Specific immunotherapy in Albanian patients with anaphylaxis to hymenoptera venoms

Background: Severe allergic reactions during rush-specific immunotherapy (Rush-SIT) may occur in the treatment of hymenoptera sting allergy. The objective of the present study was to examine the characteristics of allergic reactions during Rush-SIT in a cohort of patients with allergy towards hymenoptera venom in the mediterranean population of Albania. Methods: A retrospective study was performed using the clinical reports of 37 patients with venom of bee (apinae), wasp (vespidae, subfamily vespinae) or paperwasp (vespidae, subfamily polistinae) allergy treated with Rush-SIT between 1987 and 1996. After hymenoptera sting allergy diagnosis according to anamnesis and intracutaneous tests the patient were treated with Rush-SIT. The protocol lasted 3 - 4 d with an increase in the concentration from 0.01 microg/ml to 100 microg/ml. Anaphylactic reactions were classified according to the Mueller-classification. Results: The frequency of reactions during Rush-SIT for bee-venom was 4.7% and for wasp-venom was 1.5% (p < 0.01). The mean frequency of reactions of Mueller grade II for the bee-venom Rush-SIT patients during the first 4 d (= 26 injections) was 0.73 and for the wasp-venom Rush-SIT patients 0.15. No patient experienced a third-degree reaction. 94.6% of the patient supported an end dose of 100 microg. Conclusions: Rush-SIT is a reliable method for the treatment of anaphylactic reactions to hymenoptera venom even in less developed countries. Bee-venom Rush-SIT was found to cause higher numbers allergic reactions than wasp or paperwasp Rush-SIT

A Case of Allergic Dermatitis after Self-Treatment with Propolis: Case Report

Background:  Propolis or bee-glue is used as adjuvant in the therapy because of its antiseptic, anti-inflammatory, anesthetic and antibacterial properties. Propolis is found in a number of products such as cosmetics, shampoos, toothpastes, lip balms, creams and ointments. In dermatology propolis has been used for wound healing, treatment of ulcers and eczema, and regeneration of the skin. The sensitizing properties of propolis have been reported in the literature.Aim: The aim of this study was to present a case of allergic contact dermatitis after self-treatment with propolis.Methods: We report a case of 46 years old man who presented severe vesiculo-bullous elements on the leg after the treatment with bee-glue for the eczematous elements.Results: The diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis to propolis was confirmed due to patch tests.Conclusions: Here we show that allergic contact dermatitis from propolis should be taken in consideration if an allergic reaction is evident. Dermatologists and general physicians should be aware of propolis as an important allergen that can cause Allergic Contact Dermatitis. The therapeutic use of propolis should be performed under medical advisory

Specific immunotherapy in Albanian patients with anaphylaxis to hymenoptera venoms

BACKGROUND: Severe allergic reactions during rush-specific immunotherapy (Rush-SIT) may occur in the treatment of hymenoptera sting allergy. The objective of the present study was to examine the characteristics of allergic reactions during Rush-SIT in a cohort of patients with allergy towards hymenoptera venom in the mediterranean population of Albania. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed using the clinical reports of 37 patients with venom of bee (apinae), wasp (vespidae, subfamily vespinae) or paperwasp (vespidae, subfamily polistinae) allergy treated with Rush-SIT between 1987 and 1996. After hymenoptera sting allergy diagnosis according to anamnesis and intracutaneous tests the patient were treated with Rush-SIT. The protocol lasted 3 – 4 d with an increase in the concentration from 0.01 μg/ml to 100 μg/ml. Anaphylactic reactions were classified according to the Mueller-classification. RESULTS: The frequency of reactions during Rush-SIT for bee-venom was 4.7% and for wasp-venom was 1.5% (p < 0.01). The mean frequency of reactions of Mueller grade II for the bee-venom Rush-SIT patients during the first 4 d (= 26 injections) was 0.73 and for the wasp-venom Rush-SIT patients 0.15. No patient experienced a third-degree reaction. 94.6% of the patient supported an end dose of 100 μg. CONCLUSIONS: Rush-SIT is a reliable method for the treatment of anaphylactic reactions to hymenoptera venom even in less developed countries. Bee-venom Rush-SIT was found to cause higher numbers allergic reactions than wasp or paperwasp Rush-SIT

External auditory canal osteoma: a case report

Osteoma is benign tumor composed of well- differentiated matured osseous tissue. Its presence in mandible and paranasal sinuses is common, yet appearance in external auditory canal is rare. We present a case of a 26- year- old male complaining of hearing loss and pain in the affected ear. Pathohistological analysis of surgically removed tissue revealed tumor consisted of mature trabecular bone, which represents benign lesion without tendency of metastasis

Allergic Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Case Report and Literature Review

Introduction: Kounis Syndrome was first described in 1991 by Kounis and Zavras as “the concurrence of chest pain during an allergic reaction, accompanied by clinical laboratory findings of classical angina pectoris caused by inflammatory mediators released during the allergic insult” [1]. The mechanism of Kounis Syndrome most likely involves the release of cytokines through mast-cell degranulation, which leads to coronary vasospasm and atheromatous plaque erosion or rupture following the allergic reaction to an allergen.[2] The treatment is specific to acute coronary syndrome and anaphylaxis, with the added complication that the drugs used, while indicated in each of the two disorders separately, may present contradictions when administered jointly in one patient.[3] The purpose of this review is to briefly revise the existing literature regarding its overlooked diagnosis and contradictory joint management of anaphylaxis and acute coronary syndrome. We will conduct a brief review of the current literature on Kounis Syndrome while describing a suspected case of a female patient presented with both anaphylaxis symptoms and angina pectoris. Conclusions: Kounis syndrome is defined as the co-incidental occurrence of an acute coronary syndrome with hypersensitivity reactions following an allergic reaction. Treatment of allergic reactions may be sufficient in type I KS. In contrast, coronary intervention is needed in the other two types, accompanied by vasodilator drugs, including nitrates and calcium antagonists, each of which may have contradictory effects

The use of patch testing for the diagnosis of contact dermatitis: an Albanian experience

Introduction: The daily increase of using chemical, aromatic and cosmetic products has been associated with significant increase in frequency of skin diseases such as eczemas and contact dermatitis (CD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of patch testing (PT) for the diagnosis of CD and provide current data on the frequency of sensitization to various contact allergens among patients with CD in the Albanian population.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all consecutive patients clinically suspected for CD during the period February 2010 – February 2011, in the outpatient setting. PT was done using Baseline European Series consisting of 31 allergens. Risk factors (age, gender, occupation and place of residence) and sensitization to various contact allergens were evaluated.  Results: In total, 193 patients clinically suspected for CD were included in the study and underwent PT. The highest prevalence of CD was found in the age-group of 31-40 years (32.6%), with a statistically significant difference between other age-groups (X2 = 141.2, p&lt;0.01). Positive PT results with at least one allergen were seen in 144 (74.6 %) patients suspected for CD. The two most common allergens were nickel and potassium dichromate. Construction worker and hairdresser were the most affected professions. Females had a chance of 1.8 times higher for having a positive patch test result compare to males (OR = 1.8; 95% CI 0.91 – 3.39).Conclusion: Determination of allergens that cause contact dermatitis is a necessity not only to confirm the correct diagnosis, but also for the qualitative treatment and prevention of the disease. Patch testing, even though an old method, still remain a valuable and non-invasive approach to determine the causes of contact dermatitis

The use of patch testing for the diagnosis of contact dermatitis: an Albanian experience

Introduction: The daily increase of using chemical, aromatic and cosmetic products has been associated with significant increase in frequency of skin diseases such as eczemas and contact dermatitis (CD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of patch testing (PT) for the diagnosis of CD and provide current data on the frequency of sensitization to various contact allergens among patients with CD in the Albanian population. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all consecutive patients clinically suspected for CD during the period February 2010 – February 2011, in the outpatient setting. PT was done using Baseline European Series consisting of 31 allergens. Risk factors (age, gender, occupation and place of residence) and sensitization to various contact allergens were evaluated.   Results: In total, 193 patients clinically suspected for CD were included in the study and underwent PT. The highest prevalence of CD was found in the age-group of 31-40 years (32.6%), with a statistically significant difference between other age-groups (X2 = 141.2, p<0.01). Positive PT results with at least one allergen were seen in 144 (74.6 %) patients suspected for CD. The two most common allergens were nickel and potassium dichromate. Construction worker and hairdresser were the most affected professions. Females had a chance of 1.8 times higher for having a positive patch test result compare to males (OR = 1.8; 95% CI 0.91 – 3.39). Conclusion: Determination of allergens that cause contact dermatitis is a necessity not only to confirm the correct diagnosis, but also for the qualitative treatment and prevention of the disease. Patch testing, even though an old method, still remain a valuable and non-invasive approach to determine the causes of contact dermatitis