Recurrent Anaphylaxis Associated with Gonadotropin‐Releasing Hormone Analogs: Case Report and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An 8-year-old girl with idiopathic central precocious puberty experienced multiple episodes of anaphylaxis after receiving a goserelin acetate implant. She was hospitalized and treated with epinephrine, antihistamine, and corticosteroids. The goserelin implant was surgically excised; however, anaphylactic symptoms continued for 4 days after excision. Less severe systemic symptoms recurred 6 weeks after removal; these were possibly due to leakage of the depot drug into subcutaneous tissues. It was noted that 3 years earlier, the patient had developed a similar, milder systemic allergic reaction to leuprolide acetate that required treatment with oral prednisone and antihistamines. Intradermal testing yielded positive results for leuprolide. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogs, including leuprolide acetate and goserelin acetate, are commonly prescribed for patients with prostatic carcinoma, endometriosis, and precocious puberty. A literature review identified a single case report of a systemic hypersensitivity reaction involving goserelin acetate and several reports of systemic hypersensitivity reactions associated with leuprolide acetate. We found no reports of systemic reactions to GnRH analogs in pediatric patients. Clinicians should be aware of the potential association of GnRH analogs with systemic reactions. They should also recognize that recurrent anaphylaxis may occur due to the long half-life of these therapeutic agents in tissue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".