Subject(s)
Asthma/epidemiology , Anxiety/epidemiology , Bronchiectasis/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Consensus , Delphi Technique , Disease Progression , Dyspnea/epidemiology , Female , Gastroesophageal Reflux/epidemiology , Humans , Nasal Polyps/epidemiology , Obesity/epidemiology , Pregnancy , Smoking/epidemiology , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Female , Pregnancy , Asthma/diagnosis , Asthma/therapy , Comorbidity , Expert Systems , Expert Testimony , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Immunotherapy/methods , Immunoglobulin E/administration & dosage , Salsola/adverse effects , Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal/immunology , Salsola/immunology , Pollen/adverse effectsABSTRACT
The evacuant solution (ES) is a drug that has been used to clean the colon. The most common described side effects when using this drug are abdominal symptoms; skin rash is rare. We report on two patients who presented urticaria and angioedem after the intake of an evacuant solution to make a rectoscopy. We performed allergy studies: skin prick tests with common inhalants, pure ES and the components (polyethylene glycol 4000 (PEG 4000), KCI, NaCO3, NaPO3, NaSO3, NaCI, neohesperydine, potasic acesulfam and orange flavouring), intradermic test, total serum IgE and single-blind placebo oral challenge with ES and the components. We report on the first cases of immediate allergy reactions (type1) caused by oral intake of a drug containing PEG 4000 which were demonstrated by intradermic tests and oral challenge.
Subject(s)
Angioedema/chemically induced , Cathartics/adverse effects , Polyethylene Glycols/adverse effects , Urticaria/chemically induced , Administration, Oral , Adult , Angioedema/blood , Angioedema/immunology , Cathartics/administration & dosage , Cathartics/chemistry , Colonoscopy , Humans , Immunoglobulin E/blood , Intradermal Tests , Male , Polyethylene Glycols/administration & dosage , Polyethylene Glycols/chemistry , Urticaria/blood , Urticaria/immunologyABSTRACT
The evacuant solution (ES) is a drug that has been used to clean the colon. The most common described side effects when using this drug are abdominal symptoms; skin rash is rare. We report on two patients who presented urticaria and angioedem after the intake of an evacuant solution to make a rectoscopy. We performed allergy studies: skin prick tests with common inhalants, pure ES and the components (polyethylene glycol 4000 (PEG 4000), KCI, NaCO3, NaPO3, NaSO3, NaCI, neohesperydine, potasic acesulfam and orange flavouring), intradermic test, total serum IgE and single-blind placebo oral challenge with ES and the components. We report on the first cases of immediate allergy reactions (type1) caused by oral intake of a drug containing PEG 4000 which were demonstrated by intradermic tests and oral challenge
No disponible
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Adult , Female , Middle Aged , Polyethylene Glycols/adverse effects , Drug Hypersensitivity/complications , Drug Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Intradermal Tests/methods , Polyethylene Glycols/administration & dosage , Polyethylene Glycols/toxicity , Angioedema/complications , Intradermal Tests/statistics & numerical data , Intradermal Tests/trendsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Natural rubber latex allergy is an important health problem. Multiple contacts with latex in childhood are a risk factor. Many aspects of this disease are still unknown, one of which is the clinical outcome of these children. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and epidemiological features of latex allergy and compliance with latex avoidance instructions in allergic children. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventeen consecutive patients with a history of latex allergy, fruit allergy or chronic urticaria were selected. The patients underwent a skin prick test and determination of specific-IgE to latex at the start and at end of the study (median follow-up: 3 years). At diagnosis, patients with a positive result to one of the tests and a clinical history of latex allergy were considered allergic; patients with a positive test but without a clinical history suggestive of allergy were considered sensitized. These children were given latex avoidance instructions. RESULTS: Eleven children (64.7 %) were classified as allergic and 6 (35.3 %) as sensitized. Five patients had undergone latex-free surgery after diagnosis without incident. During follow-up, 11 patients (8 allergic and 3 sensitized) had contact with latex. Contact occurred in the home in 10 children, and all were symptomatic. Specific-IgE levels to latex at the end of the study were significantly higher in patients who had contact with latex during the follow-up period than in those without latex contact. CONCLUSIONS: Strict compliance with latex avoidance instructions is essential both inside and outside the hospital. Greater emphasis should be placed on reducing latex exposure in the home and school environments, as such contact could maintain positive IgE-antibody levels.
Subject(s)
Latex Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Adolescent , Antibody Specificity , Child , Child, Preschool , Chronic Disease , Comorbidity , Dermatitis, Atopic/epidemiology , Environmental Exposure , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Food Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Food Hypersensitivity/etiology , Fruit/adverse effects , Household Articles , Humans , Immunoglobulin E/biosynthesis , Immunoglobulin E/blood , Immunoglobulin E/immunology , Latex Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Latex Hypersensitivity/immunology , Male , Respiratory Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Skin Tests , Spain/epidemiology , Spinal Dysraphism/complications , Urticaria/epidemiology , Urticaria/etiologyABSTRACT
Background: Natural rubber latex allergy is an important health problem. Multiple contacts with latex in childhood are a risk factor. Many aspects of this disease are still unknown, one of which is the clinical outcome of these children. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and epidemiological features of latex allergy and compliance with latex avoidance instructions in allergic children. Material and methods: Seventeen consecutive patients with a history of latex allergy, fruit allergy or chronic urticaria were selected. The patients underwent a skin prick test and determination of specific-IgE to latex at the start and at end of the study (median follow-up: 3 years). At diagnosis, patients with a positive result to one of the tests and a clinical history of latex allergy were considered allergic; patients with a positive test but without a clinical history suggestive of allergy were considered sensitized. These children were given latex avoidance instructions. Results: Eleven children (64.7 %) were classified as allergic and 6 (35.3 %) as sensitized. Five patients had undergone latex-free surgery after diagnosis without incident. During follow-up, 11 patients (8 allergic and 3 sensitized) had contact with latex. Contact occurred in the home in 10 children, and all were symptomatic. Specific-IgE levels to latex at the end of the study were significantly higher in patients who had contact with latex during the follow-up period than in those without latex contact. Conclusions: Strict compliance with latex avoidance instructions is essential both inside and outside the hospital. Greater emphasis should be placed on reducing latex exposure in the home and school environments, as such contact could maintain positive IgE-antibody levels
Antecedentes: Un grupo de riesgo para la alergia al látex es la población infantil que presenta contactos sucesivos con este alérgeno desde edad muy temprana (intervenciones quirúrgicas de repetición). Aún se desconoce el patrón evolutivo de esta patología en esta población. Métodos y resultados: Se seleccionó a 17 pacientes con historia de alergia al látex, a frutas o urticaria crónica. Se realizó prueba cutánea y determinación de IgE específica frente a látex al inicio y al final del seguimiento. Al diagnóstico, los que presentaban alguna de las pruebas positivas con historia sugestiva de hipersensibilidad al látex fueron diagnosticados de alergia y quienes presentaban alguna prueba positiva, sin historia sugestiva, se consideraron sensibilizados. Se les realizaron indicaciones para la evitación de látex. Se diagnosticó a 11 pacientes como alérgicos (64,7%) y 6 (35,3%) como sensibilizados. Se intervino a 5 pacientes después del diagnóstico en quirófano libre de látex sin ninguna complicación. Durante el seguimiento, 11 pacientes (8 alérgicos y 3 sensibilizados) presentaron contactos con látex; 10 de ellos en el domicilio, y todos sintomáticos. La IgE específica frente a látex fue significativamente mayor al final del estudio en los pacientes que transgredieron con respecto a los que cumplieron la evitación (p = 0,007). Conclusiones: Se debe realizar un estricto control de las medidas de evitación en los niños alérgicos al látex en régimen hospitalario, pero consideramos necesario un esfuerzo para alcanzar un control igualmente estricto en el ambiente escolar y familiar de los niños de riesgo con el fin de reducir las transgresiones clínicas domiciliarias, responsables del mantenimiento de la sensibilización en algunos pacientes
Subject(s)
Child , Adolescent , Child, Preschool , Humans , Latex Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Latex Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Latex Hypersensitivity/immunology , Respiratory Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Spinal Dysraphism/complications , Urticaria/epidemiology , Urticaria/etiology , Antibody Specificity , Chronic Disease , Comorbidity , Dermatitis, Atopic/epidemiology , Follow-Up Studies , Food Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Food Hypersensitivity/etiology , Fruit/adverse effectsABSTRACT
We report the case of a 42-year-old non-smoking man, who had worked as a carpenter for 6 years and who reported a history of rhinorrhea, paroxysmal sneezing, nasocular pruritus, lacrimation, wheezing and dyspnea attacks while preparing a mixture to seal the junctures between wooden panels. Allergy study consisted of skin prick testing (SPT) to inhalants, foods and Lathyrus sativus flour (LSF) extract, specific bronchial provocation test with LSF extract, cytological analysis of sputum, specific IgE antibodies against LSF, and histamine releasing test with dilutions (1:5, 1:25, 1:125, 1:625) of LSF. The results demonstrated occupational rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma due to LSF exposure. We provide a review of published reports to date.
Subject(s)
Antigens, Plant/adverse effects , Conjunctivitis, Allergic/etiology , Construction Materials/adverse effects , Flour/adverse effects , Lathyrus/adverse effects , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial/etiology , Adult , Bronchial Provocation Tests , Conjunctivitis, Allergic/diagnosis , Humans , Hypersensitivity, Immediate/complications , Male , Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial/diagnosis , Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal/complicationsABSTRACT
We report the case of a 42-year-old non-smoking man, who had worked as a carpenter for 6 years and who reported a history of rhinorrhea, paroxysmal sneezing, nasocular pruritus, lacrimation, wheezing and dyspnea attacks while preparing a mixture to seal the junctures between wooden panels. Allergy study consisted of skin prick testing (SPT) to inhalants, foods and Lathyrus sativus flour (LSF) extract, specific bronchial provocation test with LSF extract, cytological analysis of sputum, specific IgE antibodies against LSF, and histamine releasing test with dilutions (1:5, 1:25, 1:125, 1:625) of LSF. The results demonstrated occupational rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma due to LSF exposure. We provide a review of published reports to date
No disponible
