Search

Purpose: This study investigated the characteristics of oxaliplatin-related hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) and evaluated the efficacy of premedication and desensitization administration for controlling HSR in patients with gastrointestinal malignancy. Methods: This retrospective study includes oxaliplatin hypersensitivity cases reported to our in-hospital, adverse drug reaction monitoring system between May 2008 and April 2012. We analyzed administration histories of oxaliplatin and premedication treatments, chemotherapy cycle and severity of the initial HSR, and prophylactic measures and their outcomes in subsequent chemotherapy cycles. Results: One hundred and seventy-three patients showed hypersensitivity to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Oxaliplatin HSR developed after mean chemotherapy cycle 6.3 ± 0.3. Specifically, while HSR occurred at cycle 7.6 ± 0.3 in the case of patients previously unexposed to oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy, it occurred at cycle 2.6 ± 0.3 in previously exposed patients. Of the 173 patients who exhibited HSR, premedication was administered in 134 patients and 71.6 % of them succeeded in preventing HSR. Desensitization was attempted in 38 patients, including 20 patients in whom premedication administration was unsuccessful, and 89 % of desensitized patients successfully underwent oxaliplatin chemotherapy without HSR. As severity of HSR increased, the success rate by premedication decreased and the percentage of patients that underwent desensitization increased. Conclusions: Attention should be paid to patients with any prior exposure to oxaliplatin, especially during early chemotherapy cycles. Given the high success rate of preventing HSR by desensitization administration and its apparent safety profile, we suggest that desensitization be considered as the first option for the treatment of grades 3 and 4 HSR cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On average, how many individual consultations/visits on average are patients required to attend for entire penicillin allergy delabelling process (including history taking, allergy testing, provocation testing etc.)a. If your centre performs penicillin skin prick/intradermal testing, which reagents do you routinely include in your penicillin allergy workup? The overwhelming burden of penicillin "allergy" labels remains a global public health concern associated with a myriad of adverse clinical outcomes.[1] The epidemiology and sensitization patterns of penicillin allergy varies greatly and remain largely unknown in the Asia-Pacific (AP) region.[[2], [4]] This international survey was performed to investigate the epidemiology, healthcare infrastructures and clinical practices pertaining to penicillin allergy in AP. In addition to penicillin allergy labels, what proportion (%) of patients have other drug allergy labels?. [Extracted from the article]

Immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) have been reported to occur in a frequency of about 0.5%‐3% of patients receiving nonionic ICM. The diagnosis and management of these patients vary among guidelines published by various national and international scientific societies, with recommendations ranging from avoidance or premedication to drug provocation test. This position paper aims to give recommendations for the management of patients with ICM hypersensitivity reactions and analyze controversies in this area. Skin tests are recommended as the initial step for diagnosing patients with immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions; besides, they may also help guide on tolerability of alternatives. Re‐exposition or drug provocation test should only be done with skin test‐negative ICMs. The decision for performing either re‐exposition or drug provocation test needs to be taken based on a risk‐benefit analysis. The role of in vitro tests for diagnosis and pretreatment for preventing reactions remains controversial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: While hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to intravenously administered iodinated contrast media (ICM) have been well studied, not much is known about HSR to intra-arterially administered ICM. Methods: A prospective observational study was performed to evaluate coronary angiography (CAG)-induced ICM hypersensitivity in patients who underwent CAG using ICM including ioversol, a low-osmolar non-ionic monomer, and iodixanol, an iso-osmolar non-ionic dimer. The HSR were investigated through in-patient monitoring after CAG and telephone interview after discharge. Results: A total of 714 patients were enrolled during the observation period, of whom 26 (3.6%) showed immediate HSR and 108 (15.1%) showed delayed HSR. With regard to severity, proportion of immediate HSR grades 1, 2, and 3 was 57.7%, 38.5%, and 3.8%, respectively, whereas that of delayed HSR grades 1, 2, and 3 was 85.2%, 13.9%, and 0.9%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that previous intra-arterial exposure to ICM was an independent risk factor for immediate HSR (odds ratio (OR) 2.