between October 2019 and November 2021 of adult participants with or without a planned surgical procedure. The reference standard was tolerance of medication tested during a procedure (NMBA-tolerant group) before ST. Participants received skin prick testing (SPT) and intradermal test (IDT) injections at 5-7 increasing concentrations of 1 or more medications. All medications were reconstituted according to package insert instructions and diluted with 0.9% saline. A concentration was considered irritant when more than 5% of participants had a positive test per ST positivity criteria (wheal ≥3 mm than initial wheal and associated erythema of the same size or greater than wheal). We also compared our results with current guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 187 participants (78% NMBA-tolerant) underwent 7812 skin tests. All undiluted SPT concentrations were nonirritant. We found the following maximal IDT NICs (mg/mL): cisatracurium (0.02), rocuronium (0.05), succinylcholine (0.8), vecuronium (0.01), neostigmine (0.2), sugammadex (50), and S-R-Cx (sugammadex 7.14 + rocuronium 2).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that SPT may be performed with undiluted stock concentrations. We confirm maximal IDT NICs for cisatracurium and rocuronium. We also propose that currently recommended maximal IDT NICs of succinylcholine, neostigmine, sugammadex, and S-R-Cx could be increased, whereas the maximal IDT NIC of vecuronium could be decreased compared with current guidelines and prior reports.

Perioperative Hypersensitivity Evaluation and Management: A Practical Approach

Perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) is an uncommon, potentially life-threatening event. Identification of POH can be difficult given the lack of familiarity, physiological effects of anesthesia, draping of the patient during surgery, and potential nonimmunological factors contributing to signs and symptoms. Given the unique nature and large number of medications administered in the perioperative setting, evaluation of POH can be challenging. In this paper, we present a practical approach to management with an emphasis on understanding what happens in the operating room, the overlap of signs and symptoms between nonimmunological and immunological reactions, acute management, and subsequent evaluation. In addition, we provide a strategy for further review of an initially negative evaluation and emphasize the importance of establishing management plans for the patient as well as providing recommendations to the medical, anesthesia, and surgical teams for future surgeries. A critical factor for successful management at all points in the process is a close collaboration between the anesthesia and the allergy teams.

A multidisciplinary approach to verify and de-label of drug allergic histories in a university hospital in Thailand: a retrospective descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Mislabeling of drug allergic histories causes avoidable negative impacts on patients and healthcare system. Although multidisciplinary adverse drug reaction (ADR) services to verify and de-label drug allergic histories have been operated in particular hospitals in Thailand, their performances have not been reported. This research aimed to examine the effectiveness of verification of drug allergic history and de-labeling (VD) services of the physician-led multidisciplinary ADR clinic.

METHODS

This research was a retrospective descriptive study. Medical charts of patients with at least one drug allergic history who received VD services at the multidisciplinary clinic between January 2017 to December 2018, were reviewed. Data on the history of drug allergy, VD services, and results were analyzed and presented using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Seventy patients' charts were reviewed, and 171 unconfirmed drug allergic histories were identified. 79.53% of the reported reactions involved skin and soft tissues. The most found adverse skin reactions were maculopapular rash, pruritic and erythematous rash, and angioedema. The remaining 20.47% were systemic reactions which included drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), anaphylaxis, and nausea/vomiting was the most prevalent. Antituberculosis, beta-lactam antibiotics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the most reported suspected drugs. Drug allergic history reviewing by physicians or pharmacists could confirm and de-label for 3 and 20 reactions, respectively. Seven and one reactions were confirmed by enzyme-linked immunospot assay and patch test, respectively. The provocation tests with the suspected or alternative drug were conducted in 64 reactions. Twelve reactions were confirmed, and 45 reactions were de-labeled. Totally, 65/171 (38.01%) allergic histories were successfully de-labeled, 23/171 (13.45%) were confirmed, and 83/171 (48.53%) were inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of drug allergic histories were successfully confirmed or de-labeled by the multidisciplinary ADR team. The collaborative activities of various healthcare professionals, consisting of physicians, nurse, and pharmacists as presented in the study were effective in VD services and should be implemented in other healthcare settings.

