The Importance of Prolonged Provocation in Drug Allergy — Results From a Danish Allergy Clinic

Prolonged versus single dose in penicillin oral challenge testing: protocols for a pilot and definitive randomised controlled trial (PROSPECTOR studies)

INTRODUCTION

Penicillin allergy labels (PALs) are reported in 1 in 10 hospitalised patients globally and associated with inferior patient, hospital and microbiological outcomes; however, the majority are incorrect and should be removed. Direct oral penicillin challenge has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective method for the removal of PALs. However, the question of whether a single dose is sufficient to ascertain true allergy status remains unanswered, with some studies suggesting that extended challenges of 3 or more days are superior for the exclusion of delayed immune reactions. The aim of the PROSPECTOR studies was to determine the feasibility (PROSPECTOR-1) of a definitive trial (PROSPECTOR-2) to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of prolonged oral challenge (ie, 5 days) versus single-dose oral challenge in patients with a delayed or unknown penicillin allergy phenotype (PROSPECTOR-2).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A pair of double-blind two-arm parallel placebo-controlled trials will be undertaken-PROlonged versus Single dose in PEnicillin oral Challenge Testing double-blind parallel group randomised placebo-cOntrolled tRial (PROSPECTOR Studies). Patients with a reported delayed or unknown timing penicillin allergy who have passed a supervised single-dose oral amoxicillin challenge (with or without prior skin testing/single or split dose) will be recruited. Informed patient consent will be granted for sites to recruit patients and collect routine clinical data. PROSPECTOR-1 will assess the safety and feasibility of a placebo-controlled trial for single-dose amoxicillin challenge versus 5-day prolonged oral challenge. PROSPECTOR-2 will assess the superiority of the 5-day prolonged oral challenge compared with single-dose amoxicillin challenge in excluding a delayed immune reaction. PROSPECTOR-2 will commence immediately post completion of PROSPECTOR-1 in a vanguard design, with adjustments to the projected sample size for superiority made following completion of PROSPECTOR-1. PROSPECTOR-2 will commence recruitment immediately following closure of PROSPECTOR-1; however, data from each trial will be analysed separately.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

These studies were reviewed and approved by the Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (PROSPECTOR-1: HREC/99740/Austin-2023 and PROSPECTOR-2: HREC/109785/Austin-2024). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPECTOR-1: ACTRN12623001242617 and PROSPECTOR-2: ACTRN12624001107516.

Clinical Relevance of Specific IgE in Penicillin Allergy Investigation

INTRODUCTION

Patients with immediate type allergic reactions to penicillins are at risk of anaphylaxis on reexposure. Diagnostic gold standard is drug provocation test (DPT) if allergy is not diagnosed by other means, such as skin testing or in vitro testing with measurement of specific IgE. Specific IgE testing carries low risk for the patient and blood sampling can be performed in primary care, but it is reported to have low sensitivity. The aim of this study was to evaluate if clinical characteristics of patients with suspected allergic reactions to penicillin and elevated specific IgE to penicillins, differed from patients without specific IgE, to identify predictors for elevated specific IgE to penicillins.

METHODS

Levels of specific IgE to five penicillins (penicillin G, penicillin V, amoxicillin, ampicillin, and penicillin minor determinants) were available for 9,100 patients. Using multiple logistic regression, clinical data from 430 patients in this group who had elevated specific IgE to one or more penicillins were compared to data from 4,094 patients without specific IgE to penicillins, who had undergone DPT with a penicillin.

RESULTS

In total 5.2% of patients had elevated specific IgE to one or more penicillins. Significantly more patients with elevated specific IgE had a history of immediate type reactions (<2 h) (OR = 4.34, p < 0.001); circulatory symptoms (OR = 1.63, p = 0.03) or angioedema (OR = 1.46, p = 0.005). Also, significantly more patients with elevated specific IgE had been treated with adrenaline (OR = 2.21, p = 0.005), steroids (OR = 1.76, p < 0.001), or antihistamines (OR = 1.83, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A history of an immediate type reaction requiring treatment, combined with elevated specific IgE to one or more penicillins is suggestive of an IgE mediated penicillin allergy and further allergy investigations may not be needed. Specific IgE to penicillins may be used early in allergy investigation of patients with severe immediate type reactions to penicillins.

INTRODUCTION

Patients with immediate type allergic reactions to penicillins are at risk of anaphylaxis on reexposure. Diagnostic gold standard is drug provocation test (DPT) if allergy is not diagnosed by other means, such as skin testing or in vitro testing with measurement of specific IgE. Specific IgE testing carries low risk for the patient and blood sampling can be performed in primary care, but it is reported to have low sensitivity. The aim of this study was to evaluate if clinical characteristics of patients with suspected allergic reactions to penicillin and elevated specific IgE to penicillins, differed from patients without specific IgE, to identify predictors for elevated specific IgE to penicillins.

