75% negative skin test results in patients with suspected hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibiotics: Influencing factors and interpretation of test results.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic approach for beta-lactam (BL) drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) is based on the history, clinical signs, skin tests (ST), in vitro tests, and drug provocation tests (DPT). The aim of this study was to assess the performance of an allergy workup with ST in a real-world use. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study the rate of positive ST in subjects with suspected DHR to penicillins and cephalosporins was investigated. Of special interest were correlations of ST positivity: 1) to the time intervals between index reaction and the allergic work-up, 2) time interval from drug exposure to the onset of signs, 3) pattern of manifestation in delayed DHR and involvement of test area in the index reaction, and 4) potential advantage of patch testing in delayed DHR. RESULTS: 175 patients were included between January 2018 and April 2019 (63.4% female), 45 (25.7%) with immediate DHR manifestation and 130 with delayed DHR manifestation (74.3%). A total of 44 patients (25.1%) had a positive ST (immediate DHR 37.8% versus 20.0% in delayed DHR). ST positivity decreased in both groups after 3 years from 47.8% [95%CI 29.2-67] to 23.5% [95%CI 9.6-47.3] in immediate DHR and 23.0% [95%CI 15-4-32.9] to 12.9% [95%CI 5.1-28.9] in delayed DHR. The proportion of positive ST was higher in patients with more severe forms of delayed DHR, and in subjects with a shorter latency period of onset of symptoms after drug exposure: 0-3d: 29.5% [95%CI 19.6-41.9] vs. >3d: 11.6% [95%CI 6.0-21.2]). No sensitization was shown in delayed urticaria or angioedema. ST done outside the skin area involved during the index reaction were negative in all cases (0/38 vs. 26/84 in cases with involved area). The combination of patch test and intradermal test (IDT) revealed an additional positive result in 2/77 cases. Additional in vitro testing reduced the proportion of negative test results to 72%. CONCLUSION: In most patients with negative test results, we could not clarify the cause of the BL-associated adverse events even with further investigations (including DPT). How to prevent new drug-induced adverse events in such patients has hardly been investigated yet. Corresponding cohort studies could improve the data situation.

[Drug hypersensitivity in patients with presumed histamine intolerance and mast cell activation disease]. / Medikamentenunverträglichkeit bei Histaminintoleranz und Mastozytose: «facts and fictions¼.

Drug hypersensitivity in patients with presumed histamine intolerance and mast cell activation disease Abstract. There is no evidence to suggest that sensitization against drugs occurs more frequently among patients with presumed histamine intolerance compared to patients with normal tolerance to histamine. However, preclinical data suggest interactions between some drugs and histamine catabolism. Nevertheless, the clinical relevance of these findings remains unclear as histamine in humans can be catabolized by different pathways. There are no drugs for which induction or worsening of histamine intolerance has been established clinically. In patients with mastocytosis an increased rate of sensitization and specific allergies to drugs is unlikely. However, pathophysiologic understanding suggests that mast cell activation disease might enhance drug reactions, which are induced by mast cell degranulation. Additionally a possible lower threshold for unspecific mast cell degranulation in patients with mastocytosis could lead to pseudoallergic drug reactions. However an increase in the number of drug substances triggering such reactions is not expected. Nevertheless, there are lists of drug substances which are assumed to cause anaphylactic / anaphylactoid reactions especially in patients with mastocytosis. Conversely, these lists are rarely based on clinical evidence. A recently published prospective trial did not find any relevant increase of acetyl salicylic acid hypersensitivity in patients with mastocytosis. Patients with mastocytosis and a history of drug hypersensitivity should be thoroughly assessed by an allergological workup and advised to avoid triggering and / or cross reactive drug substances. We recommend that these patients avoid drugs which may interfere with the treatment of anaphylaxis like beta blockers, certain antidepressants or Catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors because of the increased risk for enhanced hypersensitivity reactions.

Flare-up reactions in severe drug hypersensitivity: infection or ongoing T-cell hyperresponsiveness.

"Flare-up" reactions are late manifestations of severe T-cell-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions. Management is anti-inflammatory treatment and avoiding unnecessary medicines. Symptoms like fever, lymph node swelling, and blood count abnormalities may lead to confusion with bacterial infections. For prompt recognition it is important to keep the differential diagnosis in mind.

Avidity determines T-cell reactivity in abacavir hypersensitivity.

The antiretroviral drug abacavir (abc) elicits severe drug hypersensitivity reactions in HLA-B*5701(+) individuals. To understand the abc-specific activation of CD8(+) T cells, we generated abc-specific T-cell clones (abc-TCCs). Abc reactivity could not be linked to the metabolism and/or processing of the drug, since abc metabolizing enzymes were not expressed in immune cells and inhibition of the proteasome in APCs did not affect TCC reactivity. Ca(2+) influx assays revealed different reactivity patterns of abc-TCCs. While all TCCs reacted to abc presented on HLA-B*5701 molecules, a minority also reacted immediately to abc in solution. Titration experiments showed that the ability to react immediately to abc correlated significantly with the TCR avidity of the T cells. Modifications of soluble abc concentrations revealed that the reactivity patterns of abc-TCCs were not fixed but dynamic. When TCCs with an intermediate TCR avidity were stimulated with increasing abc concentrations, they showed an accelerated activation kinetic. Thus, they reacted immediately to the drug, similar to the reaction of TCCs of high avidity. The observed immediate activation and the noninvolvement of the proteasome suggest that, in contrast to haptens, abc-specific T-cell stimulation does not require the formation of covalent bonds to produce a neo-antigenic determinant.

Approach to the patient with drug allergy.

Clinicians commonly encounter patients who report to have drug allergy. In a large part, such allergy corresponds to adverse drug reactions, which are not immune mediated. The incriminated drug need not always be avoided for further therapy. On the other hand, drug allergy may manifest in many unexpected clinical pictures and thus not be recognized. There is no single standardized diagnostic test to confirm the immune-mediated mechanism and to identify the causative drug. Therefore, immune-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions and their causative drugs have to be considered by the constellation of exposure, timing, and clinical features, including the pattern of organ manifestation. Prior experience with the drug is also an important feature. An allergologic workup with additional investigation may provide some help. Patients should be informed carefully about their drug allergy, whereby symptoms, drug that elicits reaction, modes of diagnosis of drug allergy, and possibly alternatives should be indicated in their allergy passport.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions involving skin.

Immune reactions to drugs can cause a variety of diseases involving the skin, liver, kidney, lungs, and other organs. Beside immediate, IgE-mediated reactions of varying degrees (urticaria to anaphylactic shock), many drug hypersensitivity reactions appear delayed, namely hours to days after starting drug treatment, showing a variety of clinical manifestations from solely skin involvement to fulminant systemic diseases which may be fatal. Immunohistochemical and functional studies of drug-specific T cells in patients with delayed reactions confirmed a predominant role for T cells in the onset and maintenance of immune-mediated delayed drug hypersensitivity reactions (type IV reactions). In these reactions, drug-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells are stimulated by drugs through their T cell receptors (TCR). Drugs can stimulate T cells in two ways: they can act as haptens and bind covalently to larger protein structures (hapten-carrier model), inducing a specific immune response. In addition, they may accidentally bind in a labile, noncovalent way to a particular TCR of the whole TCR repertoire and possibly also major histocompatibility complex (MHC)-molecules - similar to their pharmacologic action. This seems to be sufficient to reactivate certain, probably in vivo preactivated T cells, if an additional interaction of the drug-stimulated TCR with MHC molecules occurs. The mechanism was named pharmacological interaction of a drug with (immune) receptor and thus termed the p-i concept. This new concept may explain the frequent skin symptoms in drug hypersensitivity to oral or parenteral drugs. Furthermore, the various clinical manifestations of T cell-mediated drug hypersensitivity may be explained by distinct T cell functions leading to different clinical phenotypes. These data allowed a subclassification of the delayed hypersensitivity reactions (type IV) into T cell reactions which, by releasing certain cytokines and chemokines, preferentially activate and recruit monocytes (type IVa), eosinophils (type IVb), or neutrophils (type IVd).

Approach to the patient with drug allergy.

Drug allergies are adverse drug reactions mediated by the specific immune system. Despite characteristic signs (eg, skin rash) that raise awareness for possible drug allergies, they are great imitators of disease and may hide behind unexpected symptoms. No single standardized diagnostic test can confirm the immune-mediated mechanism or identify the causative drug; therefore, immune-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions and their causative drugs must be recognized by the constellation of exposure, timing, and clinical features including the pattern of organ manifestation. Additional allergologic investigations (skin tests, in vitro tests, provocation tests) may provide help in identifying the possible eliciting drug.

Mechanisms of drug-induced allergy.

We identified English-language publications on hypersensitivity reactions to xenobiotics through the PubMed database, using the search terms drug and/or xenobiotic, hypersensitivity reaction, mechanism, and immune mediated. We analyzed articles pertaining to the mechanism and the role of T cells. Immune hypersensitivity reactions to drugs are mediated predominantly by IgE antibodies or T cells. The mechanism of IgE-mediated reactions is well investigated, but the mechanisms of T-cell-mediated drug hypersensitivity are not well understood. The literature describes 2 concepts: the hapten/prohapten concept and the concept of pharmacological interactions of drugs with immune receptors. In T-cell-mediated allergic drug reactions, the specificity of the T-cell receptor that is stimulated by the drug may often be directed to a cross-reactive major histocompatibility complex-peptide compound. Thus, previous contact with the causative drug is not obligatory, and an immune mechanism should be considered as the cause of hypersensitivity, even in reactions that occur on primary exposure. Indeed, immune-mediated reactions to xenobiotics in patients without prior exposure to the agent have been described recently for radiocontrast media and neuromuscular blocking agents. Thus, the "allergenic" potential of a drug under development should be evaluated not only by screening its haptenlike characteristics but also by assessing its direct immunostimulatory potential.

Clinical and immunologic effects of H1 antihistamine preventive medication during honeybee venom immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: H1 antihistamines increase safety during allergen-specific immunotherapy and might influence the outcome because of immunoregulatory effects. OBJECTIVE: We sought to analyze the influence of 5 mg of levocetirizine (LC) on the safety, efficacy, and immunologic effects of ultrarush honeybee venom immunotherapy (BVIT). METHOD: In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study 54 patients with honeybee venom allergy received LC or placebo from 2 days before BVIT to day 21. Side effects during dose increase and systemic allergic reactions (SARs) to a sting challenge after 120 days were analyzed. Allergen-specific immune response was investigated in skin, serum, and allergen-stimulated T-cell cultures. RESULTS: Side effects were significantly more frequent in patients receiving placebo. Four patients receiving placebo dropped out because of side effects. SARs to the sting challenge occurred in 8 patients (6 in the LC group and 2 in the placebo group). Seven SARs were only cutaneous, and 1 in the placebo group was also respiratory. Difference of SARs caused by the sting challenge was insignificant. Specific IgG levels increased significantly in both groups. Major allergen phospholipase A(2)-stimulated T cells from both groups showed a slightly decreased proliferation. The decrease in IFN-gamma and IL-13 levels with placebo was not prominent with LC, whereas IL-10 levels showed a significant increase in the LC group only. Decreased histamine receptor (HR)1/HR2 ratio in allergen-specific T cells on day 21 in the placebo group was prevented by LC. CONCLUSIONS: LC reduces side effects during dose increase without influencing the efficacy of BVIT. LC modulates the natural course of allergen-specific immune response and affects the expression of HRs and cytokine production by allergen-specific T cells.