Asunto(s)
Asma , Espasmo Bronquial , Niño , Humanos , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Ruidos RespiratoriosAsunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Recién Nacido , Lactante , Preescolar , Niño , Adolescente , Asma/terapia , Espasmo Bronquial/terapia , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Ruidos Respiratorios , Recurrencia , Estudios RetrospectivosAsunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Antiasmáticos/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Eosinofilia Pulmonar/tratamiento farmacológico , Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
Summary: Background. We assessed differences in allergic sensitization and clinical characteristics in a foreign-born population. Methods. Prospective, observational, descriptive study of patients aged > 12 years who were seen at the Department of Allergy, La Paz Hospital (Madrid, Spain), between January 2017 and December 2018. Patients were classified by geographical origin and ethnicity. Results. We included 150 patients (110 female) with a mean age of 38.38 years. Mean time to onset of respiratory symptoms after immigration was 8.47 years. Significant differences were observed between ethnic groups (p = 0.007). The most frequent sensitization was to grass pollen (75.2%), which was more common in South American patients (p = 0.005). We found that 59% of patients were sensitized to Cupressus and Olea pollen (higher in Asian patients, p = 0.032 and p = 0.049). Conclusions. Allergic sensitization in the foreign-born population was similar to that of the autochthonous population although differences between the groups were identified.
Asunto(s)
Alérgenos , Hipersensibilidad , Adulto , Pueblo Asiatico , Humanos , Hipersensibilidad/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad/epidemiología , Polen/inmunología , Estudios ProspectivosAsunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Vacunas Virales/efectos adversos , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/etiología , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Personal de Salud , Atención Terciaria de Salud , Estudios RetrospectivosAsunto(s)
Angioedemas Hereditarios/complicaciones , Deficiencia del Factor XII/complicaciones , Hemorragia/etiología , Hemorragia/prevención & control , Heparina de Bajo-Peso-Molecular/uso terapéutico , Complicaciones del Embarazo , Ácido Tranexámico/uso terapéutico , Angioedemas Hereditarios/etiología , Quimioterapia Combinada , Femenino , Heparina de Bajo-Peso-Molecular/administración & dosificación , Humanos , Embarazo , Ácido Tranexámico/administración & dosificaciónAsunto(s)
Pustulosis Exantematosa Generalizada Aguda , Antimaláricos , Malaria Falciparum , Malaria , Pustulosis Exantematosa Generalizada Aguda/diagnóstico , Pustulosis Exantematosa Generalizada Aguda/tratamiento farmacológico , Pustulosis Exantematosa Generalizada Aguda/etiología , Antimaláricos/uso terapéutico , Atovacuona/efectos adversos , Combinación de Medicamentos , Humanos , Malaria/tratamiento farmacológico , Malaria Falciparum/tratamiento farmacológico , Proguanil/efectos adversosRESUMEN
Summary: Clindamycin is widely used in the prophylaxis and treatment of infections due to its broad spectrum of antimicrobial activity. Hypersensitivity to clindamycin seems to be not very common (less than 1% of drug-allergic reactions) and it mostly appears as delayed T-cell mediated. For the diagnosis, skin testing is considered to be highly sensitive and rather safe, but cutaneous and systemic reactions have been described. Provocation test is considered the gold standard. However, it includes the possibility of severe reactions. We reported two cases of delayed allergic reaction to clindamycin, confirmed with a positive lymphocyte transformation test, showing this in vitro test like a promising diagnostic method because of its usefulness and safety.