Search

Background and purpose: Hemodialysis (HD) may have some adverse effects on the nervous system. Headache is the most commonly reported neurological symptom amongst HD patients. Our aim was to determine the frequency, clinical characteristics and triggering factors of HD‐related headache (HRH) and to evaluate preventive strategies for reducing HRH. Method: In all, 494 patients were included. Comparative controls (CC) were classified within the same patients without headache. Arterial systolic/diastolic blood pressure, blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and creatinine were correlated before/after one HD. The urea reduction ratio during the dialysis session was determined. Results: A total of 175 patients (35.4%) with a mean age of 57.3 ± 15.7 years were diagnosed with HRH. HRH was more common in males (P < 0.001). Headache was started a mean of 2.90 ± 0.86 h after the HD. The common localization of pain was reported to be bifrontal in 41.7% (n = 73). The mean duration of headache was 6.22 ± 7.8 h, with a duration of ≤4 h reported by 64.0% of patients. The mean Visual Analog Scale score was 5.64 ± 2.05. The differences between pre/post‐dialysis BUN values were 94.6 ± 31.1 in HRH patients and 86.8 ± 28.5 in the CC group (P = 0.006). The systolic blood pressure difference between the pre/post‐dialysis measurements was 22.4 ± 16.5 mmHg in HRH patients and 12.8 ± 19.4 mmHg in CC(P < 0.001). Patients with HRH had significantly higher mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure pre‐dialysis values (systolic, P = 0.002; diastolic, P < 0.001). The differences in systolic/diastolic blood pressure between pre/post‐dialysis were higher in the HRH group (P < 0.001, P = 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: Regulating the frequency and timing of dialysis may provide better management in HRH with high BUN levels and high pre‐dialysis blood pressure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) affect an unknown proportion of the general population, and are an important public health problem due to their potential to cause life-threatening anaphylaxis and rare severe cutaneous allergic reactions. DHR evaluations are frequently needed in both ambulatory and hospital settings and have a complex diagnosis that requires a detailed clinical history and other tests that may include in vitro tests and in vivo procedures such as skin tests and drug provocation tests. Although over the years both European and U.S. experts have published statements on general procedures for evaluating DHRs, a substantial discordance in their daily management exists. In this review, we highlight both the differences and the similarities between the European and U.S. perspectives. While a general consensus exists on the importance of skin tests for evaluating DHRs, concordance between Americans and Europeans exists solely regarding their use in immediate reactions and the fact that a confirmation of a presumptive diagnosis by drug provocation tests is often the only reliable way to establish a diagnosis. Finally, great heterogeneity exists in the application of in vitro tests, which require further study to be well validated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The strongest and best-documented risk factor for drug hypersensitivity ( DH) is the history of a previous reaction. Accidental exposures to drugs may lead to severe or even fatal reactions in sensitized patients. Preventable prescription errors are common. They are often due to inadequate medical history or poor risk assessment of recurrence of drug reaction. Proper documentation is essential information for the doctor to make sound therapeutic decision. The European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology have formed a task force and developed a drug allergy passport as well as general guidelines of drug allergy documentation. A drug allergy passport, a drug allergy alert card, a certificate, and a discharge letter after medical evaluation are adequate means to document DH in a patient. They are to be handed to the patient who is advised to carry the documentation at all times especially when away from home. A drug allergy passport should at least contain information on the culprit drug(s) including international nonproprietary name, clinical manifestations including severity, diagnostic measures, potential cross-reactivity, alternative drugs to prescribe, and where more detailed information can be obtained from the issuer. It should be given to patients only after full allergy workup. In the future, electronic prescription systems with alert functions will become more common and should include the same information as in paper-based documentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drug hypersensitivity reactions ( DHRs) are a matter of great concern, both for outpatient and in hospital care. The evaluation of these patients is complex, because in vivo tests have a suboptimal sensitivity and can be time-consuming, expensive and potentially risky, especially drug provocation tests. There are several currently available in vitro methods that can be classified into two main groups: those that help to characterize the active phase of the reaction and those that help to identify the culprit drug. The utility of these in vitro methods depends on the mechanisms involved, meaning that they cannot be used for the evaluation of all types of DHRs. Moreover, their effectiveness has not been defined by a consensus agreement between experts in the field. Thus, the European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has