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

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

Successful Rapid Desensitization to Micafungin in a Pediatric Patient.

Introduction: Echinocandin antifungal medications including micafungin are being used more commonly in the treatment of invasive fungal infections in both pediatric and adult patients. Micafungin is also a first-line therapeutic option for candidemia and antifungal prophylaxis in a variety of clinical settings. Hypersensitivity reactions have not been well described; however, isolated cases have been reported. No cases of desensitization to echinocandins have been previously described. Case Presentation: In this report, we described a 14-year-old female with high-risk pre-B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia diagnosed with pulmonary aspergillosis. She developed a hypersensitivity reaction to micafungin, which was deemed first-line therapy for the infection. A rapid intravenous desensitization protocol was successfully completed without reactions. The patient completed the remaining 2 months of therapy without reactions. Conclusion: This report outlines the first report of a successful desensitization to micafungin or any echinocandin. This is a safe method of completing antifungal therapy in a patient with echinocandin hypersensitivity and may be considered for other patients with micafungin hypersensitivities.

Hypersensitivity to tetracyclines: Skin testing, graded challenge, and desensitization regimens.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to tetracyclines and the related compound, tigecycline, can limit the use of these medications and compromise optimal patient care. Despite this, there is little discussion in the literature describing the presentation of these reactions or guiding clinicians on the management of these reactions in adult and pediatric patients. OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical features, optimal diagnostic approach, and management of HSRs to tetracyclines. METHODS: Patients with reactions to tetracyclines at our institution from 2011 to 2019 were identified by retrospective chart review. Skin testing protocols were designed for each antibiotic. Graded challenge and desensitization procedures were devised based on medical history, skin testing results when available, and need for readministration. RESULTS: The HSRs to tetracyclines, their workup, and management are described for 10 patients, aged 7 to 68 years. Our skin testing protocols for doxycycline, minocycline, and tigecycline described herein had good negative predictive value. When skin testing was negative and the initial reaction was not severe, graded challenge to the culprit drug was performed. Using the included procedures, 3 patients were desensitized to oral doxycycline, 3 to oral minocycline, and 2 to intravenous tigecycline. All the desensitizations were successful. CONCLUSION: Once identified, HSRs to tetracyclines can be further evaluated with skin testing and graded challenge and managed in appropriate cases with desensitization. These procedures can facilitate first-line therapy for patients who require tetracyclines but developed hypersensitivity reactions.

Pediatric Drug Hypersensitivity.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pediatric drug hypersensitivity is a rapidly evolving field. The purpose of this paper is to review the current state of pediatric drug hypersensitivity and highlight new developments in diagnosis and management. RECENT FINDINGS: This paper will discuss the safety and use of risk stratification to proceed directly to oral challenge without prior skin testing for ß-lactam reactions. We review unique aspects of pediatric drug challenges and desensitizations. It is important to accurately diagnose pediatric drug hypersensitivity reactions through a detailed history, physical examination, and available diagnostic testing. Understanding of the underlying mechanism leads to appropriate classification which is necessary to direct management. The decision to perform drug challenge, desensitization, or recommend avoidance of a medication can have a significant impact on a patient's treatment. Utilization of weight-based dose and infusion rate adjustments for current drug challenge and desensitization protocols optimize success.

Acquired Cold-Induced Urticaria in Pediatric Patients: A 22-Year Experience in a Tertiary Care Center (1996-2017).

BACKGROUND: Acquired cold-induced urticaria (ACU) has not been well evaluated in pediatrics. OBJECTIVE: To further evaluate the presentation of ACU in children and associated risk of anaphylaxis. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed in children 18 years or younger diagnosed with ACU at Boston Children's Hospital (US, Northeast) from 1996 to 2017. RESULTS: A total of 415 patients with ACU were identified, aged 4 months to 18.3 years at the time of diagnosis, with similar male:female distribution. Most patients had a history of atopic disease (78.3%), and 25.8% had other urticaria. Around two-third of patients experienced only localized cold-induced symptoms (grade 1), whereas 14.0% had diffuse cutaneous symptoms (grade 2) as the most severe reaction, and 18.6% experienced anaphylaxis (grade 3). Swimming triggered 77.6% of grade 3 reactions, whereas the rest were secondary to ingestion of cold food or beverages, or cold air or cold water exposure. Seven percent of subjects had more than 1 episode of anaphylaxis. Cold stimulation test (CST) was performed in 61.7% of patients, and the result was positive in 69.9% of those tested. Positive CST result was significantly associated with increased risk of anaphylaxis. There was a 11.7% rate of anaphylaxis among patients with negative CST result. Disease resolution at any point in the study period was documented in 8.9% of patients and was associated with a negative history of anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest study to date on ACU, grade 3 reactions occurred in about a fifth of patients. Positive CST result was associated with a higher risk for anaphylaxis from ACU. Epinephrine prescription and patient/family counseling about risk factors for grade 3 reactions are recommended.

Drug allergy in children and adults: Is it the double X chromosome?

OBJECTIVE: This article reviews the latest science and epidemiologic studies related to drug allergy in children and adults to explore possible mechanisms related to female propensity for drug allergy. DATA SOURCES: PubMed literature review, focusing primarily on the last 5 years. STUDY SELECTIONS: Articles reviewing the science behind female predisposition to atopic and asthmatic conditions and epidemiologic studies reviewing drug allergy and drug-induced anaphylaxis. RESULTS: Despite adult female predilection for atopic conditions, few laboratory studies explore sex-specific mechanisms in atopic/allergic diseases, and most are focused on autoimmunity and asthma. Drug allergy is more frequently reported in adult females compared with adult males. Adult females are also more likely to have drug-induced anaphylaxis (DIA), although no clear sex predominance has been reported in fatal or severe DIA. Studies in children suggest the reverse picture, with prepubertal males more likely to have drug allergy and DIA than prepubertal girls. CONCLUSION: Possible explanations for female predisposition for drug allergy are multifactorial and include disproportionate utilization of health care with more exposure to antibiotics or medications, genetic factors related to the X chromosome, epigenetic changes, and discrepant hormonal interactions with immune cells.

Controversies in drug allergy: Testing for delayed reactions.

Controversies exist with regard to in vivo approaches to delayed immunologically mediated adverse drug reactions, such as exanthem (maculopapular eruption), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and fixed drug eruptions. In particular, widespread differences exist between regions and practice on the availability and use of intradermal and patch testing, the standard drug concentrations used, the use of additional drugs in intradermal and patch testing to help determine cross-reactivity, the timing of testing in relation to the occurrence of the adverse drug reaction, the use of testing in specific phenotypes, and the use of oral challenge in conjunction with delayed intradermal and patch testing to ascertain drug tolerance. It was noted that there have been advances in the science of delayed T cell-mediated reactions that have shed light on immunopathogenesis and provided a mechanism of preprescription screening in the case of HLA-B*57:01 and abacavir hypersensitivity and HLA-B*15:02 and carbamazepine Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis in Southeast Asian subjects. Future directions should include the collaboration of large international networks to develop and standardize in vivo diagnostic approaches, such as skin testing and patch testing, combined with ex vivo and in vitro laboratory approaches.

Antibiotic Allergy in Pediatrics.

The overlabeling of pediatric antibiotic allergy represents a huge burden in society. Given that up to 10% of the US population is labeled as penicillin allergic, it can be estimated that at least 5 million children in this country are labeled with penicillin allergy. We now understand that most of the cutaneous symptoms that are interpreted as drug allergy are likely viral induced or due to a drug-virus interaction, and they usually do not represent a long-lasting, drug-specific, adaptive immune response to the antibiotic that a child received. Because most antibiotic allergy labels acquired in childhood are carried into adulthood, the overlabeling of antibiotic allergy is a liability that leads to unnecessary long-term health care risks, costs, and antibiotic resistance. Fortunately, awareness of this growing burden is increasing and leading to more emphasis on antibiotic allergy delabeling strategies in the adult population. There is growing literature that is used to support the safe and efficacious use of tools such as skin testing and drug challenge to evaluate and manage children with antibiotic allergy labels. In addition, there is an increasing understanding of antibiotic reactivity within classes and side-chain reactions. In summary, a better overall understanding of the current tools available for the diagnosis and management of adverse drug reactions is likely to change how pediatric primary care providers evaluate and treat patients with such diagnoses and prevent the unnecessary avoidance of antibiotics, particularly penicillins.