METHODS

Levels of specific IgE to five penicillins (penicillin G, penicillin V, amoxicillin, ampicillin, and penicillin minor determinants) were available for 9,100 patients. Using multiple logistic regression, clinical data from 430 patients in this group who had elevated specific IgE to one or more penicillins were compared to data from 4,094 patients without specific IgE to penicillins, who had undergone DPT with a penicillin.

RESULTS

In total 5.2% of patients had elevated specific IgE to one or more penicillins. Significantly more patients with elevated specific IgE had a history of immediate type reactions (<2 h) (OR = 4.34, p < 0.001); circulatory symptoms (OR = 1.63, p = 0.03) or angioedema (OR = 1.46, p = 0.005). Also, significantly more patients with elevated specific IgE had been treated with adrenaline (OR = 2.21, p = 0.005), steroids (OR = 1.76, p < 0.001), or antihistamines (OR = 1.83, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A history of an immediate type reaction requiring treatment, combined with elevated specific IgE to one or more penicillins is suggestive of an IgE mediated penicillin allergy and further allergy investigations may not be needed. Specific IgE to penicillins may be used early in allergy investigation of patients with severe immediate type reactions to penicillins.

Delabeling of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics in hospitalized patients: a prospective study evaluating cost savings

BACKGROUND

Patients with a penicillin allergy label are at risk of an associated increase in adverse antibiotic events and hospitalization costs.

AIM

We aimed to study the economic savings derived from the correct diagnosis and delabeling inpatients with suspected beta-lactam allergy, considering the acquisition cost of antimicrobials prescribed during a patient's hospital stay.

METHOD

We prospectively evaluated patients admitted to the University Hospital of Salamanca who had been labeled as allergic to beta-lactams and performed a delabeling study. Subsequently, cost differences between antibiotics administered before and after the allergy study and those derived from those patients who received alternative antibiotics during admission and those who switched to beta-lactams after the allergy study were calculated.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-seven inpatients labeled as allergic to beta-lactams underwent a delabeling study; 34 (19.2%) were confirmed to have allergy to beta-lactams. Of the total number of patients, 136 (76.8%) received antibiotics during their hospitalization, involving a mean (SD) cost of €203.07 (318.42) and a median (IQR) cost of €88.97 (48.86-233.56). After delabeling in 85 (62.5%) patients, the antibiotic treatment was changed to beta-lactams. In this group of patients, the mean cost (SD) decreased from €188.91 (351.09) before the change to 91.31 (136.07) afterward, and the median cost (IQR) decreased from €72.92 (45.82-211.99) to €19.24 (11.66-168). The reduction was significant compared to the median cost of patients whose treatment was not changed to beta-lactams (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Delabeling hospitalized patients represents a cost-saving measure for treating patients labeled as allergic to beta-lactams.

Narrative review of recent developments and the future of penicillin allergy de-labelling by non-allergists

This article outlines recent developments in non-allergist delivered penicillin allergy de-labelling (PADL), discusses remaining controversies and uncertainties and explores the future for non-allergist delivered PADL. Recent developments include national guidelines for non-allergist delivered PADL and validation of penicillin allergy risk assessment tools. Controversies remain on which penicillin allergy features are low risk of genuine allergy. In the future genetic or immunological tests may facilitate PADL.

Challenging dogmas: Intravenous versus oral beta-lactam antibiotic provocation tests

Background

Drug provocation tests (DPT) are considered the gold standard procedure to ascertain the diagnosis of beta-lactam (BL) allergy. Regarding route of administration, current recommendations prioritize oral challenges, considering them safer, and reserving the intravenous route for drugs for which this is the only formulation.

Objective

To compare in terms of tolerance and safety two protocols of BL DPT, using an oral protocol (OR-DPT) and an intravenous protocol (IV-DPT).

Methods

A descriptive, retrospective study was performed, including adult patients who underwent IV-DPT or OR-DPT for suspected immediate or delayed hypersensitivity to BL antibiotics, over a period of 4 years (between January 2018 and December 2021). Demographical data, index hypersensivity reactions' characteristics and tolerance to DPT were reviewed.

Results

A total of 1036 patients underwent DPT, mean age of 56.8 (standard deviation, SD, 17.8) years, 655 were women (63.2%). Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) had occurred in 564 of patients (54.4%). OR-DPT were performed in 439 (42.4%) and IV-DPT in 597 (57.6%). The frequency of reactions during DPT, regardless of the route used, was low (3.6%): only 16 (3.6%) in OR-DPT and 21 (3.5%) in IV-DPT. From IV-DPT, 16 out 21 DHR during DPT were immediate compared with 4 out of 16 in OR-DPT. Adjusted relative risk of developing a hypersensitivity reaction during IV-DPT versus OR-DPT was 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI)0.57-2.22).

Conclusion

The results suggest that OR-DPT and IV-DPT are both safe procedures when adequately performed. However, IV-DPT protocols showed a higher rate of immediate DHR during DPT probably due to the selection of basal high-risk patients to undergo IV-DPT. In conclusion, IV-DPT may be considered as an option for challenges in drug-allergy studies, entailing a precise administration.

