Does Drug Allergy Workup in Children Satisfy Their Parents?

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Although drug allergy workup for pediatric patients (skin and drug provocation tests [DPT]) is performed, the procedures are troublesome, painful, and time-consuming. The aim of this study was to assess parents’ perception of and satisfaction with their child’s drug allergy workup. Further, to evaluate parents’ tendency to use the tested drug following a negative DPT and the consequences of re-exposure. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Parents of children that underwent drug allergy workup from January 2017 to August 2020 in the Pediatric Allergy Department of Trakya University Medical Faculty were included. Satisfaction levels were assessed via a telephone questionnaire (3 open-ended, 7 multiple-choice questions). Satisfaction was scored on a Likert scale (1: very unsatisfied and 5: very satisfied). <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 102 parents participated the study. Fifty-two (51%) of patients were male, and median age was 6.2 years and a median time interval between admission and test appointment of 1 month; 16.7% had a positive drug allergy workup, with 88.3% reporting being satisfied (56.9%) or very satisfied (31.4%) with the workup. Satisfaction levels were inversely related to the time between admission and test appointment (rho: −0.254, <i>p</i> = 0.01), with 8.2% reporting they did not use the tested drug when necessary despite a negative result. The tested drug was used by 35 individuals (41.1%), 33 (94.2%) tolerating without reaction. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Most parents were satisfied with the workup, but levels were inversely related to the admission and procedure time interval. Drug allergy workup should be performed as soon as possible to relieve parents’ anxiety and achieve more patient satisfaction.

Diagnosing and Managing Patients with Reactions to Radiocontrast Media

Purpose of the review Iodinated radio contrast media (RCM) belong to the most common elicitors of drug hypersensitivity reactions (HR). Urticaria or anaphylaxis may occur ≤ 1(−6) hour(s) (immediate HR) and exanthems (non-immediate HR) develop > 6 h after application of RCM. Evidence for an immunologic mechanism of RCM HR against the different RCM benzene ring molecules and the benefit of allergological testing in patients with previous hypersensitivity reactions is progressively increasing. Recent findings Positive skin tests can confirm allergy in patients with previous reactions to RCM and help to select alternative better tolerated RCMs. Severe hypersensitivity reactions are mainly caused by an allergic mechanism, whereas the majority of non-severe reactions appear to be non-allergic. Skin testing is highly recommended to help identify allergic hypersensitivity reactions and to select alternatives. Using structurally different RCM is more effective than premedication for the prevention of future reactions. Drug provocation tests to RCM have been increasingly used, but are not yet standardized among different centers. Summary In patients with previous severe hypersensitivity reactions to RCM, skin testing is recommended. For future RCM-enhanced examinations in patients with previous reactions, structurally different, skin test-negative preparations should be applied. Drug provocation tests do confirm or exclude RCM hypersensitivity or may demonstrate tolerability of alternative RCMs.

Macrolide Allergy in Children and the Negative Predictive Value of Drug Provocation Tests in Mild Index Reactions

ABSTRACT Objective: Macrolide allergy is rarely reported, and there is limited knowledge of hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) in children. The negative predictive value (NPV) of drug provocation tests (DPTs) for macrolides is unresolved. We aim to evaluate the clinical features of macrolide allergy in children, and determine the NPV of macrolide DPTs. Materials and Methods: Pediatric patients who were referred to our allergy department with a suspicion of macrolide allergy were evaluated by DPTs with or without prior skin tests between 2011 and 2020. Characteristics of the HRs and patients, the results of skin and DPTs were recorded. At least three months after evaluation of the patients with allergy work up, telephone interviews were performed. Patients were asked whether they had reused the suspected macrolide or not. Patients who reported HR during subsequent drug intake were invited for reevaluation. Results: A total of 160 children (161 reactions) (55.6% male) with a suspicion of macrolide allergy were enrolled for the study, and all children had a mild index reaction. The median age was 48 (18-102) months, and the median time between the suspected allergic reaction and allergy work-up was 3 (2-8) months. The most frequently reported suspected agent was clarithromycin, in 151 patients (94.4%). Macrolide allergy was confirmed in 8 (5%) patients. Only one patient reported skin eruptions upon reuse despite a negative DPT and he was invited to be reevaluated. A second DPT was performed resulting in urticarial lesions. The NPV was found to be 97.4% for negative DPT with macrolides. Conclusion: Confirmed macrolide allergy is rare in children, and DPTs are the gold standard to assess suspected macrolide allergy. The NPV of macrolide provocation tests seems to be high in children. Keywords: Children, drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation test, macrolide, negative predictive value

Beta-Lactam Allergy: Real Practice in a Regional Hospital

Background/Aims: Beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics are widely prescribed for controlling bacterial infections and relevant culprits of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). BL allergy may vary according to prescription patterns within a given period of time. However, BL allergy in contemporary clinical practice has rarely been a focus of research.Methods: To investigate the clinical characteristics of BL allergy, subjects with ADRs to medicines, including BL antibiotics, were retrospectively reviewed.Results: Among the 175 enrolled subjects, BL antibiotics as culprits were confirmed in 79 (45.1%, female 53.2%, age 49 ± 14 years). Among the patients with confirmed BL allergy, only two (2.5%) were diagnosed via a prescription survey completed as part of multi-drug administration. The others were confirmed by serologic tests in 33 patients (41.8%), skin tests in 29 (36.7%), and drug provocation tests in 15 (19.0%). Regarding the symptoms and signs, onset within an hour of taking medicines was common (61 patients, 77.3%). Itchy skin was most common, followed by hives, rash, breathing difficulty, angioedema, and hypotension. Anaphylaxis occurred in 67%, and one-half (50.6%) of patients visited the emergency room. Cefaclor and amoxicillin were common BL culprits. Among others who did not have BL allergy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were found to be common culprits, followed by quinolones.Conclusions: BL allergy is common among patients who experienced ADRs to medicines including BL antibiotics. For multi-drug administration, a prescription survey hardly helped in confirming BL allergy. Anaphylaxis is common in patients with BL allergy, frequently leading to emergency room visits. Cefaclor and amoxicillin are common culprits.

Ipersensibilità ai FANS: intolleranza o allergia?

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the main triggers of drug hypersensitivity reactions in children. According to the EAACI latest classification NSAIDs hypersensitivity reactions are differentiated into cross-reactive reactions, with non-immunological mechanisms (based on COX-1 inhibition), and selective reactions, with immunological mechanisms. Paediatric clinical manifestations of NSAID hypersensitivity are typically cutaneous, but sometimes, similarly to anaphylaxis, can involve other systems, especially the respiratory one. Differentiating between NSAID intolerance and NSAID allergy through drug provocation tests is crucial for the patient because the two clinical entities require different management.