Next-generation sequencing and genotype association studies reveal the association of HLA-DRB3*02:02 with delayed hypersensitivity to penicillins.

BACKGROUND: Nonimmediate (delayed)-allergic reactions to penicillins are common and some of them can be life-threatening. The genetic factors influencing these reactions are unknown/poorly known/poorly understood. We assessed the genetic predictors of a delayed penicillin allergy that cover the HLA loci. METHODS: Using next-generation sequencing (NGS), we genotyped the MHC region in 24 patients with delayed hypersensitivity compared with 20 patients with documented immediate hypersensitivity to penicillins recruited in Italy. Subsequently, we analyzed in silico Illumina Immunochip genotyping data that covered the HLA loci in 98 Spanish patients with delayed hypersensitivity and 315 with immediate hypersensitivity compared to 1,308 controls. RESULTS: The two alleles DRB3*02:02:01:02 and DRB3*02:02:01:01 were reported in twenty cases with delayed reactions (83%) and ten cases with immediate reactions (50%), but not in the Allele Frequency Net Database. Bearing at least one of the two alleles increased the risk of delayed reactions compared to immediate reactions, with an OR of 8.88 (95% CI, 3.37-23.32; p < .0001). The haplotype (ACAA) from rs9268835, rs6923504, rs6903608, and rs9268838 genetic variants of the HLA-DRB3 genomic region was significantly associated with an increased risk of delayed hypersensitivity to penicillins (OR, 1.7; 95% CI: 1.06-1.92; p = .001), but not immediate hypersensitivity. CONCLUSION: We showed that the HLA-DRB3 locus is strongly associated with an increased risk of delayed penicillin hypersensitivity, at least in Southwestern Europe. The determination of HLA-DRB3*02:02 alleles in the risk management of severe delayed hypersensitivity to penicillins should be evaluated further in larger population samples of different origins.

Effectiveness and safety of dupilumab in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and associated comorbidities: a multicentric prospective study in real life.

BACKGROUND: Biologics are currently one of the main treatment options for a number of diseases. The IgG4 monoclonal antibody dupilumab targets the Interleukin-4 receptor alpha chain, thus preventing the biological effects of the cytokines IL-4 and IL-13, that are essential for the Th2 response. Several controlled trials showed that dupilumab is effective and safe in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), severe asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), thus resulting in approval by regulatory agencies. Aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dupilumab in adult patients with CRSwNP stratified by common overlapping comorbid conditions. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, observational, prospective study enrolling adult patients with severe CRSwNP who had started dupilumab treatment in the context of standard care from January 2021 to October 2021. Data were collected from twentynine Italian secondary care centers for allergy and clinical immunology, all of which were part of the Italian Society of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (SIAAIC). A number of efficacy parameters were used. Patient data were compared using the Wilcoxon test for paired data. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS version 20 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). RESULTS: In total, 82 patients with nasal polyposis were identified. A significant improvement was detected for all the applied efficacy parameters, i.e. 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) and bilateral endoscopic nasal polyp score (NPS) scores for CRSwNP, Rhinitis Control Scoring System (RCSS) and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores for allergic perennial rhinitis, Forced Expiratory Volume in the 1st second (FEV1) and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) scores for asthma, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores for AD. A non-significant improvement was also obtained in the Urticaria Activity Score over 7 days (UAS7) for chronic spontaneous urticaria. Treatment with dupilumab was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that dupilumab treatment in patients suffering from CRSwNP and associated comorbidities may be suitable. Such outcome, although confirmation by trials is warranted, suggests the possibility to treat different disorders with a single therapy, with favorable effects especially under the cost-effectiveness aspect.

Beta-lactam-induced immediate hypersensitivity reactions: A genome-wide association study of a deeply phenotyped cohort.

