Search

Background: Carboplatin administration poses a risk of immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) that tend to increase with repeated administration and are mostly IgE-mediated., Objective: This study evaluated the usefulness of carboplatin-prescreening intradermal skin tests (IDTs)., Methods: Carboplatin-prescreening IDTs were routinely conducted in patients with a history of receiving six or more carboplatin cycles beginning in January 2021. The primary objective was to assess disparities in the incidence of unanticipated IHRs to carboplatin administration. We compared patients in the intervention group (from 2021 to 2022) and those who did not undergo prescreening IDTs under the same conditions (preintervention group, from 2019 to 2020). Secondary objectives included evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of the prescreening IDT and the incidence of carboplatin IHR according to the number of infusion cycles., Results: The intervention group was composed of 67 patients who were administered 347 carboplatin cycles whereas the preintervention group included 96 patients who were administered 464 carboplatin cycles. The risk of unanticipated carboplatin IHRs decreased by 83.2% in the intervention group compared with results in the preintervention group (preintervention group, 3.45%, n = 16 vs intervention group, 0.58%, n = 2; P = .005). The prescreening IDT showed a sensitivity and specificity of 77.78% and 99.41%, respectively. The risk of newly developed IHRs based on the number of carboplatin cycles was less than 1% (cycles 1-5), 2.11% (cycle 6), 3.90% (cycles 7-12), 2.90% (cycles 13-18), and 0.74% (cycles 19 and greater), respectively., Conclusions: Initiating carboplatin-prescreening IDTs from the seventh cycle on significantly reduced the risk of unanticipated IHRs., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to platinum-based compounds (PCs) are on the rise, and their personalized and safe management is essential to enable first-line treatment for these cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of the basophil activation test by flow cytometry (BAT-FC) and the newly developed sIgE-microarray and BAT-microarray in diagnosing IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to PCs. A total of 24 patients with DHRs to PCs (20 oxaliplatin and four carboplatin) were evaluated: thirteen patients were diagnosed as allergic with positive skin tests (STs) or drug provocation tests (DPTs), six patients were diagnosed as non-allergic with negative STs and DPTs, and five patients were classified as suspected allergic because DPTs could not be performed. In addition, four carboplatin-tolerant patients were included as controls. The BAT-FC was positive in 2 of 13 allergic patients, with a sensitivity of 15.4% and specificity of 100%. However, the sIgE- and BAT-microarray were positive in 11 of 13 DHR patients, giving a sensitivity of over 84.6% and a specificity of 90%. Except for one patient, all samples from the non-allergic and control groups were negative for sIgE- and BAT-microarray. Our experience indicated that the sIgE- and BAT-microarray could be helpful in the endophenotyping of IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to PCs and may provide an advance in decision making for drug provocation testing.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are invaluable therapeutic options in a variety of dyspeptic diseases. In addition to their well-known risk profile, PPI consumption is related to food and environmental allergies, dysbiosis, osteoporosis, as well as immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). The latter, although a rare event, around 1%-3%, due to the extraordinarily high rate of prescription and consumption of PPIs are related to a substantial risk. In this Position Paper, we provide clinicians with practical evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of HSRs to PPIs. Furthermore, the unmet needs proposed in the document aim to stimulate more in-depth investigations in the topic., (© 2023 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) are a burden for patients and the health systems. This problem increases when taking into account that only a small proportion of patients initially labelled as allergic are finally confirmed after an allergological workup. The diverse nature of drugs involved will imply different interactions with the immunological system. Therefore, IDHRs can be produced by a wide array of mechanisms mediated by the drug interaction with specific antibodies or directly on effector target cells. These heterogeneous mechanisms imply an enhanced complexity for an accurate diagnosis and the identification of the phenotype and endotype at early stages of the reaction is of vital importance. Currently, several endophenotypic categories (type I IgE/non-IgE, cytokine release, Mast-related G-protein coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2) or Cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) inhibition and their associated biomarkers have been proposed. A precise knowledge of endotypes will permit to discriminate patients within the same phenotype, which is crucial in order to personalise diagnosis, future treatment and prevention to improve the patient's quality of life., (© 2023 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Diagnosing immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) can pose a significant challenge and there is an urgent need for safe and reliable tests. Evidence has emerged that the basophil activation test (BAT), an in vitro assay that mirrors the in vivo response, can be a complementary test for many drugs. In this position paper, members of Task Force (TF) "Basophil activation test in the evaluation of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions" from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) present the data from a survey about the use and utility of BAT in IDHRs in Europe. The survey results indicate that there is a great interest for using BAT especially for diagnosing IDHRs. However, there are still main needs, mainly in the standardization of the protocols. Subsequently consensus-based recommendations were formulated for: (i) Technical aspects of BAT in IDHRs including type of sample, management of drugs, flow cytometry protocols, interpretation of the results; and (ii) Drug-specific aspects that should be taken into account when performing BAT in relation to betalactams, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluoroquinolones, chlorhexidine, opioids, radio contrast media, chemotherapeutics, biological agents, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, COVID vaccine, and excipients. Moreover, aspects in the evaluation of pediatric population have also been considered. All this indicates that BAT offers the clinician and laboratory a complementary tool for a safe diagnostic for IDHRs, although its place in the diagnostic algorithm depends on the drug class and patient population (phenotype, geography, and age). The standardization of BAT is important for generalizing this method beyond the individual laboratory., (© 2023 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Local anesthetic (LA) drugs are commonly used in clinical practice to provide effective analgesia, including in dentistry and minor surgical procedures. The perception of a high risk of allergy in daily