Unique molecular signatures typify skin inflammation induced by chemical allergens and irritants.

BACKGROUND: Skin exposure to chemicals may induce an inflammatory disease known as contact dermatitis (CD). Distinguishing the allergic and irritant forms of CD often proves challenging in the clinic. METHODS: To characterize the molecular signatures of chemical-induced skin inflammation, we conducted a comprehensive transcriptomic analysis on the skin lesions of 47 patients with positive patch tests to reference contact allergens and nonallergenic irritants. RESULTS: A clear segregation was observed between allergen- and irritant-induced gene profiles. Distinct modules pertaining to the epidermal compartment, metabolism, and proliferation were induced by both contact allergens and irritants; whereas only contact allergens prompted strong activation of adaptive immunity, notably of cytotoxic T-cell responses. Our results also confirmed that: (a) unique pathways characterize allergen- and irritant-induced dermatitis; (b) the intensity of the clinical reaction correlates with the magnitude of immune activation. Finally, using a machine-learning approach, we identified and validated several minimal combinations of biomarkers to distinguish contact allergy from irritation. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the value of molecular profiling of chemical-induced skin inflammation for improving the diagnosis of allergic versus irritant contact dermatitis.

Human peripheral basophils extended phenotype shows a high expression of CD244 immuno-regulatory receptor.

INTRODUCTION: Basophils play a major physio-pathological role in hypersensitivity related diseases. Basophils express high affinity Immunoglobulin (Ig) E receptors (FcεRI), IgG and complement regulatory. Basophils also have immunoregulatory activity through interaction with T cells. The aim of this study was to look for the expression of markers reflecting the activation status of peripheral Basophil in healthy donors. METHOD: the study was performed on 29 healthy donors, 62% females with a mean age of 50.1 + 17.0 years. Basophils were identified on their expression of CD123 without HLA-DR and/or CD193 in two 8 colors panels including CD46, CD55, CD59, CD203c, CD32 (FcγRII), CD64 (FcγRIII), CD163, CD137L (4-1BBL), CD252 (OX40L), CD244 (2B4) and CD3 on whole blood. Basophil activation with anti IgE was performed on 14 donors. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Our results confirmed the Basophil expression of CD123, CD193 and CD203 (the latter is strongly increased under stimulation). Complement regulatory proteins (CD46, CD55, CD59) were expressed at the same levels as on other leukocytes; CD46, CD59 expression being slightly increased under stimulation. CD32 and CD163 scavenger were slightly higher than on lympho and not influenced by activation. CD252 or CD137L were expressed at low levels and significantly induced by stimulation. Most of all, CD244 was highly expressed on Basophils as compared to any other leukocytes in fresh peripheral blood. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that human resting Basophils express IgE and IgG Fc receptors and check point receptor CD244 that could potentially play a role in their previously reported immunoregulatory activity in sensitization and even in tumor immune escape.

Immediate Hypersensitivity to Contrast Agents: The French 5-year CIRTACI Study.

BACKGROUND: Iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast media (ICM; GBCM) induce immediate hypersensitivity (IH) reactions. Differentiating allergic from non-allergic IH is crucial; allergy contraindicates the culprit agent for life. We studied frequency of allergic IH among ICM or GBCM reactors. METHODS: Patients were recruited in 31 hospitals between 2005 and 2009. Clinical symptoms, plasma histamine and tryptase concentrations and skin tests were recorded. Allergic IH was diagnosed by intradermal tests (IDT) with the culprit CM diluted 1:10, "potentially allergic" IH by positive IDT with pure CM, and non-allergic IH by negative IDT. FINDINGS: Among 245 skin-tested patients (ICM = 209; GBCM = 36), allergic IH to ICM was identified in 41 (19.6%) and to GBCM in 10 (27.8%). Skin cross-reactivity was observed in 11 patients with ICM (26.8%) and 5 with GBCM (50%). Allergy frequency increased with clinical severity and histamine and tryptase concentrations (p < 0.0001). Cardiovascular signs were strongly associated with allergy. Non-allergic IH was observed in 152 patients (62%) (ICM:134; GBCM:18). Severity grade was lower (p < 0.0001) and reaction delay longer (11.6 vs 5.6 min; p < 0.001). Potentially allergic IH was diagnosed in 42 patients (17.1%) (ICM:34; GBCM:8). The delay, severity grade, and mediator release were intermediate between the two other groups. INTERPRETATION: Allergic IH accounted for < 10% of cutaneous reactions, and > 50% of life-threatening ones. GBCM and ICM triggered comparable IH reactions in frequency and severity. Cross-reactivity was frequent, especially for GBCM. We propose considering skin testing with pure contrast agent, as it is more sensitive than the usual 1:10 dilution criteria.

Survey on practice of venom immunotherapy in France.

INTRODUCTION: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the only efficient prevention for sting-induced anaphylaxis, but its application is not without risks and needs precautions and standardization. European guidelines were proposed in 2005, but recent practice surveys and more recent knowledge raise the need for an update. The aim of this study was to analyze VIT practices in France, based on previous surveys in Europe but also extended to outcome event management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A paper questionnaire was sent widely to persons involved in venom treatment. RESULTS: Eighty-six responses could be included from physicians actively involved in VIT induction evenly distributed in France. The survey shows that VIT was engaged from grade III down to grade I reactions, starting preferentially with the ultra-rush protocol. Premedication was used by 42% only and risks induced by co-treatment with ß-blockers were well known but not with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. However, side effects were very variably managed from arrest to enhancement in doses, time-delay or duration. Similarly, we observed a large discrepancy in treatment evaluation (skin tests, biology, timing and interpretation), decision making for treatment termination (when and how long to be prolonged) and post-treatment follow-up (adrenaline kit, event record) as well as procedures in case of late relapse (new induction, different doses). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that most recommendations were fully or partially followed and may need reminding, but many points need to be completed or updated with new tools and knowledge acquired during the last 10 years.