Search

Allergic rhinitis is a common condition that affects 10%-20% of general population. Seasonal allergic rhinitis is a subset of allergic rhinitis mediated by histamine, proteases, leukotrienes, prostaglandins, platelet-activating factor (PAF) and cytokines. These mediators are released from mucosal mast cells which degranulate after cross linking of pollen with mast cell-bound specific IgE. Due to its selective anti H1, antiPAF and anti pro inflammatory properties, rupatadine represents an effective treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms. It is a once a day antihistamine and exhibits a sustained 24-hour effect. Rupatadine reduces effectively the nasal obstruction, one of main symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. It is a nonsedating antihistamine, does not impair driving performance and has no proarrythmic effect, even in supra therapeutic doses. Long term safety of rupatadine 10 mg daily has been established. Rupatadine is a sound first line antihistamine for treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS) is a relatively rare clinical entity; even more so in response to vancomycin. Methods Case report. Results We present a severe case of vancomycin-induced DRESS syndrome, which on presentation included only skin, hematological and mild liver involvement. The patient further developed severe acute interstitial nephritis, eosinophilic pneumonitis, central nervous system (CNS) involvement and worsening hematological abnormalities despite immediate discontinuation of vancomycin and parenteral corticosteroids. High-dose corticosteroids for a prolonged period were necessary and tapering of steroids a challenge due to rebound-eosinophilia and skin involvement. Conclusion Patients with DRESS who are relatively resistant to corticosteroids with delayed onset of certain organ involvement should be treated with a more prolonged corticosteroid tapering schedule. Vancomycin is increasingly being recognized as a culprit agent in this syndrome.

This is an update to the 2014 Canadian Hereditary Angioedema Guideline with an expanded scope to include the management of hereditary angioedema (HAE) patients worldwide. It is a collaboration of Canadian and international HAE experts and patient groups led by the Canadian Hereditary Angioedema Network. The objective of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations, using the GRADE system, for the management of patients with HAE. This includes the treatment of attacks, short-term prophylaxis, long-term prophylaxis, and recommendations for self-administration, individualized therapy, quality of life, and comprehensive care. New to the 2019 version of this guideline are sections covering the diagnosis and recommended therapies for acute treatment in HAE patients with normal C1-INH, as well as sections on pregnant and paediatric patients, patient associations and an HAE registry. Hereditary angioedema results in random and often unpredictable attacks of painful swelling typically affecting the extremities, bowel mucosa, genitals, face and upper airway. Attacks are associated with significant functional impairment, decreased health-related quality of life, and mortality in the case of laryngeal attacks. Caring for patients with HAE can be challenging due to the complexity of this disease. The care of patients with HAE in Canada, as in many countries, continues to be neither optimal nor uniform. It lags behind some other countries where there are more organized models for HAE management, and greater availability of additional licensed therapeutic options. It is anticipated that providing this guideline to caregivers, policy makers, patients, and advocates will not only optimize the management of HAE, but also promote the importance of individualized care. The primary target users of this guideline are healthcare providers who are managing patients with HAE. Other healthcare providers who may use this guideline are emergency and intensive care physicians, primary care physicians, gastroenterologists, dentists, otolaryngologists, paediatricians, and gynaecologists who will encounter patients with HAE and need to be aware of this condition. Hospital administrators, insurers and policy makers may also find this guideline helpful., Competing Interests: Competing interestsDetails of potential conflicts of interest (COI) were elicited using the standardized “International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest”. COI forms were distributed to attendees prior to their review of the manuscript, and were mandatory for all contributing authors., (© The Author(s) 2019.)

