El pediatra de Atención Primaria y la anafilaxia / The primary care pediatrician and anaphylaxis

La anafilaxia es una reacción alérgica grave de instauración rápida y potencialmente mortal. El diagnóstico de anafilaxia es clínico y debe realizarse de manera precoz. Aparece en las 2 primeras horas tras exposición al alérgeno, en los primeros 30 minutos en alergia alimentaria y más precozmente con medicamentos intravenosos o picaduras de himenópteros. Los síntomas cutáneos suelen ser los primeros en manifestarse y están presentes en la mayoría de los casos, más de un 80%. Pueden ser leves o transitorios e incluso no estar presentes en un 18% de los casos. Si se afecta el sistema cardiocirculatorio estaríamos ante un shock anafiláctico. La causa más frecuente en Pediatría son los alimentos. Existen cofactores cuya presencia aumenta la probabilidad de anafilaxia; los más importantes son: el ejercicio, los fármacos, la fiebre y el estrés. El tratamiento de elección es la adrenalina intramuscular. Tanto los padres como los niños deben saber identificar los signos y/o síntomas del inicio de la anafilaxia para instaurar el tratamiento pautado en el plan de acción escrito.

Anaphylaxis is a severe, rapid and potentially fatal allergic reaction. The diagnosis of anaphylaxis is clinical and must be early. It appears in the first 2 hours after exposure to the allergen, in the first 30 minutes in food allergy and earlier with intravenous drugs or hymenoptera stings. Cutaneous symptoms are generally the first to appear and are present in most cases, more than 80%. They may be mild or transitory, or absent in 18% of cases. If the cardio-circulatory system is affected, an anaphylactic shock occurs. The most frequent cause in pediatrics is nutrition. There are several cofactors whose presence increases the likelihood of anaphylaxis; the most important are: exercise, medication, fever and stress. The treatment of choice is intramuscular adrenaline. Parents and children should be able to identify the signs and/or symptoms of anaphylaxis in order to implement the treatment prescribed in the written action plan. (AU)

Ceftriaxone-induced Kounis syndrome: A case report and review of the literature.

Kounis syndrome is defined as cardiovascular symptoms that occur secondary to allergic or hypersensitivity insults, and is also called allergic angina and allergic myocardial infarction. We report a case of pre-operative ceftriaxone-induced Kounis syndrome with no evident dermatological manifestation, and describe our diagnostic dilemma. The patient was symptomatically managed and discharged in stable condition with a warning against future use of ceftriaxone.

Experiencia en el manejo de anafilaxia en un Departamento de Emergencias Pediátricas

Introducción: La anafilaxia es una reacción multisistémica potencialmente mortal; su reconocimiento temprano y abordaje oportuno son fundamentales. La variabilidad de presentación y gravedad requieren la utilización de criterios diagnósticos para la mejora de la atención en urgencias. Objetivo: Describir las características clínicas, criterios de diagnóstico y tratamiento de los pacientes con anafilaxia atendidos en un Departamento de Emergencias Pediátricas (DEP). Materiales y métodos: Revisión retrospectiva, descriptiva, de casos ingresados en el DEP de enero 2015 a diciembre 2020. Los criterios diagnósticos fueron aplicados por dos observadores emergentólogos evaluando la concordancia con el índice к de Cohen. Se utilizó estadística descriptiva: proporciones, medianas y rango intercuartílico. Resultados: Se aplicaron los criterios NIAID/FAAN a 65 historias clínicas con diagnóstico de egreso de anafilaxia encontrándose una concordancia de 0,64 (IC 95%: 0,41-0,88). De ellos, 35 (54%) cumplieron los criterios diagnósticos. El 66% (23/35) recibió adrenalina. La mediana de edad fue de 7 años (RIC: 3-11,5). Antecedente de asma en 9/35, atopia en 7/35 y anafilaxia previa en 7/35. Como factor desencadenante se constató consumo de medicamentos en 16/35, alimentos en 8/35. La estadía hospitalaria tuvo una mediana de 18 horas (RIC: 12-24). Conclusiones: Los resultados sugieren una brecha entre identificación precisa de los casos de anafilaxia y el tratamiento oportuno con adrenalina cuando se utilizan criterios estandarizados.

