Clinical and diagnostic features of perioperative hypersensitivity to cefuroxime

Changes in Sensitization Patterns in the Last 25 Years in 619 Patients with Confirmed Diagnoses of Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions to Beta-Lactams

Beta-lactam (BL) drugs are the antibiotics most prescribed worldwide due to their broad spectrum of action. They are also the most frequently implied in hypersensitivity reactions with a known specific immunological mechanism. Since the commercialization of benzylpenicillin, allergic reactions have been described; over the years, other new BL drugs provided alternative treatments to penicillin, and amoxicillin is now the most prescribed BL in Europe. Diagnosis of BL allergy is mainly based on skin tests and drug provocation tests, defining different sensitization patterns or phenotypes. In this study, we evaluated 619 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of BL-immediate allergy during the last 25 years, using the same diagnostic procedures with minor adaptations to the successive guidelines. The initial eliciting drug was benzylpenicillin, which changed to amoxicillin with or without clavulanic acid and cephalosporins in recent years. In skin tests, we found a decrease in sensitivity to major and minor penicillin determinants and an increase in sensitivity to amoxicillin and others; this might reflect that the changes in prescription could have influenced the sensitization patterns, thus increasing the incidence of specific reactions to side-chain selective reactions.

Incidence of intraoperative anaphylaxis caused by blood products: a 12-year single-center, retrospective study

PURPOSE

Intraoperative anaphylaxis caused by blood products is uncommon, but it is unclear whether the rarity of this reaction is attributable to the difficulty of diagnosis, underreporting, or both. We investigated the incidence of intraoperative transfusion anaphylaxis and its reporting to the hemovigilance system.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed cases wherein general anesthesia was used at a single hospital during a 12-year period. Cases of intraoperative anaphylaxis were extracted using an electronic search strategy and determined using the recently developed grading and clinical scoring system. The causative blood products were determined by the onset duration based on literature regarding intraoperative transfusion anaphylaxis cases.

RESULTS

Among the 62,146 general anesthesia cases, 22 cases of intraoperative anaphylaxis were identified, and 11 of the 22 cases received transfusions before the onset of anaphylaxis. Intraoperative transfusion anaphylaxis was defined as occurring within 30 min of transfusion. Finally, nine cases of intraoperative transfusion anaphylaxis were analyzed. The overall incidence of intraoperative transfusion anaphylaxis was 1/3,994, with the highest incidence noted for fresh frozen plasma (1/2146; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1/6610-1/920), platelet concentrate (1/2348; 95% CI 1/92,742-1/422), and red blood cells (1/22,867; 95% CI 1/903,199-1/4,105). No evidence indicated that these cases were reported to the Japanese hemovigilance system, although all intraoperative transfusion anaphylaxis cases were diagnosed by anesthesiologists.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of intraoperative anaphylaxis caused by blood products was higher than that reported and may be underreported to the Japanese hemovigilance system. Further research, particularly multicenter studies, is needed to confirm our results.

Perioperative Allergic Reactions: Allergy Assessment and Subsequent Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based guidelines are needed in the United States to improve evaluation of perioperative allergic reactions including recommendations for subsequent anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE

To identify causative agent(s) and evaluate patients' tolerability of subsequent anesthesia in patients evaluated by Allergy/Immunology (A/I) at Massachusetts General Hospital.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients referred to the outpatient A/I clinic for perioperative allergic reactions between October 2003 and May 2017. Patient demographics, atopic history, and prior adverse drug reactions were reviewed. Patients underwent a comprehensive evaluation with testing including skin testing (ST), drug challenges (when appropriate), tryptase level measurement, and specific IgE to latex measurement. Tolerance of subsequent procedures requiring anesthesia was assessed.

