Nigel Harper

Emergency treatment of anaphylactic reactions—Guidelines for healthcare providers

*The UK incidence of anaphylactic reactions is increasing. *Patients who have an anaphylactic reaction have life-threatening airway and, or breathing and, or circulation problems usually associated with skin or mucosal changes. *Patients having an anaphylactic reaction should be treated using the Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, Exposure (ABCDE) approach. *Anaphylactic reactions are not easy to study with randomised controlled trials. There are, however, systematic reviews of the available evidence and a wealth of clinical experience to help formulate guidelines. *The exact treatment will depend on the patients location, the equipment and drugs available, and the skills of those treating the anaphylactic reaction. *Early treatment with intramuscular adrenaline is the treatment of choice for patients having an anaphylactic reaction. *Despite previous guidelines, there is still confusion about the indications, dose and route of adrenaline. *Intravenous adrenaline must only be used in certain specialist settings and only by those skilled and experienced in its use. *All those who are suspected of having had an anaphylactic reaction should be referred to a specialist in allergy. *Individuals who are at high risk of an anaphylactic reaction should carry an adrenaline auto-injector and receive training and support in its use. *There is a need for further research about the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of anaphylactic reactions.

Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of sugammadex 4 mg kg−1 for reversal of deep neuromuscular blockade in patients with severe renal impairment

BACKGROUND This study evaluated efficacy and safety of sugammadex 4 mg kg(-1) for deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) reversal in patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance [CLCR] <30 ml min(-1)) vs those with normal renal function (CLCR ≥80 ml min(-1)). METHODS Sugammadex 4 mg kg(-1) was administered at 1-2 post-tetanic counts for reversal of rocuronium NMB. Primary efficacy variable was time from sugammadex to recovery to train-of-four (T4/T1) ratio 0.9. Equivalence between groups was demonstrated if two-sided 95% CI for difference in recovery times was within -1 to +1 min interval. Pharmacokinetics of rocuronium and overall safety were assessed. RESULTS The intent-to-treat group comprised 67 patients (renal n=35; control n=32). Median (95% CI) time from sugammadex to recovery to T4/T1 ratio 0.9 was 3.1 (2.4-4.6) and 1.9 (1.6-2.8) min for renal patients vs controls. Estimated median (95% CI) difference between groups was 1.3 (0.6-2.4) min; thus equivalence bounds were not met. One control patient experienced acceleromyography-determined NMB recurrence, possibly as a result of premature sugammadex (4 mg kg(-1)) administration, with no clinical evidence of NMB recurrence observed. Rocuronium, encapsulated by Sugammadex, was detectable in plasma at day 7 in 6 patients. Bioanalytical data for sugammadex were collected but could not be used for pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSIONS Sugammadex 4 mg kg(-1) provided rapid reversal of deep rocuronium-induced NMB in renal and control patients. However, considering the prolonged sugammadex-rocuronium complex exposure in patients with severe renal impairment, current safety experience is insufficient to support recommended use of sugammadex in this population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT00702715.

Specialist Peri-Operative Allergy Clinic Services in the UK 2016: Results from the Royal College of Anaesthetists Sixth National Audit Project (NAP6)

Guidelines for investigation of perioperative drug allergy exist, but the quality of services is unknown. Specialist perioperative anaphylaxis services were surveyed through the Royal College of Anaesthetists 6th National Audit Project.

Chlorhexidine allergy in four specialist allergy centres in the United Kingdom, 2009–13: clinical features and diagnostic tests

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.

Chlorhexidine Allergy in 4 Specialist Allergy Centres in the UK, 2009-2013: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Tests

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.