applications leads to the referral of atopic patients and those with other drug allergies to allergy clinics for the evaluation of allergic reactions to LA. The aim of this study was to determine who should be referred to the allergy clinic for LA allergy testing, assess the frequency of LA allergy in pediatric patients, and identify the negative predictive value of skin tests in diagnosis., Methods: January 2017-July 2023, the clinical and laboratory data, as well as the results of drug allergy tests, of patients referred to our pediatric allergy clinic by dentists and physicians performing minor surgical procedures with suspected LA allergy were retrospectively evaluated., Results: Our study included a total of 153 patients, comprising 84 girls (54.9%) and 69 boys (45.1%), with a mean age of 8.9 (±3.3) years. The most common reason for referral was a history of non-LA drug allergies (n = 66, 43.2%), followed by asthma (n = 25, 16.3%). Hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) with LA were most commonly associated with articaine (n = 7, 4.8%), followed by lidocaine (n = 6, 4.1%). When intradermal tests were evaluated, 17 patients (11.1%) had a positive test result. The positivity for lidocaine was 70.6% (n = 12), and prilocaine was 29.4% (n = 5). Subcutaneous provocation was administered to 109 patients (71.2%), and one patient exhibited local erythema and swelling with prilocaine., Conclusion: Although LA allergy is a rare occurrence, consultations of this nature are frequently requested from allergy clinics in real life. Considering the negative predictive value of skin tests performed with LA drugs, the reaction rate appears to be low in patients with atopy or other drug allergies. It is crucial for all relevant healthcare professionals to be knowledgeable about the appropriate approach to suspected LA allergies to avoid unnecessary tests. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the most comprehensive work in the literature that evaluates the results of diagnostic tests in children referred with a suspicion of LA allergy., (© 2024 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) are commonly found in patients receiving paclitaxel. Effects of paclitaxel vary because of variable co-therapy or re-challenge with paclitaxel., Objective: Our objective was to investigate the incidence, patterns, and risk factors for paclitaxel-related IHRs and management of IHRs in gynecologic malignancy patients., Methods: This retrospective study was performed in gynecologic cancer patients receiving paclitaxel-based regimens at Siriraj hospital from January 2012 to December 2017., Results: 416 subjects were included and received ranitidine 50 mg, dexamethasone 20 mg, ondansetron 16 mg intravenously and diphenhydramine 50 mg orally 30 minutes before starting chemotherapy. The incidence of IHRs was 17.79%. IHRs occurring on first exposure to paclitaxel was 81.1% and occurred within 30 minutes after starting paclitaxel. The most commonly found presentation of IHRs were skin reactions (86.5%). In multivariate analysis, age < 54.5 years, stage of cancer < 2, and leukocyte cell count < 7.735 × 109/L were significantly associated with IHRs. Seventy-two out of 74 patients that recovered from IHRs were reintroduced paclitaxel. Forty-seven patients (97.92%) of 48 patients with mild reactions were successfully reintroduced to paclitaxel after treatment with chlorpheniramine or other interventions., Conclusions: The incidence of paclitaxel-related IHRs was about one in five. Skin reactions were the most commonly occurring reactions. Younger age, stage of cancer < 2, and leukocytes < 7.735 × 109/L were significant risk factors for IHRs. Patients with IHRs recovered without the use of dexamethasone and antihistamines before the reintroduction of paclitaxel.

Background: There is no accepted grading system classifying the severity of immediate reactions to drugs., Objective: The purpose of this article is to present a proposed grading system developed through the consensus of drug allergy experts from the United States Drug Allergy Registry (USDAR) Consortium., Methods: The USDAR investigators sought to develop a consensus severity grading system for immediate drug reactions that is applicable to clinical care and research., Results: The USDAR grading scale scores severity levels on a scale of 0 to 4. A grade of no reaction (NR) is used for patients who undergo challenge without any symptoms or signs, and it would confirm a negative challenge result. A grade 0 reaction is indicative of primarily subjective complaints that are commonly seen with both historical drug reactions and during drug challenges, and it would suggest a low likelihood of a true drug allergic reaction. Grades 1 to 4 meet the criteria for a positive challenge result and may be considered indicative of a drug allergy. Grade 1 reactions are suggestive of a potential immediate drug reaction with mild symptoms. Grade 2 reactions are more likely to be immediate drug reactions of moderate severity. Grade 3 reactions have features suggestive of a severe allergic reaction, whereas grade 4 reactions are life-threatening reactions such as anaphylactic shock and fatal anaphylaxis., Conclusion: This proposed grading schema for immediate drug reactions improves on prior schemata by being developed specifically for immediate drug reactions and being easy to implement in clinical and research practice., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Serum tryptase, a mast cell marker, provides clues for the mechanism, severity, and management of drug hypersensitivity induced by immunoglobulin E dependent or independent mast cell activation., Recent Findings: The interpretation of serum tryptase levels has been challenged during the last 2 years by major advances in tryptase genetics and their rapid incorporation into clinical practice. On the contrary, new pathophysiological insight into nonmast cell-dependent immediate hypersensitivity has been gained., Summary: This review provides up-to-date information on the pathophysiology and recommended use and interpretation of tryptase in the context of drug hypersensitivity reactions as a function of their endotype., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The prevalence of hypersensitivity reactions to drugs is increasing. Currently, this affects more than 7% of the world population. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and beta-lactam antibiotics (BLA) are by far the most common pharmaceutical preparations involved in hypersensitivity reactions to drugs. Misdiagnoses are frequent and BLA allergies present a danger that can lead to adverse health outcomes. Therefore, delabeling (exclusion of a suspected diagnosis) is paramount for those affected. Following the occurrence of uncomplicated maculopapular exanthemas, outpatient oral drug provocation can be safely considered in children without prior skin tests. Immediate perioperative reactions are rare. The approach to studying these complex reactions requires collaboration between allergologists and anesthesiologists to provide the best possible care for these patients., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) to antineoplastic agents occur frequently, and every oncologist will encounter these reactions in their clinical practice at some point. The clinical signature of IHRs can range from mild to life-threatening, and their occurrence can substantially impede the treatment course of patients with cancer. Yet, clear guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management are scarce, especially from an oncologic point of view. Therefore, herein, we review the definition, pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis and management of IHRs to chemotherapeutic agents and monoclonal antibodies. First, we focus on defining the specific entities that comprise IHRs and discuss their underlying mechanisms. Then, we summarize the epidemiology for the antineoplastic agents that represent the most common causes of IHRs, i.e., platinum compounds, taxanes and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Next, we describe the possible clinical pictures and the comprehensive diagnostic work-up that should be executed to identify the culprit and safe alternatives for the future. Finally, we finish with reviewing the treatment options in both the acute phase and after recovery, with the aim to improve the oncologic care of patients with cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Local anesthetics (LA) are commonly used in procedures and in topical agents for pain management. With the increasing use of LA drugs, the management of LA reactions is more frequently encountered in the office and in operating rooms. True allergic reactions involving IgE-mediated reactions and anaphylaxis are rare; they have only been identified in case reports and account for less than 1% of adverse LA reactions. Most reactions are non-allergic or are a result of hypersensitivity to other culprits such as preservatives, excipients, or other exposures. LA reactions that are misclassified as true allergies can lead to unnecessary avoidance of LA drugs or delays in surgical procedures that require their use. A detailed history of prior LA reactions is the first and most crucial step for understanding the nature of the reaction. Reactions that are suspicious for an immediate hypersensitivity reaction can be evaluated with skin prick and intradermal testing with subsequent graded challenge. Reactions that are suspicious for a delayed hypersensitivity reaction can be evaluated with patch testing., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Gadolinium based contrast agents (GBCAs) are safe compounds globally used in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, in last years it has been detected an increase of immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) to them. Diagnosis of IHRs to GBCAs is based on clinical symptoms, skin tests (STs) and drug provocation test (DPT). But DPTs are not without risks, thus it is important to implement an in vitro alternative method such as the basophil activation test (BAT). We described the clinical validation of the BAT using ROC curves from a control population formed by 40 healthy individuals without previous reactions to any contrast agents and 5 patients suffering from IHRs to GBCAs. Four patients presented IHRs to gadoteric acid (GA) as the culprit agent and another one to gadobutrol (G). Basophil reactivity was measured in percentage of CD63 expression and in stimulation index (SI). The optimal cut-off with the highest sensitivity (S) and specificity (E) for the GA was of 4.6% at 1:100 dilution (S = 80% and E = 85%; AUC = 0.880, p = 0.006). For the SI with GA, the cut-off of highest sensitivity and specificity was of 2.79 at 1:100 dilution (S = 80% and E = 100%; AUC = 0.920, p = 0.002). Sensitivity did not show differences between STs regarding the BAT (p < 0.05). Moreover, the BAT was able to detect one case with IHR to GA which had negative STs. Therefore, the BAT is a useful method in diagnosis of IHRs to GBCAs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chlorhexidine generally has a good safety profile. However, allergic reactions are reported with increasing frequency. In China, it is rarely reported, and its characteristics are unknown. The purpose of this study was to summarize the experience of a Chinese allergy center with chlorhexidine allergy., Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent chlorhexidine allergy testing in the Allergy Center of West China Hospital, Sichuan University (Chengdu, China), in the period February 2018 to May 2022 (n = 43 patients) and included the patients diagnosed with chlorhexidine allergy for analysis., Results: Ten patients who were diagnosed by skin prick and serum-specific immunoglobulin E tests were included. They experienced a total of 30 allergic reactions to chlorhexidine (mean ± SD, 3.0 ± 1.3). Five patients experienced six allergic reactions (6 of 30, 20%) during general or local anesthesia, and they may have been exposed to chlorhexidine via different routes. Only one allergic reaction (1 of 30, 3%) was recorded with exposure via a mouthwash. The other 23 allergic reactions (23 of 30, 77%) were caused via a skin disinfectant; the route of exposure was IV cannulation in 22 allergic reactions (22 of 23, 96%) and broken skin in one allergic reaction (1 of 23, 4%). The symptoms included a quick onset and great severity. Two patients (2 of 10, 20%) had been accidentally re-exposed to chlorhexidine after diagnosis., Conclusions: This study conducted in China showed that the majority of reactions to chlorhexidine were attributed to skin disinfectants, and IV cannulation was the most common exposure route; in general, however, chlorhexidine allergy was easily overlooked. The potential allergenicity of chlorhexidine used for skin preparation before IV cannulation or should be considered in patients who develop allergic reactions perioperatively., (Copyright © 2023, the American Society of Anesthesiologists. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: Corticosteroids, which are anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive agents used for the treatment of various diseases including allergic disorders, can induce immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Although these reactions are not common, due to the wide usage of corticosteroid medications, corticosteroid hypersensitivity reactions are clinically important., Objective: In this review, we summarise the prevalence, pathogenetic mechanism, clinical manifestations, risk factors, diagnostic and therapeutic approach for corticosteroid-induced hypersensitivity reactions., Methods: An integrative review of the literature was conducted using PubMed searches (mainly large cohort-based studies) regarding the different aspects of corticosteroid hypersensitivity., Results: Hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids can be immediate or delayed and can follow all modes of corticosteroid administration. Prick and intradermal skin tests are useful diagnostic tools for immediate hypersensitivity reactions, patch tests are useful for delayed hypersensitivity reactions. According to the diagnostic tests an alternative (safe) corticosteroid agent should be administered., Conclusion: Physicians of all medical disciplines should be aware that corticosteroids can cause (paradoxically) immediate or delayed allergic hypersensitivity reactions. The diagnosis of such allergic reactions is challenging since it is often difficult to distinguish between hypersensitivity reactions and deterioration of the basic inflammatory disease (e.g., worsening of asthma or dermatitis). Thus, a high index of suspicion is needed in order to identify the culprit corticosteroid.

