Search

The classic approach of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-exacerbated respiratory disease (NSAID-ERD) includes pharmaceutical and surgical treatments, as well as avoidance of cyclooxygenase 1-inhibitor NSAIDs. The introduction of biologics in the treatment of severe asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps represents an alternative therapeutic approach to the classical aspirin therapy after desensitization (ATAD) in some regions, and with convincing results. However, their use is limited due to approval and/or high-cost restrictions. NSAID-ERD is a mainly type 2 and highly eosinophilic disease, and mAbs targeting IgE or IL-5, IL-4, and IL-13 have been shown to be effective for both severe asthma and severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. So far, dupilumab demonstrated greater efficacy in patients with NSAID-ERD than in aspirin-tolerant patients with regard to several clinical outcomes. Patients with NSAID-ERD respond very rapidly to omalizumab also, with reduction in the release of prostaglandin D 2 and cysteinyl leukotrienes. Patients favored biologic treatment over ATAD in multiple retrospective analyses, which must be acknowledged when choosing one or the other option. Although this review will summarize ATAD in general, it will more prominently focus on when ATAD should be considered, even when type 2 biologics are available. In addition, there are conflicting studies as to whether patients on a type 2 biologic become desensitized to NSAIDs, because omalizumab proved to restore tolerance to aspirin in only two-third of patients. This goal of NSAID tolerance should be considered as part of disease control future approaches, representing one of many aspects in a patient-centered care approach., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Despite their prevalence and potential severity, non-IgE-mediated drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are under-researched and poorly defined, particularly in children. Presentations range from mild cutaneous reactions to severe systemic diseases, with pathophysiological mechanisms and reliable diagnostic markers not well established. The lack of validated tests often leads to permanent drug restrictions, reliance on second-line drugs, and increased costs. Focusing on recent advancements and areas needing further research, this review aims to enhance children's recognition, diagnosis, and management of non-IgE-mediated DHRs., Recent Findings: Recent studies have enhanced the understanding of immediate and delayed non-IgE-mediated drug reactions. Key findings include the Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor X2 in mast cells and the identification of HLA alleles linked to severe cutaneous adverse reactions, such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. Improved diagnostic techniques, including skin testing, show promise in identifying immediate and delayed non-IgE DHRs. Additionally, research highlights the impact of cofactors, drug metabolites, and co-infections on these DHRs and explores potential biomarkers for predicting reaction severity., Summary: Non-IgE-mediated DHRs are a significant cause of morbidity and treatment changes in pediatric patients. Recent research underscores their clinical presentations and mechanisms, paving the way for more precise diagnostic and therapeutic strategies to improve patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Perioperative hypersensitivity reactions are rare but potentially catastrophic events. This review acts to summarize recent recommendations for both immediate and poststabilization management of suspected reactions, alongside practical advice for anaesthetists who may be faced with these events., Recent Findings: Prompt treatment is essential but may be hampered by delay in recognition. This can occur because there are multiple differential diagnoses for the observed clinical signs as well as variations in clinical presentation. Resuscitation is dependent on the use of adrenaline and fluids. Adrenaline should be administered in small, titrated intravenous boluses. Low-dose infusions should be commenced early if the response to boluses is poor. Large volume fluid resuscitation may be required to maintain adequate circulating volume. Chest compressions are recommended when there is evidence of inadequate perfusion, rather than waiting until cardiac arrest is confirmed. Antihistamines and corticosteroids are no longer recommended in the immediate management phase. Once the patient has been stabilized, it is important to obtain serial tryptase concentrations to aid the subsequent clinic investigation. The decision to proceed or abandon surgery will be based on an individual risk-benefit analysis. All cases of suspected perioperative hypersensitivity, including fatal cases, must be referred for formal investigation., Summary: There have been recent updates to management guidelines in perioperative hypersensitivity. Treatment algorithms, treatment packs and referral packs can all help the anaesthetist manage these complex cases, aid the subsequent investigation and ensure patient safety in the future., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Adverse reactions to contrast media, although uncommon, are often high-acuity events and potentially life-threatening. Nonetheless, these events are treatable, and radiologists may be called on to manage a contrast media reaction. However, because these events are infrequent, they are prone to management errors. This Special Series Review highlights common pitfalls and practical tips for the management of acute contrast media reactions in children and adults. Recognition of frequent management errors and implementation of the mitigation strategies presented can ameliorate risk and improve patient outcomes. These measures include proper training regarding reaction management and medication administration, the prompt use of intramuscular epinephrine autoinjectors whenever a severe allergic-like reaction is suspected, the use of visual aids for quick reference in the setting of a reaction, and the recognition of adverse events that are not allergic-like reactions, which commonly require only supportive care.

