Skin tests for the exploration of hypersensitivity reactions associated with iodinated contrast media

Background: Iodinated contrast media (ICM) are responsible for multiple side effects, especially hypersensitivity reactions. These reactions can either be authentic allergies, or non-allergic hypersensitivity reactions. Skin tests (prick and intradermal tests) are simple to perform and can be of great help, especially if the ICM need to be re-used. The aim of the study was to assess the characteristics of the patients in whom skin tests were performed, and the results of these tests. Methods: This is a retrospective study from June 2014 to June 2019. All included patients had at least one episode of hypersensitivity reaction to ICM and underwent skin tests. Results : We included 35 patients aged 18 to 85 years. The iopromide was the most implicated ICM. The reactions were mainly cutaneous (n=30) and immediate (n=27). The skin tests were negative, except for two patients. The reuse of ICM occured in 11 patients: 9 with an ICM other than the one suspected and two patients with the same ICM. Among these patients, 5 did not have any premedication. Two of them had a second hypersensitivity reaction, the first with another ICM and the second with the same ICM. Conclusion: One of the main pillars of allergic exploration is ICM skin testing, not only to prevent recurrence, but also to allow patients to benefit from ICM reuse, which are sometimes essential.

Possible immunoglobulin-E-dependent sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis caused by an epitope other than γ-cyclodextrin: a case report

Background Sugammadex is a synthetic γ-cyclodextrin derivative designed to selectively bind to steroidal neuromuscular blocking agents and reverse their effects. Although many cases of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis have been reported, few studies have investigated the underlying mechanism. Case presentation A 55-year-old Japanese man underwent a laryngectomy under general anesthesia. One month before laryngectomy, he had undergone laryngoscopy under general anesthesia and received sugammadex administration without causing hypersensitivity. He had no history of allergies. The operation was finished without complications. Shortly after sugammadex administration, his blood pressure dropped to approximately 70 mmHg, and his heart rate increased to 110 beats/minute with systemic erythema. Suspecting anaphylaxis, he was treated with the intravenous injection of phenylephrine, d-chlorpheniramine, and hydrocortisone. After these treatments, his cardiovascular condition stabilized. Eight months after the event, skin prick tests and intradermal tests with all agents used during general anesthesia were performed. Intradermal tests showed positive results only for sugammadex. Subsequently, basophil activation tests with CD203c were performed using sugammadex, γ-cyclodextrin, and positive controls (anti-immunoglobulin-E and formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine). In addition to both controls, sugammadex, but not γ-cyclodextrin, induced significant upregulation of CD203c expression. We performed additional basophil activation tests with wortmannin, an inhibitor of phosphoinositide 3-kinase, to investigate the mechanism underlying sugammadex-induced basophil activation. The inhibitory effect of wortmannin on basophil activation due to sugammadex was similar to that of anti-immunoglobulin-E, suggesting an immunoglobulin-E-dependent mechanism. Although the patient showed no hypersensitivity after the first exposure of sugammadex, anaphylaxis appeared after the second administration. Because most cases of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis reportedly appeared after first administration, this seems to be a rare case. Conclusions In the present case, sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis might have occurred through an immunoglobulin-E-dependent mechanism and not involve γ-cyclodextrin as an epitope. Physicians should pay attention to the occurrence of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis even when the patient has a history of safe administration of sugammadex.

Systemic reaction during intradermal skin tests with beta-lactams

Beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics are the most frequent cause of drug hypersensitivity in children, inducing both immediate and non-immediate reactions. Here we report a case of a 4-year-old child with a disseminated maculopapular exanthema 7 days after the first dose of amoxicillin–clavulanate, referred to our paediatric allergy department. Skin prick tests were negative. Intradermal tests were performed and, after 10 hours, indurated wheals larger than 10×10 mm with progressive erythema and disseminated maculopapular eruption were developed, related to amoxicillin and amoxicillin–clavulanate. Systemic reactions to BL skin tests are rarely reported and the majority are immediate reactions. This case illustrates a rare example of a non-immediate systemic reaction to intradermal tests, underlying the importance of skin testing before drug provocation tests in cases of moderate to severe non-immediate reactions.