RESULTS

Of 123 patients referred, 74 (60%) were female and the mean age was 46 (±18) years. At least 1 causative agent was identified in 28 patients (24%, n = 28 of 118). Seventeen of 28 (61%) patients were ST positive to an antibiotic, including 13 (46%) positive to cefazolin; 3 patients (11%) had a positive latex specific IgE. Of 85 patients who had subsequent anesthesia with a known outcome, 78 (91%) did not have another perioperative allergic reaction. Two of 5 patients with an elevated baseline tryptase level did not tolerate subsequent anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients safely received subsequent anesthesia after comprehensive A/I evaluation for their perioperative allergic reactions; however, improved algorithmic care is needed in the United States. Among ST-positive patients (24%), antibiotics (especially cefazolin) were the most common culprits. An elevated baseline tryptase level was associated with an increased risk of recurrent perioperative allergic reactions.

An EAACI position paper on the investigation of perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions

Perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions are rare. Subsequent allergy investigation is complicated by multiple simultaneous drug exposures, the use of drugs with potent effects and the many differential diagnoses to hypersensitivity in the perioperative setting. The approach to the investigation of these complex reactions is not standardized, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that collaboration between experts in the field of allergy/immunology/dermatology and anaesthesiology is needed to provide the best possible care for these patients. The EAACI task force behind this position paper has therefore combined the expertise of allergists, immunologists and anaesthesiologists. The aims of this position paper were to provide recommendations for the investigation of immediate-type perioperative hypersensitivity reactions and to provide practical information that can assist clinicians in planning and carrying out investigations.

Lidocaine as a Rare and Hidden Allergen in the Perioperative Setting: A Case Report

Local anesthetics are used throughout the health care system. In the perioperative setting and in other settings of exposure to local anesthetics, true allergy is reported very rarely. We present an unusual case of immediate-type perioperative hypersensitivity to lidocaine with cross-reaction to mepivacaine, which was missed on initial investigation. This case illustrates that lidocaine may be a "hidden allergen" in the perioperative setting and should always be considered a potential culprit in cases of suspected perioperative hypersensitivity. The case also demonstrates that suspected perioperative hypersensitivity requires highly specialized investigation and close collaboration between allergists and anesthesiologists.

Chlorhexidine Allergy: On the Rise and Often Overlooked

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In recent years, the risk of allergy to chlorhexidine is increasingly recognised. In this review, we discuss why the allergy is so easily overlooked and point out several preventative initiatives that can minimise the risk of both chlorhexidine sensitisation and allergy development and accidental re-exposure in patients with chlorhexidine allergy. Testing for chlorhexidine allergy is also discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous reports have been published from many different specialties. Symptoms range from mild skin symptoms to life-threatening anaphylaxis. Testing for chlorhexidine allergy is based on skin testing and in vitro testing. Recently, it was found that both skin prick testing and specific IgE have high sensitivities and specificities. This review gives an overview of chlorhexidine allergy with a special focus on preventative initiatives and testing.

Chlorhexidine Allergy: Mild Allergic Reactions Can Precede Anaphylaxis in the Healthcare Setting

Chlorhexidine can cause severe immediate-type allergic reactions such as urticaria, anaphylactic shock or, even, cardiac arrest. We report the case of a patient who developed perioperative anaphylactic shock caused by chlorhexidine 1 year after a postoperative urticarial reaction, which was assumed not to be significant at the time. This case highlights the importance of identifying mild allergy symptoms after exposure to chlorhexidine at the pre-anaesthetic assessment to prevent more severe allergic reactions in future.

Comparative epidemiology of suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions

Suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions are rare but contribute significantly to the morbidity and mortality of surgical procedures. Recent publications have highlighted the differences between countries concerning the respective risk of different drugs, and changes in patterns of causal agents and the emergence of new allergens. This review summarises recent information on the epidemiology of perioperative hypersensitivity reactions, with specific consideration of differences between geographic areas for the most frequently involved offending agents.

Cephalosporin Allergy: Current Understanding and Future Challenges

Cephalosporins are commonly used antibiotics both in hospitalized patients and in outpatients. Hypersensitivity reactions to cephalosporins are becoming increasingly common with a wide range of immunopathologic mechanisms. Cephalosporins are one of the leading causes for perioperative anaphylaxis and severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Patients allergic to cephalosporins tend to tolerate cephalosporins with disparate R1 side chains but may react to other beta-lactams with common R1 side chains. Skin testing for cephalosporins has not been well validated but appears to have a good negative predictive value for cephalosporins with disparate R1 side chains. In vitro tests including basophil activation tests have lower sensitivity when compared with skin testing. Rapid drug desensitization procedures are safe and effective and have been used successfully for immediate and some nonimmediate cephalosporin reactions. Many gaps in knowledge still exist regarding cephalosporin hypersensitivity.