organized a task force to provide data and recommendations regarding the available in vitro methods for DHR diagnosis. We have found that although there are many in vitro tests, few of them can be given a recommendation of grade B or above mainly because there is a lack of well-controlled studies, most information comes from small studies with few subjects and results are not always confirmed in later studies. Therefore, it is necessary to validate the currently available in vitro tests in a large series of well-characterized patients with DHR and to develop new tests for diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Few studies investigated hypersensitivity to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ( NSAIDs) in children. The objective was to determine the frequency of true NSAID hypersensitivity ( NSAID-H) and whether there were any parameters in the history of children that would predict NSAID-H. Secondly, an investigation was conducted into whether NSAID-hypersensitive children could tolerate safe alternatives. Differing from previous studies, the researchers followed the recent diagnostic algorithm proposed for acute reactions in NSAID-H. Methods Children with a history suggesting NSAID-H were evaluated by an allergist. The patients with a single NSAID in history were tested first with a skin prick test and if negative challenged with the culprit NSAID. The patients who had reactions with multiple NSAIDs were directly challenged with their culprit drugs. Safe alternatives in children with a confirmed NSAID-H were found by oral provocation tests ( OPTs). Results Fifty-eight of 61 patients participated in the study. Thirty-eight patients (65.5%) described a reaction to a single NSAID and 20 mentioned reactions with ≥2 different NSAIDs. Single-drug-induced and cross-reactive NSAID- Hs were proven in 5 of 36 (14%) and 8 of 18 (44%) of patients, respectively. Acetaminophen and nimesulide were tolerated in 60% and 88.8% of the study patients as safe alternatives, respectively. Family history of NSAID-H was found as the only significant predictor of OPT ( OR: 5.4; 95% CI: 1.02-28.6). Conclusion Histories of both single and multiple NSAID-Hs are poor predictors of actual drug hypersensitivity. Therefore, diagnostic tests should be performed in all children if no contraindication exits. Family history of NSAID-H is the only significant parameter predicting OPT results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypersensitivity reactions to aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ( NSAIDs) constitute only a subset of all adverse reactions to these drugs, but due to their severity pose a significant burden to patients and are a challenge to the allergist. In susceptible individuals, NSAIDs induce a wide spectrum of hypersensitivity reactions with various timing, organ manifestations, and severity, involving either immunological (allergic) or nonimmunological mechanisms. Proper classification of reactions based on clinical manifestations and suspected mechanism is a prerequisite for the implementation of rational diagnostic procedures and adequate patient management. This document, prepared by a panel of experts from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Task Force on NSAIDs Hypersensitivity, aims at reviewing the current knowledge in the field and proposes uniform definitions and clinically useful classification of hypersensitivity reactions to NSAIDs. The document proposes also practical algorithms for the diagnosis of specific types of NSAIDs hypersensitivity (which include drug provocations, skin testing and in vitro testing) and provides, when data are available, evidence-based recommendations for the management of hypersensitive patients, including drug avoidance and drug desensitization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are responsible for 21–25% of reported adverse drug events which include immunological and nonimmunological hypersensitivity reactions. This study presents up-to-date information on pathomechanisms, clinical spectrum, diagnostic tools and management of hypersensitivity reactions to NSAIDs. Clinically, NSAID hypersensitivity is particularly manifested by bronchial asthma, rhinosinusitis, anaphylaxis or urticaria and variety of late cutaneous and organ-specific reactions. Diagnosis of hypersensitivity to a NSAID includes understanding of the underlying mechanism and is necessary for prevention and management. A stepwise approach to the diagnosis of hypersensitivity to NSAIDs is proposed, including clinical history, in vitro testing and/ or provocation test with a culprit or alternative drug depending on the type of the reaction. The diagnostic process should result in providing the patient with written information both on forbidden and on alternative drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A patient with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection was diagnosed with cutaneous, pulmonary and hepatic sarcoidosis following interferon alpha therapy. There are only a few cases of sarcoidosis associated with this treatment. This is the first case who not only developed sarcoidosis, but also autoimmune hypothyroidism and thrombocytopenia during interferon alpha therapy due to the immunomodulatory effects of the drug. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response by G. Celik, J. Schroeder and N.F. Adkinson to a letter to the editor about their article "Effect of in vitro aspirin stimulation on basophils in patients with aspirinexacerbated respiratory disease," is presented.