Purpose of Review: Patients with mast cell disorders frequently experience symptoms from excessive mediator release like histamine and tryptase, ranging from mild flushing to severe anaphylactic responses. Hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to drugs are a major cause of anaphylaxis in these patients, who often worry about triggering mast cell degranulation when taking medications. The aim of this review is to explore the complex interactions between mast cell disorders and drug HRs, focusing on the clinical challenges of managing these conditions effectively to enhance understanding and guide safer clinical practices., Recent Findings: Among the drugs most commonly associated with hypersensitivity reactions in patients with mast cell disorders are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, and perioperative agents. Recent studies have highlighted the role of Mas-related G-protein coupled receptor member X2 (MRGPRX2) - a receptor involved in non-immunoglobulin E mediated mast cell degranulation - in exacerbating HRs. Investigations reveal varied drug tolerance among patients, underscoring the need for individual risk assessments., Summary: Tailored diagnostic approaches are crucial for confirming drug allergies and assessing tolerance in patients with mastocytosis, preventing unnecessary medication avoidance and ensuring safety before acute situations arise., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Allergy to penicillin can occur via any of the 4 types of Gel-Coombs hypersensitivity reactions, producing distinct clinical histories and physical examination findings. Treatments include penicillin discontinuation, and depending on the type of reaction, epinephrine, antihistamines, and/or glucocorticoids. Most beta-lactams may be safely used in penicillin-allergic patients, with the possible exception of first-generation and second-generation cephalosporins. Penicillin testing includes skin testing, patch testing, and graded challenge. The selection of the type of testing depends on the clinical setting, equipment availability, and type of hypersensitivity reaction. Desensitization may be used in some cases where treatment with penicillins is essential., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The prevalence of analgesic intolerance syndrome (AIS), internationally known as NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD), is reported to be 0.5-5.7% in the general population. The disease often begins with nasal symptoms, which are later joined by chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP), asthma, and respiratory hypersensitivity reactions following use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In the setting of chronic respiratory disease, the type 2 inflammatory endotype is predominant in approximately 80% of patients with CRSwNP, rendering biologics directed against interleukin (IL)-4, IL‑5, IL-13, and IgE of high clinical interest, particularly in patients with severe CRSwNP and NERD. NERD is often associated with CRSwNP and asthma. Patients with CRSwNP and NERD have been treated, among other therapies, with aspirin therapy after desensitization (ATAD). With the approval of monoclonal antibodies for CRSwNP and asthma, the question arises as to what extent ATAD, which is associated with undesirable side effects, is still useful in the treatment of CRSwNP. In this manuscript, the use of ATAD in CRSwNP patients is discussed from different medical and socioeconomic points of view, both alternatively to or in combination with monoclonal antibodies. Accordingly, both ATAD and biologics continue to play a supporting role in modern treatment of CRSwNP in NERD patients, and should be used judiciously to complement each other., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Procarbazine is an oral chemotherapeutic agent used in the treatment of brain malignancies and is associated with hypersensitivity reactions. In case of grade 4 reactions, rechallenge should be avoided, and the agent should be replaced, unless the treatment is curative, in which case the application of a desensitization protocol should be considered. We present a successful case of desensitization in procarbazine anaphylaxis., Case Report: A 53-year-old male patient was diagnosed with recurrent anaplastic oligodendroglioblastoma. The patient received three cycles of procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine chemotherapy for malignancy recurrence. In the fourth cycle, on the 12th day of procarbazine treatment, the patient developed anaphylaxis. Procarbazine was given together with premedication as part of the 12-step desensitization process, and the fourth cycle was successfully completed., Management and Outcome: Procarbazine hypersensitivity reactions are observed less frequently than reactions to other chemotherapeutics. We presented a case of procarbazine-associated severe anaphylaxis that was able to continue procarbazine chemotherapy with successful desensitization. This case is important in terms of confirming the procarbazine desensitization protocol., Discussion: In literature there is only one protocol developed was successfully applied in one patient with procarbazine anaphylaxis. In the current case, we took this protocol into consideration in the management of our patient. Following the use of this protocol, the patient was able to continue procarbazine chemotherapy successfully. Procarbazine anaphylaxis is rare, and more cases are needed to be reported to confirm the desensitization protocol and when to continue procarbazine treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Hypersensitivity to aspirin is rare disorder occurring in 1.88% of the patients. Aspirin-hypersensitive patients requiring single antiplatelet agent may be treated with clopidogrel, an alternative antiplatelet agent. However, aspirin desensitization is more cost-effective than the usage of clopidogrel in these patients. Furthermore, aspirin desensitization is of greater value in patients requiring dual antiplatelet therapy, for example following procedures like percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) instead of using non-aspirin-based combinations. Herein, we report a 74-year-old hypertensive male presented with features of acute coronary syndrome and planned for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty of RCA followed by dual antiplatelet therapy. Since he had aspirin allergy, desensitization was done using rapid desensitization protocol for which he responded well. This case highlights the importance of aspirin-desensitization in patients with aspirin allergy instead of choosing non-aspirin based antiplatelet agents.

