The accuracy of the diagnosis of suspected macrolide antibiotic hypersensitivity: results of a single-blinded trial

Cross-reactivity among and between macrolides, lincosamides, and streptogramins: Study on the French pharmacovigilance database

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) are reported for the macrolides, lincosamides, and streptogramins (MLS) antibiotic family. Data about cross-reactivity among and between MLS remain scarce or controversial.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of hypersensitivity cross-reactions among MLSs based on data extracted from the French National Pharmacovigilance Database (FPVD).

METHODS

Cases of HSR to MLSs reported between January 1985 and December 2019 were extracted from the FPVD using standardized MedDRA queries (SMQ). Cases including an allergological test involving multiple MLSs and giving at least one positive result were included.

RESULTS

Of the 8394 cases reviewed, 149 were included. HSR mainly involved pristinamycin (n = 83; 53.2%) and spiramycin (n = 31; 19.9%). HSR to MLS was immediate in 54 cases and delayed in 94 cases. Skin tests represented the majority of the allergological tests performed (n = 728; 84.7%), followed by reintroduction tests (n = 79; 9.2%). Eighty-six cross-reactivities among MLS were identified in 62 cases (41.6%). All the 25 explorations performed for streptogramins showed cross-reactivities, but only 30/253 among macrolides (11.9%). Cross-reactivities between the three MLS were observed in 31/322 (9.6%) of the allergological explorations.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the possibility of cross-reactivity among and between MLSs. Dermatologists and allergologists managing patients with HSR to MLSs should be aware of a risk of cross-reactivity among the macrolides and between the different classes of MLS and to perform MLSs allergological testing before recommending an alternative antibiotic, especially in severe drug hypersensitivity from the MLS family.

Direct challenges are the gold standard for most antibiotic allergy evaluations

Antibiotic allergies are frequently encountered in clinical practice, and delabeling of these allergies has individual and public health benefits. This review focuses on the evidence supporting graded challenges without preceding skin testing in adult and pediatric patients to the major groups of antibiotics including penicillins, cephalosporins, sulfamethoxazole, fluoroquinolones, tetracyclines, macrolides, metronidazole, carbapenems, and aztreonam. The cost savings, time savings, and evidence for performing graded challenges outside of an allergy/immunology office are also reviewed for graded challenges to penicillins.

The Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy (SWAB) guideline for the approach to suspected antibiotic allergy

OBJECTIVES

Prudent handling of reported antibiotic allergy is an important aspect of antibiotic stewardship. The Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy (SWAB) constituted a multidisciplinary expert committee to provide evidence-based recommendations for bedside decision making in antibiotic therapy in patients that report an antibiotic allergy.

METHODS

The guideline committee generated 12 key questions, most of which were population, intervention, comparison and outcome (PICO) questions relevant for both children and adults with suspected antibiotic allergy. For each question a systematic literature search was performed and reviewed for the best available evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Quality of evidence was graded from very low to high and recommendations were formulated in structured discussions as strong or weak.

RESULTS

Sixty recommendations were provided for suspected allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics (BLA) and non-beta-lactam antibiotics (NBLA). Due to the absence of randomized controlled trials in this field, the underlying evidence was predominantly graded as low or very low. Available data supports that a detailed allergy history should always be performed and critically appraised. When cross-allergy between BLA groups is not to be expected due to absence of molecular similarity of the side chains, the patient can be safely exposed to the alternative BLA. An exception to this rule are severe delayed type reactions, in which reexposure to a BLA should only be considered after consultation of a multidisciplinary team.

CONCLUSIONS

Accumulated scientific data now supports a more liberal approach that better balances benefits of treatment with first choice and usually smaller spectrum antibiotics with appropriate avoidance of antibiotics in case of a truly high risk of a (severe) allergic reaction. In the Netherlands, a formal guideline was developed that provides recommendations for the approach towards suspected allergy to BLA and frequently used NBLA, thereby strongly supporting antimicrobial stewardship.

Drug Allergy Practice Parameter Updates to Incorporate Into Your Clinical Practice

The drug allergy practice parameter was developed to provide guidance on the diagnosis and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions. It was last updated in 2010. With the growth of research and evidence-based data since then, experts came together to update the practice parameter with a focus on sections that the work group deemed to have significant changes (or were not addressed) in the previous practice parameter. This review is a focused update on aspects of the practice parameter deemed to have the greatest impact on clinical practice and includes significant updates on diagnosis of antibiotic allergy including penicillin, cephalosporin, sulfonamide, fluoroquinolone, and macrolide allergies. Other topics include the evolution in our management approach to patients with aspirin/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug allergy, diagnostic testing for delayed drug hypersensitivity and allergy to chemotherapeutics and biologics, and the key consensus-based statements for clinical practice. Specifically, the updated practice parameter helps allergists understand the place of 1- or 2-step drug challenges that are valuable tools often without the need for skin testing in many clinical situations. A proactive approach to delabeling penicillin allergy as well as unnecessary avoidance of safe antibiotic alternatives for patients with proven penicillin allergy is emphasized. New guidance is provided on management of patients with different phenotypes of aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug hypersensitivity reactions. Approaches to delayed drug hypersensitivity and use of delayed intradermal and patch testing for specific phenotypes are reviewed. Lastly, practical approaches to management of patients with reactions to chemotherapeutics and biologics are discussed.

