A case of isocyanate-induced asthma possibly complicated by food allergy after peanut consumption: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Isocyanates are extensively used in the manufacture of polyurethane foams, plastics, coatings or adhesives. They are a major cause of occupational asthma in a proportion of exposed workers. Recent findings in animal models have demonstrated that isocyanate-induced asthma does not always represent an IgE-mediated sensitization, but still a mixed profile of CD4+ Th1 and TH2, as well as a CD8+ immune response. Despite immunologic similarities between this pathology and IgE-mediated food allergies, this co-morbidity is rarely reported.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>A 50-year old man employed as vehicle body painter, for 8 years complained about breathlessness, wheezing, sneezing, nasal obstruction and excessive production of mucus during the use of DuPont Refinish Centari Tintings – an acrylic enamel tint. Symptoms occurred 15–20 minutes after workplace exposure and usually persisted until evening, or at times, up to two consecutive days. The above mentioned symptoms were associated with a decrease of lung functions parameters. The use of inhaled adrenergic bronchio-dilatators and steroids relived the symptoms.</p> <p>In addition, three years ago he developed an anaphylactic reaction due to peanut consumption, experiencing urticaria, angioedema and airway obstruction. He was successfully treated in the hospital. Later, the subject exhibited labial itching, as well as orbital and perioral angioedema, 20 minutes after stationary performance of challenge test with peanuts.</p> <p>Evaluating the reported data, this process might be developed rather due to induction of a TH2 profile, because in both cases have occurred IgE-mediated symptoms. A less plausible mechanism could be the presence of isocyanates in peanuts due to a probable contamination by pesticides resulting in an allergic reaction after "consumption" of di-isocyanate as long as the isocyanate contamination of peanuts has not been proven.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Despite the lack of relevant laboratory findings, this might be the first case of isocyanate-induced occupational asthma described in a patient who developed peanut allergy symptoms later in his life. However, in order to take further suitable precautions, further studies are necessary to elucidate the questions posed in this report.</p

Adverse events in children and adolescents undergoing allergen immunotherapy for respiratory allergies—Report from the Allergen Immunotherapy Adverse Events Registry (ADER), a European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology taskforce

Abstract Background Although it has been shown that allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is well‐tolerated in children, systematic and prospective surveillance of AIT safety in real life settings is needed. Methods The multinational Allergen Immunotherapy Adverse Events Registry (ADER) was designed to address AIT safety in real life clinical practice. Data on children ≤18 years old with respiratory allergies undergoing AIT were retrieved. Patient‐ and AIT‐related features were collected and analyzed. The characteristics of adverse events (AE) and risk factors were evaluated. Results A total of 851 patients, 11.3 ± 3.4 years old, with rhinitis only (47.6%); asthma and rhinitis (44.5%); asthma (7.9%), receiving 998 AIT courses were analyzed. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) accounted for 51% of the courses. In 84.5% of patients only one AIT treatment was prescribed. Pollen was the most frequent sensitizer (57.1%), followed by mites (53.4%), molds (18.2%) and epithelia (16.7%). Local and systemic AEs were reported in 85 patients (9.9%). Most AEs (83.1%) were mild and occurred in <30 min (87%). Respiratory and cutaneous symptoms were more frequent. Only 4 patients (0.47%) had severe AE (none after 6 weeks of maintenance). The risk of AE was higher in patients undergoing SCIT. Conclusions AIT is safe and well tolerated in children and adolescents with respiratory allergies in real‐life clinical practice. Though SCIT is more prone to AE compared to SLIT, overall severe reactions are rare and occur during build‐up and early maintenance