Urticaria and coronavirus infection: a lesson from SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Summary

Urticaria is a condition involving both skin and mucosal tissues characterized by the presence of wheals and/or angioedema. The acute form has been related to allergic reactions to drugs or foods, interaction with chemicals, or infections. We reviewed the association of urticaria with coronavirus infections. This review was carried out by the use of two search engines for published original articles, employing two key terms correlated to urticaria and viruses: "urticaria" and one term linked to each virus. The research of the relationships between SARS-CoV-2 and urticaria produced 18 papers (including a total of 114 cases). Surprisingly, the search for cases of urticaria in patients with SARS-CoV or MERS produced no results. We tried to interpret this discrepancy and attempted to analyze the possible pathogenesis of urticaria lesions in SARS-CoV-2.

Rosmarinus officinalis L. as cause of contact dermatitis

Because of the widespread use of botanicals, it has become crucial for health professionals to improve their knowledge about safety problems. Several herbal medicines contain chemicals with allergenic properties responsible for contact dermatitis. Among these, one is Rosmarinus officinalis L. (rosemary), a plant used since ancient times in folk medicine; at the present time it is used worldwide as a spice and flavouring agent, as a preservative and for medicinal and cosmetic purposes. The present article aims to revise and summarise scientific literature reporting cases of contact dermatitis caused by the use of R. officinalis as a raw material or as herbal preparations. Published case reports were researched on the following databases and search engines: PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Scopus. The used keywords were: R. officinalis and rosemary each alone or combined with the words allergy, contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, sensitisation and occupational dermatitis. The published case reports show that both rosemary extracts and raw material can be responsible for allergic contact dermatitis. Two cases related to contact dermatitis caused by cross-reactivity between rosemary and thyme were also commented. The diterpene carnosol, a chemical constituent of this plant, has been imputed as a common cause for this reaction. The incidence of contact dermatitis caused by rosemary is not common, but it could be more frequent with respect to the supposed occurrence. It seems plausible that cases of contact dermatitis caused by rosemary are more frequent with respect to the supposed occurrence, because they could be misdiagnosed. For this reason, this possibility should be carefully considered in dermatitis differential diagnosis.

Allergic contact dermatitis: immune system involvement and distinctive clinical cases

The aim of this review is drawing the attention to the contact dermatitis, an inflammatory skin condition due to pro-inflammatory and toxic factors able to activate the skin innate immunity (irritant contact dermatitis) or caused by a T-cell- mediated hypersensitivity reaction (allergic contact dermatitis). The immune system involvement and a variety of clinical pictures are described in order to better diagnose, prevent and treat allergic contact dermatitis.

Sublingual immunotherapy in children with allergic polysensitization

Polysensitization is quite frequent in allergic children and may cause difficulties for the allergist in prescribing allergen-specific immunotherapy. This study aimed at evaluating the clinical effectiveness of 1 year of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in a cohort of Italian allergic children with polysensitization. This open study was performed on 51 polysensitized children (34 boys; mean age, 11.8 years; range, 5.2-17.7 years) with allergic rhinitis and/or mild to moderate asthma. All of them were treated with SLIT for 1 year. The kind and the number of prescribed allergen extracts, the type of diagnosis, the severity of symptoms, and the use of drugs were evaluated at baseline and after 1 year. The adverse events to SLIT were also evaluated. Forty-two children were treated with a single extract, four with two different extracts and three with a mix of allergens. SLIT treatment induced a significant reduction in the number of sensitizations (p = 0.018); significant improvement of allergic rhinitis classification and severity; significant reduction of ocular, nasal, and bronchial symptoms (p < 0.01 for all); and drugs use (p < 0.01 for all drugs). No systemic reactions to SLIT were observed. This open study provides evidence that polysensitization is not an obstacle for prescribing SLIT in polysensitized children. Indeed, SLIT efficacy on clinical parameters is significant after 1 year and the therapy is safe.