The importance of clinical history in the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity in children

BACKGROUND

In case of suspected hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to drugs, a challenging area for pediatricians is detecting relevant elements in the parent-reported history, in order to reach a definite diagnosis. We analyzed the concordance between the description of the HR and the medical reports documented at the time of the event. Furthermore, we studied any correlation between clinical history variables and the prediction of true allergy.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected 50 charts of children referred to our Allergy Unit, after a previous access to the Emergency Department. We compared the description of the HR at acute phase to the history told by parents. Type and timing of the HR and culprit drug were classified as "known" or "unknown." The diagnosis was confirmed or excluded at the end of the investigations. Logistic regression analysis was performed to find any significant association.

RESULTS

The type of the HR was known in 74%, the timing in 28%, and the culprit drug in 98%. We showed that having had a severe HR had an increased odds of remembering the timing; being older >6 years and having had an immediate HR had an increased odds of remembering the type; time to diagnostic was lower in patients whose parents remembered the type of HR.

CONCLUSION

Our paper underlines the importance of an accurate anamnesis at the time of the event. Providing the physicians with a standardized Case Report Form could be a useful tool to simplify the diagnostic work-up and minimize mistakes due to lack of memory.

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.

Is a Prolonged Drug Provocation Test Better Than a Single-Day Drug Provocation Test? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

There is currently no standardized duration of drug provocation test (DPT) for confirming/delabeling beta-lactam hypersensitivity reaction (BL-HSR).

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to investigate the added diagnostic value of extended-day over single-day DPT for confirming/delabeling BL-HSR in adults and children.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL online databases were searched from inception to March 15, 2023, for studies that performed extended-day DPT to confirm/delabel BL-HSR. Risk difference and risk ratio were used to compare the proportions of patients with confirmed BL-HSR by single-day or extended-day DPT.

RESULTS

A total of 10,371 DPTs from 42 studies were included. Extended-day DPTs ranged from 2 to 7 days, or as long as index reactions were reported (maximum 10 days). The overall prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR was 6.96% (3.31% during the first-day DPT, and 3.65% during extended-day DPT). Approximately half of the positive reactions during extended-day DPT occurred during the second/third day. The increased detected pool prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR yielded by extended-day DPT was 0.03 (95% CI, 0.02%-0.04%; I2 = 57.69%; P < .001), and the risk ratio of positive reactions between extended-day and single-day DPT was 1.94 (95% CI, 1.62-2.33; I2 = 36.26%; P < .001). The risk difference increased per 1% increase in prevalence of BL-HSR by 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4%-0.7%; P < .001). Twenty-three severe reactions occurred during DPT, and only 2 severe reactions (0.02%) occurred during extended-day DPT. An additional 28 extended-day DPTs were needed to identify 1 mild reaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR observed during extended-day DPT could be attributed to the first-day DPT. As a result, our findings do not conclusively support the use of extended-day DPT over single-day DPT. Further studies, incorporating a washout period, are required to comprehensively compare these 2 approaches.

A new pathway for penicillin delabeling in Norway

Background

Penicillin allergy is self-reported by 3-10% of patients admitted to hospital. The label is wrong in 90% of the cases and has severe health implications. Penicillin-delabeling can reverse the negative effects of the label, and pathways adapted to local practice are needed. No tools are available in Norway for penicillin delabeling outside an allergy clinic.

Objective

To create and validate the first penicillin delabeling pathway applicable outside an allergy clinic in Norway.

Methods

An interdisciplinary taskforce created a penicillin allergy delabeling program (PAD) adapted to the Norwegian health care system. This was validated in a prospective, single-center study. Very low-risk and low-risk patients underwent a direct oral penicillin challenge and high-risk patients were referred for allergologic evaluation.

Results

One-hundred forty-nine patients declaring penicillin allergy were included. Seventy-four (50%) were very-low- and low risk patients suitable for a direct oral penicillin challenge resulting in only 1 mild reaction. Sixty high-risk patients were eligible for an oral penicillin challenge after allergologic evaluation; 3 patients reacted non-severely.

Conclusion

We have created and demonstrated feasibility of the first penicillin delabeling program (PAD) applicable in a hospital setting outside an allergy clinic in Norway. Our data suggest this is safe and beneficial, with 49% patients delabeled through a direct oral penicillin challenge, performed without any serious adverse events, and an overall 87% delabeling rate.

[Reproducibilidad clínica de reacciones de hipersensibilidad a fármacos en pruebas de exposición controlada]

Objective

To assess the reproducibility of symptoms in drug challenge tests.

Methods

The study included patients with positive cutaneous or challenge test throughout 2019. For each patient, clinical suspicion according to Karch-Lasagna algorithm was registered. Primary outcome was the reproducibility of symptoms in the provocation tests using a paired analysis of data with McNemar test.

Results

Eighty-nine patients were included, 16 of them presented more than one positive test. Thirty were skin tests positive and 75 reacted to provocation tests. Eighty nine percent of patients who reacted in challenge test were probably or possibly reactors according to Karch-Lasagna scale. Symptoms of initial reaction did not differ from those triggered in challenge tests.