Management of Children with Hypersensitivity to Antibiotics and Monoclonal Antibodies.

Proper management of drug allergy in children is based on a thorough history, in vitro testing (if available), in vivo testing, and drug challenge. This approach has been well developed with beta-lactam drugs but not with non-beta-lactam drugs and monoclonal antibodies. Children commonly develop rashes during an antibiotic course, which can lead to misdiagnosis of drug allergy. Clinical reactions to monoclonal antibodies vary and are managed depending on the type. A better knowledge of drug reactions that can occur in antibiotic allergy and monoclonal allergy can aid a provider in better management of their drug-allergic pediatric patients.

Implementation of a Standardized Clinical Assessment and Management Plan (SCAMP) for Food Challenges.

BACKGROUND: Oral food challenges (OFCs) are routinely used to confirm ongoing food allergy. Serum-specific IgE (sIgE) and skin prick testing (SPT) are imperfect predictors of which patients will pass OFCs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the design and implementation of a Standardized Clinical Assessment and Management Plan (SCAMP) to study and iteratively improve sIgE and SPT thresholds to determine when and where to conduct OFCs for patients. METHODS: Allergists consulted recommended sIgE and SPT thresholds when ordering challenges although diversions were permitted. Criteria were iteratively improved after periodic analyses of challenge outcome and diversions. RESULTS: Over 3 years, allergists ordered 2368 food challenges for 1580 patients with histories of IgE-mediated reactions to food: 1386 in an outpatient clinic and 945 in a higher resource infusion center. Reactions to challenge were observed in 13% of clinic and 23% of infusion center challenges. Six patients challenged in clinic required treatment with epinephrine compared with 22 in the infusion center. The need for epinephrine was more common in patients with asthma-5% of asthmatic patients required epinephrine compared with 1% of nonasthmatic patients (P < .01). Recommended sIgE and SPT thresholds were incrementally changed and, using the control chart methodology, a significant decrease was noted in the proportion of challenges ordered in the higher resource location. CONCLUSIONS: By setting and continually refining sIgE and SPT recommendations using the SCAMP method, allergists can better determine the risk of severe reaction and triage patients to the appropriate setting for an OFC.

Methotrexate hypersensitivity reactions in pediatrics: Evaluation and management.

Reports of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to MTX are limited to single case studies. We retrospectively reviewed HSRs to MTX during a 12-year period in our tertiary care pediatric center. Seven patients were evaluated for HSRs to MTX. Skin testing was positive in one of the four patients tested. One patient underwent successful graded challenge to MTX. Seventeen desensitizations to MTX were successfully performed in the other six patients. Skin testing, graded challenge, and desensitization were safe and effective procedures in the evaluation and management of patients with HSRs to MTX in our pediatric population.

Rituximab Desensitization in Pediatric Patients: Results of a Case Series.

Rituximab is a monoclonal antibody (mAb) primarily used to treat oncologic and autoinflammatory conditions. Although hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) and desensitization protocols to mAbs have been well described in adults, the experience in the pediatric population is very limited. We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of desensitization to rituximab in the pediatric population at our institution. We retrospectively reviewed the experience with HSRs and desensitization to rituximab during a 5-year period in our tertiary care pediatric center, including reaction evaluation, premedication regimens, and desensitization procedures and protocols. A total of 17 desensitizations to rituximab were performed in three patients. A 14-year-old patient underwent successful desensitization to rituximab using a published adult protocol without incident. Two younger patients (ages 7 years and 23 months) experienced significant reactions during initial desensitization attempts. Therefore, we designed a modified desensitization protocol to rituximab, with particular attention to the rate of infusion as mg/kg/h. This new patient weight-based protocol was successfully used in a total of 13 desensitizations in these two patients. Desensitization to rituximab was a safe and effective procedure in our pediatric population. We present a new patient weight-based desensitization protocol for pediatric patients who develop HSRs to rituximab, with particular usefulness for younger pediatric patients and potential utility in pediatric patients with HSRs to other mAbs.