Controversies in Allergy: Is Skin Testing Required Prior to Drug Challenges?

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 412-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Macy ◽  
Luis Felipe Ensina
Keyword(s):  
Skin Testing ◽  
Drug Challenges

Skin testing and drug challenge in the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna R. Wolfson ◽  
Aleena Banerji
Keyword(s):  
Negative Impact ◽  
Skin Testing ◽  
Drug Hypersensitivity ◽  
Clinical History ◽  
Hypersensitivity Reactions ◽  
Causative Drug ◽  
Care Assessment ◽  
Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions ◽  
Drug Challenge ◽  
Drug Challenges

Immediate hypersensitivity to drugs is characterized by symptoms such as hives, swelling, and wheezing. To prevent a negative impact on care, assessment by an allergist is important. Evaluation requires a clear clinical history, but it is often lacking or vague, which makes a diagnosis difficult. Allergists instead can use skin testing and drug challenge to evaluate drug hypersensitivity reactions, which help the patient and provider understand the causative drug(s) and, more importantly, enables the use of the exonerated drug(s). Although penicillin skin testing is standardized, well described, and widely used, skin testing for most other drugs requires the use of a nonirritating skin testing concentration that can have a low negative predictive value. Drug challenges are the criterion standard for confirming tolerance. The allergist must obtain an in-depth clinical history and then follow with skin testing and/or drug challenges when indicated to determine which drugs can be de-labelled and which should be avoided. In this review, we focused on the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics, perioperative agents, biologics, and chemotherapeutics.

Basics of Skin Testing and Drug Challenges

2018 ◽  
pp. 73-84
Author(s):  
Miguel A. Park ◽  
Sara M. May
Keyword(s):  
Skin Testing ◽  
Drug Challenges

scholarly journals Penicillin Allergy Skin Testing as an Antibiotic Stewardship Intervention in Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S266-S267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Kovacs ◽  
Vasilios Athans ◽  
David Lang ◽  
Ronald Sobecks ◽  
Lisa Rybicki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Stewardship ◽  
Skin Testing ◽  
Hematopoietic Cell ◽  
Penicillin Allergy ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Transplant Recipients ◽  
Hematopoietic Cell Transplant ◽  
Allergy Skin Testing

scholarly journals 162. Assessment of Beta-lactam Allergies as Rationale for Receipt of Vancomycin for Surgical Prophylaxis

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S90-S90
Author(s):  
Kendall J Tucker ◽  
YoungYoon Ham ◽  
Haley K Holmer ◽  
Caitlin M McCracken ◽  
Ellie Sukerman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antimicrobial Prophylaxis ◽  
Skin Testing ◽  
Cross Reactivity ◽  
Penicillin Allergy ◽  
Beta Lactam ◽  
First Line ◽  
Surgical Prophylaxis ◽  
Inappropriate Use ◽  
Oral Amoxicillin ◽  
Ige Mediated

Abstract Background Beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics are first-line agents for most patients receiving antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. Despite evidence showing low cross-reactivity between classes of BLs, patients with allergies commonly receive vancomycin as an alternative to avoid allergic reaction. The objective of this study was to identify potentially inappropriate use of vancomycin surgical prophylaxis among patients with reported BL allergies. Methods Adult patients (≥18 years) receiving vancomycin for surgical prophylaxis with a reported penicillin and/or cephalosporin allergy at our institution between August 2017 to July 2018 were retrospectively evaluated for potential eligibility for penicillin allergy testing and/or receipt of standard prophylaxis. Surgery type and allergy history were extracted from the electronic medical record. Per our institution’s penicillin-testing protocol, patients with IgE-mediated reactions < 10 years ago were eligible for penicillin skin testing (PST), mild reactions or IgE-mediated reaction > 10 years ago were eligible for direct oral amoxicillin challenge, and severe non-IgE mediated allergies were ineligible for penicillin allergy evaluation or BL prophylaxis. Results Among 830 patients who received vancomycin for surgical prophylaxis, 196 reported BL allergy and were included in the analysis (155 with penicillin allergy alone; 21 with cephalosporin allergy; 20 with both cephalosporin and penicillin allergy). Approximately 40% of surgeries were orthopedic. Six patients were ineligible for BL prophylaxis. Per institutional protocol, 73 of 155 patients (48%) may have qualified for PST; 81 of 155 (52%) patients may have received a direct oral amoxicillin challenge. Only 3 of 22 patients with history of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus appropriately received additional prophylaxis with vancomycin and a BL. Conclusion Patients with BL allergies often qualify for receipt of a first-line BL antibiotic. An opportunity exists for improved BL allergy assessment as an antimicrobial stewardship intervention. Future studies should evaluate outcomes associated with BL allergy evaluation and delabeling in patients receiving surgical prophylaxis. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals The complexities of insulin allergy: a case and approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Babak Aberumand ◽  
Samira Jeimy
Keyword(s):  
Skin Testing ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
Good Effect ◽  
First Episode ◽  
Similar Reaction ◽  
Hypersensitivity Reactions ◽  
Epinephrine Administration ◽  
Insulin Allergy ◽  
Recombinant Insulin ◽  
Insulin Dependent

Abstract Background Insulin hypersensitivity is rare, but challenging for individuals with diabetes. The prevalence of insulin allergy has decreased since the introduction of human recombinant insulin preparations. Hypersensitivity reactions range from injection site erythema and swelling, to anaphylaxis. While some reactions are to excipients (zinc, protamine, metacresol), many are to recombinant insulin itself. We present a case of type 1 hypersensitivity to various preparations of insulin in a patient with insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Case presentation A 61-year-old woman with a 30-year history of insulin-dependent T2DM was referred for evaluation of reactions to insulin. She had two episodes over 5-months; both required Emergency Department visits and epinephrine administration. The first episode entailed a burning sensation of the extremities and nausea, immediately after injecting NovoRapid® insulin. The second event entailed a similar reaction but this time there was also angioedema of the upper airway with difficulty breathing and hypotension, immediately after injecting Levemir® and NovoRapid®, and taking metformin. There were no cofactors such as exercise, infectious illness, or NSAIDs use. Skin testing was performed with metformin, Lantus®, Humalog®, NovoRapid®, glulisine, insulin regular, NPH, Levemir® and the excipient protamine, as per published testing concentrations. Metacresol was not tested as its use was restricted by the hospital pharmacy. Insulin preparations with and without metacresol were included in testing however. A clinic staff served as a negative control. The patent had negative testing with protamine, but sensitization to all insulin preparations. Metformin skin testing and challenge along with latex IgE were negative. Subsequently, she underwent intentional weight loss of 70 lb, and was started on oral hypoglycemics with good effect. Conclusions Our case highlights the importance of diagnosing insulin allergy through a detailed history and focused testing. Therapeutic strategies include avoidance and insulin alternatives, alternate insulin preparations, or desensitization. In severe recurrent hypersensitivity reactions, Omalizumab or pancreatic transplantation have been effective.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document