tacrolimus and Anaphylaxis

A 35-year-old male patient with end-stage renal disease due to vesicoureteral reflux preemptively received a renal graft from his father. The patient had a history of allergy to contrast-enhancing media. He received oral tacrolimus (TAC) and mycophenolate mofetil without any problems for 2 days before kidney transplantation. During the induction period of the surgery, his systolic blood pressure (sBP) decreased to 60 mmHg approximately 1 hour after initiating intravenous tacrolimus (TAC-IV) and intravenous piperacillin (PIPC), and the anesthesiologist suspected drug-induced anaphylaxis and stopped administration of the medications. Because TAC had been administered preoperatively without any adverse events, PIPC was suspected as the causative agent of the anaphylaxis. After the patient's hemodynamics returned to baseline, TAC-IV was restarted. However, his sBP rapidly decreased to 40 mmHg and the patient developed wheezing. He was diagnosed with drug-induced anaphylaxis due to castor oil derivatives in the TAC-IV formulation. The patient's sBP was restored with the administration of some vasopressors, and kidney transplantation was then performed without difficulty. Two days after kidney transplantation, oral TAC was administered without anaphylaxis. Clinicians should consider that not only the drug itself but also its additives or metabolites could induce anaphylaxis.

Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Adult; Anaphylaxis; Blood Pressure; Castor Oil; Graft Rejection; Hemodynamics; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Kidney Transplantation; Male; Mycophenolic Acid; Piperacillin; Tacrolimus

Topics: alpha-Galactosidase; Anaphylaxis; Desensitization, Immunologic; Enzyme Replacement Therapy; Fabry Disease; Humans; Immunoglobulin E; Immunoglobulin G; Isoenzymes; Kidney Transplantation; Male; Middle Aged; Tacrolimus

A Japanese female patient with angioimmunoblastic T cell lymphoma underwent allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT) from her brother. Cyclosporine at a dose of 3 mg/kg was started by continuous infusion over 24 h on day -1 of BMT. Within a couple of minutes after the infusion was begun, she developed diffuse pruritic erythema on her whole body and tachycardia. The infusion was immediately stopped and corticosteroid was given, resulting in disappearance of the erythema gradually. She was then switched to intravenous tacrolimus. However, she suffered urticalial erythema again. Since polyoxyethylated castor oil, a solubilizer used in the injective formulation of both cyclosporine and tacrolimus, is considered to be responsible for the reaction, she was given oral capsules of cyclosporine (Sandimmun) in which polyoxyethylated castor oil was not contained. No further anaphylactic reaction was observed. The BM cells were successfully engrafted without causing severe GVHD. She was discharged on cyclosporine capsules without any further adverse effects. Anaphylaxis to intravenous cyclosporine and tacrolimus is a very rare but a serious complication. Our present case indicates that oral capsule of Sandimmun is a safe alternative to prevent GVHD in such a case of anaphylactic reaction against intravenous formulation.

Topics: Administration, Oral; Anaphylaxis; Bone Marrow Transplantation; Capsules; Cyclosporine; Female; Humans; Immunoblastic Lymphadenopathy; Infusions, Intravenous; Lymphoma, T-Cell; Male; Middle Aged; Tacrolimus; Transplantation, Homologous