Allergy Considerations in Implanted Neuromodulation Devices.

OBJECTIVES: Allergic reactions are rare and poorly understood complications of neuromodulation device implantation. There are currently no guidelines for management of allergic reactions to these devices and their components. Here we review the published cases of allergic reactions to implanted neuromodulatory devices and leverage the experiences of other specialties that deal with similar complications to formulate recommendations for prevention and management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review and assessment of the literature. RESULTS: Allergic reactions to a number of implantable devices have been observed and published. In dentistry and orthopedics, metals such as nickel are the most frequent cause of allergic reactions. In interventional cardiology, where devices closely resemble neuromodulatory devices, titanium, silicone, and polyurethanes are the most common causes of allergic reactions. In neurosurgery, allergic reactions to implantable neuromodulatory devices are rare, and we summarize 13 cases published to date. Such allergic reactions generally present as local dermatitis, erythema, and pruritus, which can be difficult to distinguish from surgical site infection. In one published case, symptoms resolved with corticosteroid treatment, but all other cases required explantation. The successful reimplantation with a modified device was reported in some cases. CONCLUSIONS: Patients should be screened for a personal history of contact allergy before implantation procedures. A multidisciplinary approach to suspected cases of postoperative allergic reactions involving collaboration between neurosurgeons and other implanting physicians, dermatologists or allergists, and device manufacturers is recommended. In cases where an allergic reaction is suspected, an infectious etiology should be ruled out first. Clinical suspicion can then be supported with the use of patch testing, interpreted by an experienced dermatologist or allergist. If patch testing supports an allergic etiology, the implanting physician and the device manufacturer can work together to modify the device for safe reimplantation.

High-risk drug rashes.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a brief overview of the clinical presentation, common offending agents, management, prognosis, and mortality of 6 selected high-risk drug rashes, namely, Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, multiple drug hypersensitivity (MDH) syndrome, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), and drug-induced bullous pemphigoid (DIBP). DATA SOURCES: A review of the published literature was performed with PubMed and supplemented with our clinical experience. STUDY SELECTIONS: The most recent clinically relevant studies and older seminal works were selected. RESULTS: Most of the published data on these uncommon rashes were based on small observational series or case reports. SJS and TEN have specific genotypes association with certain drugs, have high morbidity and mortality, and require aggressive management by a team of multiple specialists. DRESS syndrome is a severe, prolonged multiorgan reaction, yet it has a better prognosis than TEN. MDH is a syndrome of repeated reactions to unrelated drugs that often imposes diagnostic and management difficulties. AGEP consists of generalized sterile small pustules, usually mistaken for infection with subsequent inappropriate treatment. Bullous pemphigoid presents with tense pruritic bullae and characteristic linear basement membrane deposition of IgG and C3. DIBP has much better prognosis than the autoimmune variety. CONCLUSION: In such high-risk drug rashes, early recognition, immediate withdrawal of the suspected drug(s), prompt individualized management, and monitoring of vital organs function are mandatory for reducing morbidity and mortality. The lack of reliable tests for identification of the causative agent imposes difficulty, particularly in patients receiving multiple medications.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis Clinical Manifestations and Differential Diagnosis.

As a chronic inflammatory disease with eosinophilic infiltrate of the esophagus, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) causes a variety of gastrointestinal (GI) clinical manifestations. None of the symptoms, endoscopic features, or biopsy findings is pathognomonic of the disease, even with high degrees of esophageal eosinophilia. The pathogenesis has been explored by several studies, yet it still far from being completely understood. Evidence supports a role of allergen-driven Th2 lymphocyte mechanism, though not in every patient. This article addresses the disease's clinical manifestations, endoscopic findings, diagnosis, and differential diagnoses. In addition to the current diagnostic criteria, we summarize some recently emerging procedures that promise of enhancing more precise diagnosis and institution of early appropriate management, with consequent better quality of life and reduction of complications.

[Epidemiological characteristics of patients with food allergy assisted at Regional Center of Allergies and Clinical Immunology of Monterrey]. / Características epidemiológicas de pacientes con alergia a alimentos atendidos en el Centro Regional de alergias e Inmunologia Clínica de Monterrey.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy is an abnormal immunologic response to food allergens. Prevalence varies between 2% and 8%, although it could vary according to age and ethnicity. Clinical manifestations are diverse among systems. There is few information about this issue. OBJECTIVE: To know epidemiologic features in patients with food allergy attended at Monterrey University Hospital. PATIENTS AND METHOD: An observational, transversal and retrospective study was done, identifying 60 patients with food allergy diagnosis attended in our service from June 1, 2007 to December 31, 2008. Epidemiologic and clinical data were registered. Data was processed with statistical program SPSS v16.0 for windows with descriptive statistic. RESULTS: The frequency of food allergy reported in first time medical consultation was 2.67%, 51% of the patients were under 5 years of age. Most frequent foods were: dairy products, egg, fish, shrimp, beans, soy, chili, mango, cacao, and strawberry. Main symptoms were cutaneous in 58% of the patients, followed by gastrointestinal and respiratory. Most common concomitant diseases were: urticarial angioedema (38%), allergic rhinitis (20%), atopic dermatitis (15%), and asthma (6.6%). Average time for diagnosis was 1.45 years. CONCLUSIONS: Most common foods with positive Prick test results were dairy products, egg and fish. Despite the variability of the clinical manifestations, cutaneous and gastrointestinal manifestations are the most frequent; however, the diagnosis depends on the suspicion as well.