Background: Hereditary angioedema due to C1 inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE) is an autosomal dominant disease resulting in random and unpredictable attacks of swelling. The swelling in C1-INH-HAE is a result of impaired regulation of bradykinin production. The fact that the array of tests needed to diagnose HAE is not always available to the treating physicians is challenging for them and their patients., Methods: The data for this article were extracted from two distinct surveys. The first survey was conducted among HAE treating physicians and aimed to determine the availability and utilization of the various assays performed to help the diagnosis of C1-INH-HAE. The second survey was conducted with the various laboratories across Canada that performs the assays used in the diagnosis of HAE. The aim of this survey was to determine the availability and profile of the various assays used in the diagnosis of C1-INH-HAE in Canada, thereby ultimately bringing a rational basis for the biological testing., Results: C1-INH functional assay was widely available in Canada (93%), but was only offered by a small numbers of hospitals meaning that there could be longer delays in the analysis of these samples that may explain why the physicians expressed a lower level of confidence in this assay (59%). Antigenic C1-INH was available to the vast majority of the physicians treating C1-INH-HAE (93%) and was considered reliable by 96% of the respondents. Antigenic C4 was found available to all Canadian physicians and, although with limited specificity, was considered very reliable by all the participants. This study revealed that 81% of physicians were able to order the antigenic C1q and the confidence in this assay was moderate (70%). Concerning genetic testing, the survey revealed that most of the CHAEN members never had to or couldn't order this test., Conclusion: This study highlights the need for improved education and knowledge exchange, about biological assays available to Canadian physicians and their performance in proper diagnosis of C1-INH-HAE to improve confidence and access to relevant tests.

Introduction: Upper airway angioedema is a life-threatening emergency department (ED) presentation with increasing incidence. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor induced angioedema (AAE) is a non-mast cell mediated etiology of angioedema. Accurate diagnosis by clinical examination can optimize patient management and reduce morbidity from inappropriate treatment with epinephrine. The aim of this study is to describe the incidence of angioedema subtypes and the management of AAE. We evaluate the appropriateness of treatments and highlight preventable iatrogenic morbidity., Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of consecutive angioedema patients presenting to two tertiary care EDs between July 2007 and March 2012., Results: Of 1,702 medical records screened, 527 were included. The cause of angioedema was identified in 48.8% (n=257) of cases. The most common identifiable etiology was AAE (33.1%, n=85), with a 60.0% male predominance. The most common AAE management strategies included diphenhydramine (63.5%, n=54), corticosteroids (50.6%, n=43) and ranitidine (31.8%, n=27). Epinephrine was administered in 21.2% (n=18) of AAE patients, five of whom received repeated doses. Four AAE patients required admission (4.7%) and one required endotracheal intubation. Epinephrine induced morbidity in two patients, causing myocardial ischemia or dysrhythmia shortly after administration., Conclusion: AAE is the most common identifiable etiology of angioedema and can be accurately diagnosed by physical examination. It is easily confused with anaphylaxis and mismanaged with antihistamines, corticosteroids and epinephrine. There is little physiologic rationale for epinephrine use in AAE and much risk. Improved clinical differentiation of mast cell and non-mast cell mediated angioedema can optimize patient management.

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a disease which is associated with random and often unpredictable attacks of painful swelling typically affecting the extremities, bowel mucosa, genitals, face and upper airway. Attacks are associated with significant functional impairment, decreased Health Related Quality of Life, and mortality in the case of laryngeal attacks. Caring for patients with HAE can be challenging due to the complexity of this disease. The care of patients with HAE in Canada is neither optimal nor uniform across the country. It lags behind other countries where there are more organized models for HAE management, and where additional therapeutic options are licensed and available for use. The objective of this guideline is to provide graded recommendations for the management of patients in Canada with HAE. This includes the treatment of attacks, short-term prophylaxis, long-term prophylaxis, and recommendations for self-administration, individualized therapy, quality of life, and comprehensive care. It is anticipated that by providing this guideline to caregivers, policy makers, patients and their advocates, that there will be an improved understanding of the current recommendations regarding management of HAE and the factors that need to be considered when choosing therapies and treatment plans for individual patients. The primary target users of this guideline are healthcare providers who are managing patients with HAE. Other healthcare providers who may use this guideline are emergency physicians, gastroenterologists, dentists and otolaryngologists, who will encounter patients with HAE and need to be aware of this condition. Hospital administrators, insurers and policy makers may also find this guideline helpful.

We present a series of three cases of patch testing confirmed cardiac rhythm device induced contact dermatitis. In the first two cases, there was complete resolution with device extraction and reimplantation with another device with either an absence of the offending agent or a coating with another resin or metal. These cases illustrate the difficulties in diagnosing pain, tenderness, and dermatological manifestations in patients with cardiac rhythm devices (pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators)., (©2012, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)