Skin tests are of paramount importance for the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions. Drug skin tests are often not carried out because of lack of concise information on specific test concentrations. The diagnosis of drug allergy is often based on history alone, which is an unreliable indicator of true hypersensitivity.To promote and standardize reproducible skin testing with safe and nonirritant drug concentrations in the clinical practice, the European Network and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Interest Group on Drug Allergy has performed a literature search on skin test drug concentration in MEDLINE and EMBASE, reviewed and evaluated the literature in five languages using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. Where the literature is poor, we have taken into consideration the collective experience of the group.We recommend drug concentration for skin testing aiming to achieve a specificity of at least 95%. It has been possible to recommend specific drug concentration for betalactam antibiotics, perioperative drugs, heparins, platinum salts and radiocontrast media. For many other drugs, there is insufficient evidence to recommend appropriate drug concentration. There is urgent need for multicentre studies designed to establish and validate drug skin test concentration using standard protocols. For most drugs, sensitivity of skin testing is higher in immediate hypersensitivity compared to nonimmediate hypersensitivity.

The possibility of obtaining oral desensitization in patients with food allergy is still a matter of debate. We decided to evaluate the safety and efficacy of standardized protocols for oral desensitization with the most common food allergens. Forty-two children (ages up to 16 years) diagnosed as affected by food allergy (on the basis of clinical history, skin prick tests, measurement of specific IgE, and double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge) underwent a sublingual-oral desensitizing treatment according to new standardized protocols. The control group consisted of 10 patients who followed an elimination diet. The treatment was successfully completed by 85.7% of the patients. Specific IgE showed a significant decrease, while specific IgG(4) showed a significant increase, in all treated patients. The immunological modifications observed in our patients lead us to hypothesize that oral tolerance may be mediated by the same mechanisms as those involved in traditional desensitizing treatments for respiratory and insect sting allergy.

Background Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID‐19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized. Method Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre‐vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccines, and literature was analysed. Results No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID‐19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1—anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2—anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3—recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4—suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5—confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick‐to‐prick skin test with the left‐over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable. Conclusions These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID‐19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated.

No abstract

No abstract

The absence of urticaria or angioedema in severe reactions to Hymenoptera stings with hypotension might represent the most relevant factor in identifying patients with mastocytosis, regardless of their serum tryptase levels.

The multiple drug intolerance syndrome is a clinical entity characterized by adverse drug reactions to at least three drugs, chemically, pharmacologically and immunogenically unrelated, manifested upon three different occasions, and with negative allergy testing. Symptoms referred by the patients are often subjective, of neurovegetative origin. The aim of the study is to characterize patients suffering from the multiple drug intolerance syndrome from a psychological point of view, and to compare them to healthy subjects. We studied 30 women suffering from the multiple drug intolerance syndrome. All subjects underwent the following psychodiagnostic tests: (1) the State Trait Anxiety Inventory-Form Y, (2) the Zung Self-rating Anxiety Scale, (3) the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale, (4) the Quality of life enjoyment and satisfaction questionnaire, (5) the Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory-2, (6) the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. The study group was compared to 30 healthy women. When compared with the control group, our patients showed: a higher anxiety, a higher grade of depression, this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.01); a high difference (p < 0.01) between the two groups as regards somatic symptoms; a higher grade of alexithymia (p < 0.01); and a worse quality of life, in all the analyzed ambits. These findings clearly demonstrate the importance of psychological symptoms in patients with the multiple drug intolerance syndrome, and show that a complex allergy and psychological work-up is mandatory in the management of these patients.

Background: Dupilumab is an anti-IL-4Rα antibody used in the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (msAD). This study explored the potential benefit of dupilumab in perennial allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (PAR) and perennial allergic asthma (PAA) caused by indoor allergens in adults with msAD. Methods: This multicentric, prospective, observational, real-life study included adult patients with msAD who had been treated with dupilumab in 16 Italian care centres. Efficacy outcomes regarding AD, PAR and PAA were collected at baseline and 16 weeks. Safety was also assessed. Results: We enrolled 123 patients with msAD. Between baseline and 16 weeks of treatment, the following measurements decreased statistically significantly: Eczema Area and Severity Index, SCOring AD, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure, pruritus score, sleep score, Dermatology Life Quality Index and IgE. Dupilumab treatment in patients with comorbid PAR (n = 41) was associated with significant improvements in PAR disease control (measured using a Rhinitis Control Scoring System) and in PAR Quality of life (QoL) (measured using the Rhinoconjunctivitis QoL Questionnaire scores). In 32 patients with comorbid PAA, dupilumab significantly improved PAA control (measured using the Asthma Control Test and five-item Asthma Control Questionnaire scores) and disease-related QoL (measured using the Asthma QoL Questionnaire scores). Thirty-five patients (28.5%) developed conjunctivitis during the study period. Conclusion: These results support the benefits of dupilumab for adult patients with PAR and/or PAA associated with msAD.