Drug allergy (DA) remains a complex and unaddressed problem worldwide that often deprives patients of optimal medication choices and places them at risk for life-threatening reactions. Underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis are common and due to the lack of standardized definitions and biomarkers. The true burden of DA is unknown, and recent efforts in data gathering through electronic medical records are starting to provide emerging patterns around the world. Ten percent of the general population engaged in health care claim to have a DA, and the most common label is penicillin allergy. Up to 20% of emergency room visits for anaphylaxis are due to DA and 15%-20% of hospitalized patients report DA. It is estimated that DA will increase based on the availability and use of new and targeted antibiotics, vaccines, chemotherapies, biologicals, and small molecules, which are aimed at improving patient's options and quality of life. Global and regional variations in the prevalence of diseases such as human immunodeficiency virus and mycobacterial diseases, and the drugs used to treat these infections have an impact on DA. The aim of this review is to provide an update on the global impact of DA by presenting emerging data on drug epidemiology in adult and pediatric populations., (© 2023 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID-19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized., Method: Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre-vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, and literature was analysed., Results: No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1-anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2-anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3-recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4-suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5-confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick-to-prick skin test with the left-over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable., Conclusions: These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated., (© 2022 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of artificial accelerated aging (AAA) on color stability, surface roughness, and microhardness of three laminate veneer (LV) materials., Materials and Methods: Specimens of ceramic LV (CLV-IPS E.max Press), hand-layered composite LV (hand-layered laminate veneer [HLV]-Tetric N-Ceram), and prefabricated composite LV (prefabricated laminate veneer [PLV]-Componeer Coltene) were prepared as discs (n = 10). CIE L*, a*, and b* color coordinates, the Vickers microhardness, and surface roughness were measured 24 hours after preparation and reevaluated after aging for 300 hours in an ultraviolet (UV)-AAA system (Ci35 Weather-Ometer). Color difference (CIEDE2000 [ΔE 00 ]) was calculated. Data were statistically analyzed with the Shapiro-Wilk test and the Kruskall-Wallis test followed by the Mann-Whitney U tests (α = .05)., Results: All of the LV groups showed significant differences in ΔE 00 after AAA (P < .001). Comparing the color changes of the HLVs with the PLVs, no significant difference could be found (P = .705). There was a statistically significant difference in the means of changes in microhardness among the LVs materials (P < .001). The changes in surface roughness results showed a significant difference after AAA in all the LVs (P < .001)., Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the color stability, the microhardness, and surface roughness of tested LVs were influenced by AAA., Clinical Significance: The prefabricated composite LV system does not replace the individualized ceramic LV technique, but rather offers an alternative to hand-layered LVs, which is delicate and time-consuming technique., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

A recent survey of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Drug Allergy Interest Group (DAIG) on how European allergy specialists deal with beta-lactam (BL) hypersensitivity demonstrated a significant heterogeneity in current practice, suggesting the need to review and update existing EAACI guidelines in order to make the diagnostic procedures as safe and accurate, but also as cost-effective, as possible. For this purpose, a bibliographic search on large studies regarding BL hypersensitivity diagnosis was performed by an EAACI task force, which reviewed and evaluated the literature data using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. The updated guidelines provide a risk stratification in BL hypersensitivity according to index reaction(s), as well as an algorithmic approach, based on cross-reactivity studies, in patients with a suspicion of BL hypersensitivity and an immediate need for antibiotic therapy, when referral to an allergist is not feasible. Furthermore, the update addresses availability and concentrations of skin test (ST) reagents, ST and drug provocation test (DPT) protocols, and diagnostic algorithms and administration of alternative BL in allergic subjects. Specifically, distinct diagnostic algorithms are suggested depending on risk stratification of the patient into high and low risk based on the morphology and chronology of the reaction, immediate (ie, occurring within 1-6 hours after the last administered dose) or nonimmediate (ie, occurring more than 1 hour after the initial drug administration), and the reaction severity. Regarding the allergy workup, the main novelty of this document is the fact that in some low-risk nonimmediate reactions ST are not mandatory, especially in children. For DPT, further studies are necessary to provide data supporting the standardization of protocols, especially of those regarding nonimmediate reactions, for which there is currently no consensus., (© 2019 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Here, we describe the characteristics of a Pt-blue complex [Pt 4 (2-atp) 8 (H 2 O)(OH)] (2-atp: 2-aminothiophenol) as a prodrug for its DNA-binding properties and its use in cancer therapy. The nature of the interaction between the Pt-blue complex and DNA