Use Of Skin Testing Research Articles

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to steroids and steroid containing medications.

Although rare and counterintuitive, hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids have been reported since the 1950s. Delayed hypersensitivity reactions following cutaneous exposure (contact allergy) are well understood and principles of testing, as well as cross-reactivity patterns, have been established. In contrast, understanding of immediate hypersensitivity reactions and delayed hypersensitivity reactions after systemic exposure is evolving more slowly. However, progress has been made in the delineating of underlying pathogenic mechanisms and in the development of testing. IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids have been described. It has been recognized that some, if not all of them, may be due to excipients in steroid formulations. Two excipients, polyethylene glycol and carboxymethylcellulose, seem of particular importance, but cases of reactions to polysorbate 80 and lactose have also been reported. The use of skin testing but also, increasingly, in-vitro methods such as basophil activation test is improving diagnostic accuracy. The recognition of the role of excipients is leading to a paradigm shift in our approach to immediate hypersensitivity to corticosteroids. Improved access to in-vivo and in-vitro testing will enhance our understanding of true corticosteroid immediate allergy.

Recent updates of iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity

Previously, immediate reactions to ionic high-osmolar iodinated contrast media (ICM) were regarded as nonimmunological. How ever, despite the use of lower-osmolar ICM, ICM hypersensitivity still occurs in some patients and recent studies suggest that there would be a true allergic response, especially in more severe form. Currently, it is important to identify the sensitized ICM and avoid the agent; however, the usefulness of skin tests and challenge tests has not yet been established, since there are few large-scale studies on them. Although, skin test-negative ICM can be safely used in clinical practice, conflicting results have been reported through various studies, depending on the challenge protocols used. Therefore, standard protocols need to provided. Even if a cul prit agent is not proven by skin tests, its use should be avoided. Reuse of contrast media increases the risk of occurrence of hyper sensitivity reactions. For patients with previous hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media, premedication can help prevent recur rence, but breakthrough in hypersensitivity is not fully achieved by premedication, especially when the previous reaction was a se vere form such as anaphylaxis. Therefore, it is necessary to establish an optimal strategy to choose alternative ICM and premedica tion protocols to prevent recurrence of hypersensitivity reactions to nonionic contrast media. (Allergy Asthma Respir Dis 2020;8:107-113)

Diagnostic procedures & practices in drug allergy/hypersensitivity: a survey of 13 Asian countries.

BackgroundThe issues and challenges in the diagnosis of drug allergy/hypersensitivity among children and adults in Asia are likely to be different from non-Asian countries.ObjectiveTo study the diagnostic modalities used in the evaluation and management of drug allergy/drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) among member societies of the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (APAAACI).MethodsA questionnaire comprising 41 questions was circulated electronically to member societies and individual members of APAAACI between January 23, 2020 and March 6, 2020.ResultsTwenty-six respondents from 15 member societies and 1 individual member responded. European DHR guidelines were most commonly used. Skin prick and intradermal testing was used by 100%, with only 60% having access to commercial penicillin skin test reagents. In vitro-specific IgE tests were used by 75%, and basophil activation test by 56.3% for immediate DHR. Patch tests were used by 75% in contrast to lymphocyte transformation tests by 25% for nonimmediate DHR. Drug provocation tests were used by 68.8%, the most common indication being to exclude hypersensitivity where history/symptoms were not suggestive of drug hypersensitivity/allergy (93.3%). Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotype testing was mandatory among 25% respondents before new carbamazepine prescriptions, and 8.3% for allopurinol prescriptions.ConclusionsThere was increased use of skin testing for iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity and patch testing for nonimmediate DHR. HLA genotype testing prior to new carbamazepine, allopurinol and abacavir prescriptions remain variable despite strong associations for severe cutaneous adverse reactions with Asian ethnicity. Results of this survey form a useful framework for developing educational and training needs and for improving access to drug allergy diagnostic and treatment modalities across APAAACI member societies.

