Search

Cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) may present as an isolated entity or be classified as Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by the presence of laboratory abnormalities, including cytopenia, low complement levels, and/or autoantibodies (CLE with laboratory SLE). To compare isolated CLE and CLE with laboratory SLE and to validate an existing 3-item score with age < 25 years (1 point), phototypes V to VI (1 point), antinuclear antibodies ≥ 1:320 (5 points) to predict the risk of progression from CLE to severe SLE (sSLE). Monocentric cohort study including consecutive patients with CLE. CLE with laboratory SLE was defined by 2019 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for SLE score of ≥10 points at baseline with CLE as the sole clinical feature. Of the 149 patients with CLE, 20 had CLE with laboratory SLE. The median follow-up duration was 11.3 years (IQR: 5.1-20.5). Ten patients (7%) had sSLE developed. In survival analysis, the risk of progression to sSLE was higher among CLE with laboratory SLE (hazard ratio = 6.69; 95% CI: 1.93-23.14, P <.001) compared to isolated CLE. In both groups, none of the patients with a risk score ≤ 2 had sSLE developed. Monocentric study with a limited number of patients. CLE with laboratory patients with SLE have a higher risk of progression to sSLE than isolated CLE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about the prevalence and factors associated with long-term remission in cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE).Objectives: To assess the prevalence, the factors associated with remission, and the long-term remission with and without treatment during CLE.Methods: Longitudinal cohort study including biopsy-proven patients with CLE seen between November 1, 2019 and April 30, 2021, with at least 6 months of follow-up after diagnosis. Demographic data, CLE subtypes, remission status, and treatments were recorded. Remission was defined by a Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index activity score of 0. Long-term remission was defined by remission >3 years.Results: Among 141 patients included (81% of women), 93 (66%) were in remission at last follow-up with a median duration since diagnosis of 11.4 years (interquartile range, 4.2-24.7). Long-term remission was observed in 22 (19%) of 114 patients with at least 3 years of follow-up, including 5 (4.4%) with no systemic treatment. Active smoking (odds ratio, 0.22 [95%CI: 0.05-0.97]; P = .04) and discoid CLE lesions (odds ratio, 0.14 [95%CI, 0.04-0.48]; P = .004) were associated with a lower risk of long-term remission.Limitations: Partial retrospective data collection and tertiary center population.Conclusion: Long-term remission is rare in CLE and negatively associated with active smoking and discoid CLE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

La pandémie à SARS-CoV-2 voit nombre de médias relayer la présence de quinine dans les eaux toniques. Si son effet antiviral a été soulevé in vitro , l'amalgame avec ses dérivés, comme l'hydroxychloroquine, suscite un attrait pour ces eaux. Dans le cadre supplémentaire du bicentenaire de la découverte de la quinine, l'objectif principal vise à analyser les réactions d'hypersensibilité liées à la consommation de boissons contenant de la quinine décrites dans la littérature. Nous avons analysé les cas publiés indexés sur Pubmed , Scopus , Google Scholar. Un score d'imputabilité de la quinine a été calculé pour chacune des observations. Un dosage de quinine a été pratiqué sur plusieurs breuvages dont la vérification de teneur n'avait pas fait l'objet de publication. En parallèle d'études pharmacocinétiques connexes, ce corpus compte 26 observations. Elles concernent principalement des hommes jeunes, dont la gravité des symptômes est variable : essentiellement dermatologique, avec érythème pigmenté fixe, exanthème généralisé, urticaires ; hématologique, avec thrombopénie, syndrome hémorragique, microangiopathie thrombotique ; plus rarement oculaire, cardiaque ou auditive. Le niveau d'imputabilité de la quinine est certain pour trois cas, probable pour vingt-deux, possible pour deux. Les teneurs testées des apéritifs et d'un vin cuit, toutes conformes aux normes, sont moindres que celle des eaux toniques. Peut-être sous diagnostiqué, le mécanisme majoritaire est de type immuno-allergique, sans qu'une réaction croisée avec d'autres quinoléines ait pu être montrée. Chez ces patients et les femmes allaitantes de nouveau-nés déficitaires en G6PD, tout médicament, phytothérapie, homéopathie, voire cosmétique contenant de la quinine, sur la base d'une liste didactique proposée, seraient à écarter. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the media has often mentioned the presence of quinine in tonic water. Media accounts of quinine's antiviral effect in vitro, as well as press reports about quinine-based compounds, such as hydroxychloroquine, have sparked renewed public interest in drinking tonic water, which could perhaps result in an increase in allergic phenomena. On the 200th anniversary of the discovery of quinine, our main objective was to analyze hypersensitivity reactions, related to the consumption of beverages containing quinine, described in the literature. We analyzed case reports indexed on Pubmed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. A quinine causality score was calculated for each of the observations. A quinine assay was performed on several beverages for which the quinine content had not been published. In parallel with related pharmacokinetic studies, these case reports consist of 26 observations. The case reports mainly related to young men, with symptoms of varying severity, mainly dermatological, with fixed drug eruption, generalized rashes, hives; hematological, with thrombocytopenia, hemorrhagic syndrome, thrombotic microangiopathy; more rarely ocular, cardiac or auditory. The level of causality of quinine is certain for three cases, probable for twenty-two, possible for two. The levels of quinine, all conforming to the standards, were lower in the spirits and the cooked wine than those of tonic water. Possibly under-diagnosed, the main mechanism of these reactions is immuno-allergic, without any cross-reaction with other quinolines having been shown. In these patients and breastfeeding women of G6PD deficient newborns, any medicines, phytotherapy, homeopathy, or even cosmetics containing quinine, on the basis of a proposed list, should be avoided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diagnosing drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is challenging. Some clinicians reject this diagnosis when the delay of onset is less than 15 days after drug intake.Objectives: To assess the delay of DRESS occurrence and culprit drugs.Methods: All patients hospitalized in 3 dermatology departments with a first occurrence of DRESS for which a drug was highly suspected were included in this retrospective study. Based on the delay in DRESS occurrence, cases were classified into 2 groups: a rapid-onset group (≤15 days after exposure) and a delayed-onset group (>15 days).Results: A total of 41 patients with DRESS were included: 14 in the rapid-onset and 27 in delayed-onset groups. In the rapid-onset group, antibiotics (n = 6/14) and iodinated contrast media (n = 5/5) were the predominant culprits. Carbamazepine (n = 4/4), lamotrigine (n = 6/6), allopurinol (n = 8/8), and sulfasalazine (n = 2/2) were exclusively found in the delayed-onset group.Limitations: The retrospective nature, limited number of participants, and lack of detailed information on previous exposure to sensitizing drugs in some instances.Conclusions: DRESS is frequently related to drugs introduced 15 or fewer days before the occurrence of cutaneous adverse reactions. The time of onset of DRESS may differ depending on the medications involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We have limited data on the treatment of calcinosis cutis associated with systemic sclerosis and dermatomyositis.Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerance of available treatments for calcinosis cutis based on previously published studies.Methods: We performed a systematic review of studies published in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library during 1980-July 2018. The strength of clinical data was graded according to the modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence.Results: In all, 30 studies (288 patients) were included. Eleven therapeutic classes, surgery, and physical treatments were identified as potential treatment options for calcinosis cutis. On the basis of results of a small randomized controlled trial and 4 retrospective studies, low-dose warfarin should not be used for calcinosis cutis (level IB evidence). The results of several studies suggest diltiazem and bisphosphonates might be useful treatment options (level IV). Considering biologic therapies, rituximab has shown promising results in treating both dermatomyositis and systemic sclerosis, whereas tumor necrosis factor inhibitors might be useful for treating juvenile dermatomyositis (level IV). Intralesional sodium thiosulfate might be a promising alternative (level IV).Limitations: Few included studies had a high level of evidence.Conclusion: This study highlights the efficacy and tolerance profiles of available treatments for calcinosis cutis, with a focus on level of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Controversies exist with regard to in vivo approaches to delayed immunologically mediated adverse drug reactions, such as exanthem (maculopapular eruption), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and fixed drug eruptions. In particular, widespread differences exist between regions and practice on the availability and use of intradermal and patch testing, the standard drug concentrations used, the use of additional drugs in intradermal and patch testing to help determine cross-reactivity, the timing of testing in relation to the occurrence of the adverse drug reaction, the use of testing in specific phenotypes, and the use of oral challenge in conjunction with delayed intradermal and patch testing to ascertain drug tolerance. It was noted that there have been advances in the science of delayed T cell–mediated reactions that have shed light on immunopathogenesis and provided a mechanism of preprescription screening in the case of HLA-B*57:01 and abacavir hypersensitivity and HLA-B*15:02 and carbamazepine Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis in Southeast Asian subjects. Future directions should include the collaboration of large international networks to develop and standardize in vivo diagnostic approaches, such as skin testing and patch testing, combined with ex vivo and in vitro laboratory approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Résumé Des cas d’anaphylaxie alimentaire à la viande de mammifère par les IgE alpha-galactose sont décrits depuis 2009 aux États-Unis puis en Australie et dans plusieurs états européens. Mais, il y a peu de données épidémiologiques qui permettent de la positionner au sein des anaphylaxies alimentaires. Le but de cette étude est d’estimer la fréquence de l’anaphylaxie par sensibilisation au résidu α-Gal au sein des anaphylaxies alimentaires en France, de décrire sa symptomatologie, d’analyser les résultats obtenus lors du bilan diagnostique et rechercher la présence de cofacteurs. Il s’agit d’une étude rétrospective de 19 cas d’anaphylaxie à la viande de mammifère, confirmés par la présence d’IgE anti-α-Gal et déclarés via un questionnaire de déclaration d’anaphylaxie alimentaire par des membres du réseau d’allergo-vigilance recouvrant la France et Belgique francophone de septembre 2008 à décembre 2015. Le bilan diagnostique allergologique est décrit par la mesure des IgE spécifiques anti-α-Gal, la réalisation des tests cutanés et la recherche d’IgE spécifiques aux viandes. La présence de cofacteurs comme l’alcool, l’effort physique ou un médicament ainsi que l’exposition aux morsures de tiques a été recherchée. Les cas d’anaphylaxie à la viande de mammifère par α-galactose constituent 2,8 % des anaphylaxies alimentaires sur cette période et surviennent 2 à 12 heures après l’ingestion de l’aliment responsable, plus fréquemment les abats. Dans 47 % des cas, il précède une morsure de tique. Il existe un cofacteur dans 12 cas (63,2 %), par la consommation d’alcool chez 26,3 % des sujets ou la réalisation d’un effort physique dans 21,0 % des cas. Since 2009, cases of food-related anaphylaxis caused by mammalian meat and stemming from IgE antibodies specific to alpha-galactose have been identified, first in the United States then in Australia and several European states. However, there is little epidemiological data enabling these reactions to be classified as food allergies. The aim of this study is to determine the frequency of anaphylaxis caused by reaction to α-gal residue within the sphere of food allergy (FA) in France, to identify the symptoms, to analyze the results of diagnostic tests, and to check for the presence of cofactors. We studied 19 adult cases of anaphylaxis stemming from mammalian meat consumption and confirmed by the presence of IgE to α-Gal and reported in a questionnaire to identify food-related anaphylaxis by members of the Allergy Vigilance Network covering France and French-speaking Belgium from September 2008 to December 2015. The diagnostic assessment comprised assay of specific anti-α-Gal IgE, skin tests, and tests for IgE antibodies specific to meat. The presence of cofactors such as alcohol, physical exertion and medication, as well as exposure to tick bites, was also checked. Mammalian