Search

Background: Cross-reactivity between aztreonam and β-lactams is poor, but tolerability of aztreonam has been assessed in a few groups of patients suffering from IgE-mediated allergy to β-lactams. The aim of this study was to assess the cross-reactivity of aztreonam with other β-lactams and its tolerability in patients with cell-mediated allergy to these drugs. Methods: We studied 78 patients with cell-mediated allergy to β-lactams who underwent skin prick, immediate and delayed-reading intradermal tests as well as patch tests with penicilloyl-polylysine, minor determinant mixture, semi-synthetic penicillins, cephalosporins, aztreonam and imipenem. Patients with negative allergy testing with aztreonam underwent an intramuscular test dosing and were observed for 3 h. Results: Our patients experienced 94 non-immediate reactions; delayed-onset urticaria (34 cases), maculopapular exanthema (13 cases), urticaria/angioedema (15 cases) and itching erythema (13 cases) were the most reported symptoms. Amoxicillin (35 cases), ampicillin (28 cases) and bacampicillin (18 cases) were the most involved drugs. All patients had a positive patch test and/or a positive delayed-reading intradermal test to at least 1 β-lactam antibiotic and none had a positive patch or delayed-reading intradermal test to aztreonam. Then, 65 patients underwent intramuscular test dosing with aztroenam, and none of them had a clinical reaction. Conclusions: Our data confirm the lack of cross-reactivity between β-lactams and aztreonam in patients with cell-mediated allergy to these drugs. Delayed-reading intradermal tests and patch tests with aztreonam represent a simple and rapid diagnostic tool to establish tolerability in β-lactam-allergic patients. Copyright © 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Humans generally experience a sense of agency over the outcomes produced by their motor actions. This has been well established in the case of manual actions that directly affect the physical environment. Vocalizations are also actions, but they typically have only indirect effects on the environment. In the present research, we explore whether the outcomes produced by vocalizations also elicit a sense of agency. In three experiments, using an interval reproduction task, we find that performing a vocal action that produced an auditory outcome caused participants to underestimate the amount of elapsed time between actions and outcomes (i.e., temporal binding), an implicit index of the sense of agency (Experiment 1). We also show that observing others produce vocal actions elicits temporal binding, but only when the observer has direct visual access to the vocal action being executed (Experiments 2 and 3). Taken together, our findings suggest that direct observation of an action is necessary to experience a temporal binding effect for actions performed by others, and that audio-visuomotor information may play a role in the generation of temporal compression experienced over observed actions (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Professional magicians regularly use pantomimed grasps (i.e., movements towards imagined objects) to deceive audiences. To do so, they learn to shape their hands similarly for real and pantomimed grasps. Here we tested whether this form of motor expertise provides them a significant benefit when processing pantomimed grasps. To this aim, in a one-interval discrimination design, we asked 17 professional magicians and 17 naïve controls to watch video clips of reach-to-grasp movements recorded from naïve participants and judge whether the observed movement was real or pantomimed. All video clips were edited to spatially occlude the grasped object (either present or imagined). Data were analysed within a drift diffusion model approach. Fitting different models showed that, whereas magicians and naïve performed similarly when observing real grasps, magicians had a specific advantage compared with naïve at discriminating pantomimed grasps. These findings suggest that motor expertise may be crucial for detecting relevant cues from hand movement during the discrimination of pantomimed grasps. Results are discussed in terms of motor recalibration.

Objective: The quantification of basophil activation by flow cytometry is a useful tool for the assessment of immediate-type responses to food allergens and the prediction of clinical tolerance in food allergy patients. The aim of this study is to investigate how the analysis of allergen-induced CD63 up-regulation by flow cytometry can be effective in monitoring the acquisition of clinical tolerance by specific oral desensitization in food allergy. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine this topic., Materials and Methods: Three male patients affected by cow's milk allergy underwent successful oral desensitization to cow's milk. In order to monitor the acquired clinical tolerance that occurred after treatment, we performed laboratory tests for total and specific IgE, specific IgG4 and the Basophil Activation Test (BAT) both at baseline and at the end of the desensitization protocol., Results: Using a fluorescent enzyme immunoassay, the comparison of specific cow's milk antibodies before and after treatment showed a decrease of specific IgE levels, without reaching normal values, and an increase of specific IgG4 levels. A complete suppression of cow's milk proteins (α-lactoalbumin, β-lactoglobulin and casein) induced CD63 regulation was observed in all three reported cases., Conclusions: Using flow cytometry, food allergen-specific basophil responses could be monitored in order to identify an acquired tolerance induced by desensitization treatment. Although further studies are needed to develop this important new topic, it was interesting to note that the BAT seemed to be more sensitive and characterized by a close correlation with clinical tolerance.