Introduction: Anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal multisystem reaction; early recognition and timely approach are essential. The variability in its presentation and severity requires the use of diagnostic criteria to improve emergency care. Objective: To describe the clinical characteristics, diagnostic criteria and treatment of patients with anaphylaxis treated in a Pediatric Emergency Department (PED). Materials and methods: This was a retrospective and descriptive review of cases admitted to the PED from January 2015 to December 2020. The diagnostic criteria were applied by two emergentologist observers; Cohen's к index was used to evaluate their agreement. Descriptive statistics were used: proportions, medians and interquartile range. Results: The NIAID/FAAN criteria were applied to 65 medical records with a discharge diagnosis of anaphylaxis, finding an agreement of 0.64 (95% CI: 0.41-0.88). Of these, 35 (54%) met the diagnostic criteria. 66% (23/35) received adrenaline. The median age was 7 years (IQR: 3-11.5). 9/35 had a history of asthma, 7/35 had atopy and previous anaphylaxis was noted in 7/35. As a triggering factor, medication consumption was found in 16/35, and food in 8/35. The hospital stay had a median of 18 hours (IQR: 12-24). Conclusions: The results suggest a gap between accurate recognition of anaphylaxis cases and timely treatment with adrenaline when standardized criteria are used.

[Anafilaxia perioperatoria a sevoflurano, un caso muy raro].

Background: Perioperative anaphylaxis can be life-threatening. The global incidence is estimated to be 1 in 10,000-20,000 procedures. The most common agents are neuromuscular blockers, latex, and antibiotics. There are very few reports of allergies to inhaled anesthetics such as sevoflurane, which is considered relatively safe in patients with drug allergies. Case report: 12-year-old patient, admitted to oncology, diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. History of two perioperative hypersensitivity reactions. In the first event, lidocaine and rupivacaine were administered, he presented urticaria, managed with an antihistamine. On the second occasion, he received only sevoflurane and presented anaphylaxis, treated with intramuscular adrenaline. Later during intrathecal therapy, he received sevoflurane, he presented rash and arterial hypotension, managed again with adrenaline, with total remission of symptoms. Retrospectively Brighton criteria level I of certainty, classified as serious by Brown. Hypersensitivity to sevoflurane was suspected, ruling out other anesthetics such as lidocaine and rupivacaine with negative intradermal skin tests. Molecular components for latex were requested with negative results for Hev b 1, Hev b 3, Hev b 6. Due to the above and associated with the characteristics of the drug, a basophil activation test for sevoflurane was performed with an activation percentage of 50% (positive). Perioperative anaphylaxis due to sevoflurane is confirmed. Conclusion: All drugs involved in perioperative hypersensitivity reactions should be considered to establish adequate and safe treatment alternatives for this small group of patients.

Antecedentes: La anafilaxia perioperatoria puede amenazar la vida del paciente. La incidencia global se estima 1 entre 10.000-20.000 procedimientos. Los agen- tes más frecuentes son bloqueadores neuromusculares, látex y antibióticos. Hay muy pocos reportes de alergia a anestésicos inhalados como el sevoflurano, el cual se considera relativamente seguro en pacientes con alergia a fármacos. Reporte de caso: Paciente de 12 años, ingresó en oncología, diagnóstico de leucemia linfoblástica aguda. Antecedente de dos reacciones de hipersensibilidad perioperatorias. En primer evento se administró lidocaína y rupivacaína, presentó urticaria, manejado con antihistamínico. Segunda ocasión recibió sólo sevo- fluorano y presentó anafilaxia, tratado con adrenalina intramuscular. Posteriormente durante terapia intratecal, recibió sevoflurano, presentó rash e hipotensión arterial, manejo nuevamente con adrenalina, con remisión total de síntomas. Retrospectivamente criterios de Brighton nivel I de certeza, clasificada grave por Brown. Se sospechó hipersensibilidad a sevoflurano, descartando otros anestésicos como lidocaína y rupivacaina con pruebas cutáneas intradérmicas negativas. Se solicitaron componentes moleculares para látex con resultados negativos para Hev b 1, Hev b 3, Hev b 6. Por lo anterior y asociado a las características del fármaco se realiza prueba de activación de basófilos para sevoflurano con un porcentaje de activación del 50% (positivo). Se confirma anafilaxia perioperatoria por sevoflurano. Conclusión: Deben considerarse todos los fármacos involucrados en las reacciones de hipersensibilidad perioperatoria, para establecer alternativas adecuadas y seguras de tratamiento de este pequeño grupo de pacientes.

[¿Anafilaxia perioperatoria? Serie de casos].

