All iodinated contrast media (CM) are known to cause both immediate (≤1 h) and nonimmediate (>1 h) hypersensitivity reactions. Although for most immediate reactions an allergic hypersensitivity ...cannot be demonstrated, recent studies indicate that the severe immediate reactions may be IgE‐mediated, while most of the nonimmediate exanthematous skin reactions, appear to be T‐cell mediated. Patients who experience such hypersensitivity reactions are therefore advised to undergo an allergologic evaluation. Several investigators have found skin testing to be useful in confirming a CM allergy, especially in patients with nonimmediate skin eruptions. If a patient with confirmed allergy to a CM needs a new CM exposure, a skin test negative CM should be chosen and premedication may be tried. However, none of these precautional measures is a guarantee against a repeat reaction. More research focusing on pathomechanisms, diagnostic testing and premedication is therefore clearly needed in order to prevent CM‐induced hypersensitivity reactions in the future.
These guidelines represent a consensus of experts in the field of immediate hypersensitivity reactions occurring during anaesthesia. They were based on international science, and implemented in ...France under the auspices of the French Society for Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (SFAR: Société Française d'Anesthésie et de Reanimation). Their aim was to provide the most valid, widely accepted, effective and easily teachable guidelines that current knowledge, research and experience can provide. This paper presents the main extracts of these recommendations with the most relevant clinical implications.
Background
Hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency (C1‐INH‐HAE) is characterized by recurrent swelling in subcutaneous or submucosal tissues. Symptoms often begin by age 5–11 years and ...worsen during puberty, but attacks can occur at any age and recur throughout life. Disease course in elderly patients is rarely reported.
Methods
The Icatibant Outcome Survey (IOS) is an observational study evaluating the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of icatibant. We conducted descriptive analyses in younger (age < 65 years) versus elderly patients (age ≥ 65 years). Here, we report patient characteristics and safety‐related findings.
Results
As of February 2018, 872 patients with C1‐INH‐HAE type I/II were enrolled, of whom 100 (11.5%) were ≥ 65 years old. Significant differences between elderly versus younger patients, respectively, were noted for median age at symptom onset (17.0 vs 12.0 years), age at diagnosis (41.0 vs 19.4 years), and delay between symptom onset and diagnosis (23.9 vs 4.8 years) (P ≤ 0.0001 for all). Median age at diagnosis was significantly higher in elderly patients regardless of family history (P < 0.0001). Throughout the study, icatibant was used to treat 6798 attacks in 574 patients, with 63 elderly patients reporting 715 (10.5%) of the icatibant‐treated attacks. No serious adverse events (SAEs) in elderly patients were judged to be possibly related to icatibant, whereas two younger patients reported three possibly related SAEs. Excluding off‐label use and pregnancy (evaluated for regulatory purposes), the percentage of patients with at least one possibly/probably related AE was similar for elderly (2.0%) versus younger patients (2.7%). No deaths linked to icatibant treatment were identified. All related events in elderly patients were attributed to general disorders/administration site conditions, whereas related events in younger patients occurred across various system organ class designations.
Conclusions
Elderly patients with C1‐INH‐HAE were significantly older at diagnosis and had greater delay in diagnosis than younger patients. Elderly patients contributed to approximately 10% of the icatibant‐treated attacks. Our analysis found similar AE rates (overall and possibly/probably related) in icatibant‐treated elderly versus younger patients, despite the fact that elderly patients had significantly more comorbidities and were receiving a greater number of concomitant medications. Our analysis did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns.
Solar urticaria is a rare photodermatosis which often begins from the third to the fifth decade. Usual treatment consists of photoprotection measures and antihistamines although disease control is ...sometimes unsatisfactory with both. We report herein a very severe case of solar urticaria we treated with intravenous immunoglobulins.
A 55-year-old woman suffered for 3 years from very severe solar urticaria which resisted treatment. Phototests revealed two action spectra: the first in UVA near 380 nm with a minimal urticarian dose of 0.025 J/cm(2), the second near 500 nm in visible light.
As last resort treatment, we gave our patient intravenous immunoglobulins. After the third course of treatment, the improvement was impressive as the patient could tolerate visible light and 15 minutes of intense solar exposure. The minimal urticarian dose was raised from 0.025 J/cm(2) to 27 J/cm(2) in UVA. One year after treatment, the solar urticaria has disappeared.
We report herein the first case of solar urticaria treated with success with immunoglobulin. Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment is well for its effectiveness in many autoimmune diseases such as autoimmune thrombocytopenic purpura, and also, as recently proven, in some cases of severe idiopathic chronic urticaria.
PDF