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22–6.96; p = 0.015). Iodixanol was a significant risk factor for delayed HSR (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.07–2.43; p = 0.024) and correlated with a higher incidence of delayed HSR within 24-h post-ICM administration compared to ioversol. Conclusion: The incidence rate of immediate and delayed HSR in intra-arterially administered ICM was 3.6% and 15.1%, respectively. Previous exposure to intra-arterially administered contrast media was a significant risk factor for immediate HSR. Compared to ioversol, iodixanol was associated with relatively earlier and more frequent delayed HSR. Key Points: • In this prospective study, the incidence of immediate and delayed hypersensitivity in intra-arterial injection of contrast media during coronary angiography was 3.6% and 15.1%, respectively. • Delayed hypersensitivity reactions were more common but less severe than immediate hypersensitivity reactions during coronary angiography. • Previous exposure to ICM via intra-arterial route was a significant risk factor for immediate hypersensitivity to intra-arterial contrast medium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Desensitization is a safe alternative for patients with hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to platinum-based chemotherapeutic agents and widely used in real practice by employing stepwise administration of multiple serial dilutions of the culprit drugs. However, its labor-intensive nature has required a simpler protocol that is easier to prepare and perform.Methods: We performed an observational study of patients with platinum HSR who underwent a new non-dilution one-bag desensitization protocol. Premedication consisted of Montelukast as well as H1 and H2 blockers. The outcomes and safety profiles of a new protocol were assessed.Results: A total of 36 patients were recruited (oxaliplatin 23, carboplatin 9, and cisplatin 4) and the most common grade of HSR presented was grade 2 (61.1%), followed by grade 3 (25%), and grade 1 (13.9%). Of 175 desensitization procedures, all cases were successfully completed in re-administration of culprit chemotherapeutic platinum agents; 146 (83.4%) had no breakthrough reactions (BTRs) while 29 (16.6%) did. Most BTRs were mild reactions (grade 1, 51.7%) or moderate reactions (grade 2, 44.8%) of Brown's Scale. Although there was one case of asymptomatic mild hypotension (grade 3, 3.5%), categorized as severe reaction, dyspnea, desaturation, and anaphylaxis did not occur. The proportion of severe HSRs was significantly lower than that of initial HSRs (3.5% vs. 25%, P = 0.0167).Conclusions: The new non-dilution desensitization protocol was safe and effective for re-administration of culprit platinum agents in patients with a history of HSRs. Therefore, this new protocol can be used as an alternative to existing protocols using multiple serial dilutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Epidemiology and risk factors of drug-induced anaphylaxis are difficult to estimate due to lack of confirmative diagnosis and under reporting. Here we report the current state of drug-induced anaphylaxis in Korea based on an in-hospital pharmacovigilance database in a tertiary hospital. Methods This study is a retrospective analysis of drug-induced anaphylaxis, reported to an in-hospital pharmacovigilance center in Seoul National University Hospital from June 2009 to May 2013. Anaphylaxis occurred in patients under 18 years of age or developed by medications administered from outside pharmacies or hospitals were excluded. We assessed causative drug, incidence per use of each drug and risk factors of fatal anaphylactic shock. Results A total of 152 in-hospital drug-induced anaphylaxis cases were reported during the study period. The single most frequently reported drug was platinum compound and the incidence of anaphylaxis and anaphylactic shock in platinum compounds users was 2.84 and 1.39 per 1000 patients use. Risk factors of anaphylactic shock among total anaphylaxis cases were identified as older age ≥70 years [Odd's ratio (OR), 5.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.70–20.14]. The use of iodinated contrast media (OR, 6.19; 95% CI, 1.87–20.53) and aminosteroid neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) (OR, 12.82; 95% CI, 1.50–109.92) were also a risk factor for the development of anaphylactic shock. Conclusions Platinum compounds are the most commonly reported causative agents of in-hospital drug-induced anaphylaxis. Older age ≥70 years and drugs such as iodinated contrast media and aminosteroid NMBA are related with high risk of anaphylactic shock. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the outcomes of re-exposure to low-osmolar iodinated contrast medium (LOCM) in patients with a history of moderate-to-severe hypersensitivity reaction (HSR).Methods: We retrospectively evaluated a cohort comprising all subjects satisfying the following conditions at 11 centres: (1) experienced a moderate-to-severe HSR to LOCM by December 2014, and (2) underwent contrast-enhanced computed tomography after the initial HSR between January 2014 and December 2014.Results: A total of 150 patients with 328 instances of re-exposure were included; the recurrence rate of HSR was 19.5%. Patients with severe initial HSR exhibited a higher recurrence rate of severe HSR compared to patients with moderate initial HSR, despite more intensive premedication. In the multivariate analysis, the independent risk factors for