Perspectives in precautionary allergen labelling of prepackaged foods after the FAO/WHO consultation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the perspectives regarding precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) of prepackaged foods following the consultation conducted by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the WHO.

RECENT FINDINGS

The FAO/WHO consultation provided a comprehensive assessment of the current status and practices of PAL implementation worldwide. One of the key findings highlighted by the Expert Committee was the need for improvement in existing PAL systems. It was noted that many countries lacked uniformity in PAL practices, leading to inconsistencies in labelling and potentially misleading information for consumers. Furthermore, the consultation emphasized the importance of PAL being risk-based, taking into account both the amount and frequency of unintended allergen presence (UAP) in food products.

SUMMARY

The FAO/WHO consultation shed light on various perspectives and challenges associated with PAL of prepackaged foods. Key findings emphasized the need for improvement in existing PAL systems, including the adoption of a risk-based approach, standardized regulations, and enhanced transparency. Moving forward, collaborative efforts between regulatory agencies, food manufacturers, and consumer advocacy groups will be essential in developing effective PAL strategies that prioritize consumer safety and well being.

Botanical Impurities in the Supply Chain: A New Allergenic Risk Exacerbated by Geopolitical Challenges

BACKGROUND

The supply chains of food raw materials have recently been heavily influenced by geopolitical events. Products that came from, or transited through, areas currently in conflict are now preferentially supplied from alternative areas. These changes may entail risks for food safety.

METHODS

We review the potential allergenicity of botanical impurities, specifically vegetable contaminants, with particular attention to the contamination of vegetable oils. We delve into the diverse types of botanical impurities, their sources, and the associated allergenic potential. Our analysis encompasses an evaluation of the regulatory framework governing botanical impurities in food labeling.

RESULTS

Unintended plant-derived contaminants may manifest in raw materials during various stages of food production, processing, or storage, posing a risk of allergic reactions for individuals with established food allergies. Issues may arise from natural occurrence, cross-contamination in the supply chain, and contamination at during production. The food and food service industries are responsible for providing and preparing foods that are safe for people with food allergies: we address the challenges inherent in risk assessment of botanical impurities.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of botanical impurities emerges as a significant risk factor for food allergies in the 2020s. We advocate for regulatory authorities to fortify labeling requirements and develop robust risk assessment tools. These measures are necessary to enhance consumer awareness regarding the potential risks posed by these contaminants.

Local Anesthetic Hypersensitivity Reactions in Pediatric Patients: Recognition and Management

Local anesthetics (LAs) are commonly used in all medical specialties, particularly in association with surgery, obstetrics, dentistry, and emergency departments. Most individuals, starting from young children, are exposed to LAs during life. LA hardly induces adverse events when used in recommended doses and with proper injection techniques. However, immediate anaphylactic reactions to LA injections may be a rare but life-threatening manifestation. A comprehensive report of the event and performing a specialist examination are crucial to prevent further episodes. The diagnosis should be based on history, medical records, skin and challenge tests.

Evaluation and Updated Classification of Acute Hypersensitivity Reactions to Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs): NSAID-Exacerbated or -Induced Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

There are hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to foods in which nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) act as aggravating factors (NSAID-exacerbated food allergy [NEFA]) or cofactors (NSAID-induced food allergy [NIFA]), often misdiagnosed as HRs to NSAIDs. Urticarial/angioedematous and/or anaphylactic reactions to two or more chemically unrelated NSAIDs do not meet current classification criteria. However, they may be considered part of a cross-reactive type of acute HR, which is NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema with or without respiratory or systemic symptoms of anaphylaxis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patients reporting acute HRs to NSAIDs and classify them according to updated criteria.

METHODS

We prospectively studied 414 patients with suspected HRs to NSAIDs. For all whom met these criteria, NEFA/NIFA was diagnosed: (1) mild reactions to (NEFA) or tolerance of (NIFA) the suspected foods without taking NSAIDs; (2) cutaneous and/or anaphylactic reactions to the combination foods plus NSAIDs; (3) positive allergy tests to the suspected foods; and (4) negative drug challenges (DCs) with the NSAIDs involved.

RESULTS

A total of 252 patients were given the diagnosis of NSAID hypersensitivity (60.9%), 108 of whom had NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema with or without respiratory or systemic symptoms of anaphylaxis. We excluded NSAID hypersensitivity in 162 patients (39.1%) who tolerated DCs with the suspected NSAIDs, nine of whom received a diagnosis of NEFA, and 66 of NIFA. Pru p 3 was implicated in 67 of those 75 patients who received a diagnosis of NEFA or NIFA.