Pediatric Drug Allergies: Updates on Beta-Lactam, Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug, and Chemotherapeutic Reactions

Adverse drug reactions are frequently reported in pediatric patients. In this review article, the authors discuss pediatric drug allergies with emphasis on the most common culprits, beta-lactam antibiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The authors also discuss reactions to non-beta-lactam antibiotics and chemotherapeutics. Skin testing has not yet been validated for many drugs, although notable exceptions include penicillin and carboplatin. The gold standard for diagnosis in most cases remains drug challenge, and the need for penicillin skin testing prior to oral provocation challenge has been questioned in recent studies. Successful desensitizations have also been reported with several drugs.

Pediatric Drug Allergies: Updates on Beta-Lactam, Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug, and Chemotherapeutic Reactions

Adverse drug reactions are frequently reported in pediatric patients. In this review article, the authors discuss pediatric drug allergies with emphasis on the most common culprits, beta-lactam antibiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The authors also discuss reactions to non-beta-lactam antibiotics and chemotherapeutics. Skin testing has not yet been validated for many drugs, although notable exceptions include penicillin and carboplatin. The gold standard for diagnosis in most cases remains drug challenge, and the need for penicillin skin testing prior to oral provocation challenge has been questioned in recent studies. Successful desensitizations have also been reported with several drugs.

Diagnostic evaluation and risk factors for drug allergies in children: from clinical history to skin and challenge tests

BACKGROUND

Parent or self-reported drug allergy claims frequently overestimate the real incidence of hypersensitivity reactions. A detailed and algorithmic diagnostic evaluation of drug reactions may allow a proper diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the confirmation rates and risk factors for confirmed allergic drug reactions in children.

SETTING

Mersin University Hospital in Turkey.

METHOD

The study consisted of children between ages of 8 months and 18 years with the history of suspected drug allergy as reported by the clinician or the patients. Parents were interviewed by a clinician to complete questionnaires that included questions about demographic data and characteristics of index drug reaction. Immediate reactions (IRs) were assessed with immediate-reading skin prick (SPT) and intradermal tests (IDT). Nonimmediate reactions (NIRs) were assessed with SPT, both early and delayed reading of IDT and patch tests. In case of negative skin tests, drug provocation tests were performed. The possible risk factors for confirmed drug allergy in univariate analysis (p < 0.1) were entered into the multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine independent predictors.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

(1) Confirmation rates of drug allergy (2) Risk factors related to confirmed drug allergy in children.

RESULTS

We evaluated a total of 180 suspected drug allergy reactions in 97 children, mainly to antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and anticonvulsants. Among all suspected allergic drug reactions, 97 (53.9 %) were immediate type and 83 (46.1 %) were non-immediate type. The average time interval between the reaction and allergologic work-up was 5 months. Drug allergy confirmation rates were 30.1 % for beta-lactams, 27.2 % for non-betalactams, 21.1 % for NSAIDs and 30 % for anticonvulsants. Eight of 54 confirmed NIRs showed positivity on immediate skin tests. Regulatory T cells, TGF-β and IL-10 levels were not different between groups with and without confirmed drug allergy. A strong family and personal history of drug allergy were found to be significantly related to the confirmed allergic drug reactions.

CONCLUSION

Parent or self-reported drug allergy should be evaluated with a standardized diagnostic work-up before strict prohibitions are made. In addition, family and personal histories of drug allergy were significant risk factors related to allergic drug reactions in children.

Evaluation of antibiotic allergy: the role of skin tests and drug challenges

Antibiotic allergies are frequently reported in both adult and pediatric populations. While a detailed drug history is essential in the evaluation of antibiotic allergy, the history is typically insufficient to determine the presence of a drug allergy. The most readily available diagnostic testing for evaluating antibiotic allergies are drug skin testing and drug challenges. This review will focus on updates in the evaluation of antibiotic allergy utilizing immediate skin tests, delayed intradermal testing, drug patch tests, and drug challenges for both adults and children with histories of antibiotic allergies.

Antibiotic allergy

Although allergy to β-lactam and non-β-lactam antibiotics is commonly claimed, true allergy to these drugs is often absent. Reactions to antibiotics can be classified according to the interval between the last administration of the drug and the onset of symptoms, but except for immediate reactions occurring within an hour of exposure, which are almost always either IgE-mediated or due to direct stimulation of mast cells, reactions occurring later than 1 hour probably have multiple mechanisms, including being IgE-mediated or involving cell-mediated reactions. The latter are likely caused by drug-specific T lymphocytes. The diagnosis of antibiotic allergy can be difficult.