Treatment of rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis using sugammadex - A case report -

Background: Perioperative anaphylaxis is a life-threatening clinical condition characterized by severe respiratory and cardiovascular manifestations. Neuromuscular blocking agents are the most common cause of anaphylaxis during anesthesia. Case: We report a case of rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis treated with sugammadex. A 75–year-old woman was scheduled to undergo spinal surgery. She had no history of allergies. After the injection of rocuronium, she developed hypotension and tachycardia, and skin rashes and urticaria appeared. The patient received sugammadex to delay the operation, and her vital signs were stabilized. On the 76th postoperative day, we performed intradermal tests for rocuronium, propofol, and cefazolin. Diluted rocuronium alone induced 14 mm of flare and 8 mm of wheal within 5 min, both of which disappeared within 15 min after the intradermal injection.Conclusions: Sugammadex is a useful rocuronium antagonist that can be used to treat rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis.

Immediate Reactions to Iodinated Contrast Media Prevalence of IgE-mediated Hypersensitivity

BackgroundAfter administration of iodinated contrast media (ICM) some patients develop an immediate hypersensitivity reaction (IHR). A specific allergic IgE-mediated mechanism may be involved. ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of allergic patients among ICM reactors and to evaluate the negative predictive value (NVP) of skin testing for ICM.MethodsAll patients who attended a single center for an allergy work-up between 2010 and 2019 due to a prior IHR after an ICM injection were included retrospectively. ICM allergy was diagnosed if prick tests or intradermal tests were positive. Further information concerning secondary exposure to ICM was obtained from all patients with negative skin tests to determine whether ICM re-exposure led to an IHR.ResultsSkin tests identified ICM allergy in 7 out of 85 patients (8.2%). Frequency of IgE-mediated hypersensitivity among patients increased with increasing reaction severity. The NPV of skin testing for ICM allergy was 87.8% [95%CI 75.2;95.4.ConclusionThe low prevalence of IgE-mediated hypersensitivity among patients with IHR to ICM should not delay allergy workup. Earlier skin tests and provocation tests with skin-test negative ICM may help allergists to find a reliable alternative ICM.

Immediate reactions with glatiramer acetate

Purpose of reviewDiverse adverse events have been associated with administration of glatiramer acetate (GA), mainly local reactions at the injection site. Other, less frequent generalized reactions include isolated postinjection reactions and anaphylaxis, which may lead to discontinuation of GA.Recent findingsClose collaboration between the allergy and neurology departments is needed to study adverse reactions to GA. The allergy study should include a detailed history and skin prick and intradermal tests with GA and, if possible, determination of specific IgE levels. Furthermore, the implication of other drugs should be ruled out.SummaryAn accurate diagnosis of reactions to GA is essential if we are to confirm or rule out allergy to GA. When an allergy diagnosis is confirmed or firmly suspected based on clinical evidence, desensitization protocols are increasingly seen as safe methods for reintroduction of GA.

Supraventricular Tachycardia: An Unusual Side Effects of Cefuroxime

Anaphylactic reaction towards antibiotics is common during anaesthesia. It may present as bronchospasm, hypotension, desaturation, or urticarial. However it is uncommon for anaphylaxis reaction to present only assupraventricular tachycardia (SVT). This is a rare interesting case report on a 23-year-old healthy man whose anaesthetic categorization is American Society of Anaesthesiologist (ASA) 1, developed supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) towards intravenous cefuroxime, perioperatively. His condition resolved with carotid sinus massage. No pharmacological interventions were used. His skin prick intradermal tests showed allergies towards cefuroxime, cefazoline and cefoperazone. The patient subsequently underwent.