CONCLUSIONS

NEFA and NIFA account for about 18% of patients reporting HRs to NSAIDs, in which Pru p 3 is the main responsible food allergen. Therefore, patients with cutaneous and/or anaphylactic reactions to NSAIDs should be carefully questioned about all foods ingested within 4 hours before or after NSAID exposure, and targeted food allergy tests should be considered in the diagnostic workup of these patients. If testing is positive, DCs with the suspected NSAIDs should also be considered.

The Combined Use of Chronological and Morphological Criteria in the Evaluation of Immediate Penicillin Reactions: Evidence From a Large Study

BACKGROUND

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins are often labeled on the basis of a similar set of symptoms, but a key feature of these reactions that can be reproduced in diagnostic testing may be the timing of a reaction in relation to the dose administration.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the timing of a reaction in response to the last dose of a penicillin would predict the results of diagnostic testing.

METHODS

We evaluated 1074 patients by performing skin tests, serum specific IgE assays (ImmunoCAP), and challenges. Patients who were evaluated by us more than 6 months after their reactions and found negative were reevaluated within 2 to 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Patients who had reacted within 1 hour after the first dose, within 1 hour after subsequent doses, more than 1 hour to within 6 hours after the first dose, or more than 1 hour to within 6 hours after subsequent doses were classified as group A (758 individuals), B (92), C (67), or D (157), respectively. Penicillin hypersensitivity was diagnosed in 707 patients (65.8%) by skin tests (407 patients, 57.6%), ImmunoCAP (47, 6.6%), both tests (232, 32.8%), or challenges (21, 3%). A conversion to allergy-test positivity occurred in 7 of 10 patients with anaphylactic reactions and in 1 of 28 patients with other reactions who were reevaluated after negative challenges. The rate of penicillin-allergic patients in groups A, B, C, and D was 85%, 35.9%, 35.8%, and 3.8%, respectively. Only 1 of 107 patients reporting cutaneous reactions lasting more than 1 day had positive results to allergy tests.

CONCLUSIONS

IgE-mediated hypersensitivity can be diagnosed by skin tests in about 70% of subjects who react within 1 hour (eg, patients from groups A and B). This hypersensitivity can be lost over time, as demonstrated by the negativization of allergy tests in follow-up studies. In subjects with anaphylactic reactions, however, it is advisable to not consider this phenomenon definitive. In fact, a conversion to allergy test positivity can be observed in up to 20% of such subjects retested after negative challenges.

Cow's milk and egg protein threshold dose distributions in children tolerant to beef, baked milk, and baked egg

BACKGROUND

The use of eliciting doses (EDs) for food allergens is necessary to inform individual dietary advice and food allergen risk-management. The Eliciting Dose 01 (ED01) for milk and egg, calculated from populations of allergic subjects undergoing oral food challenges (OFCs), are 0.2 mg total protein. The respective Eliciting Dose 05 (ED05) is 2.4 mg for milk and 2.3 mg for egg. As about 70% children allergic to such foods may tolerate them when baked, we sought to verify the EDs of that subpopulation of milk and egg-allergic children.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed consecutive OFC for fresh milk and egg between January 2018 and December 2020 in a population of baked food-tolerant children.

RESULTS

Among 288 children (median age 56 - IQR 36-92.5 months, 67.1% male) included, 87 (30.2%) returned positive OFC results, 38 with milk and 49 with egg. The most conservative ED01 was 0.3 mg total protein (IQR 0.03-2.9) for milk and 14.4 mg total protein (IQR 3.6-56.9) for egg. The respective ED05 was 4.2 (IQR 0.9-19.6) mg for milk and 87.7 (IQR 43-179) mg for egg. Such thresholds are, respectively, 1.5 (milk ED01), 1.75 (milk ED05), 72 (egg ED01), and 38.35 (egg ED05) times higher than the currently used thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

The subpopulation of children allergic to milk and egg, but tolerant to baked proteins, displays higher reactivity thresholds than the general population of children allergic to milk and egg. Their risk stratification, in both individual and population terms, should consider this difference. In baked milk-tolerant children, milk causes reactions at lower doses than egg in our group of egg-tolerant children. This could be associated with the relative harmlessness of egg compared with milk in the determinism of fatal anaphylactic reactions in children.