Conclusions

Karch-Lasagna scale is useful in predicting the response to drug provocation tests. In most of the positive studies, results were suggested by clinical history and no differences were found between symptoms triggered in challenge test and that referred to in the previous reaction.

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.

The Safety of the Direct Drug Provocation Test in Beta-Lactam Hypersensitivity in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Direct drug provocation test (DPT) without prior skin testing (ST) has been investigated in children suspected of being at risk for beta-lactam (BL) hypersensitivity reaction (HSR). However, no systematic review and meta-analysis has investigated the efficacy and safety of direct DPT for BL-HSR in children.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence of BL-HSR by direct DPT and the safety of direct DPT in children.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL from their inception to July 23, 2022, for studies that performed direct DPT in children with suspected BL-HSR, or for studies that performed DPT in all cases with ST results, but they ignored the ST results. The true prevalence was defined as the proportion of children who experienced an HSR during direct DPT. Safety was determined according to the proportion of children who developed a dangerous reaction following DPT.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies with 8,334 direct challenges were included. Fifteen studies included patients who presented with either immediate or nonimmediate HSR, and the majority of the index reactions were nonsevere. Amoxicillin/amoxicillin-clavulanic acid was the most commonly used during the DPT. The pooled prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR was 5.23% (95% CI 4.17-6.39; I² = 72%). Immediate and nonimmediate HSR were reported in 0.8% (95% CI 0.43-1.25; I² = 55.1%) and 3.69% (95% CI 2.66-4.87; I² = 79.77%), respectively. Severe reactions were found in 3 cases with the frequency of 0.036% (95% CI 0.012-0.112; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of BL-HSR by direct DPT was 5.23%, and the frequency of severe reactions from direct DPT was very low (0.036%). Our findings support direct DPT as a safe and effective delabeling tool in children with suspected nonsevere BL-HSR.

Drug reintroduction testing and beta-lactam hypersensitivity in children: Protocols and results, a 12-year experience

Introduction: Oral provocation test (OPT) to beta-lactam antibiotics (BL) is a gold standard in allergology investigation. We aimed to demonstrate the contribution of OPT in BL hypersensitivity (HS) indicated as a first step in diagnosis. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study from 2007 to 2019, in a single Tunisian tertiary care academic center. It concerned children with presumed non-severe allergic manifestations to BL, with a reaction that has occurred at least 6 months before the OPT. Results: We identified 35 children for inclusion. After the first OPT, a second OPT with a different BL was performed in case of a positive result of the first one. In 12 cases (34.2%), the OPT elicited a reaction. In eight cases the allergy was to penicillin and in two cases to cephalosporins (cefixim). Cross-reactivity was noted in two cases. Conclusion: An OPT to BL indicated in the first instance in non-severe reaction in children will allow a rapid diagnosis in case of suspicion of HS to BL.

Advances in the Understanding of Drug Hypersensitivity: 2012 Through 2022

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

Improving drug allergy label accuracy by supervised safety- and protocol-driven evaluation

Introduction: Drug allergies are often self-reported but of unknown accuracy. We carried out a prospective study to examine the utility and safety of formal allergology evaluation, and to identify factors associated with accurate drug allergy labels. Method: All patients who underwent drug allergy evaluation in our clinic during the study period were recruited. Baseline demographics, characteristics of index hypersensitivity reaction and outcomes of evaluation were recorded. Results: A total of 331 patients from March 2019 to June 2021 completed drug allergy evaluation to index drugs of concern. There were 123 (37%) male patients, and the mean age was 49 years (standard deviation 17). There were 170 beta-lactam antibiotics, 53 peri-operative drugs, 43 others, 38 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and 27 non-beta-lactam antibiotic evaluations. Index reaction occurred within 5 years in 165 (50%) patients, with latency of less than 4 hours in 125 (38%) patients. The most common index reactions were rash, angioedema and urticaria. There were 57 (17%) evaluations stratified as low risk, 222 (67%) moderate risk, and 52 (16%) high risk based on multidisciplinary consensus. Allergy label was found to be false (negative drug evaluation) in 248 (75%) patients, while 16/237 (7%) skin tests, 44/331 (13%) in-clinic graded challenge, and 23/134 (17%) home prolonged challenges were positive (true drug allergy). The most common evaluation reactions were rash and urticaria. No cases of anaphylaxis were elicited. Conclusion: Seventy-five percent of drug allergy labels are inaccurate. Risk-stratified, protocolised allergy evaluation is safe. Prolonged drug challenge increases the sensitivity of drug allergy evaluation and should therefore be performed when indicated. Keywords: Drug allergy, drug hypersensitivity, graded challenge, prolonged drug provocation, skin testing

Simplifying the drug provocation test in non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions to amoxicillin in children: The experience of a tertiary care allergy unit

BACKGROUND

Mild non-immediate reactions (NIR) to beta-lactams (βLs) are the most common manifestation of adverse drug reactions in children, and the drug provocation test (DPT) remains the gold standard for diagnosis. However, there are still controversies about the protocol that should be used, especially regarding the administration of doses and the DPT length.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate a pediatric population with a history of mild NIR to amoxicillin (AMX) or to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (AMX/CL) who underwent a diagnostic workup including a DPT with the culprit drug, to understand if a graded DPT or, instead, a single full dose could be the most appropriate way of administration in clinical practice.

