Advertisement

Journal of Anesthesia

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 797–805 | Cite as

Required cefazolin concentration to maximize diagnostic accuracy of the basophil activation test for cefazolin-induced anaphylaxis

  • Tatsuo HoriuchiEmail author
  • Tomonori Takazawa
  • Masaki Orihara
  • Shinya Sakamoto
  • Akihiko Yokohama
  • Junko Takahashi
  • Akihiro Tomioka
  • Nagahide Yoshida
  • Kazuaki Hagiwara
  • Shigeru Saito
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Identifying the causative agent of perioperative anaphylaxis is key to preventing its recurrence. Besides skin testing, the basophil activation test (BAT) is increasingly being accepted as an additional and reliable method. Cefazolin seems to be a major cause of perioperative anaphylaxis. However, few studies have described use of the BAT for cefazolin-induced anaphylaxis. In this study, we aimed to determine the optimum cefazolin concentration required in the BAT for an accurate diagnosis.

Methods

Seven patients who presented with immediate hypersensitivity to cefazolin and 21 control subjects were studied. We conducted skin tests and performed BATs using both CD203c and CD63 as markers of activated basophils. We measured the ratio of activated basophils after stimulation with serial dilutions of cefazolin and investigated the cefazolin concentration that resulted in better sensitivity and specificity.

Results

All patients demonstrated positive reactions to cefazolin, while all control subjects showed negative reactions on skin tests. The net percentage of both CD203c- and CD63-labeled activated basophils was greater when higher concentrations of cefazolin than previously reported were used. In control subjects, however, the number of activated basophils by cefazolin stimulation was negligible regardless of its concentration. In the case of CD203c, the sensitivity was 86% with a cefazolin concentration of 3 mg/ml, while in the case of CD63, the sensitivity was 100% with a cefazolin concentration of 10 mg/ml.

Conclusion

Using a higher concentration of cefazolin than previously reported for the BAT might increase the accuracy of diagnosis of cefazolin-induced anaphylaxis.