Urticaria: The 1-1-1 Criterion for Optimized Risk Atratification in β-Lactam Allergy Delabeling

BACKGROUND

A spurious label of β-lactam allergy compromises antibiotic stewardship. Delabeling protocols based on direct challenges (ie, not preceded by allergy tests) can be applied in low-risk patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims at determining the significance of the characteristics of urticaria in the risk stratification for delabeling.

METHODS

The characteristics of urticarial eruptions that had occurred during therapeutic courses with a β-lactam, namely the time interval between the exposure and onset, the dose (first or subsequent) after which urticaria appeared, and the duration of the eruption, were correlated to the results of a systematic allergy workup (skin tests, specific IgE measurements, and challenges). Data from 410 patients enrolled in 3 allergy centers (Rome and Troina, Italy, and Antwerp, Belgium) were analyzed. A multivariable logistic regression was performed, which included appearance within 1 hour after the first dose and regression within 1 day: a model that can be summarized as the "1-1-1" urticaria criterion.

RESULTS

An urticarial eruption that had appeared within 1 hour after the first dose and had regressed within 1 day was more frequently reported in the group with a positive allergy workup, with odds ratios of 17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9-31), 11 (95% CI: 6-20), and 48 (95% CI: 14-157), respectively (P < .005). The 1-1-1 criterion displayed a sensitivity and specificity of 85%, and a negative predictive value and a positive predictive value of 80% and 90%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients with urticaria meeting the 1-1-1 criterion should be considered at high risk and referred for an allergy workup with skin testing and specific IgE measurement before challenging.

Gut Microbiota Profile in Children with IgE-Mediated Cow's Milk Allergy and Cow's Milk Sensitization and Probiotic Intestinal Persistence Evaluation

Food allergy (FA) and, in particular, IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy is associated with compositional and functional changes of gut microbiota. In this study, we compared the gut microbiota of cow's milk allergic (CMA) infants with that of cow's milk sensitized (CMS) infants and Healthy controls. The effect of the intake of a mixture of Bifidobacterium longum subsp. longum BB536, Bifidobacterium breve M-16V and Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis M-63 on gut microbiota modulation of CMA infants and probiotic persistence was also investigated. Gut microbiota of CMA infants resulted to be characterized by a dysbiotic status with a prevalence of some bacteria as Haemophilus, Klebsiella, Prevotella, Actinobacillus and Streptococcus. Among the three strains administered, B.longum subsp. infantis colonized the gastrointestinal tract and persisted in the gut microbiota of infants with CMA for 60 days. This colonization was associated with perturbations of the gut microbiota, specifically with the increase of Akkermansia and Ruminococcus. Multi-strain probiotic formulations can be studied for their persistence in the intestine by monitoring specific bacterial probes persistence and exploiting microbiota profiling modulation before the evaluation of their therapeutic effects.

β-Lactam Allergy and Cross-Reactivity: A Clinician's Guide to Selecting an Alternative Antibiotic

β-Lactams which include penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems, and monobactams are the most common antibiotic classes reported to cause allergic reactions to drugs. This review is mainly about published studies assessing the cross-reactivity among β-lactams in penicillin- or cephalosporin-allergic subjects by carrying out diagnostic tests with alternative β-lactams and, if appropriate, graded challenges. Several studies demonstrated that cross-reactivity connected with the β-lactam ring, causing positive responses to allergy tests with all β-lactams, is infrequent in subjects with an IgE-mediated allergy and anecdotal in those with a T-cell-mediated allergy. Identities or similarities of β-lactam side-chain structures are mainly responsible for cross-reactivity among these antibiotics. For example, in aminopenicillin-allergic subjects, cross-reactivity with aminocephalosporins could possibly be over 30%. On the other hand, in a few prospective studies of penicillin-allergic individuals, less than 1% of cases show a cross-reactivity between penicillins and both aztreonam and carbapenems. Particular patterns of allergy-test positivity observed in some studies that assessed cross-reactivity among β-lactams seem to indicate that prior exposures may be responsible for coexisting sensitivities. Therefore, pre-treatment skin tests with the related β-lactams are suggested before administering them via graded challenges to β-lactam-allergic patients who need alternative β-lactams.