Characteristics of patients with allergic polysensitization: the POLISMAIL study

BACKGROUND

The natural history of respiratory allergy is commonly characterized by a worsening of symptom severity, frequent comorbidity of rhinitis and asthma, and polysensitization to aeroallergens. The polysensitization phenomenon starts since childhood and is rare to find monosensitized adult patients. However, there are few studies investigating the characteristics of polysensitized patients.

METHODS

This study was performed on a large cohort of patients with allergic rhinitis (assessed by ARIA criteria) and/or mild to moderate asthma (assessed by GINA). The kind and the number of sensitizations, their patterns, and the relation with quality of life (QoL) measured by the Juniper's RQLQ guestionnaire, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Globally 418 patients (50.2% males, 49.8% females, mean age 26.4 years, range 3.5-65 years, 64 smokers, 371 non-smokers) were enrolled: 220 had allergic rhinitis alone, and 198 allergic rhinitis and asthma. The mean number ofsensitizations was 2.6. Three hundred-five patients (73%) had persistent rhinitis (PER), 220 of them with moderate-severe form. There was no significant derence in rate of rhinitis and asthma in monosensitized or polysensitized patients. Most patients were sensitized to pollens, whereas only 24.2% of them were sensitized to perennial allergens. Polysensitization was significantly associated with some issues of QoL, confirming previous findings, but not with number ofsensitizations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides data confirming for poly-sensitized patients the relevance of ARIA classification of AR. PER is the most common form of AR in this cohort, symptoms are frequently moderate-severe, and asthma is present in about the half of patients with AR.

Intermittent and Persistent Allergic Rhinitis and Association with Asthma in Children

The natural history of allergic rhinitis (AR) is commonly characterized by worsening of symptom severity, frequent comorbidity with asthma, and polysensitization to aeroallergens. The polysensitization phenomenon starts in early childhood. AR classification has been recently revised, and some studies investigated the new types: intermittent (IAR) and persistent (PER) AR. However, no study has been carried out on children regarding this issue. This preliminary study was performed on a large cohort of children with allergic rhinitis to evaluate the type and severity of rhinitis and its possible association with asthma, including severity grade. One hundred and thirty-nine children (86 males, 53 females, mean age 11.8 years, range 3.5–17.7 years) with allergic rhinitis were prospectively and consecutively evaluated. Seventy-one children had rhinitis alone and 68 had rhinitis associated with asthma. Forty children had IAR, 30 of whom with moderate-severe grade. Ninety-nine children had PER, 65 of whom had moderate-severe grade. The severity of AR was not associated with asthma presence (Fisher χ2 = 0.5765; Prob.=0.9018). Regarding asthma severity, 30 children had the intermittent form, whereas 38 had the persistent form: 15 mild, 22 moderate, and 1 severe. This study provides the first evidence concerning the ARIA classification in children, partially confirming findings obtained in adulthood.

Fragrances as a cause of food allergy

A 34-year-old woman referred episodes of gastrointestinal disorders and sometimes angioedema of the lips which appeared within 2 hours from the ingestion of packed food like biscuits, cereals or fruit juice. A patch test with the standard European series and with food preservatives was positive for fragrances mix. The avoidance of packed food labelled as containing flavours among the ingredients caused the disappearance of the above reported symptoms.

Prevention of new sensitizations in monosensitized subjects submitted to specific immunotherapy or not. A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Specific immunotherapy is the only currently available allergen-orientated treatment able to modify the natural history of respiratory allergic diseases. Safety and clinical efficacy of this treatment are well documented, but evidence about the ability to reduce new sensitizations is still poor.

OBJECTIVE

We report a retrospective study conducted in order to assess the prevention of new sensitizations in monosensitized subjects treated with specific immunotherapy vs. monosensitized patients treated with anti-allergic drugs.

METHODS

8396 monosensitized patients with respiratory symptoms were selected according to an open, retrospective design. Group A included 7182 patients submitted to specific immunotherapy (and anti-allergic drugs when needed) for 4 years and then treated with drugs for at least 3 years. Group B included 1214 patients treated only with drugs for at least 7 years. All patients underwent prick test with a standard panel of allergens and total and specific IgE determination before and after 4 years of treatment and again 3 years later.

