Alpha-gal syndrome: when treatment of hypovolemic shock can lead to anaphylaxis.

Delayed anaphylaxis after ingestion of red meat because of galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (alpha-gal) syndrome has increased in recent years. The mechanism involves an immunoglobulin E reaction to alpha-gal, a molecule found in mammalian meat, dairy products, medications and excipients containing mammalian-derived components, and tick salivary glycans. Sensitization occurs due to the bite of a lone star tick and the transmission of alpha-gal molecules into person's bloodstream. We describe a case of alpha-gal syndrome with severe food, drug, and perioperative allergy in which anaphylaxis with hypovolemic shock occurred immediately after an emergency surgical procedure, when a gelatin-containing drug was injected. This case study confirms that the clinical manifestations of alpha-gal syndrome could be different depending on the route of administration, with immediate reactions if an alpha-gal-containing drug is injected and delayed type allergic manifestations occurring several hours after oral intake. The purpose of this report is to highlight the importance of risk communication in case of exposure to medical products and surgical procedures of patients with alpha-gal syndrome and to encourage drug manufacturers to indicate clearly the origin of excipients in product literature.

How to Define and Manage Low-Risk Drug Allergy Labels.

Risk stratification in drug allergy implies that specific risk categories (eg, low, moderate, and high) classify historical drug hypersensitivity reactions. These risk categories can be based on reaction phenotypic characteristics, the timing of the reaction and evaluation, the required reaction management, and individual characteristics. Although a multitude of frameworks have been described in the literature, particularly for penicillin allergy labels, there has yet to be a global consensus, and approaches continue to vary between allergy centers. Immune-mediated drug allergies can sometimes be confirmed using skin testing, but a negative drug challenge is required to demonstrate tolerance and remove the allergy from the electronic health record ("delabel" the allergy). Even for quintessential IgE-mediated drug allergy, penicillin allergy, recent data reveal that a direct oral challenge, without prior skin testing, is an appropriate diagnostic strategy in those who are considered low-risk. Drug allergy pathogenesis and clinical manifestations may vary depending on the culprit drug, and as such, the optimal approach should be based on risk stratification that considers individual patient and reaction characteristics, the likely hypersensitivity reaction phenotype, the drug class, and the patient's clinical needs. This article will describe low-risk drug allergy labels, focusing on ß-lactam and sulfonamide antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, iodinated contrast media, and common chemotherapeutics. This review will also address practical management approaches using currently available risk stratification and clinical decision tools.

Successful rapid liposomal amphotericin B desensitization in pediatric case series.

Background: Liposomal amphotericin B (LAMB) is a crucial agent in the treatment of invasive fungal diseases caused by a wide variety of yeasts and molds. In the presence of an infection caused by a fungal agent resistant to alternative antifungal drugs, desensitization may be the only option to continue treatment. However, there is insufficient information and consensus with regard to amphotericin B desensitization protocols in the pediatric age group. Objective: We present our experience with five cases of patients in whom successful desensitization protocols were applied with LAMB, along with a review of the literature on pediatric cases. We also provide a sample desensitization protocol that we successfully applied. Methods: Pediatric patients who continued their treatment with the successful rapid desensitization protocol conducted at the Paediatric Allergy and Immunology Clinic of the Ministry of Health Ankara City Hospital between September 2019 and September 2023 were examined. Desensitization protocols were applied based on Castells' desensitization protocol. Results: Five patients ages between 5 and 12 years were referred to us due to the development of anaphylaxis during their treatment with LAMB. Anaphylaxis is diagnosed clinically, according to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines: anaphylaxis (2021 update). A 16-step desensitization protocol was prepared by using LAMB solutions at four different dilutions (0.001, 0.01, 0.1, and 1 mg/mL). Each solution consisted of four steps, with a 15-minute infusion for each step. The patients were premedicated with 1 mg/kg/dose methylprednisolone and an antihistamine. Conclusion: The data we present on the successful application of a sample protocol to five cases, particularly in a pediatric setting, are noteworthy valuable contributions to the field, which demonstrates the feasibility and success of rapid desensitization with LAMB in pediatric patients. This can provide important insights and potentially serve as a reference for medical professionals working with similar cases in the future.

Penicillin Allergy: Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Management.