SIRM-SIAAIC consensus, an Italian document on management of patients at risk of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media

Hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to contrast media (CM) can be distinguished in immune-mediated (including allergic reactions) and non-immune-mediated reactions, even if clinical manifestations could be similar. Such manifestations range from mild skin eruptions to severe anaphylaxis, making it important for radiologists to know how to identify and manage them. A panel of experts from the Società Italiana di Radiologia Medica e Interventistica (SIRM) and the Società Italiana di Allergologia, Asma e Immunologia Clinica (SIAAIC) provided a consensus document on the management of patients who must undergo radiological investigations with CM. Consensus topics included: the risk stratification of patients, the identification of the culprit CM and of a safe alternative by an allergy workup, as well as the use of premedication and the correct procedure to safely perform an elective (i.e., scheduled) or urgent examination. The most important recommendations are: (1) in all patients, a thorough medical history must be taken by the prescribing physician and/or the radiologist to identify at-risk patients; (2) in patients with hypersensitivity reactions to CM, the radiologist must consider an alternative, non-contrast imaging study with a comparable diagnostic value, or prescribe a different investigation with another class of CM; (3) if such options are not feasible, the radiologist must address at-risk patients to a reference centre for an allergy evaluation; (4) if timely referral to an allergist is not viable, it is recommended to use a CM other than the responsible one, taking into account cross-reactivity patterns; in the case of patients with histories of severe reactions, the presence of an anesthesiologist is also recommended and a premedication is suggested.

Tolerability of Cefazolin and Ceftibuten in Patients with IgE-Mediated Aminopenicillin Allergy

BACKGROUND

Side-chain similarities or identities constitute the predominant factor for cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins, whereas differences in the side-chain structure seem to account for the absence of such cross-reactivity.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the cross-reactivity between penicillins and 2 cephalosporins (ie, cefazolin and ceftibuten) that have side chains different from those of penicillins, as well as to evaluate the possibility of using these cephalosporins in penicillin-allergic subjects.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of 131 consecutive subjects who had suffered 170 immediate reactions (mostly anaphylaxis) to penicillins and had positive skin test results to at least 1 penicillin reagent. All patients underwent skin tests with cefazolin and ceftibuten. Patients with negative results were challenged with them.

RESULTS

One participant had positive skin test results to cefazolin and ceftibuten, as well as to all other reagents tested, including aztreonam and carbapenems. All 129 subjects who underwent challenges with cefazolin and ceftibuten tolerated them. One subject refused cephalosporin challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects with an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins could be treated with cephalosporins such as cefazolin and ceftibuten, which are among the cephalosporins that have side-chain determinants different from those of penicillins. Nevertheless, in patients with such hypersensitivity who need these alternative β-lactams, pretreatment skin tests are advisable because of the possibility of coexisting sensitivities or, much less frequently, of a sensitivity to an antigenic determinant of the common β-lactam ring.

Impact of Omalizumab on Food Allergy in Patients Treated for Asthma: A Real-Life Study

BACKGROUND

The effects of omalizumab on food allergy thresholds have been little studied.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the real-life effects of omalizumab on food threshold tolerability in children treated for severe asthma.

METHODS

In this observational, real-life, efficacy study, we reviewed the food allergen thresholds of patients with severe asthma, as well as their immediate reactions to 2+ foods before and after a 4-month treatment with omalizumab. We also evaluated their control of asthma and their quality of life, as measured by Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL).

RESULTS

Fifteen children, allergic to 37 foods, were evaluated. Omalizumab induced an increase in the allergen threshold for milk, egg, wheat, and hazelnut from a mean 1012.6 ± 1464.5 mg protein to 8727 ± 6463.3 eliciting dose (P < .001). A total of 70.4% of subjects tolerated the complete challenge dose after 4 months of treatment with omalizumab. These foods were reintroduced in the patients' diet without the need for any oral immunotherapy procedures. The remaining foods were partially tolerated. The number of reactions to the unintended ingestion of allergenic foods over 4 months dropped from 47 to 2. The PedsQL increased from 61 ± 5.32 to 87 ± 7.33 (parental judgment; P < .001) and from 65 ± 7.39 to 90 ± 4.54 (patients' judgment; P < .001). The mean cost of omalizumab was €1311.63 per month.

CONCLUSIONS

During treatment with omalizumab for severe uncontrolled asthma, the food allergen threshold increases to 8.6 times its original value. The quality of life of patients also increased, due to a better asthma control and a reduction in dietary restrictions. The cost/benefit ratio of such treatment for selected cases of food allergy remains to be evaluated.