A Multicenter Retrospective Study on Hypersensitivity Reactions to Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) in Children: A Report from the European Network on Drug Allergy (ENDA) Group

Diagnosis of hypersensitivity (HS) reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in children is complex. The real prevalence of NSAID HS remains unknown because a drug provocation test (DPT) is not always performed with the culprit NSAID. To describe and compare the diagnostic workup among different European centers and to find out the real proportion of NSAID HS by performing a DPT with the culprit drug. We retrospectively collected data from children (0-10 years) and adolescents (10-18 years) with a history of NSAID reactions and who underwent a complete allergy workup including DPTs with the culprit in 6 different pediatric centers: Belgrade, Florence, Geneva, Madrid, Porto, and Rome. A total of 693 children with a history of NSAID reactions were enrolled, and a total of 526 DPTs were performed with the culprit NSAID. The diagnosis of NSAID HS was confirmed in 19.6% (103 of 526) of children by performing a DPT with the culprit drug. The major differences in the allergy workup among the 6 centers concerned the duration of the DPT and the practical use of skin tests for diagnosing NSAID HS. In addition, the use of acetyl salicylic acid to differentiate single reactor or cross-intolerance patients is not common, except in Spain. The value of this study is that although different approaches are used around Europe to diagnose NSAID HS, we found that the percentage of confirmed NSAID HS is less than 20%. This highlights the importance of the DPT in confirming or excluding NSAID HS in the pediatric population.

Oxaliplatin: Detection and Management of Hypersensitivity Reactions.

Oxaliplatin is used extensively for the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer and other malignancies, with increased frequency of use in recent years. Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) can pose a major problem in clinical practice because they can limit the use of oxaliplatin in the care of malignancies in which it has proven efficacy. Nurses play an integral role in the administration of oxaliplatin; therefore, they need to be well educated in the prevention, detection, and management of HSRs. This article reviews the symptoms of HSRs associated with oxaliplatin, the specific management of HSRs associated with oxaliplatin, the role of desensitization, and the potential use of skin testing to better identify patients at risk for HSR. This article reviews the literature related to the diagnosis, prevention, and management of HSRs associated with oxaliplatin and outlines nurses' role. Oxaliplatin HSRs can occur at any cycle, but patients are at highest risk after they have received six prior infusions of oxaliplatin.

Workgroup Report by the Joint Task Force Involving American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); Food Allergy, Anaphylaxis, Dermatology and Drug Allergy (FADDA) (Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee and Adverse Reactions to Drugs, Biologicals, and Latex Committee); and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Botulism Clinical Treatment Guidelines Workgroup-Allergic Reactions to Botulinum Antitoxin: A Systematic Review.

Naturally occurring botulism is rare, but a large number of cases could result from unintentional or intentional contamination of a commercial food. Despeciated, equine-derived, heptavalent botulinum antitoxin (HBAT) is licensed in the United States. Timely treatment reduces morbidity and mortality, but concerns that botulinum antitoxin can induce anaphylaxis exist. We sought to quantify the allergy risk of botulinum antitoxin treatment and the usefulness of skin testing to assess this risk. We conducted a systematic review of (1) allergic reactions to botulinum antitoxin and (2) the predictive value of skin testing (ST) before botulinum antitoxin administration. We searched 5 scientific literature databases, reviewed articles' references, and obtained data from the HBAT manufacturer and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Anaphylaxis incidence was determined for HBAT and previously employed botulinum antitoxins. We calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of ST for anaphylaxis related to HBAT and other botulinum antitoxins. Seven articles were included. Anaphylaxis incidence was 1.64% (5/305 patients) for HBAT and 1.16% (8/687 patients) for all other botulinum antitoxins (relative risk, 1.41 [95% confidence interval, .47-4.27]; P = .5). Observed values for both PPV and NPV for HBAT-ST (33 patients) were 100%. Observed PPVs and NPVs of ST for other botulinum antitoxins (302 patients) were 0-56% and 50%-100%, respectively. There were no reports of fatal anaphylaxis. Considering the <2 % rate of anaphylaxis, fatal outcomes, modest predictive value of ST, resource requirements for ST, and the benefits of early treatment, data do not support delaying HBAT administration to perform ST in a mass botulinum toxin exposure. Anaphylactic reactions may occur among 1%-2% of botulinum antitoxin recipients and will require epinephrine and antihistamine treatment and, possibly, intensive care.