Objective: Identify the causative agent of POH, to avoid re-exposure and assess the use of alternative treatment. Methods: 10 cases of immediate POH are described, in all of them a history of previous surgical procedures, carrying out a 3-step protocol: 1st documenting the surgical record to identify exposures, 2nd performing skin and/or epicutaneous tests and 3rd searching for an alternative treatment. treatment if a new surgical procedure is required and in selected cases challenge tests. Results: Of a total of 10 patients with immediate POH, tests were performed according to the case: neuromuscular blockers, anesthetics, opioids, NSAIDs, anti- biotics, diuretics, latex, isodine, and chlorhexidine; finding positive tests in 7 (70%) patients: in 4 (40%) neuromuscular blockers, one of them also positive for latex, in 2 (20%) anesthetics and finally finding a pharmacological alternative in 2 (2%) and recommending free operating room latex in 2 cases (20%), the rest (30%) were classified as related to the surgical procedure and medication management. Conclusions: The study of POH is focused on ensuring safety in subsequent exposures, so in addition to identifying the causative agent, the role of the allergist also leads to a search for a safe alternative in patient management.

Objetivo: Identificar agente causal de POH, para evitar reexposición y valorar uso de alternativa de tratamiento. Métodos: Se describen 10 casos de POH inmediata, en todos antecedente de procedimientos quirúrgicos previos, realizándose protocolo de 3 pasos: 1°docu- mentar registro quirúrgico para identificar exposiciones, 2° realización de pruebas cutáneas y/o epicutáneas y 3° búsqueda de alternativa de tratamiento en caso de requerir nuevo procedimiento quirúrgico y en casos seleccionados pruebas de reto. Resultados: De un total de 10 pacientes con POH inmediata, se realizaron pruebas según el caso: bloqueadores neuromusculares, anestésicos, opioides, AINE, antibióticos, diuréticos, látex, isodine y clorhexidina; encontrando pruebas positivas en 7 pacientes (70%): en 4 (40%) bloqueadores neuromusculares, uno de ellos también positivo para látex, en 2 (20%) anestésicos y finalmente encontrando alternativa farmacológica en 2 (2%) y recomendando quirófano libre de látex en 2 casos (20%), el resto (30%) fueron catalogados como relacionados con procedimiento quirúrgico y manejo de medicamentos. Conclusiones: El estudio de las POH está enfocado en asegurar seguridad en exposiciones posteriores, por lo que además de la identificación de agente causal, el papel del alergólogo también conlleva a una búsqueda de alternativa segura en el manejo del paciente.

Experiencia en la vacunación frente a la COVID-19 en personas con antecedentes de alergia / Experience in vaccination against COVID-19 in people with a history of allergy

Fundamentos: Una consulta habitual desde el inicio de la campaña de vacunación frente a la COVID-19 fue la relacionada con personas que tienen antecedentes de alergia a fármacos u otras vacunas. El objetivo del estudio fue describir lo ocurrido tras la administración de la vacuna frente a la COVID-19 en personas con antecedentes de alergia moderada y grave, en un Centro de Urgencias de Atención Primaria (CUAP). Métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional descriptivo con sesenta y cuatro personas que tenían antecedentes de alergia moderada y grave, vacunadas en CUAP, entre mayo y octubre de 2021, en el Barcelonés Nord i Maresme (provincia de Barcelona), previa valoración por farmacólogos y farmacéuticos de Atención Primaria. Se calculó el porcentaje de personas con acontecimientos adversos ocurridos tras la vacunación en el transcurso de su estancia en el CUAP, los tipos detectados y la gravedad. Posteriormente, se realizó una encuesta telefónica para conocer la satisfacción de los pacientes. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo (cálculo de proporciones). Resultados: La media de edad de las personas participantes fue de 49,7 años (de doce a noventa y cuatro años) y el 90,6% fueron mujeres. El 87,5% de las vacunas administradas fue Comirnaty ®. Se detectaron acontecimientos adversos ocurridos tras la vacunación en quince pacientes (23,4%), de los que en cuatro casos (6,25%) fueron manifestaciones de hipersensibilidad, todas catalogadas como leves. Los motivos de vacunación fueron antecedentes de alergia a AINE (45,3%), antibióticos (32,8%), analgésicos (17,2%), vacunas (28,1%), otras sustancias (40,6%) y anafilaxia (26,6%). El grado de satisfacción general fue de 9,11 (sobre 10). Conclusiones: El porcentaje de pacientes con antecedentes de anafilaxia y reacciones alérgicas a medicamentos que presentan reacciones de hipersensibilidad a las vacunas frente a la COVID-19 es del 6,25% y todas son leves.(AU)