Allergy to penicillin can occur via any of the 4 types of Gel-Coombs hypersensitivity reactions, producing distinct clinical histories and physical examination findings. Treatments include penicillin discontinuation, and depending on the type of reaction, epinephrine, antihistamines, and/or glucocorticoids. Most beta-lactams may be safely used in penicillin-allergic patients, with the possible exception of first-generation and second-generation cephalosporins. Penicillin testing includes skin testing, patch testing, and graded challenge. The selection of the type of testing depends on the clinical setting, equipment availability, and type of hypersensitivity reaction. Desensitization may be used in some cases where treatment with penicillins is essential.

Hypersensitive Reactions During Hemodialysis Treatment: What Do We Need to Know?

Kidney replacement therapies (KRTs) including hemodialysis (HD) are one of the treatment options for most of the patients with end-stage kidney disease. Although HD is vital for these patients, it is not hundred percent physiological, and various adverse events including hypersensitivity reactions may occur. Fortunately, these reactions are rare in total and less when compared to previous decades, but it is still very important for at least two reasons: First, the number of patients receiving kidney replacement treatment is increasing globally; and the cumulative number of these reactions may be substantial. Second, although most of these reactions are mild, some of them may be very severe and even lead to mortality. Thus, it is very important to have basic knowledge and skills to diagnose and treat these reactions. Hypersensitivity reactions can occur at any component of dialysis machinery (access, extracorporeal circuit, medications, etc.). The most important preventive measure is to avoid the allergen. However, even with very specific test, sometimes the allergen cannot be found. In mild conditions, HD can be contained with non-specific treatment (topical creams, antihistaminics, corticosteroids). In more severe conditions, treatment must be stopped immediately, blood should not be returned to patient, drugs must be stopped, and rules of general emergency treatment must be followed.

A successful desensitization in an adult patient with ARA-C infusion reaction.

INTRODUCTION: Cytarabine (ARA-C) is an antimetabolite agent used especially in the treatment of hematologic malignancies. Infusion reactions have an important place among the side effects that may occur due to treatment. Clinical findings of infusion reactions resemble allergic reactions. CASE REPORT: 47-year-old male patient with a diagnosis of B-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia developed infusion reaction during ARA-C treatment. MANAGEMENT & OUTCOME: There was no alternative treatment option for his existing malignant disease, we decided ARA-C desensitization. DISCUSSION: We would like to describe a successful desensitization protocol in an adult patient who experienced a reaction during ARA-C infusion.

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.

One-Bag 8-Step Ferric Carboxymaltose Desensitization Protocol for Patients with a History of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Iron Preparations.

INTRODUCTION: Iron deficiency is the most common cause of anemia in both sexes, although it is more common in women. Intravenous (IV) iron replacement is preferred in patients who cannot tolerate oral treatment or when iron stores need to be replenished rapidly. In this study, we wanted to share the ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) desensitization protocol that we self-created and successfully applied. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients with a history of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to IV or oral iron replacement and patients who were planned to receive IV iron replacement but were referred to the allergy clinic because of have risk factors (atopic diseases, history of HSR to other drugs, high serum tryptase levels, etc.) for HSRs. Before desensitization, some of the patients underwent skin tests (skin prick test and intradermal test) with FCM, and the results were recorded. Skin tests were not performed in patients with a history of drug use (antihistamine, systemic steroid, omalizumab, etc.) that affected the results of skin tests. All patients underwent a one-bag 8-step desensitization protocol with 500 mg FCM and were observed for 2 h after desensitization. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients (14 females and 1 male) with a mean age of 41.13 ± 11.18 years were included in the study. When the patients were evaluated in terms of the risk of allergic reactions according to their clinical history, 8 patients had a history of anaphylaxis with iron preparations (FCM, n = 4; ferric hydroxide sucrose, n = 2; iron [II] glycine sulfate, n = 1; and iron [III] hydroxide polymaltose, n = 1), and 7 patients had a history of HSR other than anaphylaxis with iron preparations (urticaria, n = 6 [FCM, n = 2; iron (II) glycine sulfate, n = 2; and iron (III) hydroxide polymaltose, n = 2] and urticaria + angioedema [ferric hydroxide sucrose, n = 1]). Desensitization was successfully completed in all patients. No HSR was observed during or after the procedure in any of the patients. CONCLUSION: IV iron replacement is a very effective method, especially in cases where iron stores need to be replenished more rapidly. In patients with a history of iron HSR or at risk of developing HSR, replacement can be safely performed without an allergic reaction with successful desensitization protocols.