METHODS

The data of children were retrospectively analyzed for a 5-year period, with demographic and clinical characteristics collected. We reported the allergy workup and the results of the DPT performed with the administration of incremental doses and a prolonged DPT at home for a total of 5 days.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-four patients were included. Overall, 23/354 (6.5%) DPTs were positive: 11/23 patients showed a reaction after 2-8 h after the last dose on the 1st or 2nd day (1 reacted 30 min after the last dose), 1/23 reacted with urticaria 30 min after the first dose, 11/23 reacted at home on the 5th day of the DPT.

CONCLUSION

This paper indirectly suggests that a single therapeutic dose administered on the 1st day of a DPT could be safe in the diagnostic workup of mild NIR to AMX/CL. Moreover, this could be less time-consuming as patients would spend less time in the hospital, also considering the public health restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

New diagnostıc perspectives in the management of pediatrıc beta-lactam allergy

Since overdiagnosis of beta-lactam (BL) allergy is common in the pediatric population, delabeling is a critical part of antimicrobial stewardship. Undesirable consequences of inaccurate BL allergy labeling can be handled by incorporating traditional delabeling or newer risk-based strategies into antibiotic stewardship programs. Conventional assessment of BL allergy relies upon a stepwise algorithm including a clinical history with skin testing followed by drug provocation tests (DPTs). However, a growing number of studies highlighted the suboptimal diagnostic value of skin testing in children. Recently, there has been a paradigm shift in the practice of BL allergy assessment due to recent challenging data which emphasize the safety and accuracy of direct DPTs in children with a suspicion of non-immediate mild cutaneous reactions such as maculopapular eruption, delayed urticaria, and possibly also for benign immediate reactions such as urticaria/angioedema. Identifying low-risk BL allergy patients, in whom skin tests can be skipped and proceeding directly to DPTs could be safe, has become a hot topic in recent years. New risk stratification and predictive modeling studies that have the potential to better predict BL allergy risk status have recently been introduced into the field of drug allergy, particularly in adults. However, in contrast to adults, risk assessment studies in children are rare, and optimal risk definitions are controversial. In the coming years, promising potential methods to elucidate the predictors of BL allergy in children will require multidimensional approaches that may include predictive analytics, artificial intelligence techniques, and point-of-care clinical decision tools.

An EAACI Task Force report on allergy to beta-lactams in children: Clinical entities and diagnostic procedures

Beta-lactam (BL) allergy suspicion is common in children and constitutes a major public health problem, with an impact on patient's health and on medical costs. However, it has been found that most of these reactions are not confirmed by a complete allergic workup. The diagnostic value of the currently available allergy tests has been investigated intensively recently by different groups throughout the world. This has led to major changes in the management of children with a suspected BL allergy. Particularly, it is now well accepted that skin tests can be skipped before the drug provocation test in children with a benign non-immediate reaction to BL. However, there is still a debate on the optimal allergic workup to perform in children with a benign immediate reaction. In addition, management of children with severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions remains difficult. In this review, based on a selection of the most relevant studies found in the literature, we will review and discuss the diagnosis of different forms of BL allergy in children.

Delabeling Delayed Drug Hypersensitivity: How Far Can You Safely Go?

Delayed immune-mediated adverse drug reactions (IM-ADRs) are defined as reactions occurring more than 6 hours after dosing. They include heterogeneous clinical phenotypes that are typically T-cell-mediated reactions with distinct mechanisms across a wide spectrum of severity from benign exanthems through to life-threatening cutaneous or organ-specific diseases. For mild reactions such as benign exanthem, considerations for delabeling are similar to immediate reactions and may include a graded or single-dose drug challenge with or without preceding skin or patch testing. Evaluation of challenging cases such as the patient who is on multiple drugs at the time a severe delayed IM-ADR occurs should prioritize clinical ascertainment of the most likely phenotype and implicated drug(s). Although not widely available and validated, procedures such as patch testing, delayed intradermal skin testing, and laboratory-based functional drug assays or genetic (human leukocyte antigen) testing may provide valuable information to further help risk stratify patients and identify the likely implicated and/or cross-reactive drug(s). The decision to use a drug challenge as a diagnostic or delabeling tool in a patient with a severe delayed IM-ADR should weigh the risk-benefit ratio, balancing the severity and priority for the treatment of the underlying, and the availability of alternative efficacious and safe treatments.

Implementation of a pharmacist-led penicillin allergy de-labelling service in a public hospital

BACKGROUND

Inaccurate allergy labelling results in inappropriate antimicrobial management of the patient, which may affect clinical outcome, increase the risk of adverse events and increase costs. Inappropriate use of alternative antibiotics has implications for antimicrobial stewardship programmes and microbial resistance.

