Airborne anaphylaxis: highlighting an invisible enemy

Purpose of review Airborne anaphylaxis is a rare disorder defined by the occurrence of anaphylactic reactions to inhaled allergens, which may arise not only in occupational exposure but also in common settings. Foods are the most common cause of airborne anaphylaxis, even organic mixtures scents. The other important cause is represented by drugs, while in the wide range of other causes, there are often reports on unique cases. This review aims to make an overview about the potential causes of airborne anaphylaxis, by analysing what is described in literature on this topic. Recent findings Concerning epidemiology, no data on specific prevalence of airborne allergy in adults are available. To date, only one study evaluated the specific prevalence of airborne allergy with anaphylaxis to foods in children, resulting in 5.9% of reactions due to exposure to aerosolized foods, compared with 78% of reactions caused by food ingestion. In addition to anaphylaxis, airborne-related reactions may also present with symptoms such as rhino-conjunctivitis, wheezing, dyspnoea and asthma. A detailed anamnesis facilitates a correct diagnosis, which allows appropriate therapeutic and preventive interventions, but, similarly to rare diseases in general, only specialized doctors are able to implement it. The assumption of the approach used in emergency medicine for other causes of anaphylaxis, that is referring the patient at discharge to an allergist who will teach the basic notions to recognize symptoms and access the appropriate therapy, would allow the patient to avoid situations of serious danger

Bilastine: a lifetime companion for the treatment of allergies.

AbstractObjective: Bilastine is a potent and highly selective H1-antihistamine approved for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria. This article summarizes available data on th..

Is adrenaline misused in anaphylaxis treatment? Experience of a large, urban Emergency Department: review of 589 cases.

Objective. Acute allergic reactions are important causes of Emergency Department (ED) admissions. Although the current recommendations for treatment of patients with anaphylaxis are focused on the central role of adrenaline, evidence in support of this therapy is still scarce. We planned a retrospective analysis of all allergic and anaphylactic reactions managed in the ED, to assess adherence to current guidelines and clinical outcomes. Methods. The study population consisted of all consecutive adult patients admitted to the ED with acute allergic reactions during the year 2013. Overall, the final study population consisted of 589 patients, i.e., 329 women and 260 men (55.9% vs. 44.1%, mean age 43±18 years, range 16-96 years). Results. Fifty-six patients were diagnosed with anaphylaxis (9.5%), 75 with angioedema (12.7%), 363 with urticaria (61.7%), and 95 with urticaria-angioedema (16.1%). The triggers included drugs (21.9%), foods (15.0%), hymenoptera stings (9.9%), and chemicals (4.4%), whereas a specific cause could not be recognized in nearly half of the cases. Only 5 (8.9%) of 56 patients diagnosed with anaphylaxis received adrenaline and no death or Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission occurred within one month from the acute allergic episode. Conclusion. The results of our study suggest that anaphylaxis is widely undertreated with adrenaline in our local ED compared to guidelines and recommendations. Nevertheless, a favorable outcome was recorded for all patients included in the study, even when managed with second- and third-line treatments, as attested by the lack of deaths at 1 month and the very limited number of hospitalizations (3/589; 0.5%), related to comorbidities rather than to treatment failure. The strength of recommendations contained in current guidelines should hence be reconsidered

Work-related allergies to storage mites in Parma (Italy) ham workers

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the role of storage mites in the development of allergic diseases among ham production workers, and to search for early alterations in lung function tests and early inflammation markers in exhaled air. Respiratory allergies due to storage mites have been reported in people with various occupations but, although such mites are unavoidable when curing ham, there are no published data concerning ham production workers. SETTING: Secondary care. DESIGN: Experimental cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: 220 participants (110 ham production workers and 110 controls) were recruited. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Workers answered a medical questionnaire, and underwent spirometry and fraction of exhaled nitric oxide at 50 mL/s (FeNO50) measurements. Those with allergic symptoms also underwent skin prick tests to determine their sensitisation to airborne allergens. A methacholine test was performed in symptomatic participants when spirometry was normal to assess airways hyper-responsiveness. RESULTS: Symptomatic storage mite sensitisation was observed in 16 workers (14.5%) (rhinoconjunctivitis in 15 (63%) and asthma in (4%)) and 2 controls (1.8%; p=0.001). Higher FeNO50 values in exposed symptomatic workers compared with healthy control participants (34.65±7.49 vs 13.29±4.29 ppb; p<0.001) suggested bronchial and nasal involvement, although their lung function parameters were normal. Regardless of exposure, a FeNO50 value of 22.5 ppb seems to be 100% sensitive and 99.4% specific in distinguishing allergic and non-allergic participants. Multivariate analysis of FeNO50 values in the symptomatic participants showed that they were positively influenced by IgE-mediated allergy (p=0.001) and reported symptom severity (p=0.041), and negatively by smoking status (p=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Ham processing workers, as well as workers involved in any meat processing work that includes curing, should be informed about the occupational risk of sensitisation to mites

Venom Immunotherapy and Aeroallergen Immunotherapy: How Do Their Outcomes Differ?

: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) and venom immunotherapy (VIT) are meant to work on the causes of allergies, respectively, to respiratory allergens and Hymenoptera venom, inducing tolerance to the allergens and modifying the natural history of allergy. Both types of immunotherapies have evidence of efficacy, but actually they present wide differences in both effectiveness and safety. Indeed, as far as the effectiveness of VIT is concerned, if the protection against fatal reactions to stings is considered as the primary objective, more than 40 years of clinical practice demonstrate complete success. The clinical success of AIT is measurable on the basis of reduction or disappearance of allergic symptoms. The difference between the two treatments is even higher as regards safety: AIT has been concerned in the past by a series of fatal reactions caused, which underwent a progressive decrease when it was understood that they were related to the presence of uncontrolled asthma. However, fatal reactions related to failure to recognize the presence of risk factors or administration errors are still reported. Similarly to what has been observed for efficacy, VIT has never been affected by fatal reactions to the administration of venom, and the most important risk of anaphylaxis, which is the concomitance of mastocytosis, is now identified by measuring its marker serum tryptase. To date, mechanisms of hypersensitivity reactions that differentiate respiratory allergy from Hymenoptera venom allergy have not been successfully demonstrated. We have examined the past and present literature in order to propose reasonable hypotheses about the mechanisms actually involved

Patient's Adherence and Compliance and Quality of Life During/After VIT

Adherence and compliance, respectively considered as a more positive, proactive behavior, resulting in a patient's lifestyle change to follow a daily regimen, and, as a more enforced response to an external command, are a critical aspect of any medical therapy, since it is estimated that less than half of the patients who are prescribed a therapy perform it, respecting the doses and duration. As far as aeroallergen immunotherapy is concerned, current data show that adherence is respected in about 50% of subcutaneous immunotherapy and in percentages even lower than 20% in sublingual immunotherapy treatments. This review analyzes the adherence to venom immunotherapy (VIT), in which, given its purpose of preventing potentially fatal anaphylactic reactions to insect stings, this aspect plays a critical role. In fact, protection from stings already takes place when the maintenance dose is reached, but VIT interruption before the recommended duration of 5 years exposes patients to new sting reactions. The data on adherence to VIT are far less abundant than that for aeroallergen immunotherapy. One of the first studies reported poor adherence in Austria, but the model used, consisting in the estimate of the percentage of patients with systemic reactions who accepted or rejected VIT, does not meet the criteria that define adherence to treatment. As for appropriate adherence studies, rates higher than 70% were reported in the United States and European countries. Studies from Italy found that good adherence were observed also in patients receiving, after 4 years of VIT, 3 months extended maintenance dose, as well as in patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic, &lt;10% of whom stopped VIT. Instead, only 35% of the patients treated for allergy to imported fire ant remained adherent after 1 year of treatment. However, also concerning honeybees and vespids, although adherence is satisfactory, it is possible to further improve it by increasing information and support for patients. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is an efficient measure to estimate the effectiveness and safety of medical treatment. Tools designed to make patients aware of its improvement through VIT and, in particular, of the complete prevention of the risk of fatal reactions have an important role in reinforcing adherence. However, aspects not yet evaluated, such as the possible relationship between the efficacy of VIT and HRQL or its particular features in patients with mastocytosis, deserve specific studies

Current treatment strategies for seasonal allergic rhinitis: where are we heading?

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is very commonly caused by pollens. The symptoms of AR consist of sneezing, nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, nasal itching and airflow obstruction. The diagnosis has long been based on clinical history, skin prick tests and in vitro measurement of specific IgE, but the innovative approach of precision medicine has made diagnostic tools of much greater accuracy available

3D Reconstruction with Low Resolution, Small Baseline and High Radial Distortion Stereo Images

In this paper we analyze and compare approaches for 3D reconstruction from low-resolution (250x250), high radial distortion stereo images, which are acquired with small baseline (approximately 1mm). These images are acquired with the system NanEye Stereo manufactured by CMOSIS/AWAIBA. These stereo cameras have also small apertures, which means that high levels of illumination are required. The goal was to develop an approach yielding accurate reconstructions, with a low computational cost, i.e., avoiding non-linear numerical optimization algorithms. In particular we focused on the analysis and comparison of radial distortion models. To perform the analysis and comparison, we defined a baseline method based on available software and methods, such as the Bouguet toolbox [2] or the Computer Vision Toolbox from Matlab. The approaches tested were based on the use of the polynomial model of radial distortion, and on the application of the division model. The issue of the center of distortion was also addressed within the framework of the application of the division model. We concluded that the division model with a single radial distortion parameter has limitations

A survey of clinical features of allergic rhinitis in adults

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) has high prevalence and substantial socio-economic burden. Material/Methods: The study included 35 Italian Centers recruiting an overall number of 3383 adult patients with rhinitis (48% males, 52% females, mean age 29.1, range 18–45 years). For each patient, the attending physician had to fill in a standardized questionnaire, covering, in particular, some issues such as the ARIA classification of allergic rhinitis (AR), the results of skin prick test (SPT), the kind of treatment, the response to treatment, and the satisfaction with treatment. Results: Out of the 3383 patients with rhinitis, 2788 (82.4%) had AR: 311 (11.5%) had a mild intermittent, 229 (8.8%) a mild persistent, 636 (23.5%) a moderate-severe intermittent, and 1518 (56.1%) a moderate-severe persistent form. The most frequently used drugs were oral antihistamines (77.1%) and topical corticosteroids (60.8%). The response to treatment was judged as excellent in 12.2%, good in 41.3%, fair in 31.2%, poor in 14.5%, and very bad in 0.8% of subjects. The rate of treatment dissatisfaction was significantly higher in patients with moderate-to-severe AR than in patients with mild AR (p<0.0001). Indication to allergen immunotherapy (AIT) was significantly more frequent (p<0.01) in patients with severe AR than with mild AR. Conclusions: These findings confirm the appropriateness of ARIA guidelines in classifying the AR patients and the association of severe symptoms with unsuccessful drug treatment. The optimal targeting of patients to be treated with AIT needs to be reassessed