Debates in Allergy Medicine: Does oral immunotherapy shorten the duration of milk and egg allergy? The pro argument

The development of oral tolerance or food allergy is an active process, related to dynamic interactions between host immune cells, microbiome, dietary factors, and food allergens. Oral tolerance is the default immune response in the gut. A food allergy occurs when this process fails and a pathologic Th2 response is activated. Oral food immunotherapy (OIT) aims to restore immune tolerance in food-allergic individuals. The stimulation of Tregs production seems to represent a crucial step in inducing long-term tolerance, but other mechanisms (e.g., the suppression of mast cell and basophil reactivity, changes in allergen-specific cells with regulatory markers) are involved. Several studies reported the efficacy of OIT in terms of "sustained unresponsiveness" (SU), an operational definition of immune tolerance. In successfully treated subjects, the ability to pass an oral food challenge 2 to 8 weeks after stopping the food allergen exposure seems to be conditioned by the treatment starting age, frequency, amount or type of food consumed, and by the duration of the maintenance phase. Based on the available data, the percentage of milk- and egg-allergic subjects achieving sustained unresponsiveness after an OIT ranges from 21% to 58,3%. A comprehensive understanding of mechanisms underlying the induction of oral tolerance with OIT, or natural tolerance to food allergens in healthy individuals, could potentially lead to advances in development of better treatment options for food allergic patients.

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.

Non-immediate Cutaneous Reactions to Beta-Lactams: Approach to Diagnosis

Non-immediate cutaneous reactions (i.e., occurring at least 1 h after the initial drug administration), particularly maculopapular exanthemas and urticarial eruptions, are common during beta-lactam treatments. A T cell-mediated pathogenic mechanism has been demonstrated in some cutaneous reactions, such as maculopapular exanthema, fixed drug eruption, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, and drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome. In the diagnostic work-up, patch testing is useful, together with delayed-reading intradermal testing. Patch tests are a simple and safe diagnostic tool, which in the case of severe reactions should be used as the first line of investigation. However, patch tests are less sensitive than intradermal tests, which are preferable in subjects with mild reactions. Lymphocyte transformation or activation tests and enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assays can be used as complementary tests. In selected cases of mild or moderate reactions, displaying negative results in the aforesaid allergy tests, a graded challenge with the implicated beta-lactam can be performed.

Diagnosing β-Lactam Hypersensitivity

Hypersensitivity reactions to β-lactam antibiotics are commonly reported. They can be classified as immediate or non-immediate according to the time interval between the last drug administration and their onset. Immediate reactions occur within one 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 IgEantibodies. Non-immediate reactions occur more than one hour after the last drug administration. The most common manifestations are maculopapular exanthemas; specific T lymphocytes may be involved in this type of manifestation. In the diagnostic evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to β -lactam antibiotics, the patient's history is fundamental. The allergy examination is based on in vitro and in vivo tests selected on the basis of the clinical features and the type of reaction, immediate or non-immediate. Immediate reactions can be assessed in vitro by serum specific IgE assays and basophil activation tests and in vivo by immediate-reading skin tests and, in selected cases, drug provocation tests (DPTs). Non-immediate reactions can be evaluated mainly by delayed-reading skin tests, patch tests, and DPTs.

Cross-Reactivity among Beta-Lactams

Penicillins and cephalosporins are the major classes of beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics in use today and one of the most frequent causes of hypersensitivity reactions to drugs. Monobactams, carbapenems, oxacephems, and beta-lactamase inhibitors constitute the four minor classes of BLs. This review takes into account mainly the prospective studies which evaluated cross-reactivity among BLs in subjects with a well-demonstrated hypersensitivity to a certain class of BLs by performing allergy tests with alternative BLs and, in case of negative results, administering them. In subjects with either IgE-mediated or T-cell-mediated hypersensitivity, cross-reactivity among BLs, particularly among penicillins and among cephalosporins, as well as between penicillins and cephalosporins, seems to be mainly related to structural similarities among their side-chain determinants. Specifically, in penicillin-allergic subjects, cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins may exceed 30% when they are administered cephalosporins with identical side chains to those of responsible penicillins. In these subjects, a few prospective studies have demonstrated a rate of cross-reactivity between penicillins and both carbapenems and aztreonam lower than 1%. With regard to subjects with an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to cephalosporins, in a single study, about 25% of the 98 subjects with such hypersensitivity had positive results to penicillins, 3% to aztreonam, 2% to imipenem/cilastatin, and 1% to meropenem. The cross-reactivity related to the selective recognition of the BL ring by IgE or T lymphocytes, which entails positive responses to all BLs tested, appears to be exceptional. Some studies concerning cross-reactivity among BLs have found patterns of allergy-test positivity which cannot be explained by either the common BL ring or by similar or identical side chains, thus indicating the possibility of coexisting sensitivities to different BLs because of prior exposures to them.