Background: A common consultation since the beginning of the vaccination campaign against COVID-19 was related to people with a history of allergy to drugs or other vaccines. The objective of the study was to describe what happened after the administration of the vaccine against COVID-19 in people with a history of moderate and severe allergy, vaccinated against COVID-19 in a Primary Care Emergency Center (PCEC). Methods/ Observational descriptive study with sixty-four people with a history of moderate and severe allergy was carried out, vaccinated in PCEP, between May and October 2021, in the Barcelonés Nord and Maresme (Barcelona province), after assessment by primary care pharmacologists and pharmacists. The percentage of people with adverse events that occurred after vaccination during their stay in the PCEP, the types detected and severity were calculated. Subsequently, a telephone survey was conducted to determine patient satisfaction. A descriptive analysis (calculation of proportions) was performed. Results: The mean age of 49.7 years (from twelve to ninety-four years) and 90.6% were women. 87.5% of the administered vaccines were Comirnaty ® . Adverse events occurring after vaccination were detected in fifteen patients (23.4%), of whom four (6.25%)were manifestations of hypersensitivity, all classified as mild. The reasons for vaccination were a history of allergy to NSAIDs (45.3%), antibiotics (32.8%), analgesics (17.2%), vaccines (28.1%), other substances (40.6%) and anaphylaxis (26.6%). The degree of generalsatisfaction was 9.11 (out of 10). Conclusions: The percentage of patients with a history of anaphylaxis and allergic drug reactions who present hypersensitivityreactions to COVID-19 vaccines is 6.25% and all are mild.(AU)

Alergia alimentaria: importancia de los cofactores / Food allergy: the importance of cofactors

Las LTP (lipid transfer proteins) son una familia de proteínas presentes en diferentes alimentos. La sintomatología de la alergia a las LTP es muy variable, desde clínica leve hasta sistémica, en ocasiones, presentando síntomas únicamente en presencia de cofactores. Se presenta el caso de una paciente de 11 años que acude a urgencias con clínica de anafilaxia tras ingesta previa de fruta mientras realizaba ejercicio físico, destacando la importancia de la historia clínica y la sospecha diagnóstica en el enfoque de esta entidad (AU)

LTP (lipid transfer proteins) are a family of proteins present in different foods. The symptomatology of allergy to LTP is highly variable, ranging from mild to systemic. Sometimes, symptoms are only present in the presence of cofactors.We present the case of an 11-year-old female patient who presented to the emergency department with anaphylaxis following previous ingestion of fruit while doing physical exercise, highlighting the importance of the clinical history and diagnostic suspicion in the approach to this entity. (AU)

Infarto de miocardio alérgico por consumo de ciruela, presentación de caso clínico / Allergic myocardial infarction due to plum consumption, case report

We present the case of an elderly patient who presented with an allergic reaction secondary to fruit consumption and subsequently developed a non-ST-elevation coronary syndrome. (AU)

Se presenta el caso de un paciente adulto mayor que presenta un reacción alergica secundaria al consumo de fruta y posteriormente desarrolla un sindrome coronario sin elevacion del ST. (AU)

Oral mite anaphylaxis (pancake syndrome) in Peru: an underestimated problem? / Anafilaxia por ingesta de ácaros (Síndrome da panqueca) no Peru: um problema subestimado?

Sabe-se que a urticária e o angioedema apresentam diferentes etiologias, pois podem ser de natureza alérgica, infecciosa, autoimune ou espontânea. Em episódios únicos ou recorrentes, deve-se considerar um alérgeno desencadeante oculto, como os ácaros de poeira doméstica (APDs). Vários relatos demonstraram que farinhas contaminadas com APDs podem causar urticária e angioedema, incluindo reações alérgicas graves com risco de vida quando ingeridos em grandes quantidades provenientes de farinha de trigo armazenada. Neste estudo, relatamos os achados clínicos de 31 pacientes, incluindo casos de anafilaxia após ingestão de farinha contaminada com ácaros. Também encontramos uma relação entre uma história clínica de hipersensibilidade a anti-inflamatórios não esteroides e síndrome de anafilaxia por ingesta de ácaros em pacientes atópicos, consistente com a teoria de uma "nova tríade do ácido acetilsalicílico", conforme publicado anteriormente, e agora sendo descrito pela primeira vez no Peru.