was evaluated based on spectroscopic measurements, the electronic absorption spectra, thermal behavior, viscosity, fluorometric titration, and agarose gel electrophoresis. Our results suggested that the compound was able to partially intercalate DNA and appeared to induce both single- and double-stranded breaks (DBS) on DNA in vitro, but no DSBs in cells. The ability of the compound to induce DNA damage was dependent on reactive oxygen species (ROS) in vitro. There was also elevated formation of ROS and SOD expression in response to drug treatment in cell culture. The complex was found to be more cytotoxic to cancer cells in comparison with noncancer controls using WST-1 assay. The mean of cell death was determined to be apoptosis as assessed via biochemical, morphological, and molecular observations, including DNA condensation/fragmentation analysis, live cell imaging microscopy, TUNEL analyses, and increase in the levels of pro-apoptotic genes such as Bag3, Bak, Bik, Bmf, and Hrk. Hence, the Pt-blue complex under study grants premise for further studies., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)

The strongest and best-documented risk factor for drug hypersensitivity (DH) is the history of a previous reaction. Accidental exposures to drugs may lead to severe or even fatal reactions in sensitized patients. Preventable prescription errors are common. They are often due to inadequate medical history or poor risk assessment of recurrence of drug reaction. Proper documentation is essential information for the doctor to make sound therapeutic decision. The European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology have formed a task force and developed a drug allergy passport as well as general guidelines of drug allergy documentation. A drug allergy passport, a drug allergy alert card, a certificate, and a discharge letter after medical evaluation are adequate means to document DH in a patient. They are to be handed to the patient who is advised to carry the documentation at all times especially when away from home. A drug allergy passport should at least contain information on the culprit drug(s) including international nonproprietary name, clinical manifestations including severity, diagnostic measures, potential cross-reactivity, alternative drugs to prescribe, and where more detailed information can be obtained from the issuer. It should be given to patients only after full allergy workup. In the future, electronic prescription systems with alert functions will become more common and should include the same information as in paper-based documentation., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effect of the number of supporting implants and different retentive mechanisms on load transfer characteristics of mandibular overdentures., Materials and Methods: Two photoelastic models of edentulous mandibles were fabricated having two and four cylindrical implants (Calcitek, 4 × 13 mm) embedded in the parasymphyseal area. Four attachment systems were evaluated: single anchor attachment (ERA), bar-clip, bar with distally placed ball attachments, and bar with distally placed extracoronal rigid attachments (Easy Slot). A 133 N vertical force was applied unilaterally to the central fossa of the right first molar. The resulting stresses of the models were observed and recorded photographically in the field of a circular polariscope., Results: The highest stresses were observed with the bar with distally placed extracoronal rigid attachment (Easy Slot) design, followed by bar-ball, bar, and the single anchor attachment (ERA) for both models. The lowest stress was observed with the single anchor attachment (ERA) design for both models. There were slight differences in stress values around implants in both models., Conclusions: For all tested attachments on both models, the stress was concentrated on the ipsilateral implant. The bar-clip system allowed the distribution of load to all supporting implants in both models. Although the highest stress level observed with all attachment systems was moderate, the bar-Easy Slot attachment showed the highest stresses. The lowest stress was observed with the single anchor attachment (ERA) design for both models. Varying the number of implants had no significant effect on stress values around supporting implants., (© 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists.)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the satisfaction and quality of life (QoL) in a group of patients using mandibular complete dentures, implant-retained overdentures, removable partial dentures (RPDs), or implant-supported fixed partial dentures (FPDs)., Materials and Methods: A total of 116 patients (aged 36 to 81, mean age 58 ± 10.03 years) were assigned to four groups (n = 29) and treated with mandibular implant-retained overdentures, implant-supported FPDs (two implants/three unit FPDs), conventional complete dentures, or RPDs. The groups were well matched in terms of gender, age, and the edentulous period. All patients had edentulous maxillary arches and completely or partially edentulous mandibles. All prostheses were mandibular prostheses. The OHIP-14, OHQoL-UK, and SF-36 surveys were used to determine QoL before implant surgery and 1 year after prosthetic treatment., Results: The baseline and 1-year data from 116 patients were analyzed. A significant improvement was found among the QoL scales for all groups (p < 0.05). The most significant improvement was found in the implant-retained overdenture group (15.67 ± 2.47), while the least improvement was found among the implant-supported FPD group (5.14 ± 2.08). The SF-36 test revealed no differences between the before and after treatment scores for general health, pain, vitality, social function, and physical function difficulties (p > 0.05). The only significant difference was found for mental health (p = 0.011)., Conclusion: A positive influence on oral health-related QoL was observed in all groups. The QoL values were the most improved in the implant-retained overdenture group., (© 2014 by the American College of Prosthodontists.)