Hypersensitivity reactions to proton pump inhibitors. An EAACI position paper.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are invaluable therapeutic options in a variety of dyspeptic diseases. In addition to their well-known risk profile, PPI consumption is related to food and environmental allergies, dysbiosis, osteoporosis, as well as immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). The latter, although a rare event, around 1%-3%, due to the extraordinarily high rate of prescription and consumption of PPIs are related to a substantial risk. In this Position Paper, we provide clinicians with practical evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of HSRs to PPIs. Furthermore, the unmet needs proposed in the document aim to stimulate more in-depth investigations in the topic.

Differential presentation of hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin and oxaliplatin: Phenotypes, endotypes, and management with desensitization.

BACKGROUND: Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to platinum-based drugs are heterogenous and restrict their access, and drug desensitization (DD) has provided a ground-breaking procedure for their re-introduction, although the response is heterogeneous. We aimed to identify the phenotypes, endotypes, and biomarkers of reactions to carboplatin and oxaliplatin and their response to DD. METHODS: Seventy-nine patients presenting with DHRs to oxaliplatin (N = 46) and carboplatin (N = 33) were evaluated at the Allergy Departments of two tertiary care hospitals in Spain. Patient symptoms, skin testing, biomarkers, and outcomes of 267 DDs were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Oxaliplatin-reactive patients presented with type I (74%), cytokine release reaction (CRR) (11%), and mixed (Mx) (15%) phenotypes. In contrast, carboplatin reactive patients presented with predominantly type I (85%) and Mx (15%) but no CRRs. Out of 267 DDs, breakthrough reactions (BTRs) to oxaliplatin occurred twice as frequently as carboplatin (32% vs. 15%; p < .05). Phenotype switching from type I to another phenotype was observed in 46% of oxaliplatin DDs compared to 21% of carboplatin DDs. Tryptase was elevated in type I and Mx reactions, and IL-6 in CRR and Mx, indicating different mechanisms and endotypes. CONCLUSION: Carboplatin and oxaliplatin induced three different types of reactions with defined phenotypes and endotypes amendable to DD. Although most of the initial reactions for both were type I, oxaliplatin presented with unique CRR reactions. During DD, carboplatin reactive patients presented mostly type I BTR, while oxaliplatin-reactive patients frequently switched from type I to CRR, providing a critical difference and the need for personalized DD protocols.

A novel 2-step process for the management of inpatient beta-lactam allergy labels.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient beta-lactam allergy labels may increase the unnecessary use of aztreonam and non-beta-lactam antibiotics, which can then lead to more adverse events and increased health care costs, OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a novel 2-step process (medication history review followed by risk stratification) on rates of beta-lactam delabeling, aztreonam use, and desensitizations on pediatric, adult, and obstetrics inpatients at a tertiary academic center. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on 700 patients who received inpatient consultation from the Beta-Lactam Allergy Evaluation Service between August 2021 and July 2022. Patients were delabeled either by medication review alone, drug challenge alone if with a low-risk history, or penicillin skin test followed by drug challenge if with a high-risk history. Generalized linear regression modeling was used to compare aztreonam days of therapy in the intervention year with the 2 prior years. Drug desensitizations were assessed by electronic chart review. RESULTS: Most of the patients (n = 656 of 700, 94%) had more than or equal to 1 beta-lactam allergy label removed, clarified, or both; 77.9% of these patients (n = 511 of 656) had 587 beta-lactam allergy labels removed. Nearly one-third (n = 149, 27.6%) had 162 allergy labels removed solely by medication history review. All 114 penicillin skin tests performed had negative results, and 98% (8 of 381) of the patients who underwent any drug challenge passed. Only 5.7% of the delabeled patients were relabeled. There was a 27% reduction in aztreonam use (P = .007). Beta-lactam desensitizations were reduced by 80%. CONCLUSION: A full-time inpatient beta-lactam allergy service using medication history review and risk stratification can safely and effectively remove inpatient beta-lactam allergy labels, reduce aztreonam use, and decrease beta-lactam desensitizations.

Overview and Current Advances in Dapsone Hypersensitivity Syndrome.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As a sulfone antibacterial agent, dapsone has been widely used to treat leprosy. Moreover, dapsone is also used in many immune diseases such as herpetic dermatitis because of its anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. However, dapsone can cause several adverse effects, the most serious being dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome. Dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome is characterized by a triad of eruptions, fever, and organ involvement, which limits the application of dapsone to some extent. RECENT FINDINGS: In this article, we review current research about the interaction model between HLA-B*13:01, dapsone, and specific TCR in dapsone-induced drug hypersensitivity. In addition to the proposed mechanisms, we also discussed clinical features, treatment progress, prevalence, and prevention of dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome. These studies reveal the pathogenesis, clinical features, and prevalence from the perspectives of genetic susceptibility and innate and adaptive immunity in dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome, thereby guiding clinicians on how to diagnose, prevent, and treat dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome.