Background and Objective: 13-Lactams are the most commonly used antibiotics but they can cause hypersensitivity reactions. We sought to estimate cross-reactivity and tolerability of cephalosporins in patients with cell-mediated allergy to penicillins., Methods: We studied 97 patients with a clinical history of nonimmediate reactions to a penicillin and a positive patch test result to at least 1 of the penicillins tested. All patients also underwent patch testing with several cephalosporins. Patients with a negative patch test to a cephalosporin underwent test dosing in order to assess tolerability., Results: We recorded 129 reactions. The most commonly involved drugs were aminopenicillins, and the most widely reported symptoms were delayed urticaria and maculopapular exanthema. Seventeen patients had positive patch test results for cephalosporins, mostly for cephalexin (n=10), cefaclor (n=9), and cefuroxime axetil (n=5). All the patients-except 4 who experienced an exanthema after the challenge test with cephalexin-tolerated a therapeutic dose of the cephalosporin tested without any adverse effects., Conclusions: Our data show that cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins may be as high as 10.9% for first-generation cephalosporins and 1.1% for third-generation cephalosporins, possibly due to the involvement of similar side chains. Patch tests are a useful diagnostic tool to assess cross-reactivity, but a graded challenge is mandatory because a negative patch test does not always mean tolerability.

Objective: We present the case of a woman with 'empty sella syndrome' who experienced generalized urticaria after the administration of sodium succinate hydrocortisone in two episodes., Methods: The patient underwent an allergological evaluation (prick, intradermal, and patch tests) with hydrocortisone sodium succinate, hydrocortisone acetate, hydrocortisone, hydrocortisone sodium phosphate, methylprednisolone hemisuccinate, methylprednisolone, and preservatives held in the formulation of sodium succinate hydrocortisone (sodium phosphate and methyl-p-oxybenzoate). The basophil activation test (BAT) was also performed with hydrocortisone. The single-blind i.m. challenge test was performed with hydrocortisone sodium phosphate in 4 days., Results: Skin test with hydrocortisone sodium succinate and methylprednisolone hemisuccinate was positive. On the contrary, allergological tests performed with other formulations of the same steroids and preservatives were negative. These results showed an immediate-type allergy to succinate ester. BAT was not helpful to improve our diagnostic work-up because our patient was a 'nonresponder.' Therefore, the patient underwent successfully to a challenge test with hydrocortisone sodium phosphate., Conclusions: Patients with succinate ester allergy can tolerate alternative corticosteroids without ester.

Background: Administration of imipenem-cilastatin to patients with IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to beta-lactams has always been considered potentially harmful. Recent studies have demonstrated the tolerability of carbapenems (imipenem-cilastatin and meropenem) in patients with IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to beta-lactams; there are no studies on this topic regarding patients with cell-mediated allergy to beta-lactams. The aim of this study is to assess cross-reactivity and tolerability of imipenem in patients with cell-mediated allergy to beta-lactams., Methods: From our database we selected 73 patients with cell-mediated allergy to beta-lactams, diagnosed by means of immediate-type skin tests, delayed reading intradermal tests, patch tests and detection of specific IgE. Patients with negative patch tests with imipenem-cilastatin underwent an intramuscular test dosing., Results: Our patients had a total of 94 nonimmediate reactions to penicillins. All patients had positive patch tests and/or delayed reading intradermal tests for at least one of the penicillin reagent tested and negative immediate-type skin tests and specific IgE. Four patients out of 73 had a positive patch tests to at least one penicillin reagent and imipenem-cilastatin showing cross-reactivity. Sixty-four patients underwent the imipenem-cilastatin intramuscular test dosing and none of them had a clinical reaction., Conclusions: Our rate of cross-reactivity between imipenem-cilastatin and other beta-lactams was 5.5%. This result is different from previous findings and this may be explained by the fact that we investigated patients with cell-mediated allergy to beta-lactams. Patients with cell-mediated allergy to beta-lactams should undergo patch tests and a tolerance challenge test before treatment with imipenem-cilastatin.