Introduction: Cytarabine (ARA-C) is an antimetabolite agent used especially in the treatment of hematologic malignancies. Infusion reactions have an important place among the side effects that may occur due to treatment. Clinical findings of infusion reactions resemble allergic reactions., Case Report: 47-year-old male patient with a diagnosis of B-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia developed infusion reaction during ARA-C treatment., Management & Outcome: There was no alternative treatment option for his existing malignant disease, we decided ARA-C desensitization., Discussion: We would like to describe a successful desensitization protocol in an adult patient who experienced a reaction during ARA-C infusion., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Neurocysticercosis is a growing public health problem in the United States. Albendazole is a mainstay of medical therapy for neurocysticercosis, and here we present a case of hypersensitivity to albendazole leading to life-threatening disease progression., Objective: To report the first successful albendazole desensitization protocol., Methods: An oral albendazole 12-step desensitization protocol was developed, starting with 0.001 mg and progressing at 15 minutes intervals. Dosage for each subsequent step was as follows: 0.003 mg, 0.01 mg, 0.03 mg, 0.1 mg, 0.3 mg, 1 mg, 3 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 300mg., Results: The patient rapidly improved from a symptomatic standpoint, and repeat MRI showed a dramatic improvement in lesions., Conclusions: This successful desensitization protocol to albendazole can be of value to other patients with history suggestive of IgE-mediated allergy needing treatment for parasitic infections.

Delayed anaphylaxis after ingestion of red meat because of galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (alpha-gal) syndrome has increased in recent years. The mechanism involves an immunoglobulin E reaction to alpha-gal, a molecule found in mammalian meat, dairy products, medications and excipients containing mammalian-derived components, and tick salivary glycans. Sensitization occurs due to the bite of a lone star tick and the transmission of alpha-gal molecules into person's bloodstream. We describe a case of alpha-gal syndrome with severe food, drug, and perioperative allergy in which anaphylaxis with hypovolemic shock occurred immediately after an emergency surgical procedure, when a gelatin-containing drug was injected. This case study confirms that the clinical manifestations of alpha-gal syndrome could be different depending on the route of administration, with immediate reactions if an alpha-gal-containing drug is injected and delayed type allergic manifestations occurring several hours after oral intake. The purpose of this report is to highlight the importance of risk communication in case of exposure to medical products and surgical procedures of patients with alpha-gal syndrome and to encourage drug manufacturers to indicate clearly the origin of excipients in product literature., Competing Interests: The authors declared no conflict of interest.

Kidney replacement therapies (KRTs) including hemodialysis (HD) are one of the treatment options for most of the patients with end-stage kidney disease. Although HD is vital for these patients, it is not hundred percent physiological, and various adverse events including hypersensitivity reactions may occur. Fortunately, these reactions are rare in total and less when compared to previous decades, but it is still very important for at least two reasons: First, the number of patients receiving kidney replacement treatment is increasing globally; and the cumulative number of these reactions may be substantial. Second, although most of these reactions are mild, some of them may be very severe and even lead to mortality. Thus, it is very important to have basic knowledge and skills to diagnose and treat these reactions. Hypersensitivity reactions can occur at any component of dialysis machinery (access, extracorporeal circuit, medications, etc.). The most important preventive measure is to avoid the allergen. However, even with very specific test, sometimes the allergen cannot be found. In mild conditions, HD can be contained with non-specific treatment (topical creams, antihistaminics, corticosteroids). In more severe conditions, treatment must be stopped immediately, blood should not be returned to patient, drugs must be stopped, and rules of general emergency treatment must be followed., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Liposomal amphotericin B (LAMB) is a crucial agent in the treatment of invasive fungal diseases caused by a wide variety of yeasts and molds. In the presence of an infection caused by a fungal agent resistant to alternative antifungal drugs, desensitization may be the only option to continue treatment. However, there is insufficient information and consensus with regard to amphotericin B desensitization protocols in the pediatric age group. Objective: We present our experience with five cases of patients in whom successful desensitization protocols were applied with LAMB, along with a review of the literature on pediatric cases. We also provide a sample desensitization protocol that we successfully applied. Methods: Pediatric patients who continued their treatment with the successful rapid desensitization protocol conducted at the Paediatric Allergy and Immunology Clinic of the Ministry of Health Ankara City Hospital between September 2019 and September 2023 were examined. Desensitization protocols were applied based on Castells' desensitization protocol. Results: Five patients ages between 5 and 12 years were referred to us due to the development of anaphylaxis during their treatment with LAMB. Anaphylaxis is diagnosed clinically, according to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines: anaphylaxis (2021 update). A 16-step desensitization protocol was prepared by using LAMB solutions at four different dilutions (0.001, 0.01, 0.1, and 1 mg/mL). Each solution consisted of four steps, with a 15-minute infusion for each step. The patients were premedicated with 1 mg/kg/dose methylprednisolone and an antihistamine. Conclusion: The data we present on the successful application of a sample protocol to five cases, particularly in a pediatric setting, are noteworthy valuable contributions to the field, which demonstrates the feasibility and success of rapid desensitization with LAMB in pediatric patients. This can provide important insights and potentially serve as a reference for medical professionals working with similar cases in the future.