METHODS

All adult inpatients labelled as penicillin allergic were identified and screened for eligibility by the study pharmacist. An accurate allergy and medication history was taken. Patients were 'de-labelled', underwent oral challenge or were referred to an immunology clinic, if study criteria were met. All patients included in the study were followed-up 1 year after intervention.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty eligible patients with a label of 'penicillin allergy' were identified. The prevalence of reported penicillin allergy at Middlemore Hospital was 11%. We found that 80% of study patients could be 'de-labelled'. Of those, 80% were 'de-labelled' after an interview with the pharmacist alone, 16% had an uneventful oral challenge and 4% were deemed to be inappropriately labelled after referral to an immunology clinic. Appropriately labelled patients accounted for 20% of the study population. Changes to inpatient antibiotic therapy were recommended in 61% of 'de-labelled' patients, of which no patients had adverse events after commencing on penicillin antibiotics. At the 1 year follow-up, 98% of patients who were 'de-labelled' had no adverse events to repeated administration of penicillin antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that a pharmacist-led allergy management service is a safe option to promote antimicrobial stewardship and appropriate allergy labelling.

Towards a more precise diagnosis of hypersensitivity to beta-lactams - an EAACI position paper

A recent survey of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Drug Allergy Interest Group (DAIG) on how European allergy specialists deal with beta-lactam (BL) hypersensitivity demonstrated a significant heterogeneity in current practice, suggesting the need to review and update existing EAACI guidelines in order to make the diagnostic procedures as safe and accurate, but also as cost-effective, as possible. For this purpose, a bibliographic search on large studies regarding BL hypersensitivity diagnosis was performed by an EAACI task force, which reviewed and evaluated the literature data using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. The updated guidelines provide a risk stratification in BL hypersensitivity according to index reaction(s), as well as an algorithmic approach, based on cross-reactivity studies, in patients with a suspicion of BL hypersensitivity and an immediate need for antibiotic therapy, when referral to an allergist is not feasible. Furthermore, the update addresses availability and concentrations of skin test (ST) reagents, ST and drug provocation test (DPT) protocols, and diagnostic algorithms and administration of alternative BL in allergic subjects. Specifically, distinct diagnostic algorithms are suggested depending on risk stratification of the patient into high and low risk based on the morphology and chronology of the reaction, immediate (ie, occurring within 1-6 hours after the last administered dose) or nonimmediate (ie, occurring more than 1 hour after the initial drug administration), and the reaction severity. Regarding the allergy workup, the main novelty of this document is the fact that in some low-risk nonimmediate reactions ST are not mandatory, especially in children. For DPT, further studies are necessary to provide data supporting the standardization of protocols, especially of those regarding nonimmediate reactions, for which there is currently no consensus.

Prospective study of 5-day challenge with penicillins in children

OBJECTIVES

To examine if a 5-day challenge with penicillin improves the diagnostic sensitivity compared with a single full dose in children with mild skin reactions.

DESIGN

Subjects referred with suspected allergy to penicillin were consecutively included. Irrespectively of the morphology of the index reaction and the result of specific IgE, all subjects underwent a two-step titrated drug provocation test (DPT) with the culprit drug followed by a 5-day challenge at home.

PARTICIPANTS

Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years referred to allergic workup for penicillin hypersensitivity at two paediatric Danish centres. Only subjects with non-severe skin reactions were included.

RESULTS

A total of 305 subjects were included and 22 (7%) of the DPTs were positive. Three subjects reacted within 1 hour of the first full dose and nine reacted 1-8 hours after the first full dose. Additional 10 positive reactions were observed during the prolonged provocation. Seven subjects reacted after the second full dose and three reacted after 3-6 days. Only mild skin rashes were observed. Eighteen subjects had a specific IgE to a penicillin >0.1 kU/L. Only one of these had a positive DPT.

CONCLUSION

In children, a DPT with penicillins should include at least two full doses. In children with mild hypersensitivity reactions it may be safe to perform DPTs despite a low specific IgE.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04331522.

Recent developments and highlights in drug hypersensitivity

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are nowadays the third cause of allergy after rhinitis and asthma with a significant increase in prevalence in both adults and paediatric population with new drugs included as culprit. For this, DHRs represent not only a health problem but also a significant financial burden for affected individuals and health systems. Mislabelling DHRs is showing to be a relevant problem for both, false label of drug allergic and false label of nonallergic. All this reinforces the need to improve accurate diagnostic approaches that allow an appropriate management. Moreover, there is a need for training both, nonallergist stakeholders and patients to improve the reaction identification and therefore decrease the mislabelling. The use of allergy cards has shown to be relevant to avoid the induction of DHRs due to the prescription of wrong medication. Recent developments over the last 2 years and highlights about risk factors, diagnostic approaches, mechanisms involved as well as prevention actions, and management have been reviewed. In these papers, it has been outlined the need for correct diagnosis and de-labelling of patients previously false-reported as allergic, which will improve the management and treatment of patients with DHRs.

