Inhaled tobramycin solution-associated recurrent eosinophilia and severe persistent bronchospasm in a patient with cystic fibrosis: a case report

BACKGROUND: Delivery of tobramycin by inhalation to the lungs of patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) who are infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been proven to be effective and safe. The aerosol administration allows high concentrations of tobramycin to be delivered to the site of infection with limited systemic absorption. In rare patients, systemic absorption of inhaled tobramycin may be significant enough to produce toxic effects, such as renal and vestibular toxicities. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a patient with CF who developed recurrent eosinophilia and severe persistent bronchospasm following repeated administration of preservative-free tobramycin by inhalation, beginning at 16 months of age. Also, he developed similar signs and symptoms when he was administered tobramycin intravenously on one occasion at 5 1/2 years. The patient had a history of environmental allergies. Temporal sequence of his signs and symptoms after each administration of tobramycin (similar to re-challenge testing), and his improvement after discontinuation of the drug strongly suggest an adverse drug reaction. CONCLUSION: Hypersensitivity reaction should be considered in patients who develop recurrent eosinophilia and deterioration of pulmonary function following the use of tobramycin by inhalation or by intravenous administration

Methyl methacrylate and respiratory sensitization: A Critical review

Methyl methacrylate (MMA) is a respiratory irritant and dermal sensitizer that has been associated with occupational asthma in a small number of case reports. Those reports have raised concern that it might be a respiratory sensitizer. To better understand that possibility, we reviewed the in silico, in chemico, in vitro, and in vivo toxicology literature, and also epidemiologic and occupational medicine reports related to the respiratory effects of MMA. Numerous in silico and in chemico studies indicate that MMA is unlikely to be a respiratory sensitizer. The few in vitro studies suggest that MMA has generally weak effects. In vivo studies have documented contact skin sensitization, nonspecific cytotoxicity, and weakly positive responses on local lymph node assay; guinea pig and mouse inhalation sensitization tests have not been performed. Cohort and cross-sectional worker studies reported irritation of eyes, nose, and upper respiratory tract associated with short-term peaks exposures, but little evidence for respiratory sensitization or asthma. Nineteen case reports described asthma, laryngitis, or hypersensitivity pneumonitis in MMA-exposed workers; however, exposures were either not well described or involved mixtures containing more reactive respiratory sensitizers and irritants.The weight of evidence, both experimental and observational, argues that MMA is not a respiratory sensitizer