Occupational cannabis exposure and allergy risks.

OBJECTIVES: Cannabis allergy has mainly been described following recreational use but some cases also point to cannabis sensitisation as a result of occupational exposure. As a consequence, little is known on the prevalence and clinical phenotype of occupational cannabis allergy. Therefore, this study aims to explore the allergy-associated health risks of occupational cannabis exposure in Belgian police force personnel. METHODS: 81 participants, active in the police force, reporting regular occupational cannabis exposure during the past 12 months, were included. History was combined with a standardised questionnaire on allergies and cannabis exposure.Basophil activation tests (BATs) with a crude cannabis extract and rCan s 3 were performed. In addition, specific (s)IgE rCan s 3 as well as sIgE to house dust mite, six pollen and three mould allergens were quantified. RESULTS: Although 42% of the participants reported respiratory and/or cutaneous symptoms on occupational cannabis exposure, all cannabis diagnostics were entirely negative, except one symptomatic case demonstrating a borderline result. Furthermore, there is no significant difference between the groups with and without symptoms on cannabis exposure in terms of allergenic sensitisations. CONCLUSIONS: The origins of the reported respiratory and cutaneous symptoms during cannabis exposure remain elusive but are probably due to non-immune reactions. It should be noted that the study was volunteer-based possibly reflecting an excessive number of symptomatic individuals. Nevertheless, as only one participant reported using fully protective gear, much improvement is needed for reducing the number of symptoms reported on duty, independent of their origin.

Low adherence with national travel medicine recommendations in Belgian expatriate children: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Expatriates (expats) from European countries regularly migrate to low-income countries where infectious diseases are more prevalent. Little evidence exists however on pediatric expatriates' compliance with preventive measures related to infectious diseases. This study aims to evaluate compliance in Belgian expat-children. METHODS: Data of 135 Belgian expat-children, visiting the Institute of Tropical Medicine (Antwerp, Belgium), were collected from clinical notes, laboratory results and from a web-based immunization-register. Information on routine vaccinations, yellow fever, hepatitis A, rabies, typhoid fever, meningococcal ACW135Y, Japanese encephalitis, BCG vaccine and anti-malaria chemoprophylaxis was collected. RESULTS: Overall, 87% of expat-children were up-to-date with their routine vaccinations. Although all children were eligible for hepatitis A, typhoid and rabies vaccination, only 8-21% were fully vaccinated. Only 29 and 61% of eligible children were vaccinated against meningococcal (ACW135Y) or yellow fever respectively. Finally, only 10% of children who lived in malaria-endemic-areas, reported chemoprophylaxis-use. CONCLUSION: Although routine vaccination coverage in expat-children seems adequate, additional preventive measures are often needed. Whether this is due to lack of high-quality health care-access, fear of side-effects or insufficient knowledge about the risks/available preventive measures, remains elusive. Nevertheless, expats seem to constitute a separate risk-group for infectious diseases and destination-related health issues.

Cannabis allergy: what the clinician needs to know in 2019.

INTRODUCTION: Although the use of cannabis dates back millennia, the first description of cannabis allergy is relatively recent (1971). Recent large-scale data show that cannabis allergy can manifest severe and generalized symptoms with extensive cross-reactions. Thus, it is essential to become familiarized with its clinical presentation, diagnostic aids, and adequate therapeutic guidance. Areas covered: Here we provide a hands-on overview on cannabis allergy focusing on symptomatology and the reliability of diagnostic options. Recent advances in proteomics are discussed in detail, elucidating the link with nsLTP-related allergies. The proteomics advancements have paved the way for more reliable diagnostics, especially component-based tools. Finally, the current experience in treatment options is highlighted. Expert opinion: Cannabis allergy is an allergy entity which can significantly impact the quality of life. For optimal diagnosis, we advise to start with a validated and standardized crude-extract based test such as sIgE hemp complemented by component-based diagnostics such as sIgE Can s 3 quantifications where available. Future research should lift the veil on the true prevalence of cannabis allergy and the importance of other cannabis allergens to further guide our practice.

Exploring the Diagnosis and Profile of Cannabis Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis allergy (CA) has mainly been attributed to Can s 3, the nonspecific lipid transfer protein (nsLTP) of Cannabis sativa. Nevertheless, standardized diagnostic tests are lacking and research on CA is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To explore the performance of 5 cannabis diagnostic tests and the phenotypic profile of CA. METHODS: A total of 120 patients with CA were included and stratified according to the nature of their cannabis-related symptoms; 62 healthy and 189 atopic controls were included. Specific IgE (sIgE) hemp, sIgE and basophil activation test (BAT) with a recombinant Can s 3 protein from Cannabis sativa (rCan s 3), BAT with a crude cannabis extract, and a skin prick test (SPT) with an nCan s 3-rich cannabis extract were performed. Clinical information was based on patient history and a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: First, up to 72% of CA reporting likely-anaphylaxis (CA-A) are Can s 3 sensitized. Actually, the Can s 3-based diagnostic tests show the best combination of positive and negative predictive values, 80% and 60%, respectively. sIgE hemp displays 82% sensitivity but only 32% specificity. Secondly, Can s 3+CA reported significantly more cofactor-mediated reactions and displayed significantly more sensitizations to other nsLTPs than Can s 3-CA. Finally, the highest prevalence of systemic reactions to plant-derived foods was seen in CA-A, namely 72%. CONCLUSIONS: The most effective and practical tests to confirm CA are the SPT with an nCan s 3-rich extract and the sIgE rCan s 3. Can s 3 sensitization entails a risk of systemic reactions to plant-derived foods and cofactor-mediated reactions. However, as Can s 3 sensitization is not absolute, other cannabis allergens probably play a role.