The role of skin tests with polyethylene glycol and polysorbate 80 in the vaccination campaign for COVID-19: results from an Italian multicenter survey.

Summary: Background. International guidelines suggested skin tests with Polyethylene-glycol (PEG) and polysorbate 80 (PS-80), to investigate a possible hypersensitivity to these excipients either to identify subjects at risk of developing allergic reactions to Covid-19 vaccines, or in patients with suspected IgE mediated hypersensitivity reactions (HR) to the Covid-19 vaccine. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of PEG and PS sensitization in patients with a clinical history of HR to drugs containing PEG/PS and in patients with a suspected Covid-19 vaccine immediate HR. Methods. This was a multicenter retrospective study conducted by allergists belonging to 20 Italian medical centers. Skin testing was performed in 531 patients with either a clinical history of suspected hypersensitivity reaction (HR) to drugs containing PEG and/or PS-80 (group 1:362 patient) or a suspected HR to Covid-19 vaccines (group 2: 169 patient), as suggested by the AAIITO/SIAAIC guidelines for the "management of patients at risk of allergic reactions to Covid-19 vaccines" [1]. Results. 10/362 (0.02%) had positive skin test to one or both excipients in group 1, 12/169 (7.1%) in group 2 (p less than 0.01). In group 2 HRs to Covid-19 vaccines were immediate in 10/12 of cases and anaphylaxis occurred in 4/12 of patients. Conclusions. The positivity of skin test with PEG and or PS before vaccination is extremely rare and mostly replaceable by an accurate clinical history. Sensitization to PEG and PS has to be investigated in patients with a previous immediate HR to a Covid-19 vaccine, in particular in patients with anaphylaxis.

Evaluation of two commercial peach extracts for skin prick testing in the diagnosis of hypersensitivity to lipid transfer protein. A multicenter study.

Summary: The clinical usefulness of two commercial peach extracts for SPT (by Lofarma SpA and ALK-Abellò, respectively) was compared in a multicenter study carried out in Italy. Peach allergic patients were tested with the two extracts in parallel and underwent the detection of IgE specific for all three peach allergens currently available (Pru p1, Pru p3, and Pru p4, respectively). The two extracts were almost identical in terms of sensitivity and specificity, being able to detect virtually all patients sensitized to stable peach allergens (lipid transfer protein (LTP) and, presumably, peamaclein) but scoring negative in patients exclusively sensitive to labile allergens (either PR-10 and/or profilin). Thus, the two extracts represent an excellent tool to carry out a preliminary component-resolved diagnosis of peach allergy at the first patient visit.

Sensitization to Gibberellin-Regulated Protein (Peamaclein) Among Italian Cypress Pollen-Sensitized Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Peach gibberellin-regulated protein (peamaclein) has recently emerged as a relevant food allergen in cypress pollen-hypersensitive patients. Objective: We investigated monosensitization to peamaclein among Italian cypress pollen-allergic patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 835 cypress pollen-hypersensitive patients from 28 Italian allergy centers underwent a thorough work-up to determine food-allergic reactions and performed skin prick testing with a commercial peach extract containing peamaclein. IgE to rPru p 3 was measured in peach reactors, and those with negative results were enrolled as potentially monosensitized to peamaclein. IgE reactivity to rPru p 7 was evaluated using immunoblot and an experimental ImmunoCAP with rPru p 7. RESULTS: Skin prick tests were positive to peach in 163 patients (19.5%); however, 127 (77.9%) were excluded because they reacted to Pru p 3. Twenty-four patients (14.7%) corresponding to 2.8% of the entire study population) were considered potentially monosensitized to peamaclein. No geographic preference was observed. Seventeen of the 24 patients (70.8%) had a history of food allergy, mainly to peach (n=15). Additional offending foods included other Rosaceae, citrus fruits, fig, melon, tree nuts, and kiwi. On peach immunoblot, only 3 of 18 putative peamaclein-allergic patients reacted to a band at about 7 kDa; an additional 4 patients reacted at about 50-60 kDa. Ten of 18 patients (56%) had a positive result for Pru p 7 on ImmunoCAP. CONCLUSION: Allergy and sensitization to peamaclein seem rare in Italy. Most patients react to peach, although other Rosaceae fruits and several citrus fruits may also be offending foods. Peach and cypress pollen probably also share cross-reacting allergens other than peamaclein.

LTP allergy/sensitization in a pediatric population

Plant lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) are widespread plant food allergens, highly resistant to food processing and to the gastrointestinal environment, which have been described as the most common food allergens in the Mediterranean area. LTP allergy is widely described in adults, but it represents an emerging allergen also in the pediatric population. Little is known about the real prevalence and the clinical features of this allergy in children and it still often remains underdiagnosed in these patients. An early identification and a deeper knowledge of this allergy in childhood can avoid severe systemic reactions and improve the child's quality of life. Pediatricians should always consider the possibility of LTP involvement in cases of plant-derived food allergy

No disponible

Adverse reaction to Ficus Carica: reported case of a possible cross-reactivity with Der p1.