Antibiotic allergies in children and adults: from clinical symptoms to skin testing diagnosis

Hypersensitivity reactions to β-lactam and non-β-lactam antibiotics are commonly reported. They can be classified as immediate or nonimmediate according to the time interval between the last drug administration and their onset. Immediate reactions occur within 1 hour after the last drug administration and are manifested clinically by urticaria and/or angioedema, rhinitis, bronchospasm, and anaphylactic shock; they may be mediated by specific IgE-antibodies. Nonimmediate reactions occur more than 1 hour after the last drug administration. The most common manifestations are maculopapular exanthems; specific T lymphocytes may be involved in this type of manifestation. The diagnostic evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics is usually complex. The patient's history is fundamental; the allergic examination is based mainly on in vivo tests selected on the basis of the clinical features and the type of reaction, immediate or nonimmediate. Immediate reactions can be assessed by immediate-reading skin tests and, in selected cases, drug provocation tests. Nonimmediate reactions can be assessed by delayed-reading skin tests, patch tests, and drug provocation tests. However, skin tests have been well validated mainly for β-lactams but less for other classes of antibiotics.

Hypersensitivity reactions to non beta-lactam antimicrobial agents, a statement of the WAO special committee on drug allergy

Antibiotics are used extensively in the treatment of various infections. Consequently, they can be considered among the most important agents involved in adverse reactions to drugs, including both allergic and non-allergic drug hypersensitivity [J Allergy Clin Immunol 113:832–836, 2004]. Most studies published to date deal mainly with reactions to the beta-lactam group, and information on hypersensitivity to each of the other antimicrobial agents is scarce. The present document has been produced by the Special Committee on Drug Allergy of the World Allergy Organization to present the most relevant information on the incidence, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, possible mechanisms, and management of hypersensitivity reactions to non beta-lactam antimicrobials for use by practitioners worldwide.

Suspicion of macrolide allergy after treatment of infectious diseases including Helicobacter pylori: results of allergological testing

BACKGROUND

Macrolides are useful in a wide range of bacterial infections including upper and lower respiratory tract, skin, and sexually transmitted diseases and are used in Helicobacter pylori eradication regimen. Skin symptoms occurring during drug therapy are mostly attributed to the antibiotic, causing considerable limitations of future therapeutic options. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to demonstrate results of diagnostic testing in cases of clinically suspected immediate and delayed macrolide hypersensitivity.

METHODS

A total of 125 patients with a history of immediate or delayed hypersensitivity symptoms in temporal relation to treatment with a macrolide antibiotic were studied using standardised skin tests followed by oral challenges. Selected patients with severe symptoms were further evaluated with in vitro tests.

RESULTS

Macrolide hypersensitivity was excluded in 109 patients (87.2%) by tolerated oral challenge tests. During 113 challenges in four patients an exanthema was provoked by the suspected macrolide. Only one patient developed a positive late skin test reaction. Out of the 28 Helicobacter pylori-treated patients, one patient with clarithromycin allergy was identified, whereas in eight cases amoxicillin allergy caused the exanthema. Laboratory tests using the suspected macrolides were constantly negative.

CONCLUSIONS

History alone leads to an over-estimation of macrolide hypersensitivity. Moreover, skin and in vitro tests seem to be not very useful in identifying hypersensitive patients. Challenge tests appear to be necessary for definitely confirming or ruling out macrolide allergy.

Practical management of antibiotic allergy in adults

This review looks at the main issues around immediate hypersensitivity and the role and limitations of testing. The majority of literature on antibiotic hypersensitivity relates to β-lactam antibiotics, mainly because of the heavy usage of this class of drugs. Concerns around cross-reactivity always worry clinicians, particularly in the emergency situation. Reasonable data now exist in relation to β-lactam antibiotics and derivatives, which enable appropriate risk management to be undertaken. The available literature for other classes of antibiotics is also discussed.

Sensitivity and specificity of skin tests in the diagnosis of clarithromycin allergy

BACKGROUND

Clarithromycin is one of the most frequently prescribed oral macrolidic antibiotics in the pediatric population. Suspected adverse reactions to clarithromycin have been frequently described by parents of children examined in pediatric allergy units, but there is a lack of reliable methods available in detecting the presence of specific IgE antibodies.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence of a clarithromycin allergy in children seen in a pediatric allergy unit using standardized skin tests and oral provocation tests (OPTs).

METHODS

Sixty-four children were referred with a history of a clarithromycin-associated adverse drug reaction. All these children underwent skin tests and OPTs. The nonirritating intradermal skin test concentration for clarithromycin was determined in a control group of 18 children who had tolerated clarithromycin in the previous month.

RESULTS

The threshold nonirritating intradermal concentration was established at the 10:2 dilution (0.5 mg/mL). Nine of the 64 children had an immediately positive intradermal response to the 10:2 dilution and only 1 child to the 10:3 dilution (0.05 mg/mL). None had positive skin prick test results or delayed skin responses to intradermal tests. Four of 64 children (6%) with previously described adverse reactions due to clarithromycin intake had a positive OPT reaction. When we correlated the intradermal skin test results to the OPT results, intradermal test sensitivity and specificity were 75% and 90%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Intradermal tests seem to be useful in allergologic workup in children with suspected clarithromycin hypersensitivity and may help reduce the need for OPTs.