BACKGROUND: ß-lactam antibiotics are associated with a variety of immune-mediated or hypersensitivity reactions, including immediate (type I) reactions mediated by antigen-specific IgE. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify genetic predisposing factors for immediate reactions to ß-lactam antibiotics. METHODS: Patients with a clinical history of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to either penicillins or cephalosporins, which were immunologically confirmed, were recruited from allergy clinics. A genome-wide association study was conducted on 662 patients (the discovery cohort) with a diagnosis of immediate hypersensitivity and the main finding was replicated in a cohort of 98 Spanish cases, recruited using the same diagnostic criteria as the discovery cohort. RESULTS: Genome-wide association study identified rs71542416 within the Class II HLA region as the top hit (P = 2 × 10-14); this was in linkage disequilibrium with HLA-DRB1∗10:01 (odds ratio, 2.93; P = 5.4 × 10-7) and HLA-DQA1∗01:05 (odds ratio, 2.93, P = 5.4 × 10-7). Haplotype analysis identified that HLA-DRB1∗10:01 was a risk factor even without the HLA-DQA1∗01:05 allele. The association with HLA-DRB1∗10:01 was replicated in another cohort, with the meta-analysis of the discovery and replication cohorts showing that HLA-DRB1∗10:01 increased the risk of immediate hypersensitivity at a genome-wide level (odds ratio, 2.96; P = 4.1 × 10-9). No association with HLA-DRB1∗10:01 was identified in 268 patients with delayed hypersensitivity reactions to ß-lactams. CONCLUSIONS: HLA-DRB1∗10:01 predisposed to immediate hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins. Further work to identify other predisposing HLA and non-HLA loci is required.

Detection of Serum-Specific IgE by Fluoro-Enzyme Immunoassay for Diagnosing Type I Hypersensitivity Reactions to Penicillins.

Diagnosis of type I hypersensitivity reactions (IgE-mediated reactions) to penicillins is based on clinical history, skin tests (STs), and drug provocation tests (DPTs). Among in vitro complementary tests, the fluoro-enzyme immunoassay (FEIA) ImmunoCAP® (Thermo-Fisher, Waltham, MA, USA) is the most widely used commercial method for detecting drug-specific IgE (sIgE). In this study, we aimed to analyze the utility of ImmunoCAP® for detecting sIgE to penicillin G (PG) and amoxicillin (AX) in patients with confirmed penicillin allergy. The study includes 139 and 250 patients evaluated in Spain and Italy, respectively. All had experienced type I hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins confirmed by positive STs. Additionally, selective or cross-reactive reactions were confirmed by DPTs in a subgroup of patients for further analysis. Positive ImmunoCAP® results were 39.6% for PG and/or AX in Spanish subjects and 52.4% in Italian subjects. When only PG or AX sIgE where analyzed, the percentages were 15.1% and 30.4%, respectively, in Spanish patients; and 38.9% and 46% in Italian ones. The analysis of positive STs showed a statistically significant higher percentage of positive STs to PG determinants in Italian patients. False-positive results to PG (16%) were detected in selective AX patients with confirmed PG tolerance. Low and variable sensitivity values observed in a well-defined population with confirmed allergy diagnosis, as well as false-positive results to PG, suggest that ImmunoCAP® is a diagnostic tool with relevant limitations in the evaluation of subjects with type I hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins.

Practice parameters for diagnosing and managing iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity.

Immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) have been reported to occur in a frequency of about 0.5%-3% of patients receiving nonionic ICM. The diagnosis and management of these patients vary among guidelines published by various national and international scientific societies, with recommendations ranging from avoidance or premedication to drug provocation test. This position paper aims to give recommendations for the management of patients with ICM hypersensitivity reactions and analyze controversies in this area. Skin tests are recommended as the initial step for diagnosing patients with immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions; besides, they may also help guide on tolerability of alternatives. Re-exposition or drug provocation test should only be done with skin test-negative ICMs. The decision for performing either re-exposition or drug provocation test needs to be taken based on a risk-benefit analysis. The role of in vitro tests for diagnosis and pretreatment for preventing reactions remains controversial.

SIRM-SIAAIC consensus, an Italian document on management of patients at risk of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media.

Hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to contrast media (CM) can be distinguished in immune-mediated (including allergic reactions) and non-immune-mediated reactions, even if clinical manifestations could be similar. Such manifestations range from mild skin eruptions to severe anaphylaxis, making it important for radiologists to know how to identify and manage them. A panel of experts from the Società Italiana di Radiologia Medica e Interventistica (SIRM) and the Società Italiana di Allergologia, Asma e Immunologia Clinica (SIAAIC) provided a consensus document on the management of patients who must undergo radiological investigations with CM. Consensus topics included: the risk stratification of patients, the identification of the culprit CM and of a safe alternative by an allergy workup, as well as the use of premedication and the correct procedure to safely perform an elective (i.e., scheduled) or urgent examination. The most important recommendations are: (1) in all patients, a thorough medical history must be taken by the prescribing physician and/or the radiologist to identify at-risk patients; (2) in patients with hypersensitivity reactions to CM, the radiologist must consider an alternative, non-contrast imaging study with a comparable diagnostic value, or prescribe a different investigation with another class of CM; (3) if such options are not feasible, the radiologist must address at-risk patients to a reference centre for an allergy evaluation; (4) if timely referral to an allergist is not viable, it is recommended to use a CM other than the responsible one, taking into account cross-reactivity patterns; in the case of patients with histories of severe reactions, the presence of an anesthesiologist is also recommended and a premedication is suggested.

