Development and validation study of compact biophotonic platform for detection of serum biomarkers.

The application of advances in personalized medicine requires the support of in vitro diagnostic techniques aimed at the accurate, fast, sensitive, and precise determination of selected biomarkers. Herein, a novel optical centrifugal microfluidic device is developed for clinical analysis and point-of-care diagnostics. Based on compact disc technology, the integrated biophotonic system enables multiple immunoassays in miniaturized mode. The disposable microfluidic discs are made in cyclic olefin copolymer (COP), containing arrays of immobilized probes. In the developed approach, up to six patient samples can each be tested simultaneously. A portable instrument (<2 kg) controls the assay and the high-sensitive reproducible optical detection in transmission mode. Also, the instrument incorporates specific functionalities for personalized telemedicine. The device (analytical method, disc platform, reader, and software) has been validated to diagnose IgE-mediated drug allergies, such as amoxicillin and penicillin G. The total and specific IgE to ß-lactam antibiotics were determined in human serum from patients (25 µL). The excellent analytical performances (detection limit 0.24 ng/mL, standard deviation 7-20 %) demonstrated that the developed system could have the potential for a broader impact beyond the allergy field, as it applies to other IVD tests.

Epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis in France in 2017-2018: the 11th GERAP survey.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative anaphylaxis is rare but is associated with significant morbidity. This complication has been well described in France by the GERAP (Groupe d'Etude des Réactions Anaphylactiques Périopératoires), a network focused on its study. The epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis is evolving, influenced by environmental factors and clinical practice. The aim of this study was to update the epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis in France. METHODS: This multicentre retrospective study was performed in 26 allergy clinics of the GERAP network in 2017-8. RESULTS: There were 765 patients with perioperative anaphylaxis included. Most cases were severe, with 428 (56%) reactions graded as 3 or 4 according to the Ring and Messmer classification. Skin test results were available for 676 patients, with a culprit agent identified in 471 cases (70%). Neuromuscular blocking agents were the main cause of perioperative anaphylaxis (n=281; 60%), followed by antibiotics (n=118; 25%) and patent blue dye (n=11; 2%). Cefazolin was the main antibiotic responsible for perioperative anaphylaxis (52% of antibiotic-related reactions). Suxamethonium and rocuronium were the main neuromuscular blocking agents responsible for perioperative anaphylaxis with 7.1 (6.1-8.4) and 5.6 (4.2-7.4) reactions per 100,000 vials sold, respectively, whereas cefazolin-related cases were estimated at 0.7 (0.5-0.9) reactions per 100,000 vials sold. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that most commonly identified triggering agents remain neuromuscular blocking agents. Reactions to antibiotics, particularly cefazolin, are becoming increasingly frequent. The origin of sensitisation to cefazolin is unknown, as no cross-sensitisation has been described, and it should be the subject of further study. Perioperative anaphylaxis should be followed over the years and understood given the changing triggers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04654923).

Is a Prolonged Drug Provocation Test Better Than a Single-Day Drug Provocation Test? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no standardized duration of drug provocation test (DPT) for confirming/delabeling beta-lactam hypersensitivity reaction (BL-HSR). OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis and systematic review aimed to investigate the added diagnostic value of extended-day over single-day DPT for confirming/delabeling BL-HSR in adults and children. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL online databases were searched from inception to March 15, 2023, for studies that performed extended-day DPT to confirm/delabel BL-HSR. Risk difference and risk ratio were used to compare the proportions of patients with confirmed BL-HSR by single-day or extended-day DPT. RESULTS: A total of 10,371 DPTs from 42 studies were included. Extended-day DPTs ranged from 2 to 7 days, or as long as index reactions were reported (maximum 10 days). The overall prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR was 6.96% (3.31% during the first-day DPT, and 3.65% during extended-day DPT). Approximately half of the positive reactions during extended-day DPT occurred during the second/third day. The increased detected pool prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR yielded by extended-day DPT was 0.03 (95% CI, 0.02%-0.04%; I2 = 57.69%; P < .001), and the risk ratio of positive reactions between extended-day and single-day DPT was 1.94 (95% CI, 1.62-2.33; I2 = 36.26%; P < .001). The risk difference increased per 1% increase in prevalence of BL-HSR by 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4%-0.7%; P < .001). Twenty-three severe reactions occurred during DPT, and only 2 severe reactions (0.02%) occurred during extended-day DPT. An additional 28 extended-day DPTs were needed to identify 1 mild reaction. CONCLUSIONS: The increased prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR observed during extended-day DPT could be attributed to the first-day DPT. As a result, our findings do not conclusively support the use of extended-day DPT over single-day DPT. Further studies, incorporating a washout period, are required to comprehensively compare these 2 approaches.