Positive Skin Test or Specific IgE to Penicillin Does Not Reliably Predict Penicillin Allergy

INTRODUCTION

According to guidelines, patients are diagnosed with penicillin allergy if skin test (ST) result or specific IgE (s-IgE) to penicillin is positive. However, the true sensitivity and specificity of these tests are presently not known.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical relevance of a positive ST result and positive s-IgE and to study the reproducibility of ST and s-IgE.

METHODS

A sample of convenience of 25 patients with positive penicillin ST results, antipenicillin s-IgE results, or both was challenged with their culprit penicillin. Further 19 patients were not challenged, but deemed allergic on the basis of a recent anaphylactic reaction or delayed reactions to skin testing. Another sample of convenience of 18 patients, 17 overlapping with the 25 challenged, with initial skin testing and s-IgE (median, 25; range, 3-121), months earlier (T_-1), was repeat skin tested and had s-IgE measured (T₀), and then skin tested and had s-IgE measured 4 weeks later (T₁).

RESULTS

Only 9 (36%) of 25 were challenge positive. There was an increased probability of being penicillin allergic if both ST result and s-IgE were positive at T₀. Positive ST result or positive s-IgE alone did not predict penicillin allergy. Among the 18 patients repeatedly tested, 46.2% (12 of 25) of positive ST results at T_-1 were reproducibly positive at T₀. For s-IgE, 54.2% (14 of 24) positive measurements were still positive at T₀ and 7 converted to positive at T₁.

CONCLUSIONS

The best predictor for a clinically significant (IgE-mediated) penicillin allergy is a combination of a positive case history with simultaneous positive ST result and s-IgE or a positive challenge result.

Cross-Reactivity and Tolerability of Cephalosporins in Patients with IgE-Mediated Hypersensitivity to Penicillins

BACKGROUND

Studies performed since 1990 on samples of at least 30 subjects with a documented IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins have found a rate of positive responses to allergy tests with cephalosporins ranging from 0% to 27%.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the cross-reactivity with cephalosporins and evaluate the possibility of using cephalosporins in penicillin-allergic subjects.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of 252 consecutive subjects who had suffered 319 immediate reactions (mostly anaphylaxis) to penicillins and had positive skin tests to at least 1 penicillin reagent. All patients underwent serum specific IgE assays for cefaclor, as well as skin tests with 3 aminocephalosporins (cephalexin, cefaclor, and cefadroxil), cefamandole, cefuroxime, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, and cefepime. Patients with negative results for the last 5 cephalosporins were challenged with cefuroxime axetil and ceftriaxone; those with negative results for aminocephalosporins were also challenged with cefaclor and cefadroxil.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine participants (39.3%) had positive allergy tests for cephalosporins. Specifically, 95 (37.7%) were positive to aminocephalosporins and/or cefamandole, which share similar or identical side chains with penicillins. All 244 subjects who underwent challenges with cefuroxime axetil and ceftriaxone tolerated them. Of the 170 patients who underwent aminocephalosporin challenges, 3 reacted to cefaclor and 4 to cefadroxil.

CONCLUSIONS

Cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins seems to be mainly related to side chain similarity or identity. Subjects with an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins could be treated with cephalosporins such as cefuroxime and ceftriaxone that have side-chain determinants different from those of penicillins and are negative in pretreatment skin testing.

Developments in the field of clinical allergy in 2015 through the eyes of Clinical and Experimental Allergy

In the second of two papers, we describe developments in the field of clinical allergy as documented by Clinical and Experimental Allergy in 2015. Epidemiology, clinical allergy, asthma and rhinitis are all covered.

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.

