No abstract

Background: Shrimp sensitization is common in the general population, but the presence of symptoms is only moderately related to sensitization. A point still at issue is which in vivo and/or in vitro tests (food challenge, component-resolved diagnosis, house dust mite [HDM] sensitization) can help in distinguishing shrimp-allergic subjects from subjects that are sensitized but tolerant. Methods: The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of IgE to the different shrimp and mite allergens in distinguishing shrimp challenge-positive from challenge-negative patients. Subjects with suspected hypersensitivity reactions to shrimp, positive skin prick tests (SPTs), and/or anti-shrimp IgE were submitted to open and double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC). Specific IgE to shrimp, mites, and the recombinants rPen a 1, rDer p 1, 2, and 10 were tested using ImmunoCAP-FEIA. IgE immunoblotting was performed to identify the patients' allergenic profiles. Results: In total, 13 out of 51 (25.5%) patients with reported reactions to shrimp were truly shrimpallergic (7 DBPCFC positive and 6 with documented severe reactions). These patients had significantly higher skin test wheal diametersthan nonallergic patients,as well as higher levels of IgE to rPen a 1 and rDer p 10. HDM-induced asthma and thesimultaneous presence of anti-nDer p 1, 2, and 10 IgE levels increased the risk of true shrimp allergy. Conclusion: Food challenge tests are mandatory for the diagnosis of shrimp allergy. Tropomyosin is associated with clinical reactivity. HDM-induced asthma and anti-mite IgE are risk factors for shrimp allergy.

BackgroundHypersensitivity reactions to anaesthetic agents are rare but often severe, with a mortality ranging from 4 to 9% in IgE-mediated events. Identification of the risk factors may contribute to limit the incidence of these reactions. The aim of our study was to search for possible risk factors of severe perioperative hypersensitivity reactions in our study population.MethodsFor this study we retrospectively reviewed data from 193 patients who experienced drug hypersensitivity reactions during general anaesthesia. The diagnostic protocol consisted of 1) history of the reaction, 2) measurement of serum baseline tryptase and specific IgE-assays for latex, beta-lactams and succinylcholine, 3) skin tests for the agents listed in the anaesthesia chart and for others likely to be safe for future use, latex, and others medications administered during the perioperative period (i.e. antibiotics), 4) subdivision of our patients on the basis of two criteria: a) grade of severity of clinical reactions according to the Ring and Messmer classification; b) results of skin tests and/or serum specific IgE-assays.ResultsOne hundred of 193 patients had reactions of grade I, 32/193 patients had reactions of grade II, 55/193 patients had reactions of grade III and 6/193 patients had reactions of grade IV. A diagnosis of IgE-mediated reaction was established in 55 cases (28.50%); the most common causes were neuromuscular blocking agents, followed by latex and beta-lactams. Severe reactions were associated with older age (p = 0.025), asthma (p = 0.042), history of hypertension (p = 0.001), intake of serum angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor medication (p = 0.012) or serum angiotensin II antagonist (p = 0.033), higher levels of basal tryptase (p = 0.0211). Cardiovascular symptoms (p = 0.006) and history of hypersensitivity to antibiotics (p = 0.029) were more frequently reported in IgE-mediated reactions.ConclusionsWe confirmed the relevance of several clinical features as risk factors for anaphylactic reactions induced by anaesthetic agents: older age, asthma, hypertension and antihypertensive drugs. We observed increased levels of serum basal tryptase in severe reactions: this finding may signify that this biomarker is useful for the identification of patients at risk.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12948-015-0017-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Injective immunotherapy is safe and clinically effective in European patients sensitized to Ambrosia.

Fluticasone propionate aqueous nasal spray (FPANS) is a topically active glucocorticoid which has been successfully used for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Topical levocabastine is a highly selective H1 antagonist which has been proposed as an alternative treatment of SAR. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of two topical nasal treatments, FPANS and levocabastine, in the treatment of SAR. Additionally, the effect of treatments on nasal inflammation was examined during natural pollen exposure. A group of 288 adolescent and adult patients with at least a 2-year history of SAR to seasonal pollens participated in a multicenter, doubleblind, double-dummy, and placebo-controlled study. Patients were treated with either FPANS 200 microg, once daily (n = 97), or topical levocabastine, 200 microg, given twice daily (n = 96), or matched placebo (n = 95) for a period of 6 weeks, starting from the expected beginning of the pollen season. Clinically relevant pollens included Parietaria, olive, and grass. Assessment of efficacy was based on scores of daily nasal symptoms and on nasal cytology of nasal lavage. Nasal lavage was performed immediately before, during, and at the end of treatment in 39 patients. FPANS significantly increased the percentage of symptom-free days for nasal obstruction on waking and during the day, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching. FPANS provided a better control for night and day nasal obstruction (P<0.02 and P<0.01) and rhinorrhea (P<0.01) than levocabas tine. In addition, fewer patients treated with FPANS used rescue medication (P<0.025). The percentage of eosinophils in nasal lavage was reduced only during treatment with FPANS. The results of this study indicate that FPANS 200 microg, once daily, provides a better clinical effect than levocabastine 200 microg, twice daily, in patients with SAR. Unlike levocabastine, FPANS significantly attenuates nasal eosinophilia during pollen exposure, a feature which may explain its therapeutic efficacy.