Diagnostic value of a medical algorithm for investigation of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) is challenging, and accurate screening tools are needed to optimize the diagnostic process. We aimed to assess and validate the diagnostic value of a published algorithm (using tryptase and clinical presentation) to identify appropriate individuals for further testing for IgE-mediated POH.

METHODS

We analysed the clinical presentation (tryptase elevation, cardiovascular, respiratory, skin involvement) of patients proceeding to testing for possible IgE-mediated POH at a single tertiary referral centre, relative to subsequent skin testing and specific IgE results. Clinical presentations by drug class were also determined.

RESULTS

In 293 consecutive patients, the use of a published algorithm based on one or more of; (i) defined increase in serum tryptase, (ii) involvement of at least two-organ systems, or (iii) presentation with new urticaria and/or angioedema; was highly sensitive [98.8% (CI95: 95.7-99.9%)] but less specific [34.6% (CI95: 25.7-44.4%)] in identifying patients testing positive on skin testing and/or specific IgE. Presentation with cardiovascular symptoms was also sensitive [89.8%(CI95: 84.2-94.0%)], while the combination of respiratory symptoms and increased tryptase was most specific [85.9%(CI95:76.6-92.5%)]. Respiratory involvement was more common in neuromuscular blocking agent allergy, while urticaria/angioedema was more common in antibiotic allergy.

CONCLUSION

The published algorithm (of tryptase rise, two-organ involvement or new urticaria/angioedema) is highly sensitive, and appropriate as a screening tool to identify patients suitable for testing for IgE-mediated POH.

Cardiac Arrest Following Remimazolam-Induced Anaphylaxis: A Case Report

Remimazolam is a recently approved benzodiazepine sedative. We report a case of a 72-year-old man who experienced a cardiac arrest due to severe anaphylaxis immediately after general anesthesia induction. Based on the results of skin tests, including those for dextran 40, an excipient in the remimazolam solution, and a review of drugs given during 3 anesthetics, remimazolam was identified as the probable causative agent. Although remimazolam is structurally similar to midazolam, the patient was not allergic to midazolam as demonstrated before and after anaphylaxis. This report highlights the potential risk of allergic reactions to remimazolam.

Standards for practical intravenous rapid drug desensitization & delabeling: A WAO committee statement

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to intravenous drugs can be severe and might leave patients and doctors in a difficult position where an essential treatment or intervention has to be suspended. Even if virtually any intravenous medication can potentially trigger a life-threatening DHR, chemotherapeutics, biologics, and antibiotics are amongst the intravenous drugs most frequently involved in these reactions. Admittedly, suspending such treatments may negatively impact the survival outcomes or the quality of life of affected patients. Delabeling pathways and rapid drug desensitization (RDD) can help reactive patients stay on first-choice therapies instead of turning to less efficacious, less cost-effective, or more toxic alternatives. However, these are high-complexity and high-risk techniques, which usually need expert teams and allergy-specific techniques (skin testing, in vitro testing, drug provocation testing) to ensure safety, an accurate diagnosis, and personalized management. Unfortunately, there are significant inequalities within and among countries in access to allergy departments with the necessary expertise and resources to offer these techniques and tackle these DHRs optimally. The main objective of this consensus document is to create a great benefit for patients worldwide by aiding allergists to expand the scope of their practice and support them with evidence, data, and experience from leading groups from around the globe. This statement of the Drug Hypersensitivity Committee of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) aims to be a comprehensive practical guide on the technical aspects of implementing acute-onset intravenous hypersensitivity delabeling and RDD for a wide range of drugs. Thus, the manuscript does not only focus on clinical pathways. Instead, it also provides guidance on topics usually left unaddressed, namely, internal validation, continuous quality improvement, creating a healthy multidisciplinary environment, and redesigning care (including a specific supplemental section on a real-life example of how to design a dedicated space that can combine basic and complex diagnostic and therapeutic techniques in allergy).

Inherent clinical properties of non-immediate hypersensitivity to iodinated contrast media

BACKGROUND

Iodinated contrast media (ICM) is a frequently used compound in radiology. Non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) appear when a patient leaves the department and usually are undocumented. True hypersensitivity in this group is rarely proved.

METHODS

Single-centre 2014-2018 data were retrospectively analysed. HSR to ICM were classified and investigated according to the time of occurrence (immediate <1 hour, non-immediate >1 hour). ENDA questionnaire and skin tests (prick or intradermal test) were performed according to ENDA/EAACI recommendations.