This article reviews our evolving understanding of penicillin hypersensitivity at the 80th anniversary of penicillin's clinical introduction. Penicillin breakdown products covalently bond to serum proteins, leading to classic drug hypersensitivity. Penicillin remains the most frequently reported drug "allergy." Adverse reactions were presumed, in retrospect incorrectly, to implicate a risk for anaphylaxis, and therefore skin testing for IgE became the focus. Skin test positivity may wane over time. This insight has led to the radical conclusion that penicillin hypersensitivity may not be "forever." Atopic background, other drug allergies, family history, gender, and race are apparently not risk factors for penicillin hypersensitivity. Confirmed penicillin hypersensitivity has declined since the 1960s, potentially due to "cleaner" penicillin products and lower dose oral, instead of parenteral, use. Avoiding penicillins, without evaluation, caused unanticipated problems that have been appreciated only recently including longer hospital stays, increased cost of care, suboptimal outcomes from serious infections, and greater toxicities and costs with alternative antibiotics. There are personal and public health advantages with broadly implemented penicillin allergy delabeling based on a reaction history-based risk assessment. Limited skin testing followed by an oral challenge, if negative, for higher-risk histories, and direct oral challenges in lower-risk individuals are currently the reference standard tests to confirm current tolerance., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In light of the pandemic of spurious penicillin allergy, correct diagnosis of amoxicillin (AX) allergy is of great importance. The diagnosis of immediate hypersensitivity reactions relies on skin tests and specific IgE, and although reliable, these are not absolutely predictive. Therefore, drug challenges are needed in some cases, which contain the risk of severe reactions. Safe in vitro diagnostics as an alternative for the drug challenge in the diagnostic workup of AX allergy would be more than welcome to fill this gap. In this respect, the basophil activation test (BAT) has shown potential, but its clinical reliability is doubtful., Objective: To investigate the reliability of the BAT to AX and determining its exact place in the diagnostic algorithm of AX allergy., Methods: BAT for AX was performed in 70 exposed control individuals and 66 patients diagnosed according to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines for AX allergy. Upregulation of both CD63 and CD203c was flow-cytometrically assessed., Results: Analyses revealed that 1370 μmol/L and 685 μmol/L were the most discriminative stimulation concentrations for CD63 and CD203c upregulation, respectively, and a diagnostic threshold of 9% for positivity for both markers was identified. At these concentrations, sensitivity and specificity for CD63 upregulation were 13% and 100%, respectively, and for CD203c upregulation, 23% and 98%., Conclusions: BAT with dual analysis of CD63 and CD203c is of poor performance to document AX allergy. The sensitivity is too low to let it occupy a prominent role in the diagnostic algorithm., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Clinical applications of skin testing are known to help diagnose IgE-mediated and T-cell-mediated delayed cutaneous reactions. By contrast, drug-induced immune complex-mediated vasculitis is primarily diagnosed based on medical history, clinical setting and laboratory evidence of immune-complex formation, as there are no proven methods to identify the suspect culprit. We report three cases of drug- or biologic-induced immune complex-mediated vasculitis, in which the culprit agents could be confirmed by a positive intradermal test with later reading (between 12 and 24 h after the test), with verification by immunohistochemical or immunofluorescent results. The findings of our study suggest that skin tests with a delayed reading could have a potential role in diagnosing some instances of immune complex-mediated hypersensitivity reactions., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Over the last decade there have been key advances in understanding mechanisms, risk, and consequences of both true immunological drug hypersensitivity and unverified drug allergy labels that have changed clinical practice. This has been facilitated by the widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). The vast majority of EHR drug allergy labels are unverified and cause significant morbidity from unnecessary avoidance of optimal drug therapy. There has also been significant movement in our understanding of mechanisms of drug hypersensitivity that, in addition to advancing our understanding of the pathogenesis of immediate and delayed reactions, have guided preventive efforts, diagnostic procedures, and clinical management. More widespread adoption, including scale-up of "allergy" delabeling and appropriate management, specifically for antibiotics, opiates, radiocontrast, chemotherapeutics, biologics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, will be necessary to improve patient outcomes over the next decade. This will require further engagement and collaboration between primary care health care providers, allergists, and other specialists., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Ibuprofen is the most common culprit drug causing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) hypersensitivity in children. We aimed to evaluate the frequency, clinical characteristics, and risk factors of confirmed ibuprofen allergy in children presenting with a history of suspected immediate type ibuprofen-induced hypersensitivity reactions., Methods: We evaluated 50 (35 M, 15 F) children with a median age of 7 years, who were referred to our clinic with suspected immediate ibuprofen hypersensitivity. Patients were subjected to a diagnostic work up including drug provocation tests (DPTs) with the culprit drug. Reactions were classified according to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Task Force recommendations for pediatric patients. Proven ibuprofen allergic patients underwent DPT to find a safe alternative drug., Results: Ibuprofen allergy was confirmed in 34% (n: 17) of children; 9 patients were diagnosed by DPTs and 8 patients diagnosed based on their histories. Angioedema was the most common clinical manifestation (n: 30, 60%). Among patients with proven ibuprofen allergy, 7 of them were classified as cross-intolerant. Cross-intolerance reactions were further classified as NSAID-exacerbated cutaneous disease (n = 1) and NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema/anaphylaxis (n = 6). As an alternative drug, paracetamol was safely tolerated, whereas 1 patient developed angioedema and urticaria with nimesulide. Older age and male gender were identified as independent risk factors for immediate-type ibuprofen allergy., Conclusion: DPTs should be performed to confirm or exclude ibuprofen allergy in children and to find safe alternative drugs. Male gender and older age