Sugammadex: the sting in the tail? Savic, L.; Savic, S.; Hopkins, P.M.
British journal of anaesthesia : BJA,
10/2018, Letnik:
121, Številka:
4
Journal Article
Around 10–15% of the in-patient population carry unsubstantiated ‘penicillin allergy’ labels, the majority incorrect when tested. These labels are associated with harm from use of broad-spectrum ...non-penicillin antibiotics. Current testing guidelines incorporate both skin and challenge tests; this is prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to deliver on a large scale. We aimed to establish the feasibility of a rapid access de-labelling pathway for surgical patients, using direct oral challenge.
‘Penicillin allergic’ patients, recruited from a surgical pre-assessment clinic, were risk-stratified using a screening questionnaire. Patients at low risk of true, immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated allergy were offered direct oral challenge using incremental amoxicillin to a total dose of 500 mg. A 3-day course was completed at home. De-labelled patients were followed up to determine antibiotic use in surgery, and attitudes towards de-labelling were explored.
Of 219 patients screened, 74 were eligible for inclusion and offered testing. We subsequently tested 56 patients; 55 were de-labelled. None had a serious reaction to the supervised challenge, or thereafter. On follow-up, 17 of 19 patients received appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis during surgery. Only three of 33 de-labelled patients would have been happy for the label to be removed without prior specialist testing.
Rapid access de-labelling, using direct oral challenge in appropriately risk-stratified patients, can be incorporated into the existing surgical care pathway. This provides immediate and potential long-term benefit for patients. Interest in testing is high among patients, and clinicians appear to follow clinic recommendations. Patients are unlikely to accept removal of their allergy label on the basis of history alone.
ClinicalTrials.gov: AN17/92982.
How to conduct a Delphi consensus process Savic, L. C.; Smith, A. F.
Anaesthesia,
February 2023, 2023-Feb, 2023-02-00, 20230201, Letnik:
78, Številka:
2
Journal Article
Peri-operative anaphylaxis is a rare but potentially catastrophic event which must be considered whenever unexpected and significant cardiovascular or respiratory compromise occurs during ...anaesthesia. The Resuscitation Council UK algorithm for peri-operative anaphylaxis highlights the importance of early intravenous adrenaline and fluid resuscitation and provides guidance on the treatment of refractory anaphylaxis and immediate follow-up. This algorithm is endorsed by the Royal College of Anaesthetists, Association of Anaesthetists, British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and Clinical Immunology Professional Network of the British Society for Immunology. This document was produced by the Perioperative Allergy Network steering committee in collaboration with the Resuscitation Council UK.
Grading schemes for severity of suspected allergic reactions have been applied to the perioperative setting, but there is no scoring system that estimates the likelihood that the reaction is an ...immediate hypersensitivity reaction. Such a score would be useful in evaluating current and proposed tests for the diagnosis of suspected perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions and culprit agents.
We conducted a Delphi consensus process involving a panel of 25 international multidisciplinary experts in suspected perioperative allergy. Items were ranked according to appropriateness (on a scale of 1–9) and consensus, which informed development of a clinical scoring system. The scoring system was assessed by comparing scores generated for a series of clinical scenarios against ratings of panel members. Supplementary scores for mast cell tryptase were generated.
Two rounds of the Delphi process achieved stopping criteria for all statements. From an initial 60 statements, 43 were rated appropriate (median score 7 or more) and met agreement criteria (disagreement index <0.5); these were used in the clinical scoring system. The rating of clinical scenarios supported the validity of the scoring system. Although there was variability in the interpretation of changes in mast cell tryptase by the panel, we were able to include supplementary scores for mast cell tryptase.
We used a robust consensus development process to devise a clinical scoring system for suspected perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions. This will enable objectivity and uniformity in the assessment of the sensitivity of diagnostic tests.
Anaphylaxis to teicoplanin appears to be extremely rare, with only one confirmed case report worldwide. Two anaesthetic allergy clinics in the UK have received a number of suspected cases referred ...for investigation, and we present here the first case series of teicoplanin allergy.
We investigated 20 cases of suspected teicoplanin allergy, identified from the two clinics over a period of two years. We devised a set of five criteria to categorize the certainty of their diagnosis. These included: (1) reaction within 15 min of administration of teicoplanin, (2) ≥2 features of anaphylaxis present, (3) positive skin testing or challenge testing, (4) raised serum mast cell tryptase (MCT), (5) alternative diagnosis excluded. Based on these criteria we defined the likelihood of IgE-mediated allergy to teicoplanin as: definite-met all criteria; probable-met criteria 1.2 and 5, plus 3 or 4; uncertain-met criteria 1.2 and 5; excluded- any others.
We identified 7 ‘definite’, 7 ‘probable’ and 2 ‘uncertain’ cases of teicoplanin allergy. Four cases were excluded.
IgE-mediated anaphylaxis to teicoplanin appears to be more common than previously thought. This is true even if only definitive cases are considered. Investigation of teicoplanin allergy is hampered by the lack of standardized skin test concentrations. In some cases, there was a severe clinical reaction, but without any skin test evidence of histamine release. The mechanism of reaction in these cases is not known and requires further study.
Unsubstantiated penicillin-allergy labels are common in surgical patients, and can lead to significant harm through avoidance of best first-line prophylaxis of surgical site infections and increased ...infection with resistant bacterial strains. Up to 98% of penicillin-allergy labels are incorrect when tested. Because of the scarcity of trained allergists in all healthcare systems, only a minority of surgical patients have the opportunity to undergo testing and de-labelling before surgery. Testing pathways can be modified and shortened in selected patients. A variety of healthcare professionals can, with appropriate training and in collaboration with allergists, provide testing for selected patients. We review how patients might be assessed, the appropriate testing strategies that can be used, and the minimum standards of safe testing.
Summary
We describe an observational survey of diagnostic pathways in 104 patients attending four specialist allergy clinics in the United Kingdom following perioperative hypersensitivity reactions ...to chlorhexidine reactions. The majority were life‐threatening. Men undergoing urological or cardiothoracic surgery predominated. Skin prick testing and specific immunoglobulin (sIg)E testing were the most common tests used for diagnosis. Fifty‐three per cent of diagnoses were made on the basis of a single positive test. Where multiple tests were performed the sensitivity of intradermal, basophil activation and skin prick testing was 68% (50–86%), 50% (10–90%) and 35% (17–55%), respectively. Seven per cent were negative on screening tests initially, and 12 cases were only positive for a single test despite multiple testing. Intradermal tests appeared most sensitive in this context. Additional sensitization to other substances used perioperatively, particularly neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA), was found in 28 patients, emphasizing the need to test for possible allergy to all drugs to which the patient was exposed even where chlorhexidine is positive.
Perioperative chlorhexidine allergy in the UK is often severe. Investigation is complicated by multiple test positivity to potential culprit agents and false negativity in screening tests to chlorhexidine. Testing by multiple modalities including IDT is useful where initial testing is negative.
PDF
