Edith Schussler1,2, Jeremy Sobel3, Joy Hsu4, Patricia Yu5, Dana Meaney-Delman6, Leslie C Grammer7, Anna Nowak-Wegrzyn2. 1. Division of Pulmonology, Allergy and Immunology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York. 2. Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 3. Division of Foodborne, Waterborne and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Air Pollution and Respiratory Health Branch, Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 5. Regulatory Affairs, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 6. Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. Division of Allergy-Immunology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
Background: Naturally occurring botulism is rare, but a large number of cases could result from unintentional or intentional contamination of a commercial food. Despeciated, equine-derived, heptavalent botulinum antitoxin (HBAT) is licensed in the United States. Timely treatment reduces morbidity and mortality, but concerns that botulinum antitoxin can induce anaphylaxis exist. We sought to quantify the allergy risk of botulinum antitoxin treatment and the usefulness of skin testing to assess this risk. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of (1) allergic reactions to botulinum antitoxin and (2) the predictive value of skin testing (ST) before botulinum antitoxin administration. We searched 5 scientific literature databases, reviewed articles' references, and obtained data from the HBAT manufacturer and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Anaphylaxis incidence was determined for HBAT and previously employed botulinum antitoxins. We calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of ST for anaphylaxis related to HBAT and other botulinum antitoxins. Results: Seven articles were included. Anaphylaxis incidence was 1.64% (5/305 patients) for HBAT and 1.16% (8/687 patients) for all other botulinum antitoxins (relative risk, 1.41 [95% confidence interval, .47-4.27]; P = .5). Observed values for both PPV and NPV for HBAT-ST (33 patients) were 100%. Observed PPVs and NPVs of ST for other botulinum antitoxins (302 patients) were 0-56% and 50%-100%, respectively. There were no reports of fatal anaphylaxis. Conclusions: Considering the <2 % rate of anaphylaxis, fatal outcomes, modest predictive value of ST, resource requirements for ST, and the benefits of early treatment, data do not support delaying HBAT administration to perform ST in a mass botulinum toxin exposure. Anaphylactic reactions may occur among 1%-2% of botulinum antitoxin recipients and will require epinephrine and antihistamine treatment and, possibly, intensive care. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2017. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
Background: Naturally occurring botulism is rare, but a large number of cases could result from unintentional or intentional contamination of a commercial food. Despeciated, equine-derived, heptavalent botulinum antitoxin (HBAT) is licensed in the United States. Timely treatment reduces morbidity and mortality, but concerns that botulinum antitoxin can induce anaphylaxis exist. We sought to quantify the allergy risk of botulinum antitoxin treatment and the usefulness of skin testing to assess this risk. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of (1) allergic reactions to botulinum antitoxin and (2) the predictive value of skin testing (ST) before botulinum antitoxin administration. We searched 5 scientific literature databases, reviewed articles' references, and obtained data from the HBAT manufacturer and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Anaphylaxis incidence was determined for HBAT and previously employed botulinum antitoxins. We calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of ST for anaphylaxis related to HBAT and other botulinum antitoxins. Results: Seven articles were included. Anaphylaxis incidence was 1.64% (5/305 patients) for HBAT and 1.16% (8/687 patients) for all other botulinum antitoxins (relative risk, 1.41 [95% confidence interval, .47-4.27]; P = .5). Observed values for both PPV and NPV for HBAT-ST (33 patients) were 100%. Observed PPVs and NPVs of ST for other botulinum antitoxins (302 patients) were 0-56% and 50%-100%, respectively. There were no reports of fatal anaphylaxis. Conclusions: Considering the <2 % rate of anaphylaxis, fatal outcomes, modest predictive value of ST, resource requirements for ST, and the benefits of early treatment, data do not support delaying HBAT administration to perform ST in a mass botulinum toxin exposure. Anaphylactic reactions may occur among 1%-2% of botulinum antitoxin recipients and will require epinephrine and antihistamine treatment and, possibly, intensive care. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2017. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
Authors: Larissa M Alvarenga; Muhammad Zahid; Anne di Tommaso; Matthieu O Juste; Nicolas Aubrey; Philippe Billiald; Julien Muzard Journal: Toxins (Basel) Date: 2014-08-21 Impact factor: 4.546
Authors: Michael W Peck; Theresa J Smith; Fabrizio Anniballi; John W Austin; Luca Bano; Marite Bradshaw; Paula Cuervo; Luisa W Cheng; Yagmur Derman; Brigitte G Dorner; Audrey Fisher; Karen K Hill; Suzanne R Kalb; Hannu Korkeala; Miia Lindström; Florigio Lista; Carolina Lúquez; Christelle Mazuet; Marco Pirazzini; Michel R Popoff; Ornella Rossetto; Andreas Rummel; Dorothea Sesardic; Bal Ram Singh; Sandra C Stringer Journal: Toxins (Basel) Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 4.546
Authors: Patricia A Yu; Neal H Lin; Barbara E Mahon; Jeremy Sobel; Yon Yu; Rajal K Mody; Weidong Gu; Jennifer Clements; Hye-Joo Kim; Agam K Rao Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Kwok-Ho Lam; Jacqueline M Tremblay; Edwin Vazquez-Cintron; Kay Perry; Celinia Ondeck; Robert P Webb; Patrick M McNutt; Charles B Shoemaker; Rongsheng Jin Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: Sandra L Vale; Monique Lobb; Merryn J Netting; Kevin Murray; Rhonda Clifford; Dianne E Campbell; Sandra M Salter Journal: World Allergy Organ J Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 4.084
Authors: Geraldine S Parrera; Hugo Astacio; Priya Tunga; Deborah M Anderson; Christine L Hall; Jason S Richardson Journal: Toxins (Basel) Date: 2021-12-27 Impact factor: 4.546