BACKGROUND: Ficus carica is an edible fruit, belonging to the Moraceae family, rarely described as cause of food allergy. We describe the first case of fig allergy that occurred as a cross-reactivity between fig and Derp 1. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a case of a 10-years-old-girl, with a history of no-seasonal mild intermittent rhinitis, who experienced an immediate reaction after ingestion of a fresh fig. Skin prick tests (SPT) with commercial extracts of food, airborne allergens, latex and panallergens (profilin, PR-10 and lipid transfer protein) were performed. SPT revealed a sensitization only for dermatophagoides farina and dermatophagoides pteronyssinus which was then confirmed with by specific IgE assay (UniCAP, Phadia, Uppsala, Sweden). We also carried out a positive SPT with a commercial fig allergen (Lofarma, Milan, Italy) and prick-by-prick (PBP) both with skin and pulp of green raw and cooked fig. Fig specific serum IgE levels were 1.08 U/ml and specific IgE for rDer p1 was 16.20 U/ml (total serum IgE = 377 U/ml). In contrast specific IgE levels for latex, LTP, profilin, PR-10 and pollen allergens were negative. CONCLUSION: The ficin, the major fig allergen, belongs to cysteine protease family like Der p 1. The symptoms presented by our patient could be related to a cross reactivity between these two proteins which present a structural homology.

LTP allergy/sensitization in a pediatric population.

Plant lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) are widespread plant food allergens, highly resistant to food processing and to the gastrointestinal environment, which have been described as the most common food allergens in the Mediterranean area. LTP allergy is widely described in adults, but it represents an emerging allergen also in the pediatric population. Little is known about the real prevalence and the clinical features of this allergy in children and it still often remains underdiagnosed in these patients. An early identification and a deeper knowledge of this allergy in childhood can avoid severe systemic reactions and improve the child's quality of life. Pediatricians should always consider the possibility of LTP involvement in cases of plant-derived food allergy.

House dust mite allergy and shrimp allergy: a complex interaction.

Summary: Background and Objective. Sensitization and allergy to shrimp among Italian house dust mite allergic patients are not well defined and were investigated in a large multicenter study. Methods. Shrimp sensitization and allergy were assessed in 526 house dust mite (HDM)-allergic patients submitted to the detection of IgE to Der p 10 and 100 atopic control not sensitized to HDM. Results. Shrimp allergy occurred in 9% of patients (vs 0% of 100 atopic controls not sensitized to HDM; p minor 0.001). Shrimp-allergic patients were less frequently hypersensitive to airborne allergens other than HDM than crustacean-tolerant subjects (35% vs 58.8%; p minor 0.005). Only 51% of tropomyosin-sensitized patients had shrimp allergy, and these showed significantly higher Der p 10 IgE levels than shrimp-tolerant ones (mean 22.2 KU/l vs 6.2 KU/l; p minor 0.05). Altogether 53% of shrimp-allergic patients did not react against tropomyosin. Conclusions. Shrimp allergy seems to occur uniquely in association with hypersensitivity to HDM allergens and tropomyosin is the main shrimp allergen but not a major one, at least in Italy. Along with tropomyosin-specific IgE levels, monosensitization to HDM seems to represent a risk factor for the development of shrimp allergy among HDM allergic patients.

Eosinophilic esophagitis during latex desensitization

No disponible

Metronidazole hypersensitivity in a patient with angioedema and widespread rash

No disponible

The Importance of Complying with Vaccination Protocols in Developed Countries: "Anti-Vax" Hysteria and the Spread of Severe Preventable Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines are very effective medical tools for disease prevention and life span increase. Controversies have raised concern about their safety, from autism to polio vaccine contamination with simian virus 40 (SV-40). Hysteria surrounding vaccine-associated risks has resulted in a declining number of vaccinations in developed countries. Outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases (e.g. measles) have occurred in Europe and North America, causing also some causalities. OBJECTIVES: In this review, data on safety and efficacy of vaccines are discussed, showing that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks and that it is important to comply with vaccination protocols, to avoid spreading of severe, preventable diseases. METHODS: Those opposed to vaccinations suggest that scientific literature supporting vaccines is influenced by pharmaceutical companies. In this review, studies on influenza produced by independent scientists and those authored by those who received some kind of benefit from the industry are discussed separately. All the chosen papers were selected through a MEDLINE research. RESULTS: Vaccination rates are decreasing, even though they are effective public health tools. Influenza, for example, is responsible for 250,000-500,000 deaths each year, according to the WHO. Yet, campaigns to extend influenza vaccine to all elderly subjects report little success, because of the vaccine scare and because not all patients develop immunity following vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: This review proves that vaccine hysteria is detrimental because: 1) it causes an increased morbidity and mortality from preventable diseases; 2) it jeopardizes research for new vaccines; 3) patients are reluctant to accept any form of immune-therapy, commonly referred to as "vaccination".