RESULTS

69 patients with a clinical history of HSR to ICM were identified, 72.46% were females (n = 50). The average age was 56 (SD ± 13.16) years. Non-immediate HSR occurred in 28.99% (n = 20) patients. The suspected culprit drugs were: iodixanol 20% (n = 4), iopromide 5% (n = 1), diatrizoate 10% (n = 2) and iohexol 10% (n = 2). Among non-immediate HSR 96.00% (n = 19) of patients had skin rashes. A statistically significant correlation was found between the clinical symptoms and the type of reaction (p-value <0.05): isolated skin manifestations mostly occurred in non-immediate HSR 75.00% (n = 15). Only 13.04% (n = 9) of all the patients were proved to be allergic to a certain ICM after the proposed diagnostic workup.

CONCLUSIONS

One-third of the hypersensitivity reactions investigated were classified as non-immediate type. Most of them manifested with isolated skin symptoms. The most frequent culprit drug encountered was iodixanol. The overall non-immediate hypersensitivity confirmation rate after diagnostic evaluation was only 15%.

Clinical reasoning in anaphylactic shock: addressing the challenges faced by anaesthesiologists in real time: A clinical review and management algorithms

Acute hypersensitivity reactions to drugs occur infrequently during anaesthesia and the peri-operative period. When clinical presentation includes the classical triad, erythema, cardiovascular abnormalities and increased airway pressure, the diagnosis is evident and the challenge is to prescribe a therapeutic regimen according to guidelines and to manage refractory signs in a timely manner. In many situations, however, the initial clinical signs are isolated, such as increased airway pressure or arterial hypotension. Rendering a differential diagnosis with causes and mechanisms other than acute hypersensitivity reactions (AHRs) is difficult, delaying treatment with possible worsening of the clinical signs, and even death, in previously healthy individuals. In these difficult diagnostic situations, clinical reasoning is mandatory, and guidelines do not explicitly explain the elements on which clinical reasoning can be built. In this article, based on clinical evidence whenever available, experimental data and pathophysiology, we propose algorithms that have been evaluated by experts. The goal of these algorithms is to provide explicit elements on which the differential diagnosis of AHRs can be made, accelerating the implementation of adequate therapy.

Investigation of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide an update on how best to manage the investigation of suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions based on recent literature and key publications.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the past two years, several very important initiatives have been taken in the field of perioperative hypersensitivity. The 6th national audit project in the United Kingdom has provided new knowledge through a series of studies, including a nationwide prospective study, and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has commissioned a position paper with updated recommendations for investigations. Lastly, a large international working group comprising experts in anesthesiology, allergology, and immunology, the International Suspected Perioperative Allergic Reactions group, has published a series of articles providing updates and new insights into several different key areas of perioperative hypersensitivity.

SUMMARY

The investigation of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions is highly complex and aims to identify the correct culprit to ensure future avoidance but also to disprove allergy to other suspected culprits, making them available for subsequent anesthesia. To achieve this, close collaboration between anesthesiologists and allergists is called upon to ensure the best possible outcome for the patient.

Prevention of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions: Prescreening and Premedication

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) are heterogeneous in their pathomechanisms, clinical presentation, severity, and outcomes. Novel DHR mechanisms, phenotypes, and endotypes have been described. The key to prevention from further exposure to the culprit drugs involves correct identification of the putative drug through a combination of in vitro and/or in vivo tests, accurate drug allergy labeling and reporting, and electronic decision support systems within electronic medical records to prevent future accidental prescribing. Prescreening and premedication, the focus of this review, may be a useful adjunct to preventive measures in certain situations. After an index immediate drug hypersensitivity reaction, prescreening may be useful in perioperative anaphylaxis, and iodinated (ICM) and gadolinium-based contrast media (GCM) where the culprit and potential alternative agents are skin tested. In certain nonimmediate DHR, pharmacogenomic prescreening may be used before prescribing high-risk drugs (eg, carbamazepine and allopurinol) where specific human-leukocyte antigen genotypes are associated with severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Premedication with antihistamine and systemic corticosteroids is another therapeutic strategy to prevent infusion reactions for certain biologicals and chemotherapeutic agents, in cases of perioperative anaphylaxis, ICM and GCM DHR, and clonal mast cell disorders. Rapid drug desensitization may also be used to induce temporary tolerance in situations where there are limited alternative drugs.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis: Evaluation and Management