Risk stratification in drug allergy implies that specific risk categories (eg, low, moderate, and high) classify historical drug hypersensitivity reactions. These risk categories can be based on reaction phenotypic characteristics, the timing of the reaction and evaluation, the required reaction management, and individual characteristics. Although a multitude of frameworks have been described in the literature, particularly for penicillin allergy labels, there has yet to be a global consensus, and approaches continue to vary between allergy centers. Immune-mediated drug allergies can sometimes be confirmed using skin testing, but a negative drug challenge is required to demonstrate tolerance and remove the allergy from the electronic health record ("delabel" the allergy). Even for quintessential IgE-mediated drug allergy, penicillin allergy, recent data reveal that a direct oral challenge, without prior skin testing, is an appropriate diagnostic strategy in those who are considered low-risk. Drug allergy pathogenesis and clinical manifestations may vary depending on the culprit drug, and as such, the optimal approach should be based on risk stratification that considers individual patient and reaction characteristics, the likely hypersensitivity reaction phenotype, the drug class, and the patient's clinical needs. This article will describe low-risk drug allergy labels, focusing on β-lactam and sulfonamide antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, iodinated contrast media, and common chemotherapeutics. This review will also address practical management approaches using currently available risk stratification and clinical decision tools., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Inpatient beta-lactam allergy labels may increase the unnecessary use of aztreonam and non-beta-lactam antibiotics, which can then lead to more adverse events and increased health care costs, OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a novel 2-step process (medication history review followed by risk stratification) on rates of beta-lactam delabeling, aztreonam use, and desensitizations on pediatric, adult, and obstetrics inpatients at a tertiary academic center., Methods: We prospectively collected data on 700 patients who received inpatient consultation from the Beta-Lactam Allergy Evaluation Service between August 2021 and July 2022. Patients were delabeled either by medication review alone, drug challenge alone if with a low-risk history, or penicillin skin test followed by drug challenge if with a high-risk history. Generalized linear regression modeling was used to compare aztreonam days of therapy in the intervention year with the 2 prior years. Drug desensitizations were assessed by electronic chart review., Results: Most of the patients (n = 656 of 700, 94%) had more than or equal to 1 beta-lactam allergy label removed, clarified, or both; 77.9% of these patients (n = 511 of 656) had 587 beta-lactam allergy labels removed. Nearly one-third (n = 149, 27.6%) had 162 allergy labels removed solely by medication history review. All 114 penicillin skin tests performed had negative results, and 98% (8 of 381) of the patients who underwent any drug challenge passed. Only 5.7% of the delabeled patients were relabeled. There was a 27% reduction in aztreonam use (P = .007). Beta-lactam desensitizations were reduced by 80%., Conclusion: A full-time inpatient beta-lactam allergy service using medication history review and risk stratification can safely and effectively remove inpatient beta-lactam allergy labels, reduce aztreonam use, and decrease beta-lactam desensitizations., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Background: Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to platinum-based drugs are heterogenous and restrict their access, and drug desensitization (DD) has provided a ground-breaking procedure for their re-introduction, although the response is heterogeneous. We aimed to identify the phenotypes, endotypes, and biomarkers of reactions to carboplatin and oxaliplatin and their response to DD., Methods: Seventy-nine patients presenting with DHRs to oxaliplatin (N = 46) and carboplatin (N = 33) were evaluated at the Allergy Departments of two tertiary care hospitals in Spain. Patient symptoms, skin testing, biomarkers, and outcomes of 267 DDs were retrospectively analyzed., Results: Oxaliplatin-reactive patients presented with type I (74%), cytokine release reaction (CRR) (11%), and mixed (Mx) (15%) phenotypes. In contrast, carboplatin reactive patients presented with predominantly type I (85%) and Mx (15%) but no CRRs. Out of 267 DDs, breakthrough reactions (BTRs) to oxaliplatin occurred twice as frequently as carboplatin (32% vs. 15%; p < .05). Phenotype switching from type I to another phenotype was observed in 46% of oxaliplatin DDs compared to 21% of carboplatin DDs. Tryptase was elevated in type I and Mx reactions, and IL-6 in CRR and Mx, indicating different mechanisms and endotypes., Conclusion: Carboplatin and oxaliplatin induced three different types of reactions with defined phenotypes and endotypes amendable to DD. Although most of the initial reactions for both were type I, oxaliplatin presented with unique CRR reactions. During DD, carboplatin reactive patients presented mostly type I BTR, while oxaliplatin-reactive patients frequently switched from type I to CRR, providing a critical difference and the need for personalized DD protocols., (© 2023 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Summary: The use of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) desensitization for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) is growing, but no data are available on desensitization protocol in patients with ASA sensitivity and CAD during pregnancy. This case report shows that ASA desensitization protocol during pregnancy could be safe and effective in a tertiary centre with a multidisciplinary team.