P018 The utility of skin testing for cross-reactivity: management of 5-hydroxytryptamine3-receptor antagonist IgE-mediated reaction

P018 The utility of skin testing for cross-reactivity: management of 5-hydroxytryptamine3-receptor antagonist IgE-mediated reaction

Australian and New Zealand Anaesthetic Allergy Group Perioperative Anaphylaxis Investigation Guidelines.

These guidelines are a consensus document developed by a working party of the Australian and New Zealand Anaesthetic Allergy Group (ANZAAG) to provide an approach to the investigation of perioperative anaphylaxis. They focus primarily on the use of skin testing as it is the investigation with the greatest clinical utility for the identification of the likely causative agent and potentially safer alternatives. The practicalities and process of skin testing, its limitations, and the place of other tests are discussed. These guidelines also address the roles of graded challenge and in vitro testing. The implications of anaphylaxis associated with neuromuscular blocking agents, beta-lactam antibiotics, local anaesthetic agents and chlorhexidine are discussed. Evidence for the recommendations is derived from literature searches using the words skin test, allergy, anaphylaxis, anaesthesia, and each of the individual agents listed in these guidelines. The individual articles were then reviewed for suitability for inclusion in these guidelines. Where evidence was not strong, as is the situation for many perioperative agents, expert consensus from the ANZAAG working party was used. These guidelines are intended for use by specialists involved in the investigation of perioperative allergy. They have been approved following peer review by members of ANZAAG and are available on the ANZAAG website: http://www.anzaag.com/anaphylaxis-management/testing-guidelines.pdf.

METHODS OF SPECIFIC DIAGNOSIS OF TUBERCULOSIS: A MODERN VIEW ON THE PROBLEM

This review presents modern views on the problems of immunodiagnosis of tuberculosis. We have examined the advisability of the use of immunological methods for diagnosis of active tuberculosis and detection of latent tuberculous infection. It is shown that nowadays the use of serological diagnostic methods is not recommended because of contradictory information about their accuracy and limited diagnostic significance. Advantages and disadvantages of current methods of assessment of cell-mediated immune response that are used as screening tests for diagnosis of latent tuberculosis have been analyzed. We point to advisability of combination of different methods that are available nowadays with the use of skin tests as the first step of diagnosis, and improvement of techniques of antigens injections that are used for them.

Optimizing preoperative prophylaxis in patients with reported β-lactam allergy: a novel extension of antimicrobial stewardship.

Use of alternative second-line antibiotics is associated with adverse events in patients reporting β-lactam allergy. In the perioperative setting, we hypothesized that structured allergy histories, without the use of skin testing, can reduce alternative prophylactic antibiotic use. Assess the impact of structured allergy histories on patients with self-reported β-lactam allergy (SRBA) undergoing elective surgical procedures. Structured allergy histories were performed by a pharmacist and reviewed with an infectious diseases physician. Patients were deemed safe to proceed with cefazolin prophylaxis if they did not describe a history of type I-mediated or severe reaction. Antibiotic prophylaxis orders (with approval by the surgical team) were scheduled into the computerized order entry system to be given prior to first incision of the operation. Of the 485 patients with SRBA that underwent structured allergy histories, 117 (24.1%) reported a type I-mediated allergy history; 267 (55.1%) patients received cefazolin prophylaxis and none subsequently experienced an adverse reaction. After intervention implementation, the overall use of alternative antibiotic prophylaxis at Michael Garron Hospital (Toronto, Canada) among those with SRBA decreased from 81.9% to 55.9%. This drop was associated with the number of monthly assessments (P < 0.001) in a regression analysis. Using a simple structured history and the principles of prospective audit and feedback, we were able to increase the use of cefazolin perioperative prophylaxis without any serious adverse events and in the absence of skin testing or diagnostic challenges.