Perioperative anaphylaxis (PA) is a rare but life-threatening condition that poses diagnostic and management challenges in the operating room. The incidence of severe perioperative reactions is estimated to be approximately 1:7000-10,000. Management involves both immediate stabilization of the patient and identifying the culprit agent. Identification is essential to prevent recurrence of the event in subsequent surgeries and to avoid unnecessary labeling of drug allergy. Identifying all possible exposures including medications, disinfectants, latex, and dyes and choosing the appropriate tests are essential for proper evaluation. To identify the culprit, primary testing modalities include tryptase at the time of the reaction with subsequent levels and skin testing with nonirritating concentrations to the medications and substances utilized during the procedure and those potentially used as alternates. This strategy provides guidance for future surgeries and procedures. Close collaboration between the allergy, anesthesiology, and surgery teams is essential for appropriate management of these patients at the time of the reaction, during the post event evaluation and in preparation for subsequent surgeries.

Mast cell activation tests by flow cytometry: A new diagnostic asset?

Since the late nineties, evidence has accumulated that flow-assisted basophil activation test (BAT) might be an accessible and reliable method to explore the mechanisms governing basophil degranulation and diagnostic allowing correct prediction of the clinical outcome following exposure to the offending allergen(s) and cross-reactive structures for different IgE-dependent allergies and particular forms of autoimmune urticaria. Although the BAT offers many advantages over mediator release tests, it is left with some weaknesses that hinder a wider application. It is preferable to perform the BAT analysis within 4 h of collection, and the technique does not advance diagnosis in patients with non-responsive cells. Besides, the BAT is difficult to standardize mainly because of the difficulty to perform large batch analyses that might span over several days. This article reviews the status of flow cytometric mast cell activation test (MAT) using passively sensitized mast cells (MCs) with patients' sera or plasma (henceforth indicated as passive MAT; pMAT) using both MC lines and cultured MCs in the diagnosis of IgE-dependent allergies. In addition, this paper provides guidance for generating human MCs from peripheral blood CD34⁺ progenitor cells (PBCMCs) and correct interpretation of flow cytometric analyses of activated and/or degranulating cells. With the recent recognition of the mas-related G protein-coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2) occupation as a putative mechanism of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs), we also speculate how direct activation of MCs (dMAT)-that is direct activation by MRGPRX2 agonists without prior passive sensitization-could advance paradigms for this novel endotype of IDHRs.

Serious bronchospasm induced by cisatracurium besylate: A case report

RATIONALE

Cis-atracurium as an intermediate-acting non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocker is widely used clinically with less causing cyclic fluctuations and less histamine release. As the use rate increases, allergic reactions and anaphylactoid reactions caused by cis-atracurium increase.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 23-year-old woman underwent laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Airway spasm occurred after anesthesia induction and the operation was suspended. After adjustment, the anesthesia was performed with the same anesthetic scheme again. After induction, skin flushing and airway resistance increased, then the symptoms were relieved. When the cis-atracurium was given again, the symptoms of airway spasm reappeared immediately, and after communicating with the family, the operation was successfully completed with rocuronium.

DIAGNOSES

Serious bronchospasm induced by cisatracurium besylate.

INTERVENTIONS

The patient was undergone assisted ventilation with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and aminophylline 250 mg, methylprednisolone 80 mg were given intravenously.

OUTCOMES

There was no any obvious discomfort in the patient's self-report during the next day's visit. The patient was discharged 7 days later. No abnormalities were observed during following 4 weeks.

LESSONS

Although the anaphylactoid reactions caused by cis-atracurium are rare, the bronchospasm and anaphylactic shock caused by it greatly increase the risk of anesthesia, which should be taken seriously by clinicians. Increased vigilance in diagnosis, and treatment are essential to prevent aggravation and further complication.

Perioperative hypersensitivity reactions during childhood and outcomes of subsequent anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Pediatric perioperative hypersensitivity reactions are rare, and possibly life-threatening. Identification of precise etiology is crucial to circumvent future re-exposures.

