A Case of Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis Caused by Penicillium species in a Home Environment

We report a case of hypersensitivity pneumonitis in a 30-yr-old female housewife caused by Penicillium species found in her home environment. The patient was diagnosed according to history, chest radiograph, spirometry, high-resolution chest CT, and transbronchial lung biopsy. To identify the causative agent, cultured aeromolds were collected by the open-plate method. From the main fungi cultured, fungal antigens were prepared, and immunoblot analysis with the patient's serum and each fungal antigen was performed. A fungal colonies were isolated from the patient's home. Immunoblotting analysis with the patient's sera demonstrated a IgG-binding fractions to Penicillium species extract, while binding was not noted with control subject. This study indicates that the patient had hypersensitivity pneumonitis on exposure to Penicillium species in her home environment

Acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction after amoxycillin-induced anaphylactic shock in a young adult with normal coronary arteries: a case report

BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarction (MI) following anaphylaxis is rare, especially in subjects with normal coronary arteries. The exact pathogenetic mechanism of MI in anaphylaxis remains unclear. CASE PRESENTATION: The case of a 32-year-old asthmatic male with systemic anaphylaxis, due to oral intake of 500 mg amoxycillin, complicated by acute ST-elevation MI is the subject of this report. Following admission to the local Health Center and almost simultaneously with the second dose of subcutaneous epinephrine (0.2 mg), the patient developed acute myocardial injury. Coronary arteriography, performed before discharge, showed no evidence of obstructive coronary artery disease. In vivo allergological evaluation disclosed strong sensitivity to amoxycillin and the minor (allergenic) determinants of penicillin. CONCLUSION: Acute ST-elevation MI is a rare but potential complication of anaphylactic reactions, even in young adults with normal coronary arteries. Coronary artery spasm appears to be the main causative mechanism of MI in the setting of "cardiac anaphylaxis". However, on top of the vasoactive reaction, a thrombotic occlusion, induced by mast cell-derived mediators and facilitated by prolonged hypotension, cannot be excluded as a possible contributory factor

A 24 kDa Excretory-Secretory Protein of Anisakis simplex Larvae Could Elicit Allergic Airway Inflammation in Mice

We have reported that a 24 kDa protein (22U homologous; As22U) of Anisakis simplex larvae could elicit several Th2-related chemokine gene expressions in the intestinal epithelial cell line which means that As22U may play a role as an allergen. In order to determine the contribution of As22U to allergic reactions, we treated mice with 6 times intra-nasal application of recombinant As22U (rAs22U). In the group challenged with rAs22U and ovalbumin (OVA), the number of eosinophils in the bronchial alveolar lavage fluid (BALF) was significantly increased, as compared to the group receiving only OVA. In addition, mice treated with rAs22U and OVA showed significantly increased airway hyperresponsiveness. Thus, severe inflammation around the airway and immune cell recruitment was observed in mice treated with rAs22U plus OVA. The levels of IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13 cytokines in the BALF increased significantly after treatment with rAs22U and OVA. Similarly, the levels of anti-OVA specific IgE and IgG1 increased in mice treated with rAs22U and OVA, compared to those treated only with OVA. The Gro-α (CXCL1) gene expression in mouse lung epithelial cells increased instantly after treatment with rAs22U, and allergy-specific chemokines eotaxin (CCL11) and thymus-and-activation-regulated-chemokine (CCL17) gene expressions significantly increased at 6 hr after treatment. In conclusion, rAs22U may induce airway allergic inflammation, as the result of enhanced Th2 and Th17 responses

Naturally Occurring Food Toxins

Although many foods contain toxins as a naturally-occurring constituent or, are formed as the result of handling or processing, the incidence of adverse reactions to food is relatively low. The low incidence of adverse effects is the result of some pragmatic solutions by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulatory agencies through the creative use of specifications, action levels, tolerances, warning labels and prohibitions. Manufacturers have also played a role by setting limits on certain substances and developing mitigation procedures for process-induced toxins. Regardless of measures taken by regulators and food producers to protect consumers from natural food toxins, consumption of small levels of these materials is unavoidable. Although the risk for toxicity due to consumption of food toxins is fairly low, there is always the possibility of toxicity due to contamination, overconsumption, allergy or an unpredictable idiosyncratic response. The purpose of this review is to provide a toxicological and regulatory overview of some of the toxins present in some commonly consumed foods, and where possible, discuss the steps that have been taken to reduce consumer exposure, many of which are possible because of the unique process of food regulation in the United States

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. However, it is not clear whether the sublingual delivery route is safe and effective in asthma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/) and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles. The search is up to date as of 25 March 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. We resolved disagreements by discussion.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We rated all outcomes using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and presented results in the 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-two studies met our inclusion criteria, randomly assigning 5077 participants to comparisons of interest. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, but studies varied in duration from one day to three years. Most participants had mild or intermittent asthma, often with co-morbid allergic rhinitis. Eighteen studies recruited only adults, 25 recruited only children and several recruited both or did not specify (n = 9).With the exception of adverse events, reporting of outcomes of interest to this review was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence. Allocation procedures generally were not well described, about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of bias for performance or detection bias or both and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies.One short study reported exacerbations requiring a hospital visit and observed no adverse events. Five studies reported quality of life, but the data were not suitable for meta-analysis. Serious adverse events were infrequent, and analysis using risk differences suggests that no more than 1 in 100 are likely to suffer a serious adverse event as a result of treatment with SLIT (RD 0.0012, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0077 to 0.0102; participants = 2560; studies = 22; moderate-quality evidence).Within secondary outcomes, wide but varied reporting of largely unvalidated asthma symptom and medication scores precluded meaningful meta-analysis; a general trend suggested SLIT benefit over placebo, but variation in scales meant that results were difficult to interpret.Changes in inhaled corticosteroid use in micrograms per day (MD 35.10 mcg/d, 95% CI -50.21 to 120.42; low-quality evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events) and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.69, 95% CI -0.04 to 1.43; very low-quality evidence) were not often reported. This led to many imprecise estimates with wide confidence intervals that included the possibility of both benefit and harm from SLIT.More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.38; low-quality evidence; participants = 1755; studies = 19), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild.Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Lack of data for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life and use of different unvalidated symptom and medication scores have limited our ability to draw a clinically useful conclusion. Further research using validated scales and important outcomes for patients and decision makers is needed so that SLIT can be properly assessed as clinical treatment for asthma. Very few serious adverse events have been reported, but most studies have included patients with intermittent or mild asthma, so we cannot comment on the safety of SLIT for those with moderate or severe asthma. SLIT is associated with increased risk of all adverse events