The term Hoigné's syndrome denotes a mimicker of anaphylaxis, which occurs immediately after the parenteral administration of a drug and is likely caused by non-thrombotic pulmonary and systemic drug micro-embolization. It has so far been documented uniquely in case reports and small case series. Because this condition has never been systematically evaluated, we performed a structured literature review (pre-registered as CRD42023392962). The search was carried out in Excerpta Medica, National Library of Medicine, and Google Scholar. Cases with features consistent with anaphylaxis, urticaria, angioedema, asthma, syncope, anxiety, or panic attack triggered by needle phobia, and local anesthetic systemic toxicity were excluded. For the final analysis, we retained reports published between 1951 and 2021, which presented 247 patients with Hoigné's syndrome: 37 children and 211 adults with a male: female ratio of 2.1 : 1.0. The patients presented within 1 min after parenteral administration of a drug (intramuscular penicillin in 90 % of the cases) with chest discomfort, shortness of breath, fear of death, psychomotor agitation, and auditory or visual hallucinations and impairment. Recovery occurred within 30 min. The diagnosis of Hoigné's syndrome was also established in five patients 66-91 years of age with pre-existing cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases, who suddenly died after the administration of penicillin despite not exhibiting the aforementioned symptoms. It was therefore speculated that pulmonary drug micro-embolization induced a lethal cardiovascular compromise in these individuals. Histologic investigations supporting this hypothesis were performed in only one case. The diagnosis of Hoigné's pulmonary drug micro-embolization was established also in five patients with pre-existing cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases, who suddenly died after the administration of penicillin despite not exhibiting the afore mentioned symptoms. Histologic investigations supporting this hypothesis were performed in only one case. In conclusion, Hoigné's syndrome is an uncommon non-immune-mediated reaction. This report seeks to promote broader awareness and knowledge regarding this alarming mimicker of anaphylaxis. Diagnosis relies solely on clinical evaluation., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Local anesthetics (LAs) are commonly used in all medical specialties, particularly in association with surgery, obstetrics, dentistry, and emergency departments. Most individuals, starting from young children, are exposed to LAs during life. LA hardly induces adverse events when used in recommended doses and with proper injection techniques. However, immediate anaphylactic reactions to LA injections may be a rare but life-threatening manifestation. A comprehensive report of the event and performing a specialist examination are crucial to prevent further episodes. The diagnosis should be based on history, medical records, skin and challenge tests.