Non-immediate Cutaneous Reactions to Beta-Lactams: Approach to Diagnosis.

Non-immediate cutaneous reactions (i.e., occurring at least 1 h after the initial drug administration), particularly maculopapular exanthemas and urticarial eruptions, are common during beta-lactam treatments. A T cell-mediated pathogenic mechanism has been demonstrated in some cutaneous reactions, such as maculopapular exanthema, fixed drug eruption, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, and drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome. In the diagnostic work-up, patch testing is useful, together with delayed-reading intradermal testing. Patch tests are a simple and safe diagnostic tool, which in the case of severe reactions should be used as the first line of investigation. However, patch tests are less sensitive than intradermal tests, which are preferable in subjects with mild reactions. Lymphocyte transformation or activation tests and enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assays can be used as complementary tests. In selected cases of mild or moderate reactions, displaying negative results in the aforesaid allergy tests, a graded challenge with the implicated beta-lactam can be performed.

Cross-reactivity and tolerability of aztreonam and cephalosporins in subjects with a T cell-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins.

BACKGROUND: The few studies performed in adults with T cell-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins have found a rate of cross-reactivity with cephalosporins ranging from 2.8% to 31.2% and an absence of cross-reactivity with aztreonam. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the possibility of using cephalosporins and aztreonam in subjects with documented delayed hypersensitivity to penicillins who especially require them. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of 214 consecutive subjects who had 307 nonimmediate reactions to penicillins (almost exclusively aminopenicillins) and had positive patch test and/or delayed-reading skin test responses to at least 1 penicillin reagent. To assess cross-reactivity with cephalosporins and aztreonam and the tolerability of such alternative ß-lactams, all subjects underwent skin tests with cephalexin, cefaclor, cefadroxil, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam. Subjects with negative responses were challenged with the alternative ß-lactams concerned. RESULTS: All subjects had negative skin test results to cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam and tolerated challenges. Forty (18.7%) of the 214 subjects had positive skin test responses to at least 1 aminocephalosporin. Of the 174 subjects with negative responses, 170 underwent challenges; 1 reacted to cefaclor. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate a rate of cross-reactivity between aminopenicillins and aminocephalosporins (ie, cephalexin, cefaclor, and cefadroxil) of around 20%, as well as the absence of cross-reactivity between penicillins and cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam in all subjects with T cell-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins, almost exclusively aminopenicillins. Therefore these subjects could be treated with cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam. In those who especially require cephalosporin or aztreonam treatment, however, we recommend pretreatment skin tests because negative responses indicate tolerability.

Non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions to beta-lactam antibiotics in children - our 10-year experience in allergy work-up.

BACKGROUND: Non-immediate reactions to beta-lactam antibiotics (BL) occur more than one hour after drug administration, and the most common manifestations are maculopapular exanthemas and delayed-appearing urticaria and/or angioedema. Infections can lead to skin eruptions and mimic drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR), if a drug is taken at the same time. The most of children are labeled as 'drug allergic' after considering only the clinical history. OBJECTIVE: To diagnose/detect a hypersensitivity or an infection which mimic DHR in children with non-immediate reactions to BL METHODS: A prospective survey was conducted in a group of 1026 children with histories of non-immediate reactions to BL by performing patch tests, skin tests, and in case of negative results, drug provocation tests (DPTs). In 300 children, a study was performed to detect infections by viruses or Mycoplasma pneumoniae. RESULTS: Urticaria and maculopapular exanthemas were the most reported non-immediate reactions. Only 76 (7.4%) of 1026 children had confirmed non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions to BL. Fifty-seven children had positive delayed-reading intradermal tests (18 of these with a positive patch test). Nineteen children had positive DPT. Sixty-six of 300 children had positive tests for viruses or Mycoplasma pneumoniae and 2 of them had a positive allergy work-up. CONCLUSIONS: A diagnostic work-up should be performed in all children with non-immediate reactions to BL, to remove a false label of hypersensitivity. Even though only 57 (5.5%) of 1026 children displayed positive responses to delayed-reading intradermal tests to BL, such tests appear to be useful in order to reduce the risk for positive DPTs.