are risk factors for ibuprofen allergy. NSAID-induced hypersensitivity reactions in the pediatric population cannot be well defined using the adult classification system., (© 2022 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Data on beta-lactam hypersensitivity (BLH) are mainly focused on immediate or mild nonimmediate reactions in the ambulatory setting, but limited in patients with concurrent illness and moderate-to-severe nonimmediate reactions in the hospitalized setting., Objective: To investigate the entire spectrum of BLH in Thai tertiary hospital., Methods: Clinical characteristics of 357 patients with suspected BLH were evaluated in a 7-year period. Culprit drug identification was performed in 335 patients by combined skin testing, in vitro testing, or drug provocation tests., Results: The predominant BLH presentations were non-immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated reactions with severe cutaneous adverse reactions of 18.9%, and BLH status was definitively confirmed in 18.1%. The most common verified culprits were cephalosporins (34.8%), particularly in hypersensitivity type IV reactions. Natural penicillins were the main implicated drugs in 48.5% of ambulatory patients. In contrast, cephalosporins and carbapenems were the main implicated drugs in hospitalized patients. Non-IgE-mediated anaphylaxis and serum sickness-like reaction remained diagnostically challenged. New generations of beta-lactams, hospitalized patients, recent allergic history, and underlying malignancies or autoimmune diseases were associated with increased BLH risk., Conclusion: At present, cephalosporins are the leading causes of BLH, particularly in non-IgE-mediated reactions. More research on the verification of non-IgE hypersensitivity reactions from new generations of beta-lactams should be better emphasized., Clinical Trial Registration: The registry was approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, and listed on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01667055; https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov/ct2/show/NCT01667055)., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Drug hypersensitivity is increasing worldwide as the consumption of drug is increasing. Many clinical presentations of drug hypersensitivity are complex and take place in the setting of illness and/or polypharmacotherapy. To review the most recent findings in the diagnosis and management of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions. Studies were selected based on their relevance, originality and date of publication. The understanding of endotypes, biomarkers and phenotypes has improved the categorization of immediate hypersensitivity reactions. In this review, we discussed the short- and long-term management of anaphylaxis with a special focus on in vivo and in vitro diagnostic methods. Moreover, the clinical management of drug-induced anaphylaxis, the role of hidden allergens and the importance of delabeling are discussed. Endophenotyping is crucial to correctly diagnose and treat patients with immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions, preventing future episodes through drug desensitization., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Background: Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins are often labeled on the basis of a similar set of symptoms, but a key feature of these reactions that can be reproduced in diagnostic testing may be the timing of a reaction in relation to the dose administration., Objective: To determine whether the timing of a reaction in response to the last dose of a penicillin would predict the results of diagnostic testing., Methods: We evaluated 1074 patients by performing skin tests, serum specific IgE assays (ImmunoCAP), and challenges. Patients who were evaluated by us more than 6 months after their reactions and found negative were reevaluated within 2 to 4 weeks., Results: Patients who had reacted within 1 hour after the first dose, within 1 hour after subsequent doses, more than 1 hour to within 6 hours after the first dose, or more than 1 hour to within 6 hours after subsequent doses were classified as group A (758 individuals), B (92), C (67), or D (157), respectively. Penicillin hypersensitivity was diagnosed in 707 patients (65.8%) by skin tests (407 patients, 57.6%), ImmunoCAP (47, 6.6%), both tests (232, 32.8%), or challenges (21, 3%). A conversion to allergy-test positivity occurred in 7 of 10 patients with anaphylactic reactions and in 1 of 28 patients with other reactions who were reevaluated after negative challenges. The rate of penicillin-allergic patients in groups A, B, C, and D was 85%, 35.9%, 35.8%, and 3.8%, respectively. Only 1 of 107 patients reporting cutaneous reactions lasting more than 1 day had positive results to allergy tests., Conclusions: IgE-mediated hypersensitivity can be diagnosed by skin tests in about 70% of subjects who react within 1 hour (eg, patients from groups A and B). This hypersensitivity can be lost over time, as demonstrated by the negativization of allergy tests in follow-up studies. In subjects with anaphylactic reactions, however, it is advisable to not consider this phenomenon definitive. In fact, a conversion to allergy test positivity can be observed in up to 20% of such subjects retested after negative challenges., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A clinical scoring system to estimate the likelihood that a reaction represents a perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reaction has been devised using a Delphi consensus process. Agreement of this clinical scoring system with the outcome of allergological assessment would allow the use of this tool in post-resuscitation and subsequent management of suspected perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reaction and potentially as a new standard reference for clinical investigations., Methods: We prospectively scored 301 cases of suspected perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reaction according to the Hypersensitivity Clinical Scoring Scheme. Classification of cases was by allergological workup based on immediate and delayed investigations. The discrimination and calibration of the Hypersensitivity Clinical Scoring Scheme was compared with results from an expert panel of allergologists, skin testing, mast cell tryptase ratios, and specific IgE assays, as was agreement by Cohen's kappa coefficient., Results: The Hypersensitivity Clinical Scoring Scheme predicted cases of allergic perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reaction with comparable discrimination to an expert panel, mast cell tryptase formula, and specific IgE assays in anaphylaxis to neuromuscular blocking drugs. Using a score threshold of 15 or greater to indicate allergic perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reaction, the sensitivity was 88.9%, with a specificity of 79.4%. Prospectively, the Hypersensitivity Clinical Scoring Scheme correctly classified a greater number of subjects than the expert panel and the optimal post hoc binary logistic