Cross-reactivity and tolerability of aztreonam and cephalosporins in subjects with a T cell-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins

BACKGROUND

The few studies performed in adults with T cell-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins have found a rate of cross-reactivity with cephalosporins ranging from 2.8% to 31.2% and an absence of cross-reactivity with aztreonam.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the possibility of using cephalosporins and aztreonam in subjects with documented delayed hypersensitivity to penicillins who especially require them.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of 214 consecutive subjects who had 307 nonimmediate reactions to penicillins (almost exclusively aminopenicillins) and had positive patch test and/or delayed-reading skin test responses to at least 1 penicillin reagent. To assess cross-reactivity with cephalosporins and aztreonam and the tolerability of such alternative β-lactams, all subjects underwent skin tests with cephalexin, cefaclor, cefadroxil, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam. Subjects with negative responses were challenged with the alternative β-lactams concerned.

RESULTS

All subjects had negative skin test results to cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam and tolerated challenges. Forty (18.7%) of the 214 subjects had positive skin test responses to at least 1 aminocephalosporin. Of the 174 subjects with negative responses, 170 underwent challenges; 1 reacted to cefaclor.

CONCLUSIONS

These data demonstrate a rate of cross-reactivity between aminopenicillins and aminocephalosporins (ie, cephalexin, cefaclor, and cefadroxil) of around 20%, as well as the absence of cross-reactivity between penicillins and cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam in all subjects with T cell-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins, almost exclusively aminopenicillins. Therefore these subjects could be treated with cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam. In those who especially require cephalosporin or aztreonam treatment, however, we recommend pretreatment skin tests because negative responses indicate tolerability.

Tolerability of aztreonam and carbapenems in patients with IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins

BACKGROUND

Studies performed on samples larger than 100 subjects with a documented IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins have demonstrated a cross-reactivity rate of approximately 1% between penicillins and both imipenem and meropenem, whereas a single study found a cross-reactivity rate of 6.2% with aztreonam in 16 such subjects.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cross-reactivity and tolerability of aztreonam and 3 carbapenems (imipenem-cilastatin, meropenem, and ertapenem) in patients with documented IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins.

METHODS

A total of 212 consecutive subjects with immediate reactions to penicillins and positive results on skin tests to at least 1 penicillin reagent underwent skin tests with aztreonam and carbapenems; subjects with negative results were challenged with escalating doses of aztreonam and carbapenems.

RESULTS

All subjects displayed negative skin test results to both aztreonam and carbapenems; 211 accepted challenges and tolerated them. Challenges were not followed by full therapeutic courses.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate the tolerability of both aztreonam and carbapenems in penicillin-allergic subjects. In those who especially require these alternative β-lactams, however, we recommend pretreatment skin tests, both because rare cases of cross-reactivity have been reported and because negative results indicate tolerability.

Diagnosing multiple drug hypersensitivity in children

BACKGROUND

Multiple drug hypersensitivity (MDH) has been defined as a hypersensitivity to two or more chemically different drugs. Two types of MDH have been reported: the first one, which develops to different drugs administered simultaneously and the second type, in which sensitizations develop sequentially. In children, studies which diagnose MDH on the basis of positive allergologic tests to 2 or more chemically different drugs are lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study evaluating children with histories of MDH by skin tests, patch tests, serum-specific IgE assays, and drug provocation tests.

RESULTS

A MDH was diagnosed in 7 (2.5%) of the 279 children evaluated who completed the study. The responsible drugs were β-lactams (penicillins and cephalosporins) in 5 episodes, ibuprofen and anticonvulsants in 3, and erythromycin, fentanyl, methylprednisolone, and cotrimoxazole in 1. Sensitivity to 2 chemically different drugs was diagnosed in 6 children and to 3 drugs in 1 child. Two of the 7 children presented the first type of MDH, whereas 5 displayed the second one.

CONCLUSIONS

MDH can occur in children, even to drugs other than antibiotics. It is crucial to evaluate children with histories of MDH using both in vivo and in vitro allergologic tests, including challenges. In fact, such approach allows the physician to confirm the diagnosis of MDH in a small percentage of children with histories of MDH, as well as to rule it out in the great majority of them.

IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to cephalosporins: cross-reactivity and tolerability of penicillins, monobactams, and carbapenems

BACKGROUND

There have been few studies regarding the cross-reactivity and tolerability of penicillins, aztreonam, and carbapenems in large samples of subjects with cephalosporin allergy.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the possibility of using penicillins, monobactams, and carbapenems in subjects with cephalosporin allergy who especially require them.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of 98 consecutive subjects who had 106 immediate reactions (mostly anaphylactic shock) to cephalosporins and had positive skin test results for these drugs. To assess the cross-reactivity with penicillins, monobactams, and carbapenems and the tolerability of such alternative β-lactams, all subjects underwent skin tests and serum-specific IgE assays with penicillin reagents, as well as skin tests with aztreonam, imipenem/cilastatin, and meropenem. Subjects with negative test results were challenged with meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, aztreonam, and amoxicillin.

RESULTS

Positive allergologic test results to penicillins were displayed by 25 (25.5%) subjects, including 1 with positive results to all reagents tested and another with a positive result to aztreonam. Another subject had positive results to both ceftazidime and aztreonam. A reaction to cephalosporins with side-chain structures similar or identical to those of penicillins was a significant predictor of cross-reactivity because of an increased 3-fold risk of positive results on allergologic tests with penicillin determinants. Challenges with alternative β-lactams were tolerated, with the exception of 1 urticarial reaction to imipenem/cilastatin.

CONCLUSIONS

About 25% of subjects with cephalosporin allergy had positive results to penicillins, 3.1% to aztreonam, 2% to imipenem/cilastatin, and 1% to meropenem. In those who especially require alternative β-lactams, pretreatment skin tests are advisable because negative results indicate tolerability of the β-lactam concerned.

The very limited usefulness of skin testing with penicilloyl-polylysine and the minor determinant mixture in evaluating nonimmediate reactions to penicillins

BACKGROUND

The contribution of skin testing with penicilloyl-polylysine (PPL) and the minor determinant mixture (MDM) to the diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins differs greatly according to the type of reaction: immediate (occurring within 1 h after the last drug administration) or nonimmediate (occurring more than 1 h after the last drug administration).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the contribution of skin testing with PPL and MDM to the diagnosis of nonimmediate reactions to penicillins.

METHODS

We evaluated 162 adults who had had 232 nonimmediate reactions to penicillins, mostly aminopenicillins, and presented positive skin and/or patch tests to one or more penicillin reagents: PPL, MDM, benzylpenicillin, ampicillin, and amoxicillin, as well as any responsible penicillins.

RESULTS

A total of 157 subjects (96.9%) displayed patch-test and/or delayed-reading intradermal-test positivity to penicillin reagents, which indicates a cell-mediated hypersensitivity; six of them also presented immediate-reading skin-test positivities. All 157 patients with a cell-mediated hypersensitivity were positive to the responsible penicillins (parent drugs); 16 of them also displayed delayed-reading intradermal-test positivity to MDM. Five (3.1%) of the 162 patients displayed only immediate-reading skin-test positivity (four to PPL and one to amoxicillin). Overall, 158 subjects (97.5%) presented positive responses to the responsible penicillins, while only 9 (5.5%) and 17 (10.5%) were positive to PPL and MDM, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The contribution of skin testing with PPL and MDM in diagnosing nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins, especially cell-mediated ones, is very limited. This finding could be useful at a time when PPL and MDM are not available in all countries.

Diagnosing hypersensitivity reactions to cephalosporins in children

OBJECTIVES

The goals were to evaluate the usefulness of skin tests, patch tests, serum specific IgE assays, and challenges in diagnosing hypersensitivity reactions to cephalosporins and to clarify the pathogenic mechanism of such reactions.

METHODS

Children with immediate manifestations (within 1 hour) underwent immediate-reading skin tests with penicillin reagents and any suspect cephalosporins, serum specific IgE assays, and challenges; some children underwent reevaluations. Children with nonimmediate manifestations (after >1 hour) were assessed with patch tests, delayed-reading skin tests, and challenges.

