Cephalosporin Hypersensitivity: Descriptive Analysis, Cross-Reactivity, and Risk Factors.

BACKGROUND: Cephalosporins, which belong to the beta-lactam therapeutic class, are increasingly used throughout the world. Few large studies on this issue have been conducted, and most of them have been performed as part of penicillin hypersensitivity studies. OBJECTIVE: We described our 26-year experience exploring cephalosporin drug hypersensitivity, from which we identified epidemiological and cross-reactivity data. METHODS: We included 476 patients who reported drug hypersensitivity reaction (DHR) to cephalosporin and underwent an allergy workup between January 1992 and July 2018 in the Allergy Unit of the University Hospital of Montpellier (France). According to their structural side chain R1 homology, we worked with 4 classes of cephalosporins. Logistic regression analysis was used to search for risk factors for hypersensitivity to cephalosporin (positive skin test [ST] or drug provocation test [DPT] results). RESULTS: Cephalosporin hypersensitivity was proven in 22.3% of the patients referred in our Unit, according to positive ST (51.9%) or DPT to the culprit drug (48.1%). One in 5 patients were children, and cephalosporin hypersensitivity was confirmed in 15% (47.6% of them by means of ST). In the cephalosporin hypersensitive population, initial reactions were mostly immediate (68.9%) and anaphylactic (72.7%). Cross-reactivity with aminopenicillins was the most frequent pattern of cross-reactivity. In multivariate analysis, immediate reactions (odds ratio [OR] = 3, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.6-5.5], P < .001), anaphylactic shock (OR = 6.5, 95% CI [3.3-13.1], P < .001) and anaphylaxis (OR = 3.1, 95% CI [1.6-6.1], P < .001), and multiple reactions to the same or several cephalosporins (OR = 2.0, 95% CI [1-3.5], P = .04) were statistically associated with confirmed DHR. DPT was generally safe, but elicited anaphylaxis in 20% of patients. Systemic reactions during skin testing occurred in 9.1% of positive patients, almost always related to anaphylactic index reactions. Nonimmediate confirmed DHR to cephalosporins were rare and occurred in less than 10% of the positive patients. CONCLUSION: Almost a quarter of the tested patients were confirmed as hypersensitive to cephalosporins; sensitivity of skin testing was 51.9%, and thus, half of the positive patients needed a DPT to prove the diagnosis.

A Proposal from the Montpellier World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Better Management and Prevention of Anaphylaxis.

Since the first description of anaphylaxis in 1902, its clinical importance as an emergency condition has been recognized worldwide. Anaphylaxis is a severe, potentially life-threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction characterized by rapid onset and the potential to endanger life through respiratory or circulatory compromise. It is usually, although not always, associated with skin and mucosal changes. Although the academic/scientific communities have advocated to promote greater awareness and protocols for the management of anaphylaxis based on best evidence, there are few efforts documenting feedback as to the success of these efforts. In this article, we review the key unmet needs related to the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis, and propose a public health initiative for prevention measures and a timetable action plan that intends to strengthen the collaboration among health professionals and especially primary care physicians dealing with anaphylaxis, which can encourage enhanced quality of care of patients with anaphylaxis. More than calling for a harmonized action for the best management of anaphylaxis to prevent undue morbidity and mortality, the Montpellier World Health Organization Collaborating Centre here proposes an action plan as a baseline for a global initiative against anaphylaxis. We strongly believe that these collaborative efforts are a strong public health and societal priority that is consistent with the overarching goals of providing optimal care of allergic patients and best practices of allergology.

An unusual case of occupational rhinitis

No disponible