regression model (86% vs 85% vs 84%), however it was inferior to skin testing., Conclusion: The Hypersensitivity Clinical Scoring Scheme predicts allergic perioperative immediate hypersensitivity using features of the acute syndrome. This approach could guide algorithms for the post-resuscitative management of suspected perioperative immediate hypersensitivity, and identify patients requiring drug provocation challenge., Competing Interests: Declarations of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The beta-lactam antibiotic amoxicillin and the beta-lactamase inhibitor clavulanic acid in combination with amoxicillin are known to cause both immediate- and nonimmediate-type hypersensitivity., Objective: To characterize a large cohort of patients with a history of amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanic acid hypersensitivity., Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of the demographics, presentation, investigation, and management of 331 patients presenting to 1 allergy center with a history of hypersensitivity to amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanic acid., Results: Hypersensitivity was confirmed in 37 of 221 patients (17%) who took amoxicillin and 47 of 110 patients (43%) who took amoxicillin-clavulanic acid as the index drug. In immediate hypersensitivity, skin test results confirmed the diagnosis in 66 of 139 patients (47%). Penicillin cross-reactivity was observed in 16 of 36 patients (44%). Of the 16 patients who were cross-reactive, 13 (81%) reacted to amoxicillin-clavulanic acid as the index drug. All patients who had negative skin test results (73/139) underwent drug provocation. The negative predictive value of skin tests was 89%. In nonimmediate hypersensitivity, delayed intradermal tests confirmed diagnosis in 12 of 170 patients (7%). Of the 12 patients whose skin test results were positive, 8 (67%) presented with drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms. All patients with a negative skin test result (158/170) underwent drug provocation. The negative predictive value of skin tests was 95%. Penicillin cross-reactivity was observed in 3 of 12 patients (25%). Ten patients were diagnosed with hypersensitivity to clavulanic acid., Conclusion: The negative predictive value of skin tests in both immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions is excellent and excludes severe allergy. Nonimmediate hypersensitivity is rare. Confirmed hypersensitivity is more likely if amoxicillin-clavulanic acid is the index drug. Cross-reactivity was more common in patients presenting with immediate hypersensitivity, typically involving benzylpenicillin. A minority of patients were allergic to clavulanic acid., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: A male patient aged 81, with a history of atrial fibrillation, pacemaker implantation and hip replacement was admitted due to pneumonia. Subsequent Methicillin Sensitive Staphylococcus Aureus (MSSA) bacteremia and septic arthritis of his prosthetic joint was diagnosed, and treated with Oxacillin. Two weeks later, an exanthematous rash appeared, involving most of his body surface, evolving to blisters that dried up and led to extensive exfoliation of the skin, consistent with a delayed type hypersensitivity drug reaction. Other possible etiologies for this rash were ruled out. Antibiotic treatment was changed to Cefalexin, assuming that there is no cross reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins, regarding late drug reactions. Thereafter, the rash subsided, but his renal function deteriorated and interstitial nephritis due to a hypersensitivity reaction to cephalosporin was diagnosed. Hypersensitivity to penicillins and other beta-lactam antibiotics is reported by 10% of the population, only 1/10 of them are verified using standardized allergic testing (1-3). Delayed type hypersensitivity to beta-lactams is more common than immediate type allergy. It evolves days and weeks following exposure to the offending drug. Late responses are classified as type II- IV hypersensitivities, type IV being the most prevalent (4-7). We present a patient who developed two distinct delayed type phenomena to two different beta lactam antibiotics during the same hospitalization. The possibility of a hypersensitivity reaction should rise in the differential diagnosis of the deteriorating patient most notably as such might be life threatening on the one hand, and reversible, after drug withdrawal, on the other hand.

Following intravenous contrast medium (CM) injection, a small proportion of patients acquires hypersensitivity reactions that occur either immediately or non-immediately (delayed). Although it is now claer that even oral applied CMs are able to cause adverse reactions, many radiologists as well as physicians of other disciplines, still believe that CM-application via the gastrointestinal route does not induce hypersensitivity reactions. Since this kind of misinterpretation may harm the patient, education on this topic is still necessary. Therefore, we describe a case who acquired a delayed hypersensitivity reaction following the oral intake of a non-ionic iodinated CM.

Purpose of Review: There is a broad spectrum of chemotherapy-induced adverse reactions. Hypersensitivity reactions are being extensively studied as they can affect the ideal treatment. The goal of this review is to describe the current management of adverse reactions to chemotherapy, focusing on hypersensitivity events., Recent Findings: The range of possible desensitization protocols is increasing, as well as the delabeling algorithms and diagnostic tools. One-bag desensitization protocols, omalizumab use in immediate hypersensitivity reactions, slow desensitization protocols in nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions and standardization of skin tests for platinum drugs, are some examples., Summary: The handling of adverse reactions to chemotherapy is evolving, with the increasing identification of hypersensitivity reactions and the development of strategies for their management, to maintain the culprit drug., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Beta-lactam antibiotics (BLAs) can provoke drug hypersensitivity reactions, particularly delayed-type reactions. This article presents a case of drug allergy with manifestations of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJD) in a 42-year-old man with yersiniosis and active herpesvirus -4, -6 type, who received amoxacillin with clavulanic acid. The patient underwent a basophil activation test (BAT) for BLAs, and a positive result was found for both amoxacillin and 2nd and 3rd generation cephalosporins. On the example of a clinical case, probable pathogenetic mechanisms of the risk of the appearance of immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions in persons with active herpesvirus -4, -6 type infection are shown. The possibility of using the cellular BAT for the diagnosis of delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions and for the diagnosis of cross-reactions to antibiotics has also been demonstrated.