RESULTS

We evaluated 148 children with hypersensitivity reactions to cephalosporins, mainly cefaclor and ceftriaxone; 105 had experienced nonimmediate manifestations (mostly urticarial eruptions and maculopapular rashes) and 43 immediate manifestations (anaphylactic shock, urticaria and/or angioedema, and erythema). None of the nonimmediate reactors demonstrated positive results in patch tests and/or delayed skin tests; only 1 subject displayed immediate positive responses to penicillin skin-test reagents. Among the 104 patients with negative results, 96 underwent challenges; 95 tolerated the challenges, and 1 reacted to the cefaclor pediatric suspension and tolerated the challenge with a cefaclor capsule. In the first allergologic evaluation, 33 of the 43 children with immediate reactions displayed skin-test positivity. Of the 10 patients with negative results, 7 underwent challenges, followed by therapeutic courses and reevaluations for 4. All challenges and therapeutic courses were tolerated; in the reevaluation, 1 girl demonstrated positive skin-test results for both the responsible cephalosporin and penicillin reagents. Overall, IgE-mediated hypersensitivity was diagnosed for 34 (79%) of 43 subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Extremely few nonimmediate manifestations associated with cephalosporin therapy are actually hypersensitivity reactions, whereas most immediate reactions to cephalosporins are IgE-mediated. Cephalosporin skin testing is a useful tool for evaluating such reactions.

Hypersensitivity to aromatic anticonvulsants: in vivo and in vitro cross-reactivity studies

Aromatic antiepileptic drugs (phenytoin, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and phenobarbital) are frequently associated with cutaneous eruptions. A cell-mediated pathogenic mechanism has been demonstrated in most of such reactions on the basis of positive responses to patch tests and/or lymphocyte transformation tests. Therefore, such tests are useful tools for evaluating anticonvulsant hypersensitivity reactions. Moreover, an in vitro lymphocyte toxicity assay, which exposes the patient's lymphocytes to arene oxides, has detected lymphocyte susceptibility to toxic metabolites in a large percentage of patients with hypersensitivity reactions to aromatic anticonvulsants. Although several hypersensitivity reactions to sequential exposure to more than one aromatic anticonvulsant (i.e., clinical cross-reactivity) have been reported, there are few studies performed with patch tests and/or lymphocyte transformation tests assessing immunologic cross-reactivity, and their data are contradictory. In any case, considering studies performed in samples of at least 10 patients, the immunologic cross-reactivity rate among aromatic anticonvulsants appears to be low. On the other hand, the reported rate of the toxic cross-reactivity (i.e., assessed by lymphocyte toxicity assays) is high. Further in vivo and in vitro studies in large samples of subjects are needed to evaluate cross-reactivity among aromatic anticonvulsants.

IgE-Mediated Hypersensitivity to Cephalosporins

Like penicillins, cephalosporins may cause IgE-mediated reactions such as urticaria, angioedema, and anaphylactic shock, which occur because of sensitization to determinants shared with penicillins or to unique cephalosporin haptens. In particular, side-chain structures may be responsible for selective sensitization or cross-reactivity. For this reason, individual free cephalosporins are usually employed in skin testing, in addition to the classic penicillin reagents. Cephalosporin skin tests are sensitive in diagnosing immediate hypersensitivity to these betalactams. As far as in vitro tests are concerned, IgE assays for cephalosporins, specifically sepharose-radioimmunoassays, are a potentially useful tool in evaluating immediate reactions and could be used as complementary tests. In selected cases displaying negative results in both skin tests and IgE assays, a graded challenge with the implicated cephalosporin can be performed. Cephalosporin IgE-mediated hypersensitivity may be a transient condition; therefore, allergologic exams should be repeated in patients with negative initial allergologic work-ups, including challenges. Performing allergologic tests with cephalosporins other than the culprit, as well as with penicillin reagents, allows the identification of cross-reactivity with penicillins, selective responses, or cross-reactivity among cephalosporins. In the latter group, cross-reactivity is more frequently related to R1 than to R2 side-chain recognition. In assessing the selectivity of the response, negative results in skin testing with cephalosporins other than the responsible one appear to be a reliable indicator of tolerability.

Allergic reactions to antibiotics, mainly betalactams: facts and controversies

Allergic reactions to antibiotics are commonly reported. They can be classified as immediate or non-immediate according to the time interval between the last drug administration and their onset. Immediate reactions occur within the first hour and are manifested clinically by urticaria and/or angioedema, rhinitis, bronchospasm, and anaphylactic shock; they may be mediated by specific IgE-antibodies. The main non-immediate reactions (occurring more than one hour after drug administration) 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 allergologic examination includes in vivo and in vitro tests selected on the basis of the clinical features. Prick and intradermal tests are sensitive in evaluating betalactam hypersensitivity. Together with delayed-reading intradermal testing, patch testing is useful in diagnosing maculopapular reactions to systemically administered aminopenicillins. Determination of serum specific IgE is the most common in vitro method for diagnosing immediate reactions, while the lymphocyte transformation test can be performed for evaluating both immediate and non-immediate ones. In selected cases, provocation tests should be performed.