Oral mite anaphylaxis (pancake syndrome) in Peru: an underestimated problem? / Anafilaxia por ingesta de ácaros (Síndrome da panqueca) no Peru: um problema subestimado?

Sabe-se que a urticária e o angioedema apresentam diferentes etiologias, pois podem ser de natureza alérgica, infecciosa, autoimune ou espontânea. Em episódios únicos ou recorrentes, deve-se considerar um alérgeno desencadeante oculto, como os ácaros de poeira doméstica (APDs). Vários relatos demonstraram que farinhas contaminadas com APDs podem causar urticária e angioedema, incluindo reações alérgicas graves com risco de vida quando ingeridos em grandes quantidades provenientes de farinha de trigo armazenada. Neste estudo, relatamos os achados clínicos de 31 pacientes, incluindo casos de anafilaxia após ingestão de farinha contaminada com ácaros. Também encontramos uma relação entre uma história clínica de hipersensibilidade a anti-inflamatórios não esteroides e síndrome de anafilaxia por ingesta de ácaros em pacientes atópicos, consistente com a teoria de uma "nova tríade do ácido acetilsalicílico", conforme publicado anteriormente, e agora sendo descrito pela primeira vez no Peru.

Urticaria and angioedema are known to have different etiologies, as they can be allergic, infectious, autoimmune, or spontaneous in nature. In single or recurrent episodes, a hidden triggering allergen should be considered, such as house dust mites (HDMs). Several reports have demonstrated that flours contaminated with HDMs can cause urticaria and angioedema, including severe lifethreatening allergic reactions when ingested in large quantities from stored wheat flour. In this study, we report the clinical findings in 31 patients, including cases of anaphylaxis after the ingestion of mite-contaminated flour. We also found a relationship between a clinical history of hypersensitivity to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and oral mite anaphylaxis syndrome in atopic patients, consistent with the theory of a "new aspirin triad," as previously published, and now being described for the first time in Peru.

Diretriz Latino-americana sobre o Diagnóstico e Tratamento da Alergia Ocular ­ Em nome da Sociedade Latinoamericana de Alergia, Asma e Imunologia (SLAAI) / Latin American Guideline on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Ocular Allergy ­ On behalf of the Latin American Society of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (SLAAI)

A alergia ocular, também conhecida como conjuntivite alérgica (CA), é uma reação de hipersensibilidade mediada por imunoglobulina E (IgE) do olho desencadeada por aeroalérgenos, principalmente ácaros da poeira doméstica e pólen de gramíneas. Os sintomas geralmente consistem em prurido ocular ou periocular, lacrimejamento e olhos vermelhos que podem estar presentes durante todo o ano ou sazonalmente. A alergia ocular tem frequência elevada, é subdiagnosticada e pode ser debilitante para o paciente. É potencialmente danosa para a visão, nos casos em que ocasiona cicatrização corneana grave, e na maioria dos pacientes associa-se a outros quadros alérgicos, principalmente rinite, asma e dermatite atópica. É classificada em conjuntivite alérgica perene, conjuntivite alérgica sazonal, ceratoconjuntivite atópica e ceratoconjuntivite vernal. O diagnóstico procura evidenciar o agente etiológico e a confirmação se dá pela realização do teste de provocação conjuntival. O tratamento baseia-se em evitar o contato com os desencadeantes, lubrificação, anti-histamínicos tópicos, estabilizadores de mastócitos, imunossupressores e imunoterapia específica com o objetivo de obter o controle e prevenir as complicações da doença.

Ocular allergy, also known as allergic conjunctivitis, is an immunoglobulin E-mediated hypersensitivity reaction of the eye triggered by airborne allergens, primarily house dust mites and grass pollen. Symptoms usually consist of ocular or periocular itching, watery eyes, and red eyes that may be present year-round or seasonally. Ocular allergy has a high frequency, is underdiagnosed, and can be debilitating for the patient. It is potentially harmful to vision in cases of severe corneal scarring, and in most patients, it is associated with other allergic conditions, especially rhinitis, asthma, and atopic dermatitis. It is classified as perennial allergic conjunctivitis, seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, atopic keratoconjunctivitis, and vernal keratoconjunctivitis. Diagnosis seeks to identify the etiologic agent, and confirmation is given by conjunctival provocation testing. Treatment is based on avoiding contact with triggers, lubrication, topical antihistamines, mast cell stabilizers, immunosuppressants, and specific immunotherapy with the aim of achieving control and preventing disease complications.

Anaphylaxis in Latin America: a report of the online Latin American survey on anaphylaxis (OLASA)

OBJECTIVES: The aims of the Online Latin American Survey of Anaphylaxis (OLASA) were to identify the main clinical manifestations, triggers, and treatments of severe allergic reactions in patients who were seen by allergists from July 2008 to June 2010 in 15 Latin American countries and Portugal (n =634). RESULTS: Of all patients, 68.5 percent were older than 18 years, 41.6 percent were male, and 65.4 percent experienced the allergic reaction at home. The etiologic agent was identified in 87.4 percent of cases and predominantly consisted of drugs (31.2 percent), foods (23.3 percent), and insect stings (14.9 percent). The main symptom categories observed during the acute episodes were cutaneous (94.0 percent) and respiratory (79.0 percent). The majority of patients (71.6 percent) were treated initially by a physician (office/emergency room) within the first hour after the reaction occurred (60.2 percent), and 43.5 percent recovered in the first hour after treatment. Most patients were treated in an emergency setting, but only 37.3 percent received parenteral epinephrine alone or associated with other medication. However, 80.5 percent and 70.2 percent were treated with corticosteroids or antihistamines (alone or in association), respectively. A total of 12.9 percent of the patients underwent reanimation maneuvers, and 15.2 percent were hospitalized. Only 5.8 percent of the patients returned to the emergency room after discharge, with 21.7 percent returning in the first 6 hours after initial treatment. CONCLUSION: The main clinical manifestations of severe allergic reactions were cutaneous. The etiologic agents that were identified as causing these acute episodes differed according to age group. Following in order: drugs (31.2 percent), foods (23.3 percent and insect stings (14.9 percent) in adults with foods predominance in children. Treatment provided for acute anaphylactic reactions was not appropriate. It is necessary to improve educational programs in order to enhance the knowledge on this potentially fatal emergency.