Diagnosis of type I hypersensitivity reactions (IgE-mediated reactions) to penicillins is based on clinical history, skin tests (STs), and drug provocation tests (DPTs). Among in vitro complementary tests, the fluoro-enzyme immunoassay (FEIA) ImmunoCAP ® (Thermo-Fisher, Waltham, MA, USA) is the most widely used commercial method for detecting drug-specific IgE (sIgE). In this study, we aimed to analyze the utility of ImmunoCAP ® for detecting sIgE to penicillin G (PG) and amoxicillin (AX) in patients with confirmed penicillin allergy. The study includes 139 and 250 patients evaluated in Spain and Italy, respectively. All had experienced type I hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins confirmed by positive STs. Additionally, selective or cross-reactive reactions were confirmed by DPTs in a subgroup of patients for further analysis. Positive ImmunoCAP ® results were 39.6% for PG and/or AX in Spanish subjects and 52.4% in Italian subjects. When only PG or AX sIgE where analyzed, the percentages were 15.1% and 30.4%, respectively, in Spanish patients; and 38.9% and 46% in Italian ones. The analysis of positive STs showed a statistically significant higher percentage of positive STs to PG determinants in Italian patients. False-positive results to PG (16%) were detected in selective AX patients with confirmed PG tolerance. Low and variable sensitivity values observed in a well-defined population with confirmed allergy diagnosis, as well as false-positive results to PG, suggest that ImmunoCAP ® is a diagnostic tool with relevant limitations in the evaluation of subjects with type I hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins.

Beta-lactam antibiotics are the most commonly reported drug allergy in adults and children. More than 95% of those with reported allergy labels to beta lactams are not confirmed when subjected to allergy testing. Beta lactam antibiotics are associated with a wide spectrum of immediate and delayed drug hypersensitivity reactions. The latency period to symptoms and clinical presentation aids in the causality assessment. Risk stratification based on diagnosis and timing then allows for appropriate management and evaluation. Skin prick testing, intradermal testing and oral challenge are well established for evaluation of immediate reactions. Delayed intradermal testing, patch testing and oral challenge can also be considered for evaluation of mild to moderate delayed reactions. Cross-reactivity between beta-lactams appears to be driven most commonly by a shared R1 side-chain. Standardized algorithms, protocols and pathways are needed for widespread implementation of a pragmatic and effective approach to patients reporting beta lactam allergy., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

While fluoroquinolones, vancomycin, macrolides, and tetracyclines are generally safe antibiotics, they can induce both immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Historically, less has been published on allergies to these antibiotics compared to beta lactams, but the prevalence of non-beta lactam HSRs is increasing. To fluoroquinolones, immediate HSRs are more common than delayed reactions. Both IgE and non-IgE mechanisms, such as the mast cell receptor Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2), have been implicated in fluoroquinolone-induced anaphylaxis. Skin testing for fluoroquinolones is controversial, and the gold standard for diagnosis is a graded dose challenge. To vancomycin, the most common reaction is vancomycin infusion reaction (previously called "red man syndrome"), which is caused by infusion rate-dependent direct mast cell degranulation. Severity can range from flushing and pruritis to angioedema, bronchospasm, and hypotension that mimic type I HSRs. MRGPRX2 has been implicated in vancomycin infusion reactions. IgE-mediated HSRs to vancomycin are rare. Vancomycin skin testing yields high false positive rates. Thus, direct provocation challenge with slower infusion rate and/or antihistamine pre-treatment is preferred if symptoms are mild to moderate, and desensitization can be considered if symptoms are severe. To tetracyclines, non-IgE-mediated and delayed HSRs predominate with cutaneous reactions being the most common. There is no standardized skin testing for tetracyclines, and avoidance is generally recommended after a severe reaction because of the paucity of data for testing. Graded dose challenges and desensitizations can be considered for alternative or index tetracyclines if there are no alternatives. With macrolides, urticaria/angioedema is the most common immediate HSR, and rash is the most common delayed HSR. The predictive value for skin testing to macrolides is similarly poorly defined. In general, HSRs to fluroquinolones, vancomycin, macrolides, and tetracyclines are challenging to diagnose given the lack of validated skin testing and in vitro testing. Direct provocation challenge remains the gold standard for diagnosis, but the benefits of confirming an allergy may not outweigh the risk of a severe reaction. Skin testing, direct provocation challenge, and/or desensitization to the index non-beta lactam antibiotic or alternatives in its class may be reasonable approaches depending on the clinical context and patient preferences., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

In evaluating adverse drug reactions (ADRs), patch tests (PTs), skin prick tests (SPTs), and intradermal tests (IDTs) are useful tools for identifying responsible drugs and finding safe alternatives. Their diagnostic value depends on the clinical features of the ADR and on the drug tested. PTs have a good sensitivity in assessing acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis and drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms. SPTs done with all drugs except opiates are used for immediate hypersensitivity reactions. IDTs seem sensitive for immediate hypersensitivity reactions to beta-lactam antibiotics, iodinated contrast media, heparins, general anesthetics, and platinum salts., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Penicillin allergy labels are frequently encountered in children and are associated with significant harms. Most children are falsely labelled and can safely tolerate a penicillin but delabelling strategies are underutilised and paediatric-specific resources are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate an allergy assessment tool for children in hospital., Methods: We evaluated a paediatric-adapted penicillin allergy assessment tool, using an online survey of clinicians in a tertiary paediatric hospital, with 10 hypothetical potential penicillin allergy or adverse reaction cases (including non-allergy reactions). For each case, respondents were asked to use the tool to assign a reaction phenotype and recommend management. We determined the tool's sensitivity, specificity and acceptability to end users., Results: We evaluated 30 complete survey responses from senior and junior medical staff, nurses and pharmacists. The tool's overall sensitivity was 80.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 74.2-87.1%) for assigning the correct reaction phenotype and 85.3% (95% CI 79.4-91.3%) for appropriate management. The tool had high sensitivity for identifying immediate hypersensitivity reactions at 95.6% (95% CI 90.2-100%). Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they would use the tool in their practice (22/30, 73.3%)., Conclusion: This survey evaluated a paediatric-adapted penicillin allergy assessment tool in a tertiary paediatric hospital among multidisciplinary clinician groups. The tool performed well overall and had high safety in identifying immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Further research to support implementation of allergy assessment and delabelling programmes among children is required., (© 2021 Paediatrics and Child Health Division (The Royal Australasian College of Physicians).)