Introduction: Iron deficiency is the most common cause of anemia in both sexes, although it is more common in women. Intravenous (IV) iron replacement is preferred in patients who cannot tolerate oral treatment or when iron stores need to be replenished rapidly. In this study, we wanted to share the ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) desensitization protocol that we self-created and successfully applied., Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients with a history of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to IV or oral iron replacement and patients who were planned to receive IV iron replacement but were referred to the allergy clinic because of have risk factors (atopic diseases, history of HSR to other drugs, high serum tryptase levels, etc.) for HSRs. Before desensitization, some of the patients underwent skin tests (skin prick test and intradermal test) with FCM, and the results were recorded. Skin tests were not performed in patients with a history of drug use (antihistamine, systemic steroid, omalizumab, etc.) that affected the results of skin tests. All patients underwent a one-bag 8-step desensitization protocol with 500 mg FCM and were observed for 2 h after desensitization., Results: A total of 15 patients (14 females and 1 male) with a mean age of 41.13 ± 11.18 years were included in the study. When the patients were evaluated in terms of the risk of allergic reactions according to their clinical history, 8 patients had a history of anaphylaxis with iron preparations (FCM, n = 4; ferric hydroxide sucrose, n = 2; iron [II] glycine sulfate, n = 1; and iron [III] hydroxide polymaltose, n = 1), and 7 patients had a history of HSR other than anaphylaxis with iron preparations (urticaria, n = 6 [FCM, n = 2; iron (II) glycine sulfate, n = 2; and iron (III) hydroxide polymaltose, n = 2] and urticaria + angioedema [ferric hydroxide sucrose, n = 1]). Desensitization was successfully completed in all patients. No HSR was observed during or after the procedure in any of the patients., Conclusion: IV iron replacement is a very effective method, especially in cases where iron stores need to be replenished more rapidly. In patients with a history of iron HSR or at risk of developing HSR, replacement can be safely performed without an allergic reaction with successful desensitization protocols., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose: The purpose of this project was to analyze the process of adult inpatient drug desensitization and to create a multidisciplinary standardized procedure with the aim of improving patient safety, efficiency, length of stay, and patient satisfaction., Summary: A team consisting of physicians, pharmacists, nurses, critical care specialists, and operational capacity managers was created. The electronic health system was queried to evaluate the frequency of desensitizations, level of care, implicated medications, and length of stay. An electronic desensitization request form was created along with a desensitization team and email listserver for notification of key stakeholders., Conclusion: A standardized, safe, and efficient process for inpatient drug desensitization requires advance planning and participation from all disciplines involved. Operational and logistical aspects of desensitization are crucial components of rapid drug desensitization. A structured, multidisciplinary approach to inpatient desensitization is feasible., (© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2023. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose of Review: As a sulfone antibacterial agent, dapsone has been widely used to treat leprosy. Moreover, dapsone is also used in many immune diseases such as herpetic dermatitis because of its anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. However, dapsone can cause several adverse effects, the most serious being dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome. Dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome is characterized by a triad of eruptions, fever, and organ involvement, which limits the application of dapsone to some extent., Recent Findings: In this article, we review current research about the interaction model between HLA-B*13:01, dapsone, and specific TCR in dapsone-induced drug hypersensitivity. In addition to the proposed mechanisms, we also discussed clinical features, treatment progress, prevalence, and prevention of dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome. These studies reveal the pathogenesis, clinical features, and prevalence from the perspectives of genetic susceptibility and innate and adaptive immunity in dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome, thereby guiding clinicians on how to diagnose, prevent, and treat dapsone hypersensitivity syndrome., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose of Review: Many systemic medications have been observed to cause ocular toxicity. A subset of these reactions is thought to involve immunomodulation or a hypersensitivity reaction. As new medications are developed, ocular adverse effects are becoming increasingly prevalent. Herein we review immune-mediated drug reactions affecting they eye with special attention to the hypersensitivity mechanisms leading to ocular toxicity., Recent Findings: Recent work has focused on mechanisms and risk of immune-mediated ocular adverse drug reactions including genetic susceptibility and loss of ocular immune privilege., Summary: Given the consequences of immune-mediated ocular adverse drug reactions, clinicians must be aware of these to facilitate early recognition and management. The prompt involvement of an ophthalmologist for diagnosis and management is often essential to preserve vision and avoid long-term morbidity., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Antibiotics are the first-line treatment for bacterial infections; however, overuse and inappropriate prescribing have made antibiotics less effective with increased antimicrobial resistance. Unconfirmed reported antibiotic allergy labels create a significant barrier to optimal antimicrobial stewardship in health care, with clinical and economic implications., Objective: A systematic review was conducted to summarize the impact of patient-reported antibiotic allergy on clinical outcomes and various strategies that have been employed to effectively assess and remove these allergy labels, improving patient care., Methods: The review was undertaken using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A critical appraisal was conducted on all studies and a narrative synthesis was performed to identify themes., Results: Four themes emerged: the prevalence of antibiotic allergy, impact of antibiotic allergy on antimicrobial prescribing, impact of antibiotic allergy on clinical outcomes, and delabeling strategies to improve clinical outcomes. Of the 32 studies, including 1,089,675 participants, the prevalence of reported antibiotic allergy was between 5% and 35%. Patients with a reported antibiotic allergy had poorer concordance with prescribing guidelines in 30% to 60% of cases, with a higher use of alternatives such as quinolone, tetracycline, macrolide, lincosamide, and carbapenem and lower use of beta-lactam antibiotics. Antibiotic allergy delabeling was identified as an intervention and recommendation to advance the state of the science., Conclusions: There is substantial evidence within the literature that antibiotic allergy labels significantly impact patient clinical outcomes and a consensus that systematic assessment of reported antibiotic allergies, commonly referred to as delabeling, improves the clinical management of patients., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Drug hypersensitivity reactions are a diverse group of reactions mediated by the immune system after exposure to a drug. The Gell and Coombs classification divides immunologic DHRs into 4 major pathophysiologic categories based on immunologic mechanism. Anaphylaxis is a Type I hypersensitivity reaction that requires immediate recognition and treatment. Severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) are a group of dermatologic diseases that result from a Type IV hypersensitivity process and include drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptom (DRESS) syndrome, Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). Other types of reactions are slow to develop and do not always require rapid treatment. Emergency physicians should have a good understanding of these various types of drug hypersensitivity reactions and how to approach the patient regarding evaluation and treatment., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: The aim of this study was to review the practice of general practitioners (GPs) in regard to the diagnosis and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to identify major challenges and to facilitate the development of decision support tools to GPs confronted with DHRs patients., Recent Findings: DHRs are still a challenge in the GPs clinical practice, which implies difficulties in clinical decisions and referral to allergy specialists., Summary: DHRs can range from mild to severe and even life-threatening. Drugs are the main cause of anaphylaxis deaths in most countries. Most DHRs are firstly seen by GPs, paediatricians or emergency doctors. However, our systematic review demonstrated difficulties in differentiating DHRs from other drug side effects. Most DHRs epidemiological data are from hospital and emergency departments, which may not reflect the real-life experience in primary care. GPs should be aware of the alert signs of DHRs: the involvement of other systems beyond the skin and/or atypical skin/ mucosal involvement, which mandated immediate referral to an emergency department. Data still stress difficulties in the recognition of DHRs clinical manifestations and highlight the need for decision aids to support their management by GPs. Structured clinical history and clinical examination are key diagnostic tools. Reasons for referring to allergy specialists based on the literature are to investigate cause, to undergo specific procedure, such as desensitization and to identify well tolerated, alternative drugs., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Summary: Background. Managing Acetylsalicylic Acid (ASA) hypersensitivity (HS) in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) is a challenge. Data on Rapid Desensitization (RD) to ASA is scarce. We aimed to report the outcomes of our 10-year experience with RD to ASA. Methods. Retrospective, observational, single-center study of patients with ASA HS and suspected IHD who underwent RD to ASA between March 2009 and February 2019. Results. Fifty patients were included. ASA HS presentation ranged from urticaria (56%) to anaphylaxis (32%). Regarding cardiologic diagnoses, 40 patients (80%) had acute coronary syndrome and 10 (20%) stable angina. The majority of patients (N = 36.72%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. RD to ASA was successful in all patients. Two patients presented a mild HS reaction during the RD, which was promptly treated, and subsequent daily doses of ASA 100 mg were tolerated. Conclusions. In our cohort, RD to ASA in patients with ASA HS and IHD was very effective and safe.

Lysosomal storage diseases (LSDs) are rare genetic metabolic disorders that cause the accumulation of glycosaminoglycans in lysosomes due to enzyme deficiency or reduced function. Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) represents the gold standard treatment, but hypersensitivity reaction can occur resulting in treatment discontinuation. Thus, desensitization procedures for different culprit recombinant enzymes can be performed to restore ERT. We searched desensitization procedures performed in LSDs and focused on skin test results, protocols and premedication performed, and breakthrough reactions occurred during infusions. Fifty-two patients have been subjected to desensitization procedures successfully. Skin tests, with the culprit recombinant enzyme, deemed positive in 29 cases, doubtful in two cases, and not performed in four patients. Moreover, 29 of the 52 desensitization protocols used at the first infusion were breakthrough reaction free. Different desensitization strategies have proved safe and effective in restoring ERT in patients with previous hypersensitivity reactions. Most of these events seem to be Type I hypersensitivity reactions (IgE-mediated). Standardized in vivo and in vitro testing is necessary to better estimate the risk of the procedure and find the safest individualized desensitization protocol., (© 2023 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Any drug can potentially induce a hypersensitivity reaction. If after the allergological work-up the drug hypersensitivity reaction is confirmed, in most cases, the simple avoidance of the culprit drug and a suggestion of an unrelated alternative is enough. However, there are circumstances where the choice to stop the treatment affects the survival, the safety and/or the quality of life of the patient and the global outcome of the disease in question. When this occurs, drug desensitization can be the answer and should not be viewed as an extravagance, nor the pediatric age should be considered a contraindication. Drug desensitization in children can be safely and successfully performed, having a positive impact on the survival and overall prognosis. In general, the indications for DDS are the same in adults as in children. However, in this age group there are specificities that this paper aimed to describe, reviewing the mechanisms behind drug hypersensitivity and rapid drug desensitization, types of protocols, indications, and contraindications, as well as several technical aspects that are specific to the pediatric age., (© 2023 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose of Review: To review updated recommendations in the 2022 Drug Allergy Practice Parameters for the evaluation and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions., Recent Findings: Adverse drug reactions have become increasingly prominent with the advent of new and emerging pharmacologic therapies. Hypersensitivity reactions encompass a significant proportion of adverse drug reactions and negatively impact both the individual patient and overall health system. Reactions are heterogeneous in presentation and may be immediate (onset of symptoms ≤6 h) or delayed (onset of symptoms >6 h to months) after drug exposure. The 2022 Drug Allergy Practice Parameter provides consensus-based statements for evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics, NSAIDs, cancer chemotherapies, immune checkpoint inhibitors, biologics, and excipients. In general, the guideline highlights the importance of patient history in elucidating the phenotype and severity of the index reaction. Drug challenge remains the gold standard for diagnosis and is increasingly favored over skin testing in patients with nonsevere, nonanaphylactic drug reaction histories., Summary: The 2022 Drug Allergy Practice Parameter provides an updated framework for physicians to reference in clinical practice when managing patients with drug hypersensitivity reactions., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Allergy to penicillin can occur via any of the 4 types of Gel-Coombs hypersensitivity reactions, producing distinct clinical histories and physical examination findings. Treatments include penicillin discontinuation, and depending on the type of reaction, epinephrine, antihistamines, and/or glucocorticoids. Most beta-lactams may be safely used in penicillin-allergic patients, with the possible exception of first-generation and second-generation cephalosporins. Penicillin testing includes skin testing, patch testing, and graded challenge. The selection of the type of testing depends on the clinical setting, equipment availability, and type of hypersensitivity reaction. Desensitization may be used in some cases where treatment with penicillins is essential., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A patient-reported history of penicillin allergy is a common label with a prevalence of about 10%. However, as many as 95% of patients reporting a penicillin allergy do not have a true immunoglobin-E (IgE)-mediated allergic reaction. Unfortunately, penicillin allergy mislabeling is problematic, leading to inappropriate antibiotic use and negative consequences, such as adverse drug events, suboptimal outcomes, and increased costs. As physicians who treat patients of all ages for common sinonasal pathology in the clinic and operating room in addition to frequently providing testing and management of allergic diseases, rhinologists are well positioned to aid in delabeling patients with inaccurate penicillin allergies. This viewpoint highlights the consequences of inaccurate penicillin allergy designation in the clinic and perioperative period and explores misconceptions regarding cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins. Opportunities are explored for shared decision-making with colleagues in other specialties, such as anesthesiology, and practical recommendations are provided to aid rhinologists when faced with a patient who holds a questionable history of penicillin allergy. Rhinologists can play an active role in delabeling patients with inaccurate penicillin allergies with the goal of ensuring appropriate antibiotic use for future medical encounters., (© 2023 ARS-AAOA, LLC.)

The use of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is problematic in subjects with histories of hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to it or with cross-reactive types of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) hypersensitivity. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of low-dose ASA challenge (LDAC) and desensitization to allow ASA therapy at an antiplatelet dose in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or multiple related risk factors and histories of HRs to ASA or ≥ 2 chemically unrelated NSAIDs. We studied prospectively all patients with such histories and ≥ 3 risk factors for ASCVD (group I), chronic coronary syndrome (CCS, group II), and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with indication for ASA desensitization (group III). Patients from groups I and II underwent LDACs (cumulative dose of 110 mg), while those from group III were desensitized (cumulative dose of 100.1 mg). We evaluated 103 patients: 62 from group I, 24 from group II, and 17 from group III. Eighty-two of the 86 patients from the first two groups underwent LDACs and 2 reacted. Subsequently, 22 (27.5%) of the 80 patients with negative LDACs were administered dual antiplatelet therapy with ASA after successful percutaneous coronary interventions, thus sparing desensitizations. The remaining 4 patients with CCS and all 17 patients from group III were successfully desensitized. In this pragmatic study, LDAC proved to be a safe and reliable diagnostic tool for identifying patients with histories of HRs to ASA or ≥ 2 different NSAIDs who can tolerate ASA at antiplatelet doses. Routine LDAC is advisable in all patients at high risk for ASCVD or with CCS who report HRs to ASA or ≥ 2 NSAIDs. ASA desensitization remains a safe and effective option in patients with ACS. Study flow-chart. ASCVD atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; CCS chronic coronary syndrome; ACS acute coronary syndrome; ASA acetylsalicylic acid; DAPT dual antiplatelet therapy; PCI percutaneous coronary intervention; NSAIDs nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; NERD NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease; NECD NSAID-exacerbated cutaneous disease; NIUAA NSAID-induced urticaria-angioedema or anaphylaxis; SNIUAA single NSAID-induced urticaria-angioedema or anaphylaxis; SNIDHR single NSAID-induced delayed hypersensitivity reaction., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)