Background: Although the role of inhaled fungi in inducing asthma has been repeatedly confirmed, there are few reports about the association of asthma with dermatophyte sensitivity and the causal role of Trichophyton allergy in asthma. The objective was to investigate the presence of Trichophyton sensitivity among patients with allergic and nonallergic asthma in combination with tinea, and to compare the situation with several control groups in order to evaluate the factors determining Trichophyton sensitivity., Methods: A total of 86 subjects (55 female, 31 male) with a mean age of 38.6 +/- 11.1 years were included in the study. The patients were divided into five groups: 1) nonallergic asthma plus tinea (n = 19) 2) allergic asthma plus tinea (n = 15) 3) asthma without tinea (n = 22) 4) tinea without asthma (n = 17) 5) healthy controls (n = 13). Skin tests with standardized extracts of T. rubrum and specific IgE measurements were performed in all subjects. All patients were also subjected to microscopic evaluation and fungal culture for dermatophyte infection., Results: The skin test positivity rate to Trichophyton extract of groups 1 (63.1%), 2 (46.7%), and 4 (47.1%) was higher than that in groups 3 (4.4%) and 5 (7.7%) (P < 0.05). Although not significant, the rates of sensitivity to T. rubrum (63.1%) and of severe asthma (31.6%) were higher in the group with nonallergic asthma with tinea (group 1) than in other groups. Among 51 patients in whom direct microscopic evaluation revealed dermatophyte infection, 60.8% had positive fungal cultures for T. rubrum (58.1%), T. mentagrophytes (35.5%), and Candida (6.4%)., Conclusion: According to our data, the presence of fungal infection seems to be an important determinant in hypersensitivity to Trichophyton whether or not the subject is asthmatic and/or allergic. Since a greater proportion of patients with nonallergic asthma--in whom the rate of severe asthma was also higher - showed positive skin tests to Trichophyton extracts in this study, we believe that patients with severe, intrinsic asthma should be examined for signs of fungal infection and tested to determine immediate hypersensitivity to dermatophyte antigens.

Exposure to cockroach has been reported to cause asthma in many parts of the world. Although house-dust-mite is known to be the most important indoor allergen in Turkey, there are few data on the prevalence of allergy to cockroaches. Therefore, we evaluated the prevalence of cockroach sensitivity in asthmatic Turkish patients to see whether it is also an important source of asthma in addition to house-dust mites. A total of 206 patients demonstrating the characteristic features of asthma were included in the study. Sixty-three percent of the patients were considered atopic, and 37% were found to be nonatopic by skin prick tests. Mite allergens were the most common cause of indoor allergy (50%), while cockroach sensitivity was detected in 25.7% of all the asthmatics. Among all cockroach-sensitive patients, 70% were also positive for mites. A female predominance was observed in cockroach-sensitive patients, as 44% of atopic women and 34% of atopic men had positive skin tests with cockroach allergen. The average duration of asthma was 7.1+/-5.6 years in cockroach-sensitive asthmatics, and there was no difference between groups in average duration of asthma (P>0.05). Mild, moderate, and severe asthmatics constituted 73.6%, 20.7%, and 5.7% of the cockroach-sensitive patients, respectively. These data indicate that cockroach is also an important source of domestic infestation in Turkey. Thus, it seems reasonable to suggest the need for cockroach allergen in the routine battery of inhalant skin tests in this geographic location. However, possible cross-reactivity with mites has to be taken into consideration during the clinical evaluation of subjects with cockroach sensitivity, especially in our patient population with such high rates of house-dust-mite allergy.