Urticaria and angioedema are known to have different etiologies, as they can be allergic, infectious, autoimmune, or spontaneous in nature. In single or recurrent episodes, a hidden triggering allergen should be considered, such as house dust mites (HDMs). Several reports have demonstrated that flours contaminated with HDMs can cause urticaria and angioedema, including severe lifethreatening allergic reactions when ingested in large quantities from stored wheat flour. In this study, we report the clinical findings in 31 patients, including cases of anaphylaxis after the ingestion of mite-contaminated flour. We also found a relationship between a clinical history of hypersensitivity to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and oral mite anaphylaxis syndrome in atopic patients, consistent with the theory of a "new aspirin triad," as previously published, and now being described for the first time in Peru.

Baker's rhinitis and asthma with concomitant wheat anaphylaxis: a rare overlap of clinical entities / Rinite e asma do padeiro com anafilaxia após ingestão de trigo: um caso raro de sobreposição de entidades clínicas

Wheat is one of the fundamental sources of food worldwide. Baker's asthma and occupational rhinitis are both frequent and can be attributable to work exposure in bakers. However, the association between baker's asthma and wheat allergy is very rare. The authors report the case of a bakery worker who developed baker's asthma and occupational rhinitis after years of working in a bakery and later developed anaphylactic reactions after wheat ingestion.

O trigo é uma das fontes alimentares mais importantes em todo o mundo. A asma do padeiro e a rinite ocupacional são frequentes e podem ser atribuídas à exposição a farinhas em padeiros. No entanto, a associação entre asma do padeiro e alergia alimentar ao trigo é muito rara. Os autores descrevem um caso em que um trabalhador de panificação desenvolveu asma do padeiro e rinite ocupacional após anos trabalhando em uma padaria, e posteriormente desenvolveu reações anafiláticas após a ingestão de trigo.

[Perioperative aspects of anaphylaxis]. / Az anafilaxia perioperatív vonatkozásai.

Anaphylaxis is a generalized, severe, life-threatening reaction, mostly with an allergic origin. Triggers are usually drugs, insect bites, poisons, contrast material and food. It is caused by various mediators (histamine, prostaglandins, leukotrienes etc.) released from mast cells, basophilic granulocytes. Histamine plays a central role in its creation. Immediate recognition and specific treatment instantaneously are essential for successful treatment. In severe conditions, the clinical features are very similar, regardless of their allergic/non-allergic origin. The incidence can vary over time and between patient populations. Its incidence is extremely variable, approximately 1/10 000 anaesthesia. Most studies cite neuromuscular blocking agents as the most common causative factor. In England, the results of the 6th National Audit Project revealed that the most common causes were antibiotics (1/26 845), followed by neuromuscular junction blocking drugs (1/19 070), chlorhexidine (1/127 698), and Patent Blue paint (1/6863). It occurs within 5 minutes in 66% of cases, 6-10 minutes in 17%, 11-15 minutes in 5%, 16-30 minutes in 2%, but usually within 30 minutes. Antibiotic allergy is a growing problem, especially to teicoplanin (16.4/100 000) and co-amoxiclav (8.7/100 000). The risk of anaphylactic shock should not be a determining factor in choosing the type of muscle relaxant drug. The patient's anaesthesia classification, physical condition, obesity, use of beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors influence the clinical characteristics. The initial symptoms can be extremely varied in terms of the effectiveness of the treatment, early recognition and commencement of therapy are the keys to success. Asking about a preoperative allergy history can reduce the risk and incidence of anaphylaxis. Orv Hetil. 2023; 164(22): 871-877.

Segurança da vacinação contra a COVID-19 em doentes referenciados dos cuidados de saúde primários por alergia ao veneno de himenópteros / COVID-19 vaccination safety in patients with hymenoptera venom allergy referred by primary health care