EAACI/ENDA position paper on drug provocation testing.

In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low-risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low-risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources.

The Safety of the Direct Drug Provocation Test in Beta-Lactam Hypersensitivity in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Direct drug provocation test (DPT) without prior skin testing (ST) has been investigated in children suspected of being at risk for beta-lactam (BL) hypersensitivity reaction (HSR). However, no systematic review and meta-analysis has investigated the efficacy and safety of direct DPT for BL-HSR in children. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence of BL-HSR by direct DPT and the safety of direct DPT in children. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL from their inception to July 23, 2022, for studies that performed direct DPT in children with suspected BL-HSR, or for studies that performed DPT in all cases with ST results, but they ignored the ST results. The true prevalence was defined as the proportion of children who experienced an HSR during direct DPT. Safety was determined according to the proportion of children who developed a dangerous reaction following DPT. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies with 8,334 direct challenges were included. Fifteen studies included patients who presented with either immediate or nonimmediate HSR, and the majority of the index reactions were nonsevere. Amoxicillin/amoxicillin-clavulanic acid was the most commonly used during the DPT. The pooled prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR was 5.23% (95% CI 4.17-6.39; I2 = 72%). Immediate and nonimmediate HSR were reported in 0.8% (95% CI 0.43-1.25; I2 = 55.1%) and 3.69% (95% CI 2.66-4.87; I2 = 79.77%), respectively. Severe reactions were found in 3 cases with the frequency of 0.036% (95% CI 0.012-0.112; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of BL-HSR by direct DPT was 5.23%, and the frequency of severe reactions from direct DPT was very low (0.036%). Our findings support direct DPT as a safe and effective delabeling tool in children with suspected nonsevere BL-HSR.

Hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated radiocontrast media: Cluster analysis reveals distinct clinical phenotypes.

Background: Drug hypersensitivity reaction (DHR) to iodinated radiocontrast media (iRCM) is reported in 1%-3% of injections. Risk assessment of patients with suspicion of DHR to iRCM relies solely on clinical phenotyping and drug allergy workup. Using a novel unsupervised TwoStep cluster analysis, we aimed to identify prototypic patterns within a large cohort of patients evaluated for a potential iRCM DHR. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted using data from the Drug Allergy and Hypersensitivity Database of the Allergy Unit, University Hospital of Montpellier, Montpellier, France. All referred patients during February 2001 to December 2019 with suspicion of iRCM DHR with either confirmed positive or confirmed negative skin tests were included in the analysis. Results: A total of 1439 patients were evaluated. The chronology of the index reaction was immediate and nonimmediate in 77.1% and 22.4%, respectively. Cluster analysis categorized the total study population in 5 clusters. Cluster 1 compiled all nonimmediate and cluster 2-5 almost all immediate reactors. Cluster 1 and 2 had recent reactions (<1 y) with mostly known iRCMs and the highest iRCM allergy prevalence (16-17%). In the other clusters, more remote reactions, unknown iRCMs and a lower allergy prevalence (3-8%) was observed. Chronology and semiology of the index reaction were the factors most strongly differentiated among clusters. History of anaphylactic shock and chronology of immediate hypersensitivity reactions were shown to be independent predictors of allergy with adjusted OR (aOR) of 4.68 (95%CI: 3.01-7.27, p < 0.001) and 2.51 (95%CI: 1.67-3.78, p < 0.001), respectively. Conclusions: Unsupervised cluster analysis identified 5 prototypic patterns within patients with a suspected DHR to iRCMs. Well-phenotyped patients cluster together in 2 groups in which the prevalence of allergy is approximately 1 in 6. However, this value decreases for patients with reactions dating back to more than a decade.

Skin necrosis following local anesthetic: Same presentation for two different diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: Local anesthetics (LA) are widely used in medicine and are generally well tolerated. Although most adverse reactions are nonallergic, LA are a frequent reason for allergy consultation. OBJECTIVE: We want to expand the differential diagnosis of adverse reactions to LA by presenting rare diagnoses. METHODS: We present here two patients with similar clinical presentations, namely skin necrosis after local anesthesia with lidocaine, but with two different final diagnoses. RESULTS: For Patient 1, skin necrosis was imputed to the vasoconstrictor effect of epinephrine in a patient with vascular background aggravated by heavy consumption of tobacco and cannabis. Patient 2 final diagnosis was Nicolau syndrome (embolia cutis medicamentosa), a cutaneous necrosis at the site of injection. CONCLUSIONS: The allergist should be aware of these diagnoses and include them in the differential diagnosis of local anesthetic hypersensitivity.

