Journals / Astım Allerji İmmünoloji / 2021 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 2

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

Pages
92–99
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The NPV of macrolide provocation tests seems to be high in children.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Macrolide allergy is rarely reported, and there is limited knowledge of hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) in children.
📊
Key Findings & Data: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.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The NPV of macrolide provocation tests seems to be high in children.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARAATMACA, B., YAYTOKGIL, Ş. B., ÇELİK, İ. K., TOPAL, Ö. Y., CİVELEK, E., TOYRAN, M., MISIRLIOĞLU, E. D. (2021). Macrolide Allergy in Children and the Negative Predictive Value of Drug Provocation Tests in Mild Index Reactions. Astım Allerji İmmünoloji, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 2, 92–99. https://ajindex.com/articles/351198

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020;395:497-506
  2. Fill L, Hadney L, Graven K, Persaud R, Hostoffer R. The clinical observation of a patient with common variable immunodeficiency diagnosed as having coronavirus disease 2019. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2020;125(1):112-4
  3. Quinti I, Lougaris V, Milito C, Cinetto F, Pecoraro A, Mezzaroma I, et al. A possible role for B cells in COVID-19? Lesson from patients with agammaglobulinemia. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2020;146:211-3.e4
  4. Cohen B, Rubinstein R, Gans MD, Deng L, Eisenberg R, Rubinstein A. COVID-19 infection in ten common variable immunodeficiency patients in New York City. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2021; 9(1): 504-507.e1
  5. Mullur J, Wang A, Feldweg A. A fatal case of coronavirus disease 2019 in a patient with common variable immunodeficiency. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2020;126:90-2
  6. Aljaberi R, Wishah K. Positive outcome in a patient with coronavirus disease 2019 and common variable immunodeficiency after intravenous immunoglobulin. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2020;125:349-50
  7. Van Damme KFA, Tavernier S, Van Roy N, De Leeuw E, Declercq J, Bosteels C, et al. Case report: convalescent plasma, a targeted therapy for patients with CVID and severe COVID-19. Front Immunol 2020;11:596761
  8. Mehta P, McAuley DF, Brown M, Sanchez E, Tattersall RS, Manson JJ; HLH Across Speciality Collaboration, UK. COVID-19: Consider cytokine storm syndromes and immunosuppression. Lancet 2020;395:1033-4
  9. Joyner MJ, Bruno KA, Klassen SA, Kunze KL, Johnson PW, Lesser ER, et al. Safety update: COVID-19 convalescent plasma in 20,000 hospitalized patients. Mayo Clin Proc 2020;95:1888-97.