No abstract

No abstract

Anaphylaxis is the most severe systemic hypersensitivity reaction, and it can be life-threatening or even fatal. It involves the activation of multiple immune and non immune pathways beyond IgE, thus exhibiting different phenotypes. New symptoms of hypersensitivity caused by chemotherapy drugs, monoclonal antibodies, and biological agents have been suggested to be recognized as anaphylaxis phenotypes. No biomarker has been described that allows an unequivocal diagnosis of anaphylaxis. Moreover, more biomarkers for specific endotypes are needed to stratify severity, to predict risk, and to optimaze tretament choice in the individual patient. Food, drugs and stinging insects represent the most commly identified triggers. Idiopathic anaphylaxis is a diagnosis of exclusion and it can hide a clonal mast cell disorder. Individual risk factors and co-factors may influence the severity of anaphylaxis or its onset, and they should be identified to implement the appropriate measures to prevent recurrence. Prompt recognition and treatment are critical in anaphylaxis, adrenaline being the first-line saving therapy. Individualized anaphylaxis action plan should include avoidance measures, prescription of an adrenaline autoinjector, education, optimal management of relevant comorbidities, venom specific immunotherapy, food oral immunotherapy, and drug desensitization, when appropriate. However, the quality of acute and long-term anaphylaxis management is variable influencing the poor outcomes experienced by many patients. Clinical practice guidelines have the potential to improve outcomes, but they often prove challenging to implement in routine clinical care.

Idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA) or spontaneous anaphylaxis is a diagnosis of exclusion when no cause can be identified. The exact incidence and prevalence of IA are not known. The clinical manifestations of IA are similar to other known causes of anaphylaxis. A typical attack is usually acute in onset and can worsen over minutes to a few hours. The pathophysiology of IA has not yet been fully elucidated, although an IgE‐mediated pathway by hitherto unidentified trigger/s might be the main underlying mechanism. Elevated concentrations of urinary histamine and its metabolite, methylimidazole acetic acid, plasma histamine and serum tryptase have been reported, consistent with mast cell activation. There is some evidence that corticosteroids reduce the frequency and severity of episodes of IA, consistent with a steroid‐responsive condition. Important differential diagnoses of IA include galactose alpha‐1,3 galactose (a carbohydrate contained in red meat) allergy, pigeon tick bite (Argax reflexus), wheat‐dependent exercise‐induced anaphylaxis, Anisakis simplex allergy and mast cell disorders. Other differential diagnoses include “allergy‐mimics” such as asthma masquerading as anaphylaxis, undifferentiated somatoform disorder, panic attacks, globus hystericus, vocal cord dysfunction, scombroid poisoning, vasoactive amine intolerance, carcinoid syndrome and phaeochromocytoma. Acute treatment of IA is the same as for other forms of anaphylaxis. Long‐term management is individualized and dictated by frequency and severity of symptoms and involves treatment with H1 and H2 receptor blockers, leukotriene receptor antagonist and consideration for prolonged reducing courses of oral corticosteroids. Patients should possess an epinephrine autoinjector with an anaphylaxis self‐management plan. There are anecdotal reports regarding the use of omalizumab. For reasons that remain unclear, the prognosis of IA is generally favourable with appropriate treatment and patient education. If remission cannot be achieved, the diagnosis should be reconsidered.

Cross-reactions between <i>Polistes dominula</i> and <i>Vespula</i> species are common in southern Europe. Currently, only CAP-inhibition demonstrates high accuracy in identifying genuine sensitizations, but this method is time-consuming and expensive, so a new approach is required. This study investigates skin tests, molecular diagnostics, total IgE (tIgE), and the Ves v 5/Pol d 5 (or vice versa) ratio. The ratio generated low-accuracy results and poor agreement with CAP-inhibition, and we did not find any agreement between CAP-inhibition test and double values of Ves v 5/Pol d 5. Nevertheless, a slight diagnostic improvement was obtained when Ves v 5/tIgE and Pol d 5/tIgE were measured.

Background: Epidemiological data on fatal anaphylaxis are underestimated worldwide. Few Italian data do exist. The aims of the study are to determine the anaphylaxis mortality rate in Italy and its associations with demographic characteristics (gender, age, and geographical distribution), and to investigate which are the most common triggers of fatal anaphylaxis. Material and methods: This is a descriptive study analyzing data reported to the National Register of Causes of Death database and managed by the Italian National Institute of Statistics for the years 2004-2016. An analytical method was developed to identify all the ICD-10 codes related to anaphylaxis deaths, which were divided into two classes: "Definite anaphylaxis deaths" and "Possible anaphylaxis deaths." Results: From 2004 through 2016, 392 definite anaphylaxis deaths and 220 possible anaphylaxis deaths were recorded. The average mortality rate for definite anaphylaxis, from 2004 to 2016, was 0.51 per million population per year. Definite fatal anaphylaxis was mostly due to the use of medications (73.7%), followed by unspecified causes (20.7%) and hymenoptera stings (5.6%). Concerning possible anaphylaxis deaths, the most common cause was venom-stinging insect (51.4%). We did not find any data on food fatal anaphylaxis. Unspecified anaphylaxis accounted for 21%-28% of all cases, underlining the difficulty in accurately ascertaining the causes of fatal anaphylaxis and therefore in assigning the proper ICD-10 code. Conclusion: This is the first study of anaphylaxis-related mortality coming from an official database of the whole Italian population. However, the actual number of deaths by anaphylaxis, and their related triggers, is probably underreported, mostly due to limitations of the current recording system, and to a poor allergy education.

MotivationThe identification of robust lists of molecular biomarkers related to a disease is a fundamental step for early diagnosis and treatment. However, methodologies for the discovery of biomarkers using microarray data often provide results with limited overlap. These differences are imputable to 1) dataset size (few subjects with respect to the number of features); 2) heterogeneity of the disease; 3) heterogeneity of experimental protocols and computational pipelines employed in the analysis. In this paper, we focus on the first two issues and assess, both on simulated (through an in silico regulation network model) and real clinical datasets, the consistency of candidate biomarkers provided by a number of different methods.MethodsWe extensively simulated the effect of heterogeneity characteristic of complex diseases on different sets of microarray data. Heterogeneity was reproduced by simulating both intrinsic variability of the population and the alteration of regulatory mechanisms. Population variability was simulated by modeling evolution of a pool of subjects; then, a subset of them underwent alterations in regulatory mechanisms so as to mimic the disease state.ResultsThe simulated data allowed us to outline advantages and drawbacks of different methods across multiple studies and varying number of samples and to evaluate precision of feature selection on a benchmark with known biomarkers. Although comparable classification accuracy was reached by different methods, the use of external cross-validation loops is helpful in finding features with a higher degree of precision and stability. Application to real data confirmed these results.

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, types etting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as