Introdução: As reações de hipersensibilidade após vacinação contra a COVID-19 têm vindo a ser descritas, embora a anafilaxia seja rara. A hipersensibilidade ao veneno de himenópteros constitui a terceira causa mais frequente de anafilaxia em Portugal, embora não pareça aumentar o risco de anafilaxia à vacinação contra a COVID-19. Objetivos: Avaliar a segurança da vacinação contra a COVID-19 em doentes com história de alergia ao veneno de himenópteros referenciados dos Cuidados de Saúde Primários (CSP). Métodos: Estudo observacional retrospectivo com inclusão dos doentes com alergia ao veneno de himenópteros referenciados pelos CSP ao serviço de Imunoalergologia, para estratificação do risco de reações de hipersensibilidade à vacina contra o SARS-CoV-2, entre janeiro e dezembro de 2021. Resultados: No total, incluíram-se 18 doentes, 72% do sexo feminino, média de idades de 61±18 [21-89] anos. Na caracterização do tipo da reação ao veneno de himenópteros, as reações locais exuberantes corresponderam a 33% de todas as reações referidas. Quanto a sintomas sistêmicos de anafilaxia, foram referidos sintomas mucocutâneos (33%), respiratórios (28%), cardiovasculares (33%) e gastrointestinais (11%). A abelha foi o inseto mais frequentemente implicado (61%). Relativamente aos valores de triptase basal, 3 doentes apresentaram níveis acima do cut-off estabelecido de 11,4 ng/mL, tendo indicação formal para iniciar esquema de vacinação em meio hospitalar. Durante o processo vacinal registrou-se um total de 46 administrações em 18 doentes, todas sem intercorrências. Apenas 5 doentes foram vacinados em meio hospitalar, tendo sido os restantes encaminhados para os CSP. Os doentes com mastocitose confirmada ou suspeita foram submetidos à pré-medicação com anti-histamínico anti-H1 e anti- H2, bem como montelucaste, na véspera e no dia da vacinação. Conclusões: A vacinação contra a COVID-19 é segura em doentes com reação de hipersensibilidade ao veneno de himenópteros. O protocolo utilizado mostrou ser eficaz na segregação de doentes entre CSP e cuidados secundários/terciários.

Introduction: Despite numerous reports of hypersensitivity reactions to COVID-19 vaccination, anaphylaxis is rare. Although hypersensitivity reactions to hymenoptera venom are the third most common cause of anaphylaxis in Portugal, they don't appear to enhance the risk of anaphylactic reaction to COVID-19 vaccination. Objectives: To assess the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with a history of hymenoptera venom allergy. Methods: This retrospective observational study included patients with hymenoptera venom allergy referred by primary health care to the Immunoallergology Outpatient Clinic of a tertiary hospital between January and December 2021 to stratify the risk of hypersensitivity reactions to the SARSCoV- 2 vaccine. Results: A total of 18 patients were included: 72% women; mean age 61 (SD, 18 [range 21-89]) years. One-third of all reported reactions to hymenoptera venom were large and local. Topical systemic symptoms of anaphylaxis were mucocutaneous (33%), respiratory (28%), cardiovascular (33%) and gastrointestinal (11%). The honeybee was the most frequently involved hymenoptera species (61%). The basal tryptase levels of 3 patients were above the established cut-off (11.4 ng/mL) and they were formally indicated for vaccination in a hospital setting. Concerning the vaccination process, 46 doses were administered to the 18 patients and no reactions were recorded. Only 5 patients were vaccinated in a hospital environment; the rest were referred to primary health care centers. Patients with confirmed or suspected mastocytosis were premedicated with anti-H1 and anti-H2 antihistamines, as well as montelukast, the day before and on the day of vaccination. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination is safe for patients with hypersensitivity to hymenoptera venom. The risk assessment protocol effectively designated patients to primary or secondary/tertiary health care.

Anaphylaxis and systemic mastocytosis caused by Solenopsis invicta stings / Anafilaxia e mastocitose sistêmica ocasionada pela Solenopsis invicta

Indolent systemic mastocytosis is a rare disease characterized by an increased number of mast cells in the bone marrow and other tissues, such as the liver, spleen, lymph nodes, and skin. Patients with indolent systemic mastocytosis and high serum tryptase levels are at risk for Hymenoptera venom-induced anaphylaxis. Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy in patients with specific IgE is safe and effective. While some patients can receive ultra-rush venom immunotherapy with minimal side effects, omalizumab effectively protects against anaphylaxis during the build-up phase.

A mastocitose sistêmica indolente é uma doença rara caracterizada por um número aumentado de mastócitos na medula óssea e em outros tecidos, como fígado, baço, linfonodos e pele. Pacientes com mastocitose sistêmica indolente e altos níveis séricos de triptase correm risco de anafilaxia induzida pelo veneno dos Hymenoptera. A imunoterapia com veneno de himenópteros em pacientes com IgE específica é segura e eficaz. Embora alguns pacientes possam receber imunoterapia com veneno ultrarrápido com efeitos colaterais mínimos, o omalizumabe protegeu efetivamente contra a anafilaxia durante a fase de acúmulo.

Anaphylaxis associated with intracavernous penile injection of prostaglandin E1 in combination with papaverine and phentolamine / Anafilaxia associada à injeção intracavernosa peniana de prostaglandina E1 em combinação com papaverina e fentolamina

Total radical prostatectomy for advanced prostate cancer may lead to sexual impotence, since it is associated with severe erectile dysfunction. A widely recommended treatment for this disabling condition is intracavernous penile injection of a mixture of prostaglandin E1, papaverine, and phentolamine. To our knowledge, we present the first case of anaphylaxis associated with intracavernous penile injection of prostaglandin E1 in combination with papaverine and phentolamine.

A prostatectomia radical total para câncer de próstata avançado pode levar à impotência sexual, associada a uma disfunção erétil grave. Um tratamento amplamente recomendado para esta condição incapacitante é a injeção intracavernosa no pênis de uma mistura de prostaglandina E1, papaverina e fentolamina. Até onde sabemos, estamos apresentando o primeiro caso de anafilaxia associada à injeção intracavernosa peniana de prostaglandina E1 em combinação com papaverina e fentolamina.

Anafilaxia à lapa: um caso clínico raro / Limpet anaphylaxis: a rare case

A lapa (Patella vulgata) é um molusco frequentemente encontrado em regiões costeiras com clima quente. A alergia alimentar à lapa é muito rara, com poucos casos descritos na literatura. Os autores descrevem um caso de anafilaxia à lapa, com evidência de reação de hipersensibilidade do tipo I, através de IgE específica positiva à lapa, tanto com métodos in vivo, como in vitro.

Limpet (Patella vulgata) is a mollusk mainly found in warm coastal regions. Limpet allergy is considered rare, and few cases can be found in the literature. We describe a clinical case of limpet anaphylaxis, including in vitro and in vivo evidence of IgE mechanism involvement.

Enfrentamiento de la anafilaxia en el servicio de urgencia / Approach of Anaphylaxis in the emergency room

La anafilaxia es una reacción en su mayoría de hipersensibilidad tipo I, que estimula la activación generalizada de mastocitos, y provoca un cuadro clínico multisistémico que puede ser fatal. Se estima que tiene una incidencia de 0,03-0,1% y una prevalencia de vida de 0,5-2% en la población general. Generalmente, la reacción inmunológica ocurre posterior a la ingesta de alimentos, uso de medicamentos o picaduras de insectos, pero también se han descrito mecanismos no inmunológicos (no IgE) que actúan directamente sobre los mastocitos, llamadas en la literatura "reacciones anafilactoideas". La anafilaxia fue descrita por Paul Portier y Charles Robert Richet en 1902 en perros, los cuales desarrollaban esta reacción posterior a la inyección repetida de veneno de anémonas (medusas). Sin embargo, esta entidad no tuvo criterios diagnósticos ni pilares de manejo estructurado hasta el año 2006. En ese año en se publicó el segundo simposio de manejo de la anafilaxia, en donde se definieron criterios diagnósticos clínicos claros y el rol fundamental de la adrenalina en su manejo; la única droga que cambia el pronóstico del paciente.

Anaphylaxis is mainly a type I hypersensitivity reaction. It triggers a widespread activation of mast cells, causing a multisystemic clinical scenario that can be fatal. It is estimated to have an incidence of 0.03-0.1% and a lifetime prevalence of 0.5-2%. Most immunological reactions occur after food ingestion, medication, or insect stings, but non-immunological (non-IgE) mechanisms that act directly on mast cells, called Anaphylactoid Reactions, have been also described. Anaphylaxis was described by Paul Portier and Charles Robert Richet in 1902 in dogs, that developed this disease after repeated injections of anemones (jellyfish) venom. However, this entity didn't have established diagnostic criteria or an standarized management until 2006. In this year, the second anaphylaxis management sym-posium took place and clear clinical diagnostic criteria were defined. The fundamental role of adrenaline in its management was also established. The former is the only drug that has demonstrated to improve prognosis of the patient

Severe perioperative anaphylaxis: Incidence in a tertiary hospital in Spain over a 20-year period. A historical cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of severe perioperative anaphylaxis, the mechanisms involved, the value of laboratory/skin tests, and the most effective treatments. METHODS: A historical cohort study conducted in a tertiary public hospital in Spain. Patients that had undergone anaesthesia during the 20-year period were included. In these patients, 66 cases of severe anaphylaxis were found. In patients with suspicion of severe anaphylaxis, levels of blood histamine at less than 15min and serum tryptase at 2, 6, and 24h following the reaction were determined. Skin and specific IgE tests were performed between 4 and 8 weeks later. RESULTS: Over the 20-year period, 288 594 anaesthetic procedures were performed. We observed cases of 66 severe anaphylaxis reaction (59% men; age, 60.8±17.3 years. Symptoms observed were cardiovascular (86%), respiratory (73%), and mucocutaneous (56%). Elevated serum tryptase levels were associated with degree of severity at 2 (P<.0001) and 6h (P=.026) and were highest in IgE-mediated reactions (P=.020). All patients required treatment, and 3 events were fatal. In 84.8% of patients, skin and/or specific IgE tests were positive for antibiotics (35.8%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (23.1%), neuromuscular blocking agents (15.4%) and latex (15.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of severe anaphylaxis in our hospital was 1 in 4.373 anaesthetic procedures, with a death rate of 4.5%. All cases required treatment. Serum tryptase was a good predictor of reaction severity. The most frequent causative agents were antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, neuromuscular blocking agents and latex.

Anafilaxia perioperatoria severa: Incidencia en un hospital terciario en España durante 20 años. Estudio de cohorte histórico / Severe perioperative anaphylaxis: Incidence in a tertiary hospital in Spain over a 20-year period. A historical cohort study

Objetivo: Determinar la incidencia de reacciones perioperatorias graves, los mecanismos implicados, los tratamientos realizados y la utilidad del protocolo diagnóstico propuesto. Métodos: Estudio de cohorte histórico en un hospital público terciario en España. Se incluyeron pacientes que recibieron anestesia durante 20 años. En pacientes con sospecha de anafilaxia grave, se determinaron los niveles de histamina en sangre en menos de 15 min y triptasa sérica a las 2, 6 y 24 h después de la reacción. Se realizaron pruebas cutáneas e IgE específica a las 4-8 semanas. Resultados: Durante el período de 20 años, se realizaron 288.594 procedimientos anestésicos. Observamos 66 reacciones de anafilaxia grave (59% hombres; edad: 60,8 ± 17,3 años). Los síntomas fueron cardiovasculares (86%), respiratorios (73%) y mucocutáneos (56%). Los niveles elevados de triptasa sérica se asociaron con un mayor nivel de gravedad a las 2 (p < 0,0001) y 6 h (p = 0,026) y fueron más elevados en las reacciones IgE mediadas (p = 0,020). Todos los pacientes requirieron tratamiento y la muerte ocurrió en tres casos. En el 84,8% de los pacientes las pruebas cutáneas y/o IgE específicas fueron positivas a antibióticos (35,8%), antiinflamatorios no esteroideos (23,1%), bloqueantes neuromusculares (15,4%) y látex (15,4%). Conclusiones: La incidencia de anafilaxia grave en nuestro hospital fue 1:4.373 procedimientos anestésicos, con una mortalidad del 4,5%. Todos los casos requirieron tratamiento. La triptasa sérica fue un buen predictor de la gravedad de la reacción. Los agentes etiológicos más frecuentes fueron antibióticos, antiinflamatorios no esteroideos, bloqueantes neuromusculares y látex.(AU)

Objective: To assess the incidence of severe perioperative anaphylaxis, the mechanisms involved, the value of laboratory/skin tests, and the most effective treatments. Methods: A historical cohort study conducted in a tertiary public hospital in Spain. Patients that had undergone anaesthesia during the 20-year period were included. In these patients, 66 cases of severe anaphylaxis were found. In patients with suspicion of severe anaphylaxis, levels of blood histamine at less than 15 minutes and serum tryptase at 2, 6, and 24 hours following the reaction were determined. Skin and specific IgE tests were performed between 4 and 8 weeks later. Results: Over the 20-year period, 288 594 anaesthetic procedures were performed. We observed cases of 66 severe anaphylaxis reaction (59% men; age, 60.8 ± 17.3 years. Symptoms observed were cardiovascular (86%), respiratory (73%), and mucocutaneous (56%). Elevated serum tryptase levels were associated with degree of severity at 2 (p < 0.0001) and 6 hours (p = 0.026) and were highest in IgE-mediated reactions (p = 0.020). All patients required treatment, and 3 events were fatal. In 84.8% of patients, skin and/or specific IgE tests were positive for antibiotics (35.8%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (23.1%), neuromuscular blocking agents (15.4%) and latex (15.4%). Conclusions: The incidence of severe anaphylaxis in our hospital was 1 in 4 373 anaesthetic procedures, with a death rate of 4.5%. All cases required treatment. Serum tryptase was a good predictor of reaction severity. The most frequent causative agents were antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, neuromuscular blocking agents and latex.(AU)