Short and extended provocation tests have similar negative predictive value in non-immediate hypersensitivity to beta-lactams in children

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Drug provocation tests (DPTs) are the gold-standard method to diagnose non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions (NIHSR) to beta-lactam antibiotics (BL) in children. Our aim was to compare the negative predictive value (NPV) of one-day (short) DPT versus 3-7 days (extended) DPT for the diagnosis of NIHSR to BL in paediatric age. A secondary aim was to compare confidence on drug re-exposure after short and extended negative DPTs.

METHODS

The occurrence of HSR on drug re-exposure and drug refusal after negative diagnostic DPTs were evaluated in children/adolescents with a history of NIHSR to BL using a questionnaire performed six months to ten years after DPT. Patients were divided into two groups according to the protocol performed: short DPT vs. extended DPT.

RESULTS

We enrolled 212 children and adolescents (86 females, 126 males, mean age at DPT 5.52 years, p25=3 years, p75=7.25 years): 69 tested with short DPT, and 143 with extended DPT. The NPV of both types of DPT together was 95.2%. The NPV of short DPT was 97.5% and the NPV of extended DPT was 93.8% (p=0.419). After negative DPT, beta-lactams were refused by carers in 14.75% of the children requiring subsequent treatment, 6.98% in the short DPT group and 18.99% in the extended DPT group (p=0.074).

CONCLUSIONS

In our paediatric sample, prolonging drug administration did not increase the NPV of diagnostic DPT for NIHSR to BL or reduce drug refusal. Altogether, the data here reported suggest that, however intuitive, prolonging DPT is not beneficial in the parameters analysed.

A EAACI drug allergy interest group survey on how European allergy specialists deal with β-lactam allergy

An accurate diagnosis of β-lactam (BL) allergy can reduce patient morbidity and mortality. Our aim was to investigate the availability of BL reagents, their use and test procedures in different parts of Europe, as well as any differences in the diagnostic workups for evaluating subjects with BL hypersensitivity. A survey was emailed to all members of the EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group (DAIG) between February and April 2016, and the questionnaire was meant to study the management of suspected BL hypersensitivity. The questionnaire was emailed to 82 DAIG centres and answered by 57. Amoxicillin alone or combined to clavulanic acid were the most commonly involved BL except in the Danish centre, where penicillin V was the most frequently suspected BL. All centres performed an allergy workup in subjects with histories of hypersensitivity to BL: 53 centres (93%) followed DAIG guidelines, two national guidelines and two local guidelines. However, there were deviations from DAIG recommendations concerning allergy tests, especially drug provocation tests. A significant heterogeneity exists in current practice not only among countries, but also among centres within the same country. This suggests the need to re-evaluate, update and standardize protocols on the management of patients with suspected BL allergy.

The Limited Value of Prolonged Drug Challenges in Nonimmediate Amoxicillin (Clavulanic Acid) Hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

Misdiagnosis of amoxicillin (clavulanic acid) (AX(/CL)) hypersensitivity has serious consequences. A drug challenge (DC) is the final diagnostic to affirm or infirm AX(/CL) hypersensitivity. However, uncertainties remain whether a prolonged drug challenge (pDC) should benefit the diagnosis of a nonimmediate AX(/CL) hypersensitivity.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the added value of a standardized 7-day pDC in the diagnosis of nonimmediate or unclear penicillin hypersensitivity.

METHODS

A total of 132 patients with a history of a nonimmediate hypersensitivity reaction or an unclear reaction to AX(/CL) or an undefined penicillin with a negative diagnostic workup including a single-day DC (DC) with AX(/CL) were selected. In all these patients, an additional pDC with AX(/CL) was planned. Thirteen patients started the pDC immediately after the DC. To ensure that hypersensitivity symptoms manifesting during the pDC course do not result from the DC, in the remaining 119 patients, the pDC was scheduled after a washout of 1 week.

RESULTS

A total of 128 patients (12 without washout, 116 with washout) completed the pDC. Three patients reacted with a mild maculopapular exanthema. However, the value of a pDC was evidenced in only 1 patient who reacted during her pDC after an uneventful washout. In 2 patients pDC was cancelled because they reacted during the washout.

CONCLUSIONS

A pDC is of limited added value to the diagnostic algorithms of nonimmediate hypersensitivity reaction or unclear hypersensitivity reactions to AX(/CL). In our hands, the traditionally recommended diagnostic algorithm that offers a 1-day DC as a final diagnostic in patients with negative workup for AX(/CL) is appropriate.

Flucloxacillin Hypersensitivity: Patient Outcomes in a Multicenter Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Flucloxacillin is a narrow-spectrum, beta-lactamase-resistant penicillin. Type I (IgE-mediated) and type IV (T-cell-mediated) reactions are less frequently reported than with other penicillins.

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a detailed clinical characterization of a cohort of patients referred with suspected flucloxacillin hypersensitivity.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed demographic characteristics, presentation, investigation, and management of 108 patients presenting to 4 UK centers. Patients underwent skin prick and intradermal testing with flucloxacillin, major (benzylpenicilloyl poly-l-lysine) and minor determinants, amoxicillin, and benzylpenicillin with immediate and, where appropriate, delayed reading of the test. In the immediate group, a further 14 patients were tested to ampicillin and 16 to Augmentin (co-amoxiclav-combination of clavulanic acid and amoxicillin). Skin test-negative patients underwent oral drug provocation. A multistep protocol was used, depending on risk assessment.

