[Anaphylaxis to ceftriaxone in pediatric patients: Challenges and management].

María Rosina López-Forte, Pablo Perea-Valle
{"title":"[Anaphylaxis to ceftriaxone in pediatric patients: Challenges and management].","authors":"María Rosina López-Forte, Pablo Perea-Valle","doi":"10.29262/ram.v72i3.1492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cephalosporin-induced anaphylaxis is uncommon (6.1/10,000 exposures), and the diagnosis in pediatrics entails challenges due to nonspecific clinical histories and lack of standardized diagnostic tests. G-Penicillin has demonstrated diagnostic utility in the absence of penicilloilpolylisin, with a negative predictive value up to 95.2% when combined with controlled oral challenge. The basophil activation test (BAT) has a variable sensitivity (3875%), depending on the assessed biomarker.</p><p><strong>Case report: </strong>A 13-year-old male presented anaphylaxis two minutes after receiving intramuscular ceftriaxone. He presented with pharyngeal pruritus, facial angioedema, dyspnea, vomiting, and altered alertness. The condition resolved with intramuscular adrenaline and intravenous crystalloid administration. <i>Test results</i>: BAT for ceftriaxone and cefuroxime were negative. Skin tests were negative for penicillin and cefuroxime and positive for ceftriaxone. <i>Outcome</i>: Oral challenge with amoxicillin was tolerated. The use of ceftriaxone and cephalosporins with an identical R1 side chain were contraindicated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When dealing with a patient with drug allergy, clinicians should implement diagnostic tools that include skin testing with specific antibiotics and oral challenge. It is important to reconsider unconfirmed allergy labels, as it is estimated that between 58% and 75% of pediatric patients diagnosed with cephalosporin allergy present low-risk symptoms and could be delabeled with appropriate protocols. Cephalosporin anaphylaxis requires a combined evaluation. Penicillin G skin testing and oral challenge are key tools to guide safe antibiotic treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":101421,"journal":{"name":"Revista alergia Mexico (Tecamachalco, Puebla, Mexico : 1993)","volume":"72 3","pages":"69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista alergia Mexico (Tecamachalco, Puebla, Mexico : 1993)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29262/ram.v72i3.1492","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cephalosporin-induced anaphylaxis is uncommon (6.1/10,000 exposures), and the diagnosis in pediatrics entails challenges due to nonspecific clinical histories and lack of standardized diagnostic tests. G-Penicillin has demonstrated diagnostic utility in the absence of penicilloilpolylisin, with a negative predictive value up to 95.2% when combined with controlled oral challenge. The basophil activation test (BAT) has a variable sensitivity (3875%), depending on the assessed biomarker.

Case report: A 13-year-old male presented anaphylaxis two minutes after receiving intramuscular ceftriaxone. He presented with pharyngeal pruritus, facial angioedema, dyspnea, vomiting, and altered alertness. The condition resolved with intramuscular adrenaline and intravenous crystalloid administration. Test results: BAT for ceftriaxone and cefuroxime were negative. Skin tests were negative for penicillin and cefuroxime and positive for ceftriaxone. Outcome: Oral challenge with amoxicillin was tolerated. The use of ceftriaxone and cephalosporins with an identical R1 side chain were contraindicated.

Conclusions: When dealing with a patient with drug allergy, clinicians should implement diagnostic tools that include skin testing with specific antibiotics and oral challenge. It is important to reconsider unconfirmed allergy labels, as it is estimated that between 58% and 75% of pediatric patients diagnosed with cephalosporin allergy present low-risk symptoms and could be delabeled with appropriate protocols. Cephalosporin anaphylaxis requires a combined evaluation. Penicillin G skin testing and oral challenge are key tools to guide safe antibiotic treatment.

[儿科患者对头孢曲松的过敏反应:挑战和管理]。
背景:头孢菌素诱发的过敏反应并不常见(6.1/10,000暴露),由于非特异性的临床病史和缺乏标准化的诊断测试,儿科的诊断面临挑战。g -盘尼西林在没有青霉素聚乳酸素的情况下具有诊断价值,与控制的口服攻毒联合使用时,阴性预测值高达95.2%。根据评估的生物标志物,嗜碱性粒细胞激活试验(BAT)具有可变的灵敏度(3875%)。病例报告:一名13岁男性在接受肌肉注射头孢曲松两分钟后出现过敏反应。他表现为咽部瘙痒、面部血管性水肿、呼吸困难、呕吐和警觉性改变。肌内注射肾上腺素和静脉注射晶体药物后,病情得以缓解。检测结果:头孢曲松、头孢呋辛BAT阴性。皮肤试验青霉素和头孢呋辛呈阴性,头孢曲松呈阳性。结果:口服阿莫西林是耐受的。禁用使用具有相同R1侧链的头孢曲松和头孢菌素。结论:在处理药物过敏患者时,临床医生应实施包括特定抗生素皮肤试验和口服刺激在内的诊断工具。重新考虑未经证实的过敏标签是很重要的,因为据估计,58%至75%被诊断为头孢菌素过敏的儿科患者表现出低风险症状,可以通过适当的方案去除标签。头孢菌素过敏反应需要综合评估。青霉素G皮肤试验和口服刺激是指导安全抗生素治疗的关键工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信