recurrence of HSR were diabetes, chronic urticaria, drug allergy other than to iodinated contrast media (ICM) and severe initial HSR. The risk of recurrent HSR was 67.1% lower in cases where the implicated ICM was changed to another one (odds ratio: 0.329; P = 0.001). However, steroid premedication did not show protective effects against recurrent HSR.Conclusion: In high-risk patients who have previously experienced a moderate-to-severe initial HSR to LOCM, we should consider changing the implicated ICM to reduce recurrence risk.Key Points: • In patients with moderate-to-severe HSR, steroid premedication only shows limited effectiveness. • Changing the implicated ICM can reduce the recurrence of HSR to ICM. • Diabetes, chronic urticaria and drug allergies increase the risk of ICM HSR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Some western countries recently have shown a slowdown in the incidence of allergic diseases after worldwide increasing trends, but there are few data from Asian populations concerning changing trend of allergic diseases. We evaluated the recent trends in the prevalence of asthma and other allergic diseases in Korea. Methods From the database of Korean National Health Insurance, a nationwide diagnostic data from 2009 to 2014 were extracted and the national prevalence was analyzed. Results The prevalence per 1000 people of atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, and asthma in 2014 was 19.0, 133.1, and 36.3, respectively. The prevalence of three diseases was highest in the age group under 10 as, 95.0, 384.1, and 132.1 per 1000 people, while the prevalence in the over-10-year-group was only 11.6, 109.5, and 27.3, respectively. The prevalence of atopic dermatitis and allergic rhinitis gradually decreased with older age, but the prevalence of asthma showed a re-increasing pattern from the age group 30–39 and reached another peak for the age group 70–79. During the study period, the prevalence of asthma and atopic dermatitis showed decreasing tendency. In contrast, the prevalence of allergic rhinitis steadily increased until 2013, especially in the age group under 10. Conclusions The national prevalence of atopic dermatitis, and asthma did not show noticeable increase any more in Korea. However, the prevalence of allergic rhinitis still on the rise until recently, especially in the age group under 10. This is the first report in Asia suggesting a slowdown of the incidence of allergic diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Epidemiologic clinical studies suggested that chronic exposure to chlorine products is associated with development of asthma and aggravation of asthmatic symptoms. However, its underlying mechanism was not clearly understood. Studies were undertaken to define the effects and mechanisms of chronic low-dose chlorine exposure in the pathogenesis of airway inflammation and airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR). Methods: Six week-old female BALB/c mice were sensitized and challenged with OVA in the presence and absence of chronic low dose chlorine exposure of naturally vaporized gas of 5% sodium hypochlorite solution. Airway inflammation and AHR were evaluated by bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) cell recovery and non-invasive phlethysmography, respectively. Real-time qPCR, Western blot assay, and ELISA were used to evaluate the mRNA and protein expressions of cytokines and other inflammatory mediators. Human A549 and murine epithelial (A549 and MLE12) and macrophage (AMJ2-C11) cells were used to define the responses to low dose chlorine exposure in vitro. Results: Chronic low dose chlorine exposure significantly augmented airway inflammation and AHR in OVA-sensitized and challenged mice. The expression of Th2 cytokines IL-4 and IL-5 and proinflammatory cytokine IL-1β and IL-33 were significantly increased in OVA/Cl group compared with OVA group. The chlorine exposure also activates the major molecules associated with inflammasome pathway in the macrophages with increased expression of epithelial alarmins IL-33 and TSLP in vitro. Conclusion: Chronic low dose exposure of chlorine aggravates allergic Th2 inflammation and AHR potentially through activation of inflammasome danger signaling pathways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Anaphylaxis is the most severe form of radiocontrast media (RCM) induced hypersensitivity and can be life-threatening if profound hypotension is combined. With increased use of iodine based RCM, related hypersensitivity is rapidly growing. However, the clinical characteristics and risk factors of RCM induced anaphylaxis accompanied by hypotension (anaphylactic shock) are not clearly defined. This study was performed to investigate the risk factors of RCM induced anaphylactic shock and the clinical value of RCM skin testing to identify causative agents in affected patients. Methods: We analyzed the data of RCM induced anaphylaxis monitored by an inhospital pharmacovigilance center at a tertiary teaching hospital from January 2005 to December 2012 and compared the clinical features and skin test results according to the accompanying hypotension. Results: Among total of 104 cases of RCM induced anaphylaxis, 34.6% of patients, developed anaphylaxis on their first exposure to RCM. Anaphylactic patients presenting with