RESULTS

Forty of 108 (37%) patients were diagnosed with hypersensitivity to flucloxacillin, of whom 33 (82.5%) showed immediate and 7 (17.5%) nonimmediate hypersensitivity, respectively. In the immediate group, most reactions were severe: 19 of 33 (58%). Intradermal testing had a higher negative predictive value (86%) in the immediate group than in the nonimmediate group (67%). Only a minority of patients (6 of 17 [35%]) with IgE-mediated allergy were cross-sensitized on intradermal testing with other penicillins, compared with 3 of 4 (75%) in the delayed group.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to flucloxacillin are more common than delayed. Cross-sensitization to other penicillins appears higher in delayed reactions than in immediate. The negative predictive value of intradermal testing is higher in the immediate group than in the nonimmediate group. Drug provocation testing remains the diagnostic criterion standard.

Management of a surgical patient with a label of penicillin allergy: narrative review and consensus recommendations

Unsubstantiated penicillin-allergy labels are common in surgical patients, and can lead to significant harm through avoidance of best first-line prophylaxis of surgical site infections and increased infection with resistant bacterial strains. Up to 98% of penicillin-allergy labels are incorrect when tested. Because of the scarcity of trained allergists in all healthcare systems, only a minority of surgical patients have the opportunity to undergo testing and de-labelling before surgery. Testing pathways can be modified and shortened in selected patients. A variety of healthcare professionals can, with appropriate training and in collaboration with allergists, provide testing for selected patients. We review how patients might be assessed, the appropriate testing strategies that can be used, and the minimum standards of safe testing.

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice 2017 Year in Review

An impressive number of clinically impactful studies and reviews were published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice in 2017. As a service to our readers, the editors provide this Year in Review article to highlight and contextualize the advances published over the past year. We include information from articles on asthma, allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, immunotherapy, atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, food allergy, anaphylaxis, drug hypersensitivity, urticarial/angioedema, eosinophilic disorders, and immunodeficiency. Within each topic, epidemiologic findings are presented, relevant aspects of prevention are described, and diagnostic and therapeutic advances are enumerated. Treatments discussed include behavioral therapy, allergen avoidance therapy, positive and negative effects of pharmacologic therapy, and various forms of immunologic and desensitization management. We hope this review will help readers consolidate and use this extensive and practical knowledge for the benefit of patients.

Risk of Immediate-Type Allergy to Local Anesthetics Is Overestimated-Results from 5 Years of Provocation Testing in a Danish Allergy Clinic

BACKGROUND

Local anesthetics (LAs) are used in many health care settings and exposure during a lifetime is almost inevitable. Immediate-type allergy to LAs is considered rare among allergy experts but is commonly suspected by health care workers from other specialties, and by patients.

OBJECTIVE

The main aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of immediate-type allergy to LAs in our regional allergy clinic over the 5-year period 2010 to 2014.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-center study of patients referred to a regional allergy clinic (excluding patients with perioperative reactions) with suspected immediate allergy to LAs, who had undergone subcutaneous provocation with 1 or more LAs. Patients were identified in the hospital clinical coding system and clinical information about the reaction and investigation results was obtained from their medical records.

RESULTS

A total of 164 patients (123 women/41 men; median age, 56 years; range, 7-89 years) who had 189 provocations with LAs were included over the 5-year period 2010 to 2014. All 164 patients had negative subcutaneous provocations to all 189 tests with LAs (95% CI, 0%-1.83%). Another allergen was identified in 10% (n = 17) of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the 164 patients with suspected immediate-type allergy to LAs reacted on provocation. Thus, no patients have been diagnosed with an immediate allergy to LAs in our regional allergy clinic in the 5-year period studied, and allergy to LAs must be considered very rare. Alternative mechanisms should be considered, but if symptoms are consistent with allergy, other potential allergens should be investigated.

Pro and Contra: Provocation Tests in Drug Hypersensitivity

Drug provocation test (DPT) is the controlled administration of a drug to diagnose immune- or non-immune-mediated drug hypersensitivity and the last step for accurate recognition of drug hypersensitivity reactions when the previous diagnostic evaluations are negative or unavailable. A DPT is performed only if other conventional tests fail to yield conclusive results. In each clinical presentation, "to provoke or not to provoke" a patient should be decided after careful assessment of the risk-benefit ratio. Well-defined benefits of DPT include confirmative exclusion of diagnoses of drug hypersensitivity and provision of safe alternatives. However, disadvantages such as safety, difficulty in interpretations of results, lack of objective biomarkers, risks of resensitization, efficiency in daily practice, and lack of standardized protocols, are poorly debated. This review summarizes the current published research concerning DPT, with particular emphasis on the advantages and disadvantages of DPT in an evidence-based manner.