Implementation of a multidisciplinary inpatient drug desensitization program.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to analyze the process of adult inpatient drug desensitization and to create a multidisciplinary standardized procedure with the aim of improving patient safety, efficiency, length of stay, and patient satisfaction. SUMMARY: A team consisting of physicians, pharmacists, nurses, critical care specialists, and operational capacity managers was created. The electronic health system was queried to evaluate the frequency of desensitizations, level of care, implicated medications, and length of stay. An electronic desensitization request form was created along with a desensitization team and email listserver for notification of key stakeholders. CONCLUSION: A standardized, safe, and efficient process for inpatient drug desensitization requires advance planning and participation from all disciplines involved. Operational and logistical aspects of desensitization are crucial components of rapid drug desensitization. A structured, multidisciplinary approach to inpatient desensitization is feasible.

Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions are a diverse group of reactions mediated by the immune system after exposure to a drug. The Gell and Coombs classification divides immunologic DHRs into 4 major pathophysiologic categories based on immunologic mechanism. Anaphylaxis is a Type I hypersensitivity reaction that requires immediate recognition and treatment. Severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) are a group of dermatologic diseases that result from a Type IV hypersensitivity process and include drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptom (DRESS) syndrome, Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). Other types of reactions are slow to develop and do not always require rapid treatment. Emergency physicians should have a good understanding of these various types of drug hypersensitivity reactions and how to approach the patient regarding evaluation and treatment.

Ocular involvement in allergic drug reactions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Many systemic medications have been observed to cause ocular toxicity. A subset of these reactions is thought to involve immunomodulation or a hypersensitivity reaction. As new medications are developed, ocular adverse effects are becoming increasingly prevalent. Herein we review immune-mediated drug reactions affecting they eye with special attention to the hypersensitivity mechanisms leading to ocular toxicity. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent work has focused on mechanisms and risk of immune-mediated ocular adverse drug reactions including genetic susceptibility and loss of ocular immune privilege. SUMMARY: Given the consequences of immune-mediated ocular adverse drug reactions, clinicians must be aware of these to facilitate early recognition and management. The prompt involvement of an ophthalmologist for diagnosis and management is often essential to preserve vision and avoid long-term morbidity.

Hypersensitivity Reaction and Rapid Drug Desensitization with Chemotherapeutics: A Tertiary Reference Center Experiences.

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy drugs have been in our lives for a long time, and all agents have the potential to develop hypersensitivity. Rapid drug desensitization is an option when hypersensitivity develops. The aim of this study was to examine the characteristics, diagnostic processes, and treatment results of patients with chemotherapeutic agent hypersensitivity who applied to our tertiary reference center. METHODS: Patients who applied to our tertiary allergy outpatient clinic between January 2016 and September 2022 due to chemotherapy-induced drug hypersensitivity were examined. Demographic data of the patients, cancer diagnoses, chemotherapy regimens, skin tests, premedication scheme, desensitization cycle were evaluated. We applied a 16-step desensitization in patients with index reaction anaphylaxis or positive skin tests. If the index reaction was not anaphylaxis or skin tests were negative, we applied a 12-step desensitization. If the prick test with chemotherapeutic drugs was negative especially with taxanes, premedication was administered. We used the montelukast, cetirizine, and methylprednisolone for premedication. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were evaluated; 35 (68.6%) were female. The most common malignancy was colorectal cancer in 17 (33.3%) patients. The most common agent responsible for hypersensitivity was oxaliplatin in 17 (33.3%) patients, followed by paclitaxel in 13 (25.4%). When the symptoms of immediate reaction to chemotherapeutic drugs were analyzed as described in the EAACI position paper, only skin and mucosal involvement was seen in 24 (46.8%) patients; only respiratory system involvement or back pain was seen in 3 (6.2%) patients; multisystem involvement meeting the criteria for anaphylaxis was seen in 24 (47%) patients. Skin test was positive in 17 (56.6%) of 30 patients who developed a reaction with platin. Prolonged anaphylaxis was developed in 1 patient, and desensitization was not performed again. Fifty of 51 patients were able to receive the target chemotherapy dose by desensitization. In total, a 172-step desensitization was applied to 51 patients. CONCLUSION: If completing the cycle is considered a treatment success, this was achieved in 98% (50/51) patients with rapid drug desensitization. This gives us the opportunity to use first-line chemotherapy agents.