Search

Abstract Aim of this study is to clarify the impact of cofactors on allergic reactions in patients sensitized to LTP and ω-5-gliadin. We retrospectively examined the charts of our outpatients from January 2015 to July 2019 and identified 157 patients seen for urticaria/angioedema or anaphylaxis after a meal, in presence or absence of cofactors and sensitized to LTPs (Pru p 3 and/or Tri a 14) and/or ω-5-gliadin (Tri a 19). we compared LTPs-positive patients and those sensitized to Tri a 19 in order to assess the difference in cofactors involved and in frequency of clinical presentation. Our data show that exercise is the most frequent cofactor in FDEIAn and the involvement of exercise, alcohol and multiple cofactors was more frequently found in males than in females. We found that exercise, pollen counts peaks and multiple cofactors were more often related to anaphylaxis than mild reactions. Finally, we performed a comparison between patients LTPs+ and Tri a 19+ that showed in the latter group a lower frequency of allergic comorbidities, a higher median age at the onset of symptoms and frequency of alcohol exposure. Our data show that the search for possible cofactors involved in food allergy is essential not only for diagnostic purposes, but also for risk assessment strategies.

Background: The identification of type-2 inflammation in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) acquires a crucial role in the endotypization needed for selecting patients for biological drugs targeting type-2 inflammation: to date, the parameters used include systemic and histological biomarkers. The aim of this study was to investigate whether nasal cytology could identify type-2 inflammation in patients with CRSwNP. Methodology: Thirty-three consecutive patients with CRSwNP underwent nasal cytology sampling at the level of the lower nasal turbinate, and of the polypoid tissue, and surgical polyp tissue sample was collected. The cellularity of the 3 collected samples were compared. Results: Mean nasal polyp tissue, nasal polyps cytology and inferior turbinate cytology eosinophils counts were 43.7 ± 39.6 cells/HPF, 32.8 ± 44.7 cells/HPF and 27.6 ± 58.0 cells/HPF respectively with inferior turbinate cytology eosinophils significantly lower than nasal polyp tissue count (p = 0.007). Both mean nasal polyps cytology eosinophils and mean inferior turbinate cytology eosinophils were significantly higher in patients with type-2 CRSwNP (52.5 ± 67.0 cells/HPF vs 12.2 ± 17.3 cells/HPF, p = 0.012, and 32.0 ± 62.1 cells/HPF vs 2.9 ± 2.9 cells/HPF, p = 0.020 respectively). Conclusions: Nasal cytology is suitable tool for assessing local biomarkers of type-2 inflammation in CRSwNP.

The anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has probably been the most effective tool for preventing the infection and negative outcomes of the COVID-19 disease, and therefore for interrupting the pandemic state. The first licensed SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was BNT162b2, an mRNA vaccine that has been widely used since the earliest stages of the global vaccination campaign. Since the beginning of the vaccination campaign, some cases of suspected allergic reactions to BNT162b2 have been described. Epidemiological data, however, have provided reassuring results of an extremely low prevalence of these hypersensitivity reactions to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. In this article, we describe the results of a survey carried out through the use of a questionnaire, administered to all the health personnel of our university hospital after the first two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine, which investigated the development of adverse reactions after a vaccination. We analyzed the responses of 3112 subjects subjected to the first dose of the vaccine; among these, 1.8% developed symptoms compatible with allergic reactions and 0.9% with clinical manifestations of possible anaphylaxis. Only 10.3% of the subjects who had allergic reactions after the first injection experienced similar reactions after the second dose and none of them experienced anaphylaxis. In conclusion, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is rarely associated with severe allergic reactions and the second dose of vaccine is safe for this group of patients.

Vaccines for SAR-CoV-2 are the most effective preventive treatment able to reduce the risk of contracting the infection and experiencing worse outcomes whenever the infection is contracted. Despite their rarity, hypersensitivity reactions to the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine have been described and could become the reason not to complete the vaccination. Desensitization protocols for other vaccines have been described and validated, while the use of this approach for anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is still anecdotal. We herein describe our experience with 30 patients with previous allergic reactions to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines or to any of their excipients, proving that they are effective and safe; only two patients experienced hypersensitivity reaction symptoms during the desensitization procedure. Moreover, in this article, we propose desensitization protocols for the most common anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

Concern has arisen about hypersensitivity reactions in patients with allergic reactions to drugs containing polyethylene glycol (PEG) or polysorbate 80 (PS80), excipients of currently available anti-SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. However, the actual utility of PEG and PS80 skin allergy testing is currently still debated. We retrospectively analyzed all cases of patients on whom we performed allergometric skin tests for PEG and PS80 in the context of a pre-vaccination screening (for patients with multiple hypersensitivity reactions to drugs for which these excipients were among the suspected agents) or following suspected hypersensitivity reactions to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. A total of 134 tests were performed for PEG and PS80, eight of which produced uninterpretable results (due to dermographism or non-specific reactions). Of the remaining 126 cases (85 pre-vaccinal and 41 post-vaccine reactions), 16 (12.7%) were positive for PEG and/or PS80. Stratifying by clinical indication, there were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of positive tests between patients evaluated in the context of the pre-vaccination screening and those evaluated after a vaccine reaction (10.6% vs. 17.1%, respectively, p = 0.306). Allergometric skin tests for PEG and PS80 in our case series resulted positive in an unexpectedly high proportion of patients, suggesting that testing for allergy to these two excipients should not be ignored in case of reasonable clinical suspicion.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated disease of the esophagus characterized clinically by symptoms related to esophageal dysfunction and histologically by eosinophil-predominant inflammation, whose incidence is rising. It significantly affects patients’ quality of life and, if left untreated, results in fibrotic complications. Although broad consensus has been achieved on first-line therapy, a subset of patients remains non-responder to standard therapy. The pathogenesis of EoE is multifactorial and results from the complex, still mostly undefined, interaction between genetics and intrinsic factors, environment, and antigenic stimuli. A deep understanding of the pathophysiology of this disease is pivotal for the development of new therapies. This review provides a comprehensive description of the pathophysiology of EoE, starting from major pathogenic mechanisms (genetics, type 2 inflammation, epithelial barrier dysfunction, gastroesophageal reflux, allergens, infections and microbiota) and subsequently focusing on the single protagonists of type 2 inflammation (involved cells, cytokines, soluble effectors, surface proteins and transcription factors) that could represent present and future therapeutic targets, while summarizing previous therapeutic approaches in literature.