Keywords

Anaphylaxis Cefazolin Basophil activation test Skin test 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Kenzaburo Sugimoto of the Department of Anesthesiology, Jichi University Hospital, for his kind advice regarding the skin tests. This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant numbers JP 16M02678 and 15K10533, and the Kosaka Rinsyo Masui Fund.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Mertes PM, Malinovsky JM, Jouffroy L, Working Group of the SFAR and SFA, Aberer W, Terreehorst I, Brockow K, Demoly P, ENDA, EAACI Interest Group on Drug Allergy. Reducing the risk of anaphylaxis during anesthesia: 2011 updated guidelines for clinical practice. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2011;21(6):442–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dong SW, Mertes PM, Petitpain N, Hasdenteufel F, Malinovsky JM, GERAP. Hypersensitivity reactions during anesthesia. Results from the ninth French survey (2005–2007). Minerva Anestesiol. 2012;78(8):868–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lobera T, Audicana MT, Pozo MD, Blasco A, Fernandez E, Canada P, Gastaminza G, Martinez-Albelda I, González-Mahave I, Muñoz D. Study of hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis during anesthesia in Spain. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2008;18(5):350–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gurrieri C, Weingarten TN, Martin DP, Babovic N, Narr BJ, Sprung J, Volcheck GW. Allergic reactions during anesthesia at a large United States referral center. Anesth Analg. 2011;113(5):1202–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gonzalez-Estrada A, Pien LC, Zell K, Wang XF, Lang DM. Antibiotics are an important identifiable cause of perioperative anaphylaxis in the United States. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2015;3(1):101–5.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR, Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27(2):97–132 (quiz 3–4; discussion 96).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM, Perl TM, Auwaerter PG, Bolon MK, Fish DN, Napolitano LM, Sawyer RG, Slain D, Steinberg JP, Weinstein RA, American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Infectious Disease Society of America, Surgical Infection Society, Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Surg Infect. 2013;14(1):73–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Uyttebroek AP, Decuyper II, Bridts CH, Romano A, Hagendorens MM, Ebo DG, Sabato V. Cefazolin hypersensitivity: toward optimized diagnosis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2016;4(6):1232–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mayorga C, Sanz ML, Gamboa PM, Garcia BE, Caballero MT, Garcia JM, Labrador M, Lahoz C, Longo Areso N, López Hoyos M, Martínez Quesada J, Monteseirín FJ, Immunology Committee of the Spanish Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology of the SEAIC. In vitro diagnosis of immediate allergic reactions to drugs: an update. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2010;20(2):103–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Co Minh HB, Bousquet PJ, Fontaine C, Kvedariene V, Demoly P. Systemic reactions during skin tests with beta-lactams: a risk factor analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;117(2):466–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Valyasevi MA, Maddox DE, Li JT. Systemic reactions to allergy skin tests. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Off Publ Am Coll Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1999;83(2):132–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Valyasevi MA, Van Dellen RG. Frequency of systematic reactions to penicillin skin tests. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Off Publ Am Coll Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2000;85(5):363–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sellaturay P, Nasser S, Ewan P. The incidence and features of systemic reactions to skin prick tests. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Off Publ Am Coll Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;115(3):229–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yamaoka M, Deguchi M, Ninomiya K, Kurasako T, Matsumoto M. A suspected case of rocuronium-sugammadex complex-induced anaphylactic shock after cesarean section. J Anesth. 2017;31(1):148–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Uyttebroek AP, Sabato V, Cop N, Decuyper II, Faber MA, Bridts CH, Mertens C, Hagendorens MM, De Clerck LS, Ebo DG. Diagnosing cefazolin hypersensitivity: lessons from dual-labeling flow cytometry. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2016;4(6):1243–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leysen J, Sabato V, Verweij MM, De Knop KJ, Bridts CH, De Clerck LS, Ebo DG. The basophil activation test in the diagnosis of immediate drug hypersensitivity. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2011;7(3):349–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ebo DG, Bridts CH, Hagendorens MM, Mertens CH, De Clerck LS, Stevens WJ. Flow-assisted diagnostic management of anaphylaxis from rocuronium bromide. Allergy. 2006;61(8):935–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uyttebroek AP, Sabato V, Leysen J, Bridts CH, De Clerck LS, Ebo DG. Flowcytometric diagnosis of atracurium-induced anaphylaxis. Allergy. 2014;69(10):1324–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horiuchi T, Yokohama A, Orihara M, Tomita Y, Tomioka A, Yoshida N, Takahashi K, Saito S, Takazawa T. Usefulness of basophil activation tests for diagnosis of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1509–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aranda A, Mayorga C, Ariza A, Dona I, Blanca-Lopez N, Canto G, Blanca M, Torres MJ. IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to methylprednisolone. Allergy. 2010;65(11):1376–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aranda A, Mayorga C, Ariza A, Dona I, Rosado A, Blanca-Lopez N, Andreu I, Torres MJ. In vitro evaluation of IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to quinolones. Allergy. 2011;66(2):247–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uyttebroek AP, Sabato V, Faber MA, Cop N, Bridts CH, Lapeere H, De Clerck LS, Ebo DG. Basophil activation tests: time for a reconsideration. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2014;10(10):1325–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Song WJ, Chang YS. Recent applications of basophil activation tests in the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity. Asia Pac Allergy. 2013;3(4):266–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Torres MJ, Ariza A, Fernandez J, Moreno E, Laguna JJ, Montanez MI, Ruiz-Sanchez AJ, Blanca M. Role of minor determinants of amoxicillin in the diagnosis of immediate allergic reactions to amoxicillin. Allergy. 2010;65(5):590–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brockow K, Romano A, Blanca M, Ring J, Pichler W, Demoly P. General considerations for skin test procedures in the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity. Allergy. 2002;57(1):45–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brockow K, Garvey LH, Aberer W, Atanaskovic-Markovic M, Barbaud A, Bilo MB, Bircher A, Blanca M, Bonadonna B, Campi P, Castro E, Cernadas JR, Chiriac AM, Demoly P, Grosber M, Gooi J, Lombardo C, Mertes PM, Mosbech H, Nasser S, Pagani M, Ring J, Romano A, Scherer K, Schnyder B, Testi S, Torres M, Trautmann A, Terreehorst I, ENDA/EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group. Skin test concentrations for systemically administered drugs—an ENDA/EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group position paper. Allergy. 2013;68(6):702–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barbaud A, Goncalo M, Bruynzeel D, Bircher A. Guidelines for performing skin tests with drugs in the investigation of cutaneous adverse drug reactions. Contact Dermat. 2001;45(6):321–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Takazawa T, Horiuchi T, Yoshida N, Yokohama A, Saito S. Flow cytometric investigation of sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114(5):858–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ring J, Messmer K. Incidence and severity of anaphylactoid reactions to colloid volume substitutes. Lancet. 1977;1(8009):466–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Blanca M, Romano A, Torres MJ, Férnandez J, Mayorga C, Rodriguez J, Demoly P, Bousquet PJ, Merk HF, Sanz ML, Ott H, Atanasković-Marković M. Update on the evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to betalactams. Allergy. 2009;64(2):183–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ebo DG, Faber M, Elst J, Van Gasse AL, Bridts CH, Mertens C, De Clerck LS, Hagendorens MM, Sabato V. In vitro diagnosis of immediate drug hypersensitivity during anesthesia: a review of the literature. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018;6(4):1176–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ebo DG, Leysen J, Mayorga C, Rozieres A, Knol EF, Terreehorst I. The in vitro diagnosis of drug allergy: status and perspectives. Allergy. 2011;66(10):1275–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marinho S, Kemp H, Cook TM, Farmer L, Farooque S, Lucas DN, Garcez T, Floss K, Torevell H, Thomas M, Warner A, Hitchman J, Ferguson K, Egner W, Nasser S, Karanam S, Kong KL, McGuire N, Bellamy M, Harper NJN. Cross-sectional study of perioperative drug and allergen exposure in UK practice in 2016: the 6th National Audit Project (NAP6) Allergen Survey. Br J Anaesth. 2018;121(1):146–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tatsuo Horiuchi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tomonori Takazawa
    • 2
  • Masaki Orihara
    • 1
  • Shinya Sakamoto
    • 1
  • Akihiko Yokohama
    • 3
  • Junko Takahashi
    • 4
  • Akihiro Tomioka
    • 4
  • Nagahide Yoshida
    • 5
  • Kazuaki Hagiwara
    • 6
  • Shigeru Saito
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnesthesiologyGunma University Graduate School of MedicineMaebashiJapan
  2. 2.Intensive Care UnitGunma University HospitalMaebashiJapan
  3. 3.Division of Blood Transfusion Service, Faculty of MedicineGunma University HospitalMaebashiJapan
  4. 4.Department of AnesthesiologyGunma Central HospitalMaebashiJapan
  5. 5.Department of AnesthesiologySaiseikai Maebashi HospitalMaebashiJapan
  6. 6.Department of AnesthesiologySaku Medical CenterSakuJapan

Personalised recommendations