Oasi Research Institute-IRCCS, Troina, Italy; Fondazione Mediterranea G.B. Morgagni, Catania, Italy.
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Allergy, Pediatric Hospital Bambino Gesù, Vatican City, Rome, Italy.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021 Apr;9(4):1648-1657.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.11.032. Epub 2020 Nov 27.
Few studies have assessed the diagnostic value of cephalosporin skin tests in patients with immediate reactions to these β-lactams.
To evaluate the usefulness of skin tests and challenges in assessing such subjects.
We conducted a prospective study of 236 consecutive subjects who had suffered 249 immediate reactions (mostly anaphylaxis) to cephalosporins. Skin tests were performed with penicillin reagents and suspected cephalosporins. Serum specific IgE assays (ImmunoCAP) were also carried out for penicillins and cefaclor. Subjects with negative results underwent challenges with the suspected cephalosporins; patients with negative results who had been assessed more than 6 months after their reactions were reevaluated.
In the first allergy workup, an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to cephalosporins was diagnosed in 164 (69.5%) of the 236 patients on the basis of skin test (162 patients) or cefaclor ImmunoCAP positivity (2 patients). Of the 72 patients with negative results, 55 underwent cephalosporin challenges; 3 reacted. Twenty subjects were reevaluated after cephalosporin negative challenges, with a conversion to cephalosporin skin test positivity occurring in 5 of the 6 subjects who had had anaphylactic reactions and in none of the remaining 14 subjects with other reactions. Overall, an immediate hypersensitivity to cephalosporins was diagnosed in 172 patients (of whom it was diagnosed in 5 after retesting).
Most immediate reactions to cephalosporins are IgE-mediated. Cephalosporin skin testing is a useful tool for evaluating these reactions. IgE-mediated cephalosporin hypersensitivity may be a transient condition; therefore, allergy examinations should be repeated in patients with negative results who experienced anaphylaxis more than 6 months before the allergy workup, including challenges.
仅有少数研究评估了头孢菌素皮肤试验在发生此类β-内酰胺即刻反应患者中的诊断价值。
评估皮肤试验和挑战试验在评估此类患者中的作用。
我们对 236 例连续发生 249 例头孢菌素即刻反应(主要为过敏反应)的患者进行了前瞻性研究。采用青霉素试剂和可疑头孢菌素进行皮肤试验。还对青霉素和头孢克洛进行了血清特异性 IgE 检测(ImmunoCAP)。对结果阴性的患者进行可疑头孢菌素的挑战试验;对在发生反应后 6 个月以上接受评估且结果为阴性的患者进行重新评估。
根据皮肤试验(162 例患者)或头孢克洛 ImmunoCAP 阳性(2 例患者),在最初的过敏检查中,164 例(69.5%)236 例患者被诊断为头孢菌素的 IgE 介导的超敏反应。在 72 例结果阴性的患者中,55 例接受了头孢菌素挑战试验;其中 3 例发生反应。在头孢菌素阴性挑战后,对 20 例患者进行了重新评估,其中 6 例发生过过敏反应的患者中有 5 例转化为头孢菌素皮肤试验阳性,而其余 14 例发生其他反应的患者中无一例发生阳性。总体而言,在 172 例患者中诊断出对头孢菌素的即刻过敏反应(其中 5 例在重新测试后诊断出)。
大多数头孢菌素即刻反应为 IgE 介导。头孢菌素皮肤试验是评估此类反应的有用工具。IgE 介导的头孢菌素过敏反应可能是一过性的;因此,对于在过敏检查前 6 个月以上发生过敏反应且结果为阴性的患者,包括挑战试验,应重复过敏检查。