Diagnostic performance of serial serum total tryptase measurement to differentiate positive from negative allergy testing among patients with suspected perioperative hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Serum total tryptase has been shown to increase during acute allergic reactions (acute tryptase, TA ); however, few studies have investigated the values of TA or a combination of TA and baseline tryptase (TB ) to discriminate positive from negative testing in perioperative hypersensitivity reaction (POH) allergy work-up. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of TA in order to differentiate positive from negative allergy testing suspected POH and analyse the diagnostic performance of serial tryptase levels using several formulas. METHODS: All patients from the University hospital of Montpellier and Strasbourg, France, who presented with suspected POH and underwent complete drug allergy work-up between March 2011 and December 2019 with available TA and TB were included. Four formulas, including a change in TA  > 11 (F1), or >2 + 1.2 × TB (F2), or >3 + TB (F3), or >120%TB (F4), were applied. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-two patients were included, and 131 of them (80.8%) had Grade III or IV reactions. Ninety patients had positive allergy testing. The optimal cut-off value of TA to distinguish positive from negative allergy testing patients was 9.8 µg/L with an AUC of 0.817 (95% CI: 0.752-0.882, p < .001). The 93% PPV threshold for TA was 33 µg/L (95.8% specificity). Paired tryptase levels according to formulas F2 and F3 yielded the highest Youden index (0.54 and 0.53, respectively). CONCLUSION: The optimal cut-off point for TA for distinguishing positive from negative allergy testing suspected POH was 9.8 µg/L. TA value of 33 µg/L was required to achieve >90% PPV.

Frequency of severe reactions following penicillin drug provocation tests: A Bayesian meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a penicillin allergy label tend to have worse clinical outcomes and increased healthcare use. Drug provocation tests (DPT) are the gold-standard in the diagnostic workup of penicillin allergy, but safety concerns may hinder their performance. We aimed to assess the frequency of severe reactions following a DPT in patients with reported allergy to penicillins or other ß-lactams. METHODS: We performed a systematic review, searching MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included primary studies assessing participants with a penicillin allergy label who underwent a DPT. We performed a Bayesian meta-analysis to estimate the pooled frequency of severe reactions to penicillin DPTs. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by subgroup and metaregression analyses. RESULTS: We included 112 primary studies which included a total of 26,595 participants. The pooled frequency of severe reactions was estimated at 0.06% (95% credible interval [95% CrI] = 0.01%-0.13%; I2  = 57.9%). Most severe reactions (80/93; 86.0%) consisted of anaphylaxis. Compared to studies where the index reaction was immediate, we observed a lower frequency of severe reactions for studies assessing non-immediate index reactions (OR = 0.05; 95% CrI = 0-0.31). Patients reporting anaphylaxis as their index reaction were found to be at increased risk of developing severe reactions (OR = 13.5; 95% CrI = 7.7-21.5; I2  = 0.3%). Performance of direct DPTs in low-risk patients or testing with the suspected culprit drug were not associated with clinically relevant increased risk of severe reactions. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a penicillin allergy label, severe reactions resulting from DPTs are rare. Therefore, except for patients with potentially life-threatening index reactions or patients with positive skin tests-who were mostly not assessed in this analysis -, the safety of DPTs supports their performance in the diagnostic assessment of penicillin allergy.

Drug Allergy Labels Lost in Translation: From Patient to Charts and Backwards.

The current method of defining, reporting, assessment, labeling, delabeling, and reconciliation of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and specifically immunologically mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), in electronic health records (EHRs) is inadequate and compromises care quality and safety. It is critical to accurately and succinctly report the signs and symptoms associated with ADRs and suspected HSRs to enable clinicians to determine the plausible reaction type and help guide appropriate future management plans. Despite the current limitations of the EHR allergy module, we must encourage improved clinical documentation and demand technological improvements. Telehealth methods have been shown to be valuable in the assessment of ADRs and HSRs, particularly in the case of penicillin allergy evaluation and delabeling. The implementation, assessment, and refinement of advanced technologies, including clinical informatics and artificial intelligence, along with continued education of health care providers have potential to improve EHR documentation and communication, thereby advancing patient safety efforts.

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.