RESULTS

Groups were well balanced. Polysensitized subjects were 23.75% in Group A and 68.03% in Group B after 4 years (P < 0.0001) and 26.95% and 76.77%, respectively, after 7 years (P < 0.0001). Asthmatic subjects were more prone to develop polysensitization in comparison to subjects suffering only from rhinitis (32.14% instead of 27.29% after 4 years, 36.5% instead of 31.33% after 7 years; P < 0.0001). Specific IgE decreased by 24.11% in Group A and increased by 23.87% in Group B (P < 0.0001). Total IgE decreased by 17.53% in Group A and increased by 13.71% in Group B (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Specific immunotherapy was observed retrospectively to reduce new sensitizations in monosensitized subjects suffering from respiratory allergic diseases.

Prevention of new sensitizations in monosensitized subjects submitted to specific immunotherapy or not. A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Specific immunotherapy is the only currently available allergen-orientated treatment able to modify the natural history of respiratory allergic diseases. Safety and clinical efficacy of this treatment are well documented, but evidence about the ability to reduce new sensitizations is still poor.

OBJECTIVE

We report a retrospective study conducted in order to assess the prevention of new sensitizations in monosensitized subjects treated with specific immunotherapy vs. monosensitized patients treated with anti-allergic drugs.

METHODS

8396 monosensitized patients with respiratory symptoms were selected according to an open, retrospective design. Group A included 7182 patients submitted to specific immunotherapy (and anti-allergic drugs when needed) for 4 years and then treated with drugs for at least 3 years. Group B included 1214 patients treated only with drugs for at least 7 years. All patients underwent prick test with a standard panel of allergens and total and specific IgE determination before and after 4 years of treatment and again 3 years later.

RESULTS

Groups were well balanced. Polysensitized subjects were 23.75% in Group A and 68.03% in Group B after 4 years (P < 0.0001) and 26.95% and 76.77%, respectively, after 7 years (P < 0.0001). Asthmatic subjects were more prone to develop polysensitization in comparison to subjects suffering only from rhinitis (32.14% instead of 27.29% after 4 years, 36.5% instead of 31.33% after 7 years; P < 0.0001). Specific IgE decreased by 24.11% in Group A and increased by 23.87% in Group B (P < 0.0001). Total IgE decreased by 17.53% in Group A and increased by 13.71% in Group B (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Specific immunotherapy was observed retrospectively to reduce new sensitizations in monosensitized subjects suffering from respiratory allergic diseases.

Immediate reaction to clarithromycin

We present the case of bronchospastic reaction to clarithromycin had during a drug challenge test. Personal allergic history was negative for respiratory allergies and positive for adverse drug reactions to general and regional anesthesia and to ceftriaxone. After the administration of 1/4 of therapeutic dose of clarithromycin the patient showed dyspnea, cough and bronchospasm in all the lung fields. The positivity of the test was confirmed by the negativity to the administration of placebo. The quickness and the clinical characteristic of the adverse reaction suggest a pathogenic mechanism of immediate-type hypersensitivity. On reviewing the literature we have found no reports of bronchospastic reaction to clarithromycin. Macrolides are a class of antibiotics mainly used in the last years in place of beta-lactams because of a broad spectrum of action and a low allergic power. In fact, there are few reports on allergic reactions to these molecules. Clarithromycin is one of the latest macrolides, characterised by the presence of a 14-carbon-atom lactone ring as erythromycin, active on a wide spectrum of pathogens.

Aluminium allergy in a patient with occupational contact dermatitis

Case of a 57-year-old hospital attendant with hand eczema. Patch tests were read at 2 and 3 days using the 1+ to 3+ scoring system recommended by the Contact Dermatitis Research Group.

Sublingual immunotherapy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with Parietaria judaica extract standardized in mass units in patients with rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma, or both

BACKGROUND

New routