Case Report A Case of Apparent Contact Dermatitis Caused by Toxocara Infection

Infection from Toxocara species may give rise to a large array of clinical symptoms, including apparent manifestations of allergy such as asthma, urticaria/angioedema, and dermatitis. We report a case, thus far not described, of contact dermatitis attributed to nickel allergy but caused by Toxocara infection. The patient was a 53-year-old woman presenting from 10 years a dermatitis affecting head, neck, and thorax. Patch tests initially performed gave a positive result to nickel, but avoidance of contact with nickel did not result in recovery. The patient referred to our Allergy Service in 2010 because of dermatitis to feet. Patch testing confirmed the positive result for nickel, but expanding the investigation a positive result for IgG antibodies to Toxocara was detected by Western blotting and ELISA. Treatment with mebendazole achieved immediate efficacy on feet dermatitis. Then, two courses of treatment with albendazole resulted in complete regression of dermatitis accompanied by development of negative ELISA and Western blotting for Toxocara antibodies. This report adds another misleading presentation of Toxocara infection as apparent contact dermatitis caused by nickel and suggests bearing in mind, in cases of contact dermatitis not responding to avoidance of the responsible hapten and to medical treatment, the possible causative role of Toxocara

A Case of Apparent Contact Dermatitis Caused by Toxocara Infection

Infection from Toxocara species may give rise to a large array of clinical symptoms, including apparent manifestations of allergy such as asthma, urticaria/angioedema, and dermatitis. We report a case, thus far not described, of contact dermatitis attributed to nickel allergy but caused by Toxocara infection. The patient was a 53-year-old woman presenting from 10 years a dermatitis affecting head, neck, and thorax. Patch tests initially performed gave a positive result to nickel, but avoidance of contact with nickel did not result in recovery. The patient referred to our Allergy Service in 2010 because of dermatitis to feet. Patch testing confirmed the positive result for nickel, but expanding the investigation a positive result for IgG antibodies to Toxocara was detected by Western blotting and ELISA. Treatment with mebendazole achieved immediate efficacy on feet dermatitis. Then, two courses of treatment with albendazole resulted in complete regression of dermatitis accompanied by development of negative ELISA and Western blotting for Toxocara antibodies. This report adds another misleading presentation of Toxocara infection as apparent contact dermatitis caused by nickel and suggests bearing in mind, in cases of contact dermatitis not responding to avoidance of the responsible hapten and to medical treatment, the possible causative role of Toxocara

Treating allergic rhinitis by sublingual immunotherapy: a review

OBJECTIVE: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a disease with high and increasing prevalence. The management of AR includes allergen avoidance, anti-allergic drugs, and allergen specific immunotherapy (AIT), but only the latter works on the causes of allergy and, due to its mechanisms of action, modifies the natural history of the disease. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was proposed in the 1990s as an option to traditional, subcutaneous immunotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed all the available controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of SLIT. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Thus far, more than 60 trials, globally evaluated in 6 meta-analyses, showed that SLIT is an effective and safe treatment for AR. However, it must be noted that to expect clinical efficacy in the current practice SLIT has to be performed following the indications from controlled trials, that is, sufficiently high doses to be regularly administered for at least 3 consecutive years

A Pitfall to Avoid When Using an Allergen Microarray: The Incidental Detection of IgE to Unexpected Allergens

The introduction of new laboratory techniques to detect specific IgE antibodies against single allergen molecules rather than whole extracts represents a significant advance in allergy diagnostics. The advantages of such component-resolved diagnosis can be summarized as follows: (1) the ability to identify the truly responsible allergens in polysensitized patients, whether they be genuine (causing specific sensitization to their corresponding allergen source) or primary (the original sensitizing molecule); (2) distinguishing these allergens from simply cross-reactive components; (3) improving the appropriateness of the prescribed specific immunotherapy; and (4) identifying a risk profile for food allergens. Component-resolved diagnosis is performed using either a singleplex (1 assay per sample) platform or a multiplex (multiple assays per sample) platform. Using an immuno solid-phase allergen chip microarray that falls into the latter category-it currently tests sensitivity to 112 allergens-may lead to a pitfall: detecting IgE to unexpected allergens, such as Hymenoptera venom. In fact, testing insect venom sensitivity in individuals with no history of reactions to stings is contrary to current guidelines and presents the physician with the dilemma of how to manage this information; moreover, this may become a legal issue. Based on what is currently known about venom allergy, it remains likely that a positive sensitization test result will have no clinical significance, but the possibility of reacting to a future sting cannot be completely ruled out. Because this problem has not been previously encountered using the more common allergy tests, no indications are currently available on how to effectively manage these cases. © 2015 American Academy of Allergy, Asthm