The Japanese Epidemiologic Study for Perioperative Anaphylaxis, a prospective nationwide study: allergen exposure, epidemiology, and diagnosis of anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of perioperative anaphylaxis is often challenging. This study describes the utility of a newly developed tool for identifying patients with a high possibility of anaphylaxis, and aimed to investigate the frequency of anaphylaxis with each drug during the perioperative period in Japan. METHODS: This study included patients with anaphylaxis of Grade 2 or higher severity during general anaesthesia at 42 facilities across Japan in 2019 and 2020. We developed and adopted a unique objective evaluation tool yielding a composite score for diagnosing anaphylaxis, which includes the results of skin tests and basophil activation tests, and clinical scores for perioperative anaphylaxis. The number of cases using each drug and the total number of anaphylaxis cases were investigated to calculate the frequency of anaphylaxis. RESULTS: General anaesthesia was performed in 218 936 cases, which included 55 patients with suspected perioperative anaphylaxis. The developed composite score diagnosed 43 of them with a high probability of anaphylaxis. The causative agent was identified in 32 cases. Plasma histamine levels showed high diagnostic accuracy for anaphylaxis. The top causative agents were rocuronium (10 cases in 210 852 patients, 0.005%), sugammadex (7 cases in 150 629 patients, 0.005%), and cefazolin (7 cases in 106 005 patients, 0.007%). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a composite tool to diagnose anaphylaxis, and found that the combination of tryptase levels, skin testing, and basophil activation testing results and clinical score improved the certainty of anaphylaxis diagnosis. The incidence of perioperative anaphylaxis in our study was 1 in about 5000 general anaesthesia cases. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000035350.

Comparison of incidence of anaphylaxis between sugammadex and neostigmine: a retrospective multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Although cases of anaphylaxis caused by sugammadex have been reported, its incidence remains uncertain. Conversely, no studies have evaluated the incidence of anaphylaxis to neostigmine. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicentre observational study of patients who underwent surgery under general anaesthesia between 2012 and 2016 to compare the incidence of anaphylaxis with sugammadex with that of neostigmine at four tertiary hospitals in Japan. To ensure the quality of diagnosis, only cases with a clinical history suggestive of anaphylaxis, along with positive results from in vitro or in vivo testing, were assessed. RESULTS: From a total of 49 532 patients who received general anaesthesia included in this study, 18 cases of anaphylaxis were reported, of which six were attributable to sugammadex and none to neostigmine. There were no fatalities attributable to anaphylaxis. The incidence of anaphylaxis caused by all drugs or by sugammadex was calculated as 0.036% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.022-0.057%) and 0.02% (of the number of sugammadex cases) (95% CI: 0.007-0.044%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that neostigmine might be safer than sugammadex when assessing only the incidence of anaphylaxis. We believe that there is room for reconsideration of the choice of reversal agent for neuromuscular blocking agents by all anaesthetists. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000022365; UMIN000033561.

Usefulness of Basophil Activation Tests for Diagnosis of Sugammadex-Induced Anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex is used to reverse the effects of neuromuscular blocking agents in many cases of general anesthesia. However, there are several reports of anaphylaxis after its use. Skin testing is the gold standard for detecting the causative agent of anaphylaxis. However, due to the lack of validated protocols for skin testing with sugammadex, the diagnostic accuracy might be inadequate. Recently, the basophil activation test (BAT) has been established as a tool to detect the causative agent of anaphylaxis with high sensitivity and specificity. However, few studies have investigated the utility of the BAT for sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis. METHODS: Eight patients who presented with immediate hypersensitivity to sugammadex during general anesthesia were included in this study. We conducted skin tests to confirm the diagnosis of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis. Twenty-one sugammadex-naive individuals who had a negative skin test for allergy to this drug were enrolled as controls. Basophils were selected on a CD3/CRTH2 gate and labeled with CD63 and CD203c. RESULTS: The ratios of activated basophils in the patients were much higher than those in controls: the median values of areas under the curves in the patients and controls for CD203c were 1,265,985 (95% confidence interval [CI], 77,580-5,040,270) and 116,325 (95% CI, -268,605 to 232,690), respectively (Mann-Whitney U test, P < .01), and the areas under the curves in the patients and controls for CD63 were 788,647 (95% CI, 120,285-3,523,410) and 220,005 (95% CI, -50,346 to 404,680), respectively (Mann-Whitney U test, P < .01). The patients, but not controls, demonstrated clear dose-dependent CD203c upregulation. This was also true for CD63. In the case of CD203c, the sensitivity of the BAT for sugammadex was 88% (95% CI, 47%-100%), and specificity was 100% (95% CI, 84%-100%), while sensitivity and specificity for CD63 were 75% (95% CI, 35%-97%) and 100% (95% CI, 84%-100%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The BAT seems to have comparable accuracy to skin tests for the diagnosis of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis. For this purpose, both CD203c and CD63 can be used to detect activated basophils.

Three suspected cases of sugammadex-induced anaphylactic shock.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex has a unique mechanism of action and is widely used because of its safety and efficacy. A few recent reports have described allergic reactions to clinical doses of sugammadex. We hereby describe another series of cases of possible anaphylaxis to sugammadex. CASE PRESENTATION: We present three suspected cases of sugammadex-induced anaphylactic shock, including a 13-year-old boy who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, a 75-year-old woman who underwent left knee arthroplasty, and a 34-year-old man who underwent left pansinectomy for sinobronchitis. All three patients received general anesthesia with rocuronium and their tracheas were intubated. Shortly after injection of sugammadex for reversal of rocuronium, all of them experienced a decrease in blood pressure along with mucocutaneous erythema. In the most severe case, reintubation after extubation was required due to difficulty in manual ventilation. All patients recovered with anti-allergic therapy. On later investigation, all three patients had a positive skin reaction to sugammadex. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that physicians using sugammadex should be aware of the possibility of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis.