Search

Abstract Background Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially life-threatening allergic reaction that typically occurs after exposure to a trigger, while idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA) occurs in the absence of a trigger. Acute management of both triggered anaphylaxis and IA relies on the use of epinephrine. In some patients with recurrent IA, glucocorticoid prophylaxis with prednisone can be effective. While there is currently no high quality evidence for the use of other prophylactic options to prevent recurrent IA, evolving data exists to support the consideration of biologics that target IgE or the Th2 pathway. Case presentation We present the case of a 28 year old female with no atopic or autoimmune history with recurrent episodes of IA since childhood occurring up to twice weekly. There was improvement in acute symptoms with administration of first or second generation antihistamines and/or intramuscular epinephrine. Without an identifiable trigger, she was diagnosed with IA and frequent idiopathic urticaria and omalizumab was added to her treatment regimen with improvement in symptom frequency. After being lost to follow up, she had recurrence of symptom frequency and severity without omalizumab therapy and subsequently presented to our institution. Her workup at this point was negative for food allergy, alpha gal syndrome, systemic mastocytosis, hereditary alpha tryptasemia, carcinoid syndrome, and pheochromocytoma, and she was trialed on dupilumab with near resolution of her symptom frequency over a six month time period. Conclusion Recurrent IA is a diagnosis of exclusion that is associated with high morbidity. Prophylaxis remains an area of uncertainty, although prednisone has been effective in some cases. When prednisone is contraindicated or ineffective for the prevention of IA, biologic therapies that target IgE or the Th2 pathway may present a reasonable consideration. This case adds support to the suggestion that dupilumab may be a logical off-label consideration for prophylaxis of recurrent IA. The data for dupilumab in this clinical scenario is still very limited, and further research is required before any recommendation can be made.

Background and Purpose: CT perfusion (CTP) has been implemented widely in regional areas of Australia for telestroke assessment. The aim of this study was to determine if, as part of telestroke assessment, CTP provided added benefit to clinical features in distinguishing between strokes and mimic and between transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and mimic.Methods: We retrospectively analysed 1,513 consecutively recruited patients referred to the Northern New South Wales Telestroke service, where CTP is performed as a part of telestroke assessment. Patients were classified based on the final diagnosis of stroke, TIA, or mimic. Multivariate regression models were used to determine factors that could be used to differentiate between stroke and mimic and between TIA and mimic.Results: There were 693 strokes, 97 TIA, and 259 mimics included in the multivariate regression models. For the stroke vs. mimic model using symptoms only, the area under the curve (AUC) on the receiver operator curve (ROC) was 0.71 (95% CI 0.67–0.75). For the stroke vs. mimic model using the absence of ischaemic lesion on CTP in addition to clinical features, the AUC was 0.90 (95% CI 0.88–0.92). The multivariate regression model for predicting mimic from TIA using symptoms produced an AUC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.65–0.76). The addition of absence of an ischaemic lesion on CTP to clinical features for the TIA vs. mimic model had an AUC of 0.78 (95% CI 0.73–0.83)Conclusions: In the telehealth setting, the absence of an ischaemic lesion on CTP adds to the diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing mimic from stroke, above that from clinical features.