Sensitization, asthma and allergic disease in young soccer players.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence of allergic disease in young soccer players compared to age-matched students and to evaluate if this prevalence changes as the intensity of training increases. METHODS: A modified ECRHS questionnaire was administered to 194 soccer players divided by age as Beginners (8-11 years), Juniors (12-16 years) and Under 21 (17-20 years) to evaluate the prevalence of allergic diseases and symptoms as well as drug consumption. Subjects with a positive personal history of allergic diseases underwent skin prick and/or patch tests. Age-matched students (n = 136) were used as a control group. RESULTS: The prevalence of allergic diseases was 34.5% in soccer players and 31.6% in control subjects (n.s.). Skin sensitization to inhalant allergens was detected in 14.4% of symptomatic soccer players and in 19.2% of control students (n.s.). Patch tests were positive in 35.7% of soccer players and 23.0% of controls with allergic dermatitis (n.s.). The prevalence of allergic diseases did not significantly change in relation to the intensity of training. Although the relative prevalence of sensitization to perennial allergens and asthma was less frequent in soccer players than in controls, and the occurrence of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction was similar in the two groups, soccer players used twice as many anti-allergic and anti-asthmatic drugs as control students. CONCLUSIONS: An increasingly intensive training programme is not associated with greater risk of allergic disease in soccer players. Therapy regimens of allergic athletes and exercisers should be monitored more closely to guarantee adequate treatment yet avoid inappropriate drug use and doping practices.

Allergic and pseudoallergic reactions induced by glucocorticoids: a review.

Glucocorticoids (GCs) represent the most effective treatment for autoimmune and allergic diseases, even if collateral effects are not rare, especially endocrine and immunosuppressive manifestations. Moreover, these drugs can develop adverse immunological reactions of I, III or IV type. Though immediate adverse reactions caused by systemic therapy with GCs are not very frequent, the possible beginning of anaphylactic and pseudo-anaphylactic manifestations in patients undergoing therapy with these drugs has to be considered. It has been observed that immediate adverse reactions usually are happened in asthmatic patients and in patients obliged to assume GCs again and again because of their pathology (e.g, kidney transplant). Other risk factors resulted to be female sex and hypersensibility to acetylsalicylic acid (ASA). Both in the cases of pseudo-allergic and allergic reactions, the pharmacological principle is hardly the responsible agent for the reaction; instead the excipients in drugs are often implicated (succinate salt, sulphites and carboxy-methyl-cellulose). It is possible that the IgE-response is highly specific for a fixed GC molecule as well depending on the way of administration and its salification. Moreover, it has been hypothesized that in patients with a first type allergic reaction to GCs there is a fourth type, sensitization to GCs, which is not usually diagnosed and even comes before IgE sensitization. Third type hypersensibility reactions may occur, too. Since GCs are large-scale drugs, also in emergency medicine and reanimation, allergic sensitization towards them, although infrequent, gives many interventionist problems. In the light of this feature, it seems of crucial importance to verify the tolerance toward other GC molecules. And in particular, it has been noted that patients presenting immediate reactions to hydrocortisone (HC) and methylprednisolone (MP) could tolerate prednisone and prednisolone per os and second-generation GCs, such as desamathazone and betamethazone. Nevertheless, second-generation GCs must not be considered safe; in fact, the beginning of allergic manifestations has been pointed out even towards them.

Alternative glucocorticoids for use in cases of adverse reaction to systemic glucocorticoids: a study on 10 patients.

BACKGROUND: Reactions to systemically administered corticosteroids are rare, despite their widespread use. OBJECTIVES: To identify alternative glucocorticoids for emergency use in patients with adverse reactions to systemic glucocorticoids. METHODS: Ten patients were identified as having adverse reactions after the use of systemic corticosteroids. Skin prick tests and intradermal tests to hydrocortisone (HC) and methylprednisolone (MP), and intradermal tests to betamethasone and dexamethasone, were performed in all patients, and oral challenge tests to betamethasone (n=10) and deflazacort (n=6). RESULTS: Skin prick tests were negative in all patients, whereas intradermal tests to HC and MP were positive in eight; two patients showed only an isolated cutaneous sensitivity to MP. Intradermal tests to betamethasone and dexamethasone were negative, and oral challenge tests were negative in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the possibility of an IgE-mediated mechanism for allergic reactions to HC and MP, probably due, at least in part, to a steroid-glyoxal. We suggest that betamethasone and deflazacort could be reserved for emergency use in patients with adverse reactions to other corticosteroids.

Contact dermatitis in students practicing sports: incidence of rubber sensitisation.

BACKGROUND: Over the last few years, changes in cutaneous homoeostasis resulting from sports activities have been reported. In particular, alterations in sweating mechanisms, the hydrolipid barrier, and surface bacterial flora, together with exposure to atmospheric conditions and the need to use medicaments, detergents, and other topical substances, predispose subjects to allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of allergic contact dermatitis in a group of young people practising sports activities. METHODS: Patch tests were performed to confirm the diagnosis of irritant or allergic dermatitis; in addition, the radioallergoabsorbent test (RAST) to latex was evaluated in the group studied. RESULTS: Allergic contact dermatitis caused by thiourams (23.3%) and mercaptobenzothiazole (20.9%) was prevalent. Other haptens, such as benzocaine and nickel, which are contained in clothing, equipment, topical medicaments, and creams used for massage, were also allergenic. In two cases, RAST positivity to latex was registered. CONCLUSIONS: -The results suggest that close contact with sports equipment may increase the incidence of allergic contact dermatitis. Students practising certain sports may have "professional" allergic contact dermatitis to additives used in the production of rubber.