AIMS

We aim to evaluate the clinical features and triggers of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions in children, and determine the outcomes of subsequent general anesthesia.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed with patients who underwent skin testing for general anesthesia between 2007 and 2019. We noted demographic features and skin tests (neuromuscular blocking agents, induction agents, and antibiotics). We also recorded specific immunoglobulin Es or provocation results of drugs or substances (latex, chlorhexidine, and ethylene oxide) that patients were exposed to antecedent to the reaction. Telephone interviews were performed to determine the current status of the participants and reconsider subsequent anesthesia.

RESULTS

We enrolled 50 children (58% male) with a suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reaction. The median age was 6.67 (4.4-11.5) years, and the median time between the reaction, and skin tests was 4 (1-36) months. The most common potential causative agents were neuromuscular blocking agents (n = 8), midazolam (n = 3), ketamine (n = 2), and propofol (n = 1). Three children exhibited hypersensitivity to more than one general anesthetics, and three patients were allergic to latex. Thirty-one patients received subsequent anesthesia, and only one patient had a hypersensitivity reaction. A previous history multiple of general anesthesia administration (≥2) increased the risk of reaction to neuromuscular blocking agents.

CONCLUSION

Data on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions during childhood are rare due to limited diagnostic procedures. Different preference of general anesthetics may change the causative agent. Meticulous evaluation is necessary to safely administer subsequent anesthesia.

Approach to Perioperative Anaphylaxis in 2020: Updates in Diagnosis and Management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of the paper is to review the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and manifestations of perioperative anaphylaxis (POA). We seek to review the most common culprits of POA and different diagnostic modalities for evaluation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Specific IgE testing has a limited role in POA evaluation due to lack of widespread availability and low sensitivity. Basophil activation testing is complementary to skin tests and can assist NMBA sensitivity diagnosis in complex cases. In the past years, there has been an exponential increase in suspected teicoplanin allergic reactions in the European Union. Chlorhexidine is also being increasingly implicated as a culprit in POA. Multiple classes of perioperative medications cause POA. Diagnostic modalities available include skin testing with nonirritating concentrations, basophil activation tests, specific IgE, and drug provocation testing. An accurate record and critical analysis of perioperative events is more important than isolated test results. Future studies evaluating the pathophysiology of these reactions and other therapeutic strategies, such as targeting the MRGPRX2 receptor, are needed.

Advances and novel developments in drug hypersensitivity diagnosis

A correct diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) is very important for both the patient and health system. However, DHRs diagnosis is complex, time consuming, requires trained personnel, is not standardized for many drugs, involves procedures not exempt of risk, and in most cases lacks standardized in vivo and in vitro tests. Thus, there is an urgent need for improving the different approaches to diagnose patients with suspected DHRs. In this review, we have analyzed the advances performed in immediate and nonimmediate DHRs diagnosis during the last two years and obtained several conclusions: the significant heterogeneity in current practice among centers illustrates the need to re-evaluate, update, and standardize in vivo tests and protocols for the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected drug allergy. Regarding in vitro tests, the latest studies have focused on increasing their sensitivity or on establishing the sensitivity and specificity for the tests performed with new drugs. There seems to be a consensus about combining in vivo and in vitro tests as the best way to increase the diagnostic accuracy.

[Update on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: joint document from the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) and Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) - Part II: etiology and diagnosis]

This second joint document, written by experts from the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) concerned with perioperative anaphylaxis, aims to review the pathophysiological reaction mechanisms, triggering agents (in adults and children), and the approach for diagnosis during and after an episode of anaphylaxis. As anaphylaxis assessment is extensive, the identification of medications, antiseptics and other substances used at each setting, the comprehensive data documentation, and the use of standardized nomenclature are key points for obtaining more consistent epidemiological information on perioperative anaphylaxis.

Update on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: joint document from the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) and Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) - Part II: etiology and diagnosis

This second joint document, written by experts from the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) concerned with perioperative anaphylaxis, aims to review the pathophysiological reaction mechanisms, triggering agents (in adults and children), and the approach for diagnosis during and after an episode of anaphylaxis. As anaphylaxis assessment is extensive, the identification of medications, antiseptics and other substances used at each setting, the comprehensive data documentation, and the use of standardized nomenclature are key points for obtaining more consistent epidemiological information on perioperative anaphylaxis.