Cutaneous reactions to heparin therapy: when are they caused by heparin allergy?

Introduction: Little is known about the incidence and causes of heparin-induced skin lesions. The most commonly reported causes are delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions. We describe 3 patients who were referred to our staff between March and October 2009 for suspected heparin allergies. All were scheduled to undergo major surgery (cardiovascular or orthopedic). Materials and methods: All 3 patients reported the development of itchy, erythematous rashes a few days after the subcutaneous administration of heparin (nadroparin calcium in cases 1 and 2, unspecified in case 3). Each of them underwent a diagnostic work-up for heparin allergy, which included prick and intradermal tests with commonly used heparins and patch testing with undiluted heparins and disinfectants. Results: Patch tests with disinfectants were negative in all 3 cases. In case 2, all allergological tests were negative. In cases 1 and 3, delayed positivity emerged for nadroparin calcium and at least one other heparin tested. Intravenous and/or subcutaneous provocation testing was done with an alternative heparin which produced negative results in skin tests (heparin sodium in case 1, pentasaccharide fondaparinux in case 3). In both cases the alternative drug was tolerated. After our evaluation, all 3 patients underwent surgery with no heparin-related complications. Discussion: The presenting clinical features in these 3 cases provided no information on which reactions were likely to be allergic: all 3 patients presented with similar local delayed reaction. The allergic reactions were identified only after cutaneous testing

Adherence to Allergen Subcutaneous Immunotherapy is Increased by a Shortened Build-Up Phase: A Retrospective Study

none10noIntroduction. The poor long-term adherence is known to affect the efficacy of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). In the case of injection AIT (SCIT), one of the main determinants is the inconvenience for patients to undergo prolonged build-up phases. Thus, simplifying the time schedule of the induction protocol could be effective in increasing the adherence to SCIT. Methods. We backtracked the SCIT renewal orders, thanks to the cooperation of the manufacturing company, and we compared the long-term adherence of 152 patients, who were prescribed with an abbreviated build-up schedule (4 injections, allergoid) with that of 302 patients treated with the same product, but with the traditional build-up protocol (7 injections). Results. According to the patient-named refills, those patients on the abbreviated build-up were significantly more compliant at the 2nd and 3rd year of treatment compared to the other group (p=0.0001). The drop-out rate after one year was also significantly lower between the two groups (p=0.0001). In the abbreviated group, as expected, reimbursed patients showed significantly better adherence compared with patients with no reimbursement at all (p<0.05). Conclusions. Abbreviating the build-up phase by reducing the number of injections significantly improves patients' adherence to SCIT.openopenCaruso C.; Brame B.; Bagnasco D.; Cocconcelli A.; Ortolani V.; Pravettoni V.; Scarpa S.; Zisa G.; Passalacqua G.; Colantuono S.Caruso, C.; Brame, B.; Bagnasco, D.; Cocconcelli, A.; Ortolani, V.; Pravettoni, V.; Scarpa, S.; Zisa, G.; Passalacqua, G.; Colantuono, S

Systemic allergic reactions induced by labile plant‐food allergens: Seeking potential cofactors. A multicenter study

Background: Heat-and-pepsin-sensitive plant food allergens (PR-10 and profilin) sometimes cause systemic reaction.Objective: To detect the risk factors for systemic reactions induced by labile food allergens.Methods: A retrospective multicenter study was performed on patients with a documented history of systemic allergic reaction to labile plant food allergens and on age-matched controls with a history of oral allergy syndrome (OAS) induced by the same foods. Offending foods, their amount, and state (solid or liquid), and potential cofactors (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, protonic pump inhibitors, exercise, alcohol, and fasting) were considered.Results: We studied 89 patients and 81 controls. Sensitization to PR-10 or profilin, IgE to Bet v 1 and/or Bet v 2, and foods causing OAS were similar in the two groups. Twenty patients experienced >1 systemic allergic reaction. Tree nuts, Rosaceae, Apiaceae, and soymilk were the main offending foods. Seventeen (19%) patients were taking a PPI when the systemic reaction occurred (vs 5% in controls; P < .025). The ingestion of the offending food in liquid form (soymilk) was frequent among patients (15%) but unusual among controls (2%; P < .025). Soy milk-induced systemic reactions were independent of PPI treatment. Fasting and excess of allergen, but not NSAID and exercise, were other relevant cofactors for systemic reactions. Systemic reactions occurred without any identifiable cofactor in 39 (44%) cases.Conclusion: PR-10- and profilin-induced systemic reactions are facilitated by PPI, ingestion of large amounts of unprocessed foods, and fasting. Soybean beverages represent a risk for PR-10 hypersensitive patients and should be avoided