Cross-Reactivity among Beta-Lactams.

Penicillins and cephalosporins are the major classes of beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics in use today and one of the most frequent causes of hypersensitivity reactions to drugs. Monobactams, carbapenems, oxacephems, and beta-lactamase inhibitors constitute the four minor classes of BLs. This review takes into account mainly the prospective studies which evaluated cross-reactivity among BLs in subjects with a well-demonstrated hypersensitivity to a certain class of BLs by performing allergy tests with alternative BLs and, in case of negative results, administering them. In subjects with either IgE-mediated or T-cell-mediated hypersensitivity, cross-reactivity among BLs, particularly among penicillins and among cephalosporins, as well as between penicillins and cephalosporins, seems to be mainly related to structural similarities among their side-chain determinants. Specifically, in penicillin-allergic subjects, cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins may exceed 30% when they are administered cephalosporins with identical side chains to those of responsible penicillins. In these subjects, a few prospective studies have demonstrated a rate of cross-reactivity between penicillins and both carbapenems and aztreonam lower than 1%. With regard to subjects with an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to cephalosporins, in a single study, about 25% of the 98 subjects with such hypersensitivity had positive results to penicillins, 3% to aztreonam, 2% to imipenem/cilastatin, and 1% to meropenem. The cross-reactivity related to the selective recognition of the BL ring by IgE or T lymphocytes, which entails positive responses to all BLs tested, appears to be exceptional. Some studies concerning cross-reactivity among BLs have found patterns of allergy-test positivity which cannot be explained by either the common BL ring or by similar or identical side chains, thus indicating the possibility of coexisting sensitivities to different BLs because of prior exposures to them.

Tolerability of aztreonam and carbapenems in patients with IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins.

BACKGROUND: Studies performed on samples larger than 100 subjects with a documented IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins have demonstrated a cross-reactivity rate of approximately 1% between penicillins and both imipenem and meropenem, whereas a single study found a cross-reactivity rate of 6.2% with aztreonam in 16 such subjects. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cross-reactivity and tolerability of aztreonam and 3 carbapenems (imipenem-cilastatin, meropenem, and ertapenem) in patients with documented IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins. METHODS: A total of 212 consecutive subjects with immediate reactions to penicillins and positive results on skin tests to at least 1 penicillin reagent underwent skin tests with aztreonam and carbapenems; subjects with negative results were challenged with escalating doses of aztreonam and carbapenems. RESULTS: All subjects displayed negative skin test results to both aztreonam and carbapenems; 211 accepted challenges and tolerated them. Challenges were not followed by full therapeutic courses. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate the tolerability of both aztreonam and carbapenems in penicillin-allergic subjects. In those who especially require these alternative ß-lactams, however, we recommend pretreatment skin tests, both because rare cases of cross-reactivity have been reported and because negative results indicate tolerability.

IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to cephalosporins: Cross-reactivity and tolerability of alternative cephalosporins.

BACKGROUND: Studies regarding the cross-reactivity and tolerability of alternative cephalosporins in large samples of subjects with an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to cephalosporins are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the possibility of using alternative cephalosporins in subjects with cephalosporin allergy who especially require them. METHODS: One hundred two subjects with immediate reactions to cephalosporins and positive skin test results to the responsible drugs underwent serum specific IgE assays with cefaclor and skin tests with different cephalosporins. Subjects were classified in 4 groups: group A, positive responses to 1 or more of ceftriaxone, cefuroxime, cefotaxime, cefepime, cefodizime, and ceftazidime; group B, positive responses to aminocephalosporins; group C, positive responses to cephalosporins other than those belonging to the aforementioned groups; and group D, positive responses to cephalosporins belonging to 2 different groups. Group A subjects underwent challenges with cefaclor, cefazolin, and ceftibuten; group B participants underwent challenges with cefuroxime axetil, ceftriaxone, cefazolin, and ceftibuten; and group C and D subjects underwent challenges with some of the aforementioned cephalosporins selected on the basis of their patterns of positivity. RESULTS: There were 73 subjects in group A, 13 in group B, 7 in group C, and 9 in group D. Challenges with alternative cephalosporins (ceftibuten in 101, cefazolin in 96, cefaclor in 82, and cefuroxime axetil and ceftriaxone in 22 subjects) were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Cephalosporin hypersensitivity does not seem to be a class hypersensitivity. Subjects with cephalosporin allergy who especially require alternative cephalosporins might be treated with compounds that have side-chain determinants different from those of the responsible cephalosporins and have negative pretreatment skin test responses.