meat anaphylaxis stemming from α-galactose constituted 2.8% of FA in this period and occurred 2–12 hours after ingestion of the offending food, which in most cases was offal. In 47% of the cases studied, the reaction was preceded by a tick bite. In 12 (63.2%) of cases, cofactors were present, with alcohol consumption in 26.3% of subjects and physical exertion in 21.0%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) allergies through IgE activation and a complement activation-related pseudoallergy mechanism have been suggested during reactions to COVID-19-mRNA vaccines. Reported allergy work-up and outcomes of subsequent COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with a suspicion of hypersensitivity to COVID-19-mRNA vaccines to determine risk factors for anaphylaxis at the next dose. In total, 190 patients were referred to two European allergy centers for suspicion of hypersensitivity to COVID-19-mRNA. These patients have been an allergy work-up [skin tests (ST) with COVID-19-mRNA vaccine and PEGs with different molecular weight, and basophil activation tests (BAT) to PEG-2000]. Immediate, delayed reactions compatible with hypersensitivity and reactions not suggestive of hypersensitivity, after a detailed analysis of the medical history, were reported in 69, 84 and 37 patients, respectively. Thirty-one cases with index anaphylaxis (16%); with only 3 severe anaphylaxis, all occurred within one hour after vaccine administration. One hundred and sixty patients (84%) were revaccinated with good tolerance in 139 cases (87%). In 145 patients, revaccination was performed with the culprit vaccine, which was well tolerated in 126 of the patients; with an alternative COVID-19 vaccine (other mRNA vaccine for 12) in 15, well tolerated in 13. Among the 31 patients reporting index anaphylaxis, 23 were revaccinated with the culprit vaccine under hospital supervision, with good tolerance in 15 (65%). The eight immediate reactions after revaccination were less severe than the index one. The work-up was positive in 9 patients (4.7%); among them, four tolerated the culprit vaccine (n = 1) or another COVID-19 vaccine (n = 3), and five refused further vaccination. Our results are in accordance with the literature and with ENDA/EAACI recommendations for allergies to COVID-19 vaccines. Although more studies are needed to determine the ST and BAT predictive value. This series strongly argues for re-vaccinating in suspected vaccine allergies. And we suggest to refer for allergy work-up only patients with reactions occurring within the first hour after COVID-19-mRNA vaccine administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

About 10–15% of individuals report a suspected allergy to penicillin are truly allergic. Skin tests (ST) followed by drug provocation test (DPT) with penicillin is the gold standard method but is time consuming. Trubiano et al. had been developed and validated a clinical decision rule [1] ; a PEN-FAST score of less than 3 identify patients with low-risk penicillin allergy. Our objective was to improve PEN-FAST score to use it for delabelling patient suspected with penicillin allergy. First, we evaluated PEN-FAST in a retrospective cohort (27 proved penicillin allergic patients). PEN-FAST had a limited efficacy to predict the relapse of skin and mucosal immediate hypersensitivity (HS) or delayed maculopapular exanthema with respectively 28.6 and 38.4% of patients misclassified. Secondly, after reviewing the medical records of misclassified patients and according to the literature, we identified 2 potential additional criteria: skin rash lasting more than 7 days, and immediate reaction occurring in less than 1 hour. Then, we developed a new score using these 2 additional criteria (PEN-FAST+) and to compare its diagnosis performances with those of PEN-FAST in a prospective cohort of 252 successive patients with suspected or confirmed penicillin HS (with multivariable model). With PEN-FAST+, only 1 allergic patient with delayed HS confirmed with skin tests (ST) was misclassified (3.7%). With PEN-FAST+, 96.3% of patients with positive ST and 90.6% of truly allergic patients (proven by positive ST or drug provocation test) were correctly identified, in comparison with 55.6% and 56.2% respectively with PEN-FAST. The AUC of the ROC curve of PEN-FAST+ was significantly higher than the one of PEN-FAST (85% vs. 72%, P = 0.03). We proposed here the PEN-FAST+ score with 2 additional criteria for delabelling patient suspected with penicillin allergy. A large prospective and multicentric study is needed to validate that PEN-FAST+ can accurately select low risk of reaction's patients who could have direct drug provocation test without previous ST. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Résumé Le blé est l’un des principaux aliments du régime occidental et pourtant il est responsable de diverses pathologies digestives nécessitant son éviction. Certaines maladies sont spécifiquement liées au blé ou au gluten, tandis que d’autres peuvent être causées par le blé ou d’autres aliments, comme le syndrome d’entérocolite induite par les protéines alimentaires ou l’œsophagite à éosinophiles. Une entité récemment décrite est la sensibilité au gluten non cœliaque. Sa physiopathologie est encore mal comprise, probablement multifactorielle. Il n’existe aucun marqueur spécifique actuellement. Son diagnostic nécessite d’avoir préalablement exclu une maladie cœliaque et une allergie au blé, ce qui n’est pas toujours aisé. Il existe également des intolérances au blé dont le mécanisme n’est pas immunologique, liées à la présence de fructanes, responsables d’une fermentation et d’un effet osmotique se manifestant par des troubles fonctionnels intestinaux. Cette revue fait le point des connaissances actuelles et des conduites à tenir adaptées à ces différentes pathologies dues à la consommation de blé. Although a key food in western diets, wheat can cause certain gastrointestinal disorders requiring its withdrawal. Some diseases are specifically associated with wheat or gluten, while others may be caused by wheat or by other foods, such as food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) and eosinophilic esophagitis. A new entity has recently emerged: non-coeliac gluten sensitivity. Its physiopathology, which is probably multifactorial, is poorly understood, and there are no specific signs. Diagnosis requires the exclusion of coeliac disease and wheat allergy, which is not always easy. In addition, there is wheat intolerance of non-immunological origin, related to the presence of fructans, which cause fermentation and gas production due to their poor absorption and their osmotic effects that induce functional gastrointestinal troubles. The present review provides an overview of current knowledge and of the various therapeutic procedures suited to these different diseases associated with wheat consumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Résumé La noix de cajou est le fruit de l’ Anacardium occidentale . Cet arbre appartient à la famille des anacardiacées, comme le pistachier ou le manguier (Bois, 1996). La consommation de noix n’a cessé de progresser au cours des dernières décennies, en témoigne l’importante augmentation de production au niveau mondial ( http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E ). L’allergie à la noix de cajou est une pathologie émergente, le plus souvent sévère, qui peut être à l’origine de décès (Van der Valk et al., 2014). En Europe, la noix de cajou est le quatrième allergène alimentaire pourvoyeur d’anaphylaxie (Grabenhenrich et al., 2016). Actuellement, le diagnostic repose sur un interrogatoire précis à la recherche d’une histoire clinique évocatrice, sur la réalisation de tests cutanés et le dosage des immunoglobulines E spécifiques. La prise en charge repose sur l’instauration d’un régime d’éviction de la noix de cajou mais aussi de la pistache (Van der Valk et al., 2014). L’objectif de ce travail est de résumer les connaissances actuelles sur l’allergie à la noix de cajou, incluant la botanique, les données épidémiologiques, les caractéristiques cliniques des populations d’allergiques, les réactivités croisées, les critères diagnostiques et les modalités de prise en charge actuelles et à venir. The cashew nut is the fruit of Anacardium occidentale , a tree belonging to the Anacardiaceae family, like the pistachio and mango trees (Bois, 1996). Consumption of cashew nuts has risen steadily in recent decades, as attested by the marked increase in worldwide production ( http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E ). Cashew nut allergy is an emerging disease; it is generally severe and may be fatal (Van der Valk et al., 2014). In Europe, cashew nuts are the fourth leading cause of anaphylaxis amongst food allergens (Grabenhenrich et al., 2016). Diagnosis is currently based upon precise questioning to screen for an evocative clinical history, upon skin tests, and upon assay of allergen-specific immunoglobulin E. Treatment involves withdrawal of cashew nuts but also pistachio nuts (Van der Valk et al., 2014). The purpose of this study is to