shock were older (57.4 vs. 50.1 years, p = 0.026) and had a history of more frequently exposure to RCM (5.1±7.8 vs. 1.9±3.3, p = 0.004) compared to those without hypotension. Among RCMs, hypotension was more frequent in anaphylaxis related to iopromide compared to other agents (85.0% vs. 61.4%, p = 0.011). Skin tests were performed in 51 patients after development of RCM induced anaphylaxis. Overall skin test positivity to RCM was 64.7% and 81.8% in patients with anaphylactic shock. Conclusion: RCM induced anaphylactic shock is related to multiple exposures to RCM and most patients showed skin test positivity to RCM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Although allopurinol is a very effective urate-lowering drug for complicated hyperuricemia, in some patients, it can induce severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs). Recent investigations suggest that HLA-B*5801 is a very strong marker for allopurinol-induced SCARs, especially in the population with a high frequency of HLA-B*5801. Korea is one of the countries with a high frequency of HLA-B*5801 which is the only subtype of HLA-B58 in the Korean population.Objective. This study was conducted to find out the incidence of allopurinol-induced hypersensitivity on patients with chronic renal insufficiency (CRI) according to HLA-B58 and the clinical implications of HLA-B58 as a risk marker for the development of allopurinol-induced hypersensitivity.Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with CRI who took allopurinol and carried out serologic human leukocyte antigen (HLA) typing for kidney transplantation between January 2003 and May 2010.Results. Among a total of 448 patients with CRI, 16 (3.6%) patients experienced allopurinol hypersensitivity. Nine of these patients (2.0%) were diagnosed with SCARs (two Stevens–Johnson syndrome and seven allopurinol hypersensitivity syndrome) and seven patients (1.6%) had simple maculopapular rashes. The HLA-B58 allele was present in all patients with allopurinol-induced SCARs, while the frequency of HLA-B58 was only 9.5% in allopurinol-tolerant patients (P < 0.05). The incidence of allopurinol-induced SCARs in CRI shows a wide disparity according to HLA-B58 [18% in HLA-B58 (+) versus 0% in HLA-B58 (−)]. Among patients without HLA-B58, most (98.2%) of the CRI patients were tolerant to allopurinol and only 1.8% experienced simple rashes after taking allopurinol.Conclusions. In this study, the incidence of allopurinol-induced SCARs was considerably high in CRI patients with HLA-B58. This finding indicates that the presence of HLA-B58 may increase the risk of allopurinol-induced SCARs. Screening tests for HLA-B58 in CRI patients will be clinically helpful in preventing severe allopurinol hypersensitivity reactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The original version of this article, published on 01 April 2019, unfortunately contained a mistake. The presentation of Fig. 1 was incorrect. The corrected figure is given below. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: While hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to intravenously administered iodinated contrast media (ICM) have been well studied, not much is known about HSR to intra-arterially administered ICM.Methods: A prospective observational study was performed to evaluate coronary angiography (CAG)-induced ICM hypersensitivity in patients who underwent CAG using ICM including ioversol, a low-osmolar non-ionic monomer, and iodixanol, an iso-osmolar non-ionic dimer. The HSR were investigated through in-patient monitoring after CAG and telephone interview after discharge.Results: A total of 714 patients were enrolled during the observation period, of whom 26 (3.6%) showed immediate HSR and 108 (15.1%) showed delayed HSR. With regard to severity, proportion of immediate HSR grades 1, 2, and 3 was 57.7%, 38.5%, and 3.8%, respectively, whereas that of delayed HSR grades 1, 2, and 3 was 85.2%, 13.9%, and 0.9%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that previous intra-arterial exposure to ICM was an independent risk factor for immediate HSR (odds ratio (OR) 2.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22-6.96; p = 0.015). Iodixanol was a significant risk factor for delayed HSR (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.07-2.43; p = 0.024) and correlated with a higher incidence of delayed HSR within 24-h post-ICM administration compared to ioversol.Conclusion: The incidence rate of immediate and delayed HSR in intra-arterially administered ICM was 3.6% and 15.1%, respectively. Previous exposure to intra-arterially administered contrast media was a significant risk factor for immediate HSR. Compared to ioversol, iodixanol was associated with relatively earlier and more frequent delayed HSR.Key Points: • In this prospective study, the incidence of immediate and delayed hypersensitivity in intra-arterial injection of contrast media during coronary angiography was 3.6% and 15.1%, respectively. • Delayed hypersensitivity reactions were more common but less severe than immediate hypersensitivity reactions during coronary angiography. • Previous exposure to ICM via intra-arterial route was a significant risk factor for immediate hypersensitivity to intra-arterial contrast medium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]