A case of hypocomplementemic urticarial vasculitis syndrome successfully treated with omalizumab

No disponible

Cross-reactivity and Tolerability of Ertapenem in Patients With IgE-Mediated Hypersensitivity to ß-Lactams.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Administration of carbapenems to ß-lactam-allergic patients has always been considered potentially harmful because of a 47.4% rate of cross-reactivity to imipenem reported in a single study. Nevertheless, recent studies have shown that the rate of cross-reactivity of imipenem and meropenem with penicillins is lower than 1%. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possibility of using ertapenem in patients with an established IgE-mediated ß-lactam allergy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied all participants who came to our allergy unit and had a clinical history of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to ß-lactams. The inclusion criteria were a positive skin test result to at least 1 ß-lactam molecule and/or positive specific IgE (when available). All participants underwent immediate-type skin tests with several ß-lactam molecules including ertapenem. Challenges with intravenous ertapenem were performed on 2 different days in patients with negative skin test results. RESULTS: We examined 49 patients with a clinical history of immediate reactions to ß-lactams. All the patients had positive skin tests and/or positive specific IgE to at least 1 ß-lactam reagent and negative carbapenem skin tests. Thirty-six patients agreed to undergo the challenges and 35 tolerated the full dose of ertapenem. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of avoiding carbapenems in patients with ß-lactam allergy should be abandoned considering the very low rate of cross-reactivity. ß-Lactam-allergic patients who need ertapenem therapy should undergo skin tests and, if negative, a graded challenge to assess tolerability.

Cross-reactivity and tolerability of Ertapenem in patients with IgE-mediated hypersensitivy to Beta-lactams

Background and Objective: Administration of carbapenems to β-lactam-allergic patients has always been considered potentially harmful because of a 47.4% rate of cross-reactivity to imipenem reported in a single study. Nevertheless, recent studies have shown that the rate of cross-reactivity of imipenem and meropenem with penicillins is lower than 1%. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possibility of using ertapenem in patients with an established IgE-mediated β-lactam allergy. Patients and Methods: We studied all participants who came to our allergy unit and had a clinical history of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to β-lactams. The inclusion criteria were a positive skin test result to at least 1 β-lactam molecule and/or positive specific IgE (when available). All participants underwent immediate-type skin tests with several β-lactam molecules including ertapenem. Challenges with intravenous ertapenem were performed on 2 different days in patients with negative skin test results. Results: We examined 49 patients with a clinical history of immediate reactions to β-lactams. All the patients had positive skin tests and/or positive specific IgE to at least 1 β-lactam reagent and negative carbapenem skin tests. Thirty-six patients agreed to undergo the challenges and 35 tolerated the full dose of ertapenem. Conclusions: The practice of avoiding carbapenems in patients with β-lactam allergy should be abandoned considering the very low rate of cross-reactivity. β-Lactam-allergic patients who need ertapenem therapy should undergo skin tests and, if negative, a graded challenge to assess tolerability (AU)

Introducción y Objetivo: Siempre se ha considerado peligrosa la administración de carbapenems a pacientes alérgicos a betalactámicos por la presencia de reactividad cruzada en el 47,4% de los casos descrita en un estudio previo. Sin embargo, estudios recientes han mostrado que la reactividad cruzada de imipenem y meropenem con penicilinas es inferior al 1%. El objetivo de este estudio es valorar el uso de ertapenem en pacientes diagnosticado de alergia IgE mediada a betalactámicos. Pacientes y Métodos: Se incluyeron todos los pacientes que acudieron a nuestra unidad de Alergia con historia clínica de alergia inmediata a betalactámicos. Los criterios de inclusión fueron prueba cutánea positiva con al menos un betalactámico y/o IgE específica positiva (cuando estuviese disponible). Se realizaron pruebas cutáneas con betalactámicos, incluyendo ertapenem, con lectura inmediata en todos los pacientes. Se realizaron pruebas de provocación endovenosas con ertapenem en los pacientes con pruebas cutáneas negativas frente al mismo en dos días diferentes. Resultados: Se incluyeron 49 pacientes con historia clínica de alergia inmediata a betalactámicos. Todos los pacientes tenían pruebas cutáneas positivas y/o IgE específica positiva al menos a uno de los betalactámicos así como prueba cutánea negativa con carbapenémicos. Treinta y seis pacientes aceptaron la realización de pruebas de provocación con ertapenem que fueron tolerados por treinta y cinco de dichos pacientes. Conclusión: El hecho de recomendar evitar carbapenems en pacientes con alergia a betalactámicos debería ser abandonado, dada la baja reactividad cruzada que presentan. En los pacientes con alergia a betalactámicos que necesiten ertapenem se deberían realizar pruebas cutáneas con el fármaco y en caso de ser negativas, realizar un test de exposición progresiva para confirmar su tolerancia (AU)

A case of heparin allergy with good tolerability to fondaparinux during pregnancy

No disponible