HLA-DRA variants predict penicillin allergy in genome-wide fine-mapping genotyping.

BACKGROUND: Immediate reactions to ß-lactams are the most common causes of anaphylactic reactions and can be life-threatening. The few known genetic factors influencing these reactions suggest a link with atopy and inflammation. OBJECTIVE: We performed a fine-mapping genome-wide association study of the genetic predictors of ß-lactam allergy to better understand the underlying mechanisms. METHODS: We studied 387 patients with immediate allergic reactions to ß-lactams and 1124 paired control subjects from Spain. We replicated the results in 299 patients and 362 paired control subjects from Italy. RESULTS: We found significant associations with the single nucleotide polymorphisms rs4958427 of ZNF300 (c.64-471G>A, P = 9.9 × 10(-9)), rs17612 of C5 (c.4311A>C [p.Glu1437Asp], P = 7.5 × 10(-7)), rs7754768 and rs9268832 of the HLA-DRA | HLA-DRB5 interregion (P = 1.6 × 10(-6) and 4.9 × 10(-6)), and rs7192 of HLA-DRA (c.724T>G [p.Leu242Val], P = 7.4 × 10(-6)) in an allelic model, with similar results in an additive model. Single nucleotide polymorphisms of HLA-DRA and ZNF300 predicted skin test positivity to amoxicillin and other penicillins but not to cephalosporins. A haplotype block in HLA-DRA and the HLA-DRA | HLA-DRB5 interregion encompassed a motif involved in balanced expression of the α- and ß-chains of MHC class II, whereas rs7192 was predicted to influence α-chain conformation. HLA-DRA rs7192 and rs8084 were significantly associated with allergy to penicillins and amoxicillin (P = 6.0 × 10(-4) and P = 4.0 × 10(-4), respectively) but not to cephalosporins in the replication study. CONCLUSIONS: Gene variants of HLA-DRA and the HLA-DRA | HLA-DRB5 interregion were significant predictors of allergy to penicillins but not to cephalosporins. These data suggest complex gene-environment interactions in which genetic susceptibility of HLA type 2 antigen presentation plays a central role.

Evaluation and Updated Classification of Acute Hypersensitivity Reactions to Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs): NSAID-Exacerbated or -Induced Food Allergy.

BACKGROUND: There are hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to foods in which nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) act as aggravating factors (NSAID-exacerbated food allergy [NEFA]) or cofactors (NSAID-induced food allergy [NIFA]), often misdiagnosed as HRs to NSAIDs. Urticarial/angioedematous and/or anaphylactic reactions to two or more chemically unrelated NSAIDs do not meet current classification criteria. However, they may be considered part of a cross-reactive type of acute HR, which is NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema with or without respiratory or systemic symptoms of anaphylaxis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patients reporting acute HRs to NSAIDs and classify them according to updated criteria. METHODS: We prospectively studied 414 patients with suspected HRs to NSAIDs. For all whom met these criteria, NEFA/NIFA was diagnosed: (1) mild reactions to (NEFA) or tolerance of (NIFA) the suspected foods without taking NSAIDs; (2) cutaneous and/or anaphylactic reactions to the combination foods plus NSAIDs; (3) positive allergy tests to the suspected foods; and (4) negative drug challenges (DCs) with the NSAIDs involved. RESULTS: A total of 252 patients were given the diagnosis of NSAID hypersensitivity (60.9%), 108 of whom had NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema with or without respiratory or systemic symptoms of anaphylaxis. We excluded NSAID hypersensitivity in 162 patients (39.1%) who tolerated DCs with the suspected NSAIDs, nine of whom received a diagnosis of NEFA, and 66 of NIFA. Pru p 3 was implicated in 67 of those 75 patients who received a diagnosis of NEFA or NIFA. CONCLUSIONS: NEFA and NIFA account for about 18% of patients reporting HRs to NSAIDs, in which Pru p 3 is the main responsible food allergen. Therefore, patients with cutaneous and/or anaphylactic reactions to NSAIDs should be carefully questioned about all foods ingested within 4 hours before or after NSAID exposure, and targeted food allergy tests should be considered in the diagnostic workup of these patients. If testing is positive, DCs with the suspected NSAIDs should also be considered.

Diagnosing multiple drug hypersensitivity in children.

BACKGROUND: Multiple drug hypersensitivity (MDH) has been defined as a hypersensitivity to two or more chemically different drugs. Two types of MDH have been reported: the first one, which develops to different drugs administered simultaneously and the second type, in which sensitizations develop sequentially. In children, studies which diagnose MDH on the basis of positive allergologic tests to 2 or more chemically different drugs are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study evaluating children with histories of MDH by skin tests, patch tests, serum-specific IgE assays, and drug provocation tests. RESULTS: A MDH was diagnosed in 7 (2.5%) of the 279 children evaluated who completed the study. The responsible drugs were ß-lactams (penicillins and cephalosporins) in 5 episodes, ibuprofen and anticonvulsants in 3, and erythromycin, fentanyl, methylprednisolone, and cotrimoxazole in 1. Sensitivity to 2 chemically different drugs was diagnosed in 6 children and to 3 drugs in 1 child. Two of the 7 children presented the first type of MDH, whereas 5 displayed the second one. CONCLUSIONS: MDH can occur in children, even to drugs other than antibiotics. It is crucial to evaluate children with histories of MDH using both in vivo and in vitro allergologic tests, including challenges. In fact, such approach allows the physician to confirm the diagnosis of MDH in a small percentage of children with histories of MDH, as well as to rule it out in the great majority of them.

Li-Eswt improves hemodynamic parameters thus suggesting neoangiogenesis in patients with vascular erectile dysfunction.

Extracorporeal treatment with low intensity shock-wave therapy (LI-ESWT) is a recently introduced non-invasive method which purposes the restoration of the pathophysiological alterations at the base of vasculogenic ED in male patients. The evidence in favour of the neoangiogenic potential of this treatment derived from in vitro studies and on animal models. The purpose of this study, in which the Power Doppler method was applied, is to demonstrate 'objectively' the real efficacy of LI-ESWT at the level of the microcirculation of the corpora cavernosa (neoangiogenesis) in patients affected by vasculogenic ED. Data from this study show, for the first time, that LI-ESWT treatment promotes neovascularisation of the functional arteries in patients affected by vasculogenic ED.

The Combined Use of Chronological and Morphological Criteria in the Evaluation of Immediate Penicillin Reactions: Evidence From a Large Study.

BACKGROUND: Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins are often labeled on the basis of a similar set of symptoms, but a key feature of these reactions that can be reproduced in diagnostic testing may be the timing of a reaction in relation to the dose administration. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the timing of a reaction in response to the last dose of a penicillin would predict the results of diagnostic testing. METHODS: We evaluated 1074 patients by performing skin tests, serum specific IgE assays (ImmunoCAP), and challenges. Patients who were evaluated by us more than 6 months after their reactions and found negative were reevaluated within 2 to 4 weeks. RESULTS: Patients who had reacted within 1 hour after the first dose, within 1 hour after subsequent doses, more than 1 hour to within 6 hours after the first dose, or more than 1 hour to within 6 hours after subsequent doses were classified as group A (758 individuals), B (92), C (67), or D (157), respectively. Penicillin hypersensitivity was diagnosed in 707 patients (65.8%) by skin tests (407 patients, 57.6%), ImmunoCAP (47, 6.6%), both tests (232, 32.8%), or challenges (21, 3%). A conversion to allergy-test positivity occurred in 7 of 10 patients with anaphylactic reactions and in 1 of 28 patients with other reactions who were reevaluated after negative challenges. The rate of penicillin-allergic patients in groups A, B, C, and D was 85%, 35.9%, 35.8%, and 3.8%, respectively. Only 1 of 107 patients reporting cutaneous reactions lasting more than 1 day had positive results to allergy tests. CONCLUSIONS: IgE-mediated hypersensitivity can be diagnosed by skin tests in about 70% of subjects who react within 1 hour (eg, patients from groups A and B). This hypersensitivity can be lost over time, as demonstrated by the negativization of allergy tests in follow-up studies. In subjects with anaphylactic reactions, however, it is advisable to not consider this phenomenon definitive. In fact, a conversion to allergy test positivity can be observed in up to 20% of such subjects retested after negative challenges.