Search

Drug hypersensitivity reactions ( DHRs) are a matter of great concern, both for outpatient and in hospital care. The evaluation of these patients is complex, because in vivo tests have a suboptimal sensitivity and can be time-consuming, expensive and potentially risky, especially drug provocation tests. There are several currently available in vitro methods that can be classified into two main groups: those that help to characterize the active phase of the reaction and those that help to identify the culprit drug. The utility of these in vitro methods depends on the mechanisms involved, meaning that they cannot be used for the evaluation of all types of DHRs. Moreover, their effectiveness has not been defined by a consensus agreement between experts in the field. Thus, the European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has organized a task force to provide data and recommendations regarding the available in vitro methods for DHR diagnosis. We have found that although there are many in vitro tests, few of them can be given a recommendation of grade B or above mainly because there is a lack of well-controlled studies, most information comes from small studies with few subjects and results are not always confirmed in later studies. Therefore, it is necessary to validate the currently available in vitro tests in a large series of well-characterized patients with DHR and to develop new tests for diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Skin tests are of paramount importance for the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions. Drug skin tests are often not carried out because of lack of concise information on specific test concentrations. The diagnosis of drug allergy is often based on history alone, which is an unreliable indicator of true hypersensitivity.To promote and standardize reproducible skin testing with safe and nonirritant drug concentrations in the clinical practice, the European Network and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology ( EAACI) Interest Group on Drug Allergy has performed a literature search on skin test drug concentration in MEDLINE and EMBASE, reviewed and evaluated the literature in five languages using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. Where the literature is poor, we have taken into consideration the collective experience of the group.We recommend drug concentration for skin testing aiming to achieve a specificity of at least 95%. It has been possible to recommend specific drug concentration for betalactam antibiotics, perioperative drugs, heparins, platinum salts and radiocontrast media. For many other drugs, there is insufficient evidence to recommend appropriate drug concentration. There is urgent need for multicentre studies designed to establish and validate drug skin test concentration using standard protocols. For most drugs, sensitivity of skin testing is higher in immediate hypersensitivity compared to nonimmediate hypersensitivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Poorly documented self-reported drug allergy (DAll) is a frequent problem in daily clinical practice and has a considerable impact on prescription choices. The diagnostic work-up of drug hypersensitivity (DHs) allows a better classification of the reactions and provides patients with more reliable information and recommendations for future treatments. Objective To assess the prevalence of self-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and DAll in a paediatric population and to investigate children reporting suspected DAll in order to achieve a firm diagnosis. Design The first phase was based on a cross-sectional survey assessing the life occurrence of ADRs and self-reported DAll carried out at the outpatient clinic of a paediatric hospital. The second phase was based on the diagnostic work-up in children with parent-reported DAll, including detailed anamnesis and in vitro and in vivo investigations (skin and provocation tests). Participants One thousand four hundred and twenty-six parents responded to the initial survey. Sixty of the 67 patients with reported DAll were evaluated at the allergy clinic. Results The prevalences of self-reported ADRs and DAll were 10.2% and 6.0%, respectively. Most of the suspected allergic reactions were non-immediate cutaneous events attributable to β-lactam antibiotics and occurred in very young children. Thirty-nine of the 60 patients consulting for evaluation had a plausible clinical history and were recommended further investigation. DHs was diagnosed in three children only, based on positive responses in skin ( n=1) and oral provocation ( n=2) tests. Conclusion ADRs are frequently reported in children, and many children are classified as having a DAll. After complete evaluation, only a few of these reactions can be attributed to DHs and DAll. Most of the patients (94% in this study) could actually tolerate the initially suspected drug. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: β-lactam hypersensitivity reactions are classified as immediate or nonimmediate. Diagnosis is usually based upon skin tests and provocation challenges. Objective: The time course of the reactions in proven β-lactam hypersensitivities was studied and then correlated with the symptoms to determine the relationship between the clinical presentations and the time course. Method: All of the patients who consulted between 1996 and 2004 for a suspected β-lactam hypersensitivity reaction were studied. Two hundred and ten patients with a proven hypersensitivity reaction diagnosed according to the European Network on Drug Allergy were included in the present study. Results: Of the patients, 36.7% had urticaria as a single symptom, 19.1% anaphylaxis without shock, 17.6% anaphylactic shock and 19.1% maculopapular exanthema. Anaphylactic shock and anaphylaxis mostly occurred within 1 h after drug administration. Exanthema mainly occurred after 24 h. Urticaria as a single symptom occurred at any time. A firm diagnosis was determined using immediate-reading skin prick (10.0%) and intradermal tests (38.1%), late-reading skin tests (19.1%) or provocation tests (32.9%). Conclusion and clinical implication: Depending on the time course of the reaction, three clinical groups were identified: anaphylaxis and anaphylactic shock (immediate reaction); maculopapular exanthema (late reaction) as well as urticaria (immediate and late reaction). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]