summarise current knowledge about cashew nut allergy, including botanical data, epidemiological data, the clinical characteristics of allergic populations, cross-reactivity, diagnostic criteria, and current and emerging treatment methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Résumé Après les antibiotiques, les AINS sont les médicaments les plus souvent responsables de réaction d’hypersensibilité (1 à 3 % parmi la population générale et jusqu’à 30 % dans la population présentant un asthme, une rhinosinusite chronique ou une urticaire chronique spontanée). Ces réactions peuvent être allergiques (médiées par les IgE ou par des lymphocytes T) ou non allergiques (liées à la libération de médiateurs par les mastocytes, les basophiles notamment). Les premières réactions (allergiques) sont spécifiques d’un AINS ou d’une famille chimique d’AINS tandis que les secondes (non allergiques) sont induites par des AINS de familles chimiques différentes (réactivité croisée pharmacologique ou « cross-intolérants »). Les différents phénotypes cliniques ont ainsi été redéfinis récemment par le groupe ENDA/EAACI dans l’objectif de préciser les moyens diagnostiques à mettre en œuvre et une prise en charge standardisée pour chaque patient ; la méthodologie est reprise dans cet exposé. After antibiotics, NSAIDs are the drugs most often responsible for drug hypersensitivity reactions, involving 1–3% of the general population and up to 30% of people with asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis or spontaneous chronic urticaria. These reactions may be allergic (IgE- or T cell-mediated) or non-allergic (due to the release of mediators from mast cells and basophils). The allergic reactions are specific to an NSAID or to a chemical family of NSAIDs, while the non-allergic reactions are induced by NSAIDs of different chemical families (pharmacological cross-reactivity or “cross-intolerance”). The different clinical phenotypes have been redefined recently by the ENDA/EAACI group aiming to clarify the diagnostic methods and to implement standardized management for each patient; the methodology is included in this presentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Résumé Les auteurs rapportent une observation singulière induite par galactose-α1,3 galactose (α-Gal) et se proposent de faire ainsi une revue bibliographique sur le sujet. The authors report a singular case about mammalian meat anaphylaxis due to galactose-α1,3 galactose (α-Gal) and review the current literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Résumé En dehors d’exceptionnels cas avec sensibilisation à tous les produits de contraste iodés (PCI), l’iode n’est pas en cause dans les réactions croisées aux PCI. Il est exceptionnel que ces patients aient des antécédents d’hypersensibilité de contact confirmée aux antiseptiques iodés. Les réactions croisées ne suivent pas la classification chimique classique des PCI en monomères ou dimères ioniques ou non ioniques. Par contre les réactions croisées semblent plus fréquentes au sein de certains sous-groupes A (ioxitalamate, iopamidol, iodixanol, ioversol, iomeprol, iohexol) et B (iobitridol, ioxaglate), d’une classification de l’hypersensibilité que nous proposons et qui ne correspond pas à la classification chimique classique des PCI. Dans le groupe A des PCI, l’épitope pourrait être la chaîne [N-méthyl- (2, 3-dihydroxypropyle) carbamoyl], cette dernière pouvant être retrouvée dans d’autres médicaments comme le buzépide métiodure ou certaines céphalosporines de 2 e génération. Cross-reactions between radio contrast media (RCM) do not follow the current chemical classification. A classification based on cross-reactions with three RCM subgroups A(ioxitalamate, iopamidol, iodixanol, ioversol, iomeprol, iohexol) and B (iobitridol, ioxaglate), characterized by a lateral determinant ([N-methyl- (2, 3-dihydroxypropyle) carbamoyl chain]) would be more appropriate to explain cross-reactivity in patients (mainly in those with delayed reactions), and in previously published studies. Iodine is rarely the eliciting compound. Rechallenge after skin tests is advised for all patients, and using RCM belonging to different cross-reactivity subgroups. Further studies are required to determine if the high frequency of hypersensitivity reactions that occur after the first administration of RCM might be due to a previous sensitization to other drugs containing carbamoyl chains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revue du Rhumatisme Monographies is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)