Australian and New Zealand Anaesthetic Allergy Group Perioperative Anaphylaxis Investigation Guidelines

These guidelines are a consensus document developed by a working party of the Australian and New Zealand Anaesthetic Allergy Group (ANZAAG) to provide an approach to the investigation of perioperative anaphylaxis. They focus primarily on the use of skin testing as it is the investigation with the greatest clinical utility for the identification of the likely causative agent and potentially safer alternatives. The practicalities and process of skin testing, its limitations, and the place of other tests are discussed. These guidelines also address the roles of graded challenge and in vitro testing. The implications of anaphylaxis associated with neuromuscular blocking agents, beta-lactam antibiotics, local anaesthetic agents and chlorhexidine are discussed. Evidence for the recommendations is derived from literature searches using the words skin test, allergy, anaphylaxis, anaesthesia, and each of the individual agents listed in these guidelines. The individual articles were then reviewed for suitability for inclusion in these guidelines. Where evidence was not strong, as is the situation for many perioperative agents, expert consensus from the ANZAAG working party was used. These guidelines are intended for use by specialists involved in the investigation of perioperative allergy. They have been approved following peer review by members of ANZAAG and are available on the ANZAAG website: http://www.anzaag.com/anaphylaxis-management/testing-guidelines.pdf .

No cases of perioperative allergy to local anaesthetics in the Danish Anaesthesia Allergy Centre

BACKGROUND

Local anaesthetics (LA) are often suspected as possible causes of allergic reactions. The Danish Anaesthesia Allergy Centre (DAAC) is the national reference centre for investigation of perioperative allergic reactions. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of IgE-mediated immediate type perioperative allergic reactions to LA.

METHODS

In the period 2004-2013, a total of 409 patients (244 women/165 men; median age 49 years, range 1-86 years) were investigated in DAAC on suspicion of allergy associated with anaesthesia and surgery. A total of 162 (40%) patients were exposed to one or more LA. Suspected allergy to LA was investigated by prick test, intradermal test and subcutaneous provocation with the suspected drug. Patients with positive skin tests still underwent subcutaneous provocation, as false positive skin tests can occur.

RESULTS

A total of 203 test series with LA were carried out on 162 patients (89 women/73 men; mean age 49 years, range 2-85 years) with the following drugs: Lidocaine n = 80 (49%), bupivacaine n = 82 (51%), ropivacaine n = 31 (19%) and mepivacaine n = 10 (6%). All 162 patients had negative subcutaneous provocation for all tested LA (95% CI: 0-1.8%). Investigations revealed another allergen in 52 of 162 patients.

CONCLUSION

None of the 162 patients with suspected perioperative allergic reactions and exposure to LA reacted on subcutaneous provocation with the relevant LA. Thus, no patients have been diagnosed with allergy to LA in DAAC in the period 2004-2013 and allergy to LA must be considered very rare in this population.

No evidence for contraindications to the use of propofol in adults allergic to egg, soy or peanut†

BACKGROUND

Propofol is thought to be a potential cause of allergic reactions in patients allergic to egg, soy or peanut, since current formulations contain an emulsion that includes egg lecithin and soybean oil. However, other than six case reports lacking in confirmatory evidence of an allergic reaction, there is no evidence linking the two types of allergies. The aim of this study was to examine the frequency of propofol allergy and to investigate if patients with specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) to egg, soy or peanut tolerated propofol.

METHODS

Study A examined the frequency of propofol allergy in 273 patients systematically investigated for suspected perioperative allergic reactions. Of these, 153 had been exposed to propofol and underwent skin tests and intravenous provocation. Study B retrospectively investigated propofol exposure and tolerance in 520 adult patients with a positive specific IgE to egg, soy or peanut.

RESULTS

Four of the 153 propofol-exposed patients (2.6%) investigated in study A were diagnosed with propofol allergy. Of these, three tested positive only on intravenous provocation. None of the four had allergic symptoms when eating egg, soy or peanut and none had detectable levels of specific IgE to egg or soy in their serum. In study B we found no signs of allergic reactions towards propofol in 171 retrieved anaesthetic charts from 99 patients with specific IgE to egg, soy or peanut.

CONCLUSION

No connection between allergy to propofol and allergy to egg, soy or peanut was found. The present practice of choosing alternatives to propofol in patients with this kind of food allergy is not evidence based and should be reconsidered.