No abstract

The main contraindication to the anti-SARS CoV2 vaccine is an anaphylactic reaction to a vaccine component. The need to vaccinate allergic people who are at higher risk can be of public health interest and this report shows a case of an allergic reaction to PEG of a HCW who had received the first dose of anti-SARS CoV2 vaccine. For 5 h after the administration of the vaccine, she had the appearance of erythematous spots on the face and neck, and a feeling of a slurred mouth and hoarseness. In order to treat the event, she was administered 8 mg intravenous dexamethasone, 1 vial intravenous chlorphenamine maleate, 250 mL intravenous 0.9% NaCl, and conventional oxygen therapy (2 L/min) with complete resolution of the suspected adverse drug reaction. According to the contraindication to the cutaneous test for this patient, BAT was used for further investigations. The patient who suffered the adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine and other five allergic patients who did not report any adverse reaction after the vaccination were tested. There was a significant activation of the vaccine-reactive patient’s basophils with 14.79 CD203chigh% at the concentration of 0.2 mg/mL, while other patients were negative. People who have a confirmed reaction to a vaccine component should undergo further investigation to discover other possible cross-reactions and select the right vaccine to immunize them.

BackgroundIn Italy, the nsLTP (Pru p 3) has been identified as the most frequent cause of food allergy and anaphylaxis. In order to estimate the risk assessment in peach allergy, we investigated the presence of correlations between the levels of sIgE to Pru p 3 with the severity of the clinical symptoms in two Pru p 3 positive populations from two different areas of Italy.Methods133 consecutively Pru p 3 positive patients were recruited from South Italy, where the prevalence of PR-10 and profilin sensitization is low, and from North-East Italy, where the sensitization to pathogenesis related protein -10 (PR-10) and profilin is higher. Skin prick test (SPT) to peach extract and sIgE to peach panallergens were performed.ResultsAll 133 patients were positive to SPT to peach extract and to sIgE to Pru p 3. The North-East population was simultaneously positive to Pru p 1 (42.8 %) and Pru p 4 (12.7 %), while no Southern patients were positive to PR-10 or to profilin. A significant difference in the levels of sIgE to Pru p 3 was found only in South Italy Pru p 3 + patients vs. asymptomatic patients (p = 0.01) and in mild reactions vs. severe reactions (p = 0.0008). In South Italy patients, it was also found a significant correlation between the severity of the clinical reaction and the levels of sIgE to Pru p 3 (p = 0.001).ConclusionLevel of sIgE to Pru p 3 indicates the possibility of development a severe food allergic reaction. Pru p 3 positive patients from different geographical areas and with different co-sensitizations to Pru p 1 and/or Pru p 4 could have a different risk assessment in peach allergy.

Background: In the diagnosis of celiac disease (CD), serum assays for anti-endomysium (EMA) and anti-transglutaminase (anti-tTG) antibodies have excellent diagnostic accuracy. However, these assays are less sensitive in young pediatric patients. Recently, a new ELISA test using deamidated gliadin peptides (DGP) as antigen has proved to be very sensitive and specific even in pediatric patients. In addition, anti-actin IgA antibodies (AAA) is another test that can be used in CD patients because antibody concentrations correlate with the degree of villous atrophy. This study evaluated the clinical accuracy of anti-tTG, EMA, AGA, anti-DGP and AAA and the effectiveness of these in different combinations for diagnosing CD in a large cohort of pediatric patients. Methods: Sera of 150 children under 6 years of age were tested: 95 patients had a diagnosis of CD, while 55 patients who did not suffer from CD were used as controls. Anti-DGP IgA/IgG and AAA were assayed with ELISA kits, while anti-tTG IgA/IgG and AGA IgG/IgA were assayed using a quantitative fluoroimmunoassay. The EMA test was conducted by indirect immunofluorescence.

Background. Previous studies have demonstrated that serum anti-actin antibodies are a reliable marker of intestinal damage severity in coeliac disease.Aims. To validate in a multicentre study the clinical usefulness of serum IgA anti-actin antibody ELISA and its possible use in monitoring intestinal mucosa lesions during gluten-free diet.Patients and methods. Four centres recruited 205 newly diagnosed coeliac disease patients with villous atrophy, 80 healthy controls and 81 "disease" controls. Twelve coeliac disease patients on gluten-free diet but with persistent symptoms underwent serum IgA anti-actin antibody assay and intestinal histology evaluation. IgA anti-actin antibody ELISA was performed with a commercial kit. All coeliac disease patients underwent intestinal histology study.Results. IgA anti-actin antibodies showed a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 85% in the diagnosis of coeliac disease patients with villous atrophy. The area under the receiving operator curve for anti-actin antibodies was 0.873 [95% C.I. 0.805-0.899]. Serum anti-actin antibodies values were significantly higher in coeliac disease patients than in healthy or "disease" controls (P < 0.0001). Serum anti-actin antibodies were positive in 41 of the 60 coeliac disease patients with mild intestinal histology lesions (69%) and in 123 of the 145 with severe lesions (85.3%) (P < 0.05). There was a significant inverse correlation between anti-actin antibody values and the villi/crypts ratio (r = −0.423; P < 0.0001). In the 12 coeliac disease patients on gluten-free diet who underwent re-evaluation as they were persistently symptomatic, intestinal histology showed three cases with persistent villous atrophy: all of these were positive for serum anti-actin antibodies ELISA, whereas both serum anti-tTG and EmAs were negative. The other nine patients showed normal intestinal villi and were negative for serum anti-actin antibodies.Conclusions. Anti-actin antibodies are a reliable marker of severe intestinal mucosa damage in coeliac disease patients and a simple ELISA technique offers an accurate method for their determination. These antibodies seem to be a very reliable marker of persistent intestinal damage in coeliac disease patients.