De-labelling self-reported penicillin allergy within the emergency department through the use of skin tests and oral drug provocation testing.

Self-reported penicillin allergy is common among patients attending the ED, but is a poor predictor of true immunoglobulin E-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillin. We hypothesise that with a combination of skin testing and drug provocation testing, selected patients can be safely de-labelled of their allergy. This prospective study enrolled a sample of patients presenting to an urban academic ED between 2011 and 2016 with a self-reported allergy to penicillin. Standardised skin prick and intradermal testing with amoxicillin and both major and minor determinants of penicillin was performed in the department. If negative, testing was followed by a graded oral challenge of amoxicillin over 9 days. The primary end point was the allergy status of participants at the end of the study. A total of 100 patients (mean age 42; standard deviation 14 years; 54% women) completed the testing. Of these, 81% (95% confidence interval 71.9-88.2) showed no hypersensitivity to penicillin and were labelled non-allergic. The majority (16/19) of allergies were confirmed by skin testing, with three suspected allergies detected by the oral challenge. Women were more likely than men to have a true penicillin allergy, with odds ratio of 4.0 (95% confidence interval 1.23-13.2). There were no serious adverse events. Selected patients in the ED who self-report an allergy to penicillin can be safely tested there for penicillin allergy, using skin tests and oral drug provocation testing. This testing allows a significant de-labelling of penicillin allergy, with the majority of these patients able to tolerate penicillin without incident.

Usefulness of Skin Testing for Rosacea-like Dermatitis: Clinical Analysis of 71 Cases

Usefulness of Skin Testing for Rosacea-like Dermatitis: Clinical Analysis of 71 Cases

Clinical Utility of Skin Testing Six Weeks after a Carboplatin Induced Hypersensitivity Reaction

Clinical Utility of Skin Testing Six Weeks after a Carboplatin Induced Hypersensitivity Reaction

Hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media injections: a nested case–control study

Hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media (CM) are the third leading cause of all cutaneous drug reactions, after antibiotics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.1 However, risk factors and the usefulness of skin tests differ from one study to another. In the present study, we examined the incidence and identified new risk factors of hypersensitivity reactions to nonionic iodinated and gadolinium CM. Moreover, we investigated the diagnostic performance of skin testing for the selection of safe alternatives.

Usefulness of skin tests in penicillin‐allergic patients after cephalosporins challenge

Background Subjects with a history of documented penicillin allergy but with negative skin test results for cephalosporins, can tolerate subsequent challenge doses of cephalosporin without an allergic reaction. [1]. In immediate reactions to betalactams (BL), in some instances, specificity was mainly directed to the BL inducing the reaction, but in other cases specificity was mainly directed to another structure, probably related with previous BL exposure [2].

Assessment of drug hypersensitivity with non-irritating concentrations of antibacterial agents for allergic skin tests: a review

Hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics are common with a prevalence of 6-10% of all adverse reactions. There is a lack of guidelines and standardization of skin tests for the screening of hypersensitivity to all antibiotics, in terms of the methodology, dose and time of evaluation of the tests. Literature from Europe and America suggests the use of non-irritating concentration (NIC) of antibiotics for skin testing such as intra dermal test (IDT), skin prick test (SPT). These are concentrations at which the drug is unlikely to produce irritation by virtue of its chemical nature resulting in false positive reactions. These concentrations have been validated by trials in their populations. Due to the increase of antibiotic resistance in our country, declaring a patient allergic to a specific class of antibiotics based on positive skin tests can further narrow the therapeutic armory. These individuals have an increased incidence of infections with resistant organisms as well as increased cost of hospitalization. This is due to the use of alternative broad spectrum antibiotics. Therefore, there is a need for a standardized protocol for the use of skin tests in screening of hypersensitivity, with validated NIC of all antibacterial agents. The aim of this article is to review literature of protocols for assessment of drug hypersensitivity with NIC of antibacterial drugs for SPT, IDT and also establish the need for research in this area in our country.

Immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions to proton pump inhibitors: usefulness of skin tests in the diagnosis and assessment of cross-reactivity

Data are limited about the value of skin tests in the diagnosis of proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-induced hypersensitivity reactions and the cross-reactivity between PPIs. We aimed to assess the role of skin testing in the diagnosis of PPI-related immediate hypersensitivity reactions and the cross-reactivity patterns among PPIs. The study was designed in a prospective, national, multicentre nature. Sixty-five patients with a suggestive history of a PPI-induced immediate hypersensitivity reaction and 30 control subjects were included. Standardized skin prick and intradermal tests were carried out with a panel of PPIs. Single-blind, placebo-controlled oral provocation tests (OPTs) with the PPIs other than the culprit PPI that displayed negative results in skin tests (n = 61) and diagnostic OPTs with the suspected PPI (n = 12) were performed. The suspected PPIs were lansoprazole (n = 52), esomeprazole (n = 11), pantoprazole (n = 9), rabeprazole (n = 2), and omeprazole (n = 1). The sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of the skin tests with PPIs were 58.8%, 100%, 70.8%, and 100%, respectively. Fifteen of the 31 patients with a hypersensitivity reaction to lansoprazole had a positive OPT or skin test result with at least one of the alternative PPIs (8/52 pantoprazole, 6/52 omeprazole, 5/52 esomeprazole, 3/52 rabeprazole). Considering the high specificity, skin testing seems to be a useful method for the diagnosis of immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions to PPIs and for the evaluation of cross-reactivity among PPIs. However, OPT should be performed in case of negativity on skin tests.

The Utility of Skin Testing in a Patient with Anaphylaxis to Contrast Media During Cardiac Catheterization: A Case Report

The Utility of Skin Testing in a Patient with Anaphylaxis to Contrast Media During Cardiac Catheterization: A Case Report

Selective elimination diet based on skin testing has suboptimal efficacy for adult eosinophilic esophagitis

Selective elimination diet based on skin testing has suboptimal efficacy for adult eosinophilic esophagitis

Diagnosing nonimmediate reactions to cephalosporins

After penicillins, cephalosporins are the betalactams that most often induce IgE-mediated reactions. The development of diagnostic tests has been delayed, however, because the cephalosporin allergenic determinants have not been properly identified.To evaluate the usefulness of skin tests, serum specific IgE assays, and challenges in diagnosing immediate reactions to cephalosporins and to clarify the pathogenic mechanism of such reactions.We studied 76 adults with immediate reactions to cephalosporins, mainly ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, and ceftazidime. Skin tests and serum specific IgE assays were performed for culprit cephalosporins and cefaclor, as well as for penicillin, amoxicillin, and ampicillin. Some subjects with negative results underwent challenges and re-evaluations. Responses to cephalosporins other than the culprit ones were also studied.In the first allergologic work-up, an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins and/or cephalosporins was diagnosed in 63 (82.9%) of the 76 patients on the basis of skin-test and/or specific IgE assay positivity. Of the 13 negative patients, eight accepted challenges and underwent re-evaluations. Considering both first- and second-evaluation results, the skin-test-positivity rate increased from 76.3% to 85.5% and that of sepharose-radioimmunoassay positivity from 67.1% to 74.3%. Overall, an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity was diagnosed in 70 patients (in seven after retesting). On the basis of skin-test and CAP-FEIA results, we classified our 76 patients into five groups: group A (three patients), positive only to penicillin reagents; B (17), positive to both cephalosporin and penicillin reagents; C (24), positive to more than one cephalosporin; D (21), positive only to the responsible cephalosporin; E (11) negative to skin tests and CAP-FEIA, including five sepharose-radioimmunoassay positive.Most immediate reactions to cephalosporins appear to be IgE-mediated. Cephalosporin skin testing and sepharose-radioimmunoassay are useful tools for evaluating these reactions. Cephalosporin IgE-mediated hypersensitivity may be a transient condition; therefore, allergologic exams should be repeated in patients with negative initial allergologic work-ups, including challenges.