Background: The challenge of delabeling amoxicillin allergy is an important issue for patients and clinicians, especially when anaphylaxis is reported. A recent study has proposed a clinical decision rule, PEN-FAST, to identify low-risk penicillin allergies., Objective: To validate the PEN-FAST clinical decision rule in a population with high risk of suspected immediate amoxicillin allergy and to identify clinical predictive factors of amoxicillin immediate hypersensitivity., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed medical records of patients with a suspected immediate amoxicillin allergy who carried out an allergologic evaluation by a specialist in the Allergy Unit of Strasbourg University Hospital from 2015 to 2020., Results: A total of 142 adult patients (88 women [62.0%]; median age, 52 [interquartile range, 40.3-62.0] years) were analyzed. Most of them reported anaphylaxis (68.8%). Internal validation of PEN-FAST score revealed a good discrimination with area under the curve of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.92). A cutoff of less than 3 points for PEN-FAST was used to classify 29 from 142 patients at low risk of allergy, of whom only 2 (6.9%) received positive results of allergy testing. The negative predictive value for successful delabeling was 0.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.99). Predictive clinical features for immediate amoxicillin hypersensitivity were time since reaction (P < .001), time elapsed between drug intake and first symptom (P < .001), severity grade reaction (P < .001), and treatment or hospitalization required (P < .001)., Conclusion: PEN-FAST has been validated to identify low-risk penicillin allergies in our European cohort of patients mainly reporting anaphylaxis. This is the first reported external validation of a penicillin allergy clinical decision rule internationally., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cefazolin is a common trigger of perioperative anaphylaxis. The diagnostic approach is controversial because the optimal concentration for skin testing is uncertain, drug provocation tests (DPTs) are contraindicated in severe reactions, and in vitro tests are not thoroughly validated., Objective: We aimed to characterize a large number of patients reporting cefazolin allergic reactions and to analyze the diagnostic role of in vivo and in vitro tests., Methods: We prospectively evaluated patients with suspicion for allergic reactions to cefazolin by clinical history, skin tests (STs), and, if negative, DPT. In a subgroup of patients, basophil activation test (BAT) and radioallergosorbent test were done before allergologic workup was performed and the final diagnosis was achieved., Results: We evaluated 184 patients, 76 of whom were confirmed as allergic (41.3%), 90 were nonallergic (48.9%), and 18 were nonconfirmed (9.8%). All patients reporting anaphylactic shock and most reporting anaphylaxis were confirmed to be allergic (P < .001). Forty allergic patients (52.6%) were confirmed by STs, 22 by DPT (28.9%), and 14 by clinical history (18.4%). All subjects manifesting exanthemas and pruritus were nonallergic. The BAT sensitivity was 66.7% when CD63 and CD203c were combined as activation markers. Six of 8 patients with negative STs and positive DPT had a positive BAT., Conclusions: Patients allergic to cefazolin often reported severe immediate-type reactions. Skin tests enabled a diagnosis in half of patients when using cefazolin at 20 mg/mL. Unfortunately, DPT could not be performed in all patients owing to reaction severity, which makes BAT a promising diagnostic tool. Further research is needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms, especially in severe reactions., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Beta-lactams generate different allergenic determinants that induce selective or cross-reactive drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs). We aimed to identify the drugs involved, the selectivity of the response, the mechanism, and the value of the different diagnostic tests for establishing a diagnosis in children evaluated for DHRs to beta-lactams., Methods: Prospective study evaluating children aged under 16 years reporting DHRs to beta-lactams. Reactions were classified as immediate and non-immediate reactions. The workup included sIgE, skin testing, and drug provocation tests (DPTs) for immediate reactions and patch testing and DPTs for non-immediate ones., Results: Of the 510 children included, 133 were evaluated for immediate reactions and confirmed in 8.3%. Skin test/in vitro IgE contributed to diagnosing half of the cases. Selective reactions occurred with amoxicillin (63%), followed by common penicillin determinants (27%) and cephalosporins (0.9%). Among non-immediate reactions (11.4% of the 377 children evaluated), most required DPTs, 52.7% of which were positive at 6-7 days of drug challenge. Selective reactions were identified with amoxicillin (80%), penicillin G (7.5%), cephalosporins (7.5%), and clavulanic acid (5%). Urticaria and maculopapular exanthema were the most frequent entities., Conclusions: There were few confirmed cases of either type of reaction. Skin testing proved less valuable in non-immediate reactions, over half of which would also have been lost in a short DPT protocol. Selective responders to amoxicillin were more likely to have non-immediate reactions, while clavulanic acid selectivity was exclusive to the non-immediate typology. Over half the cases with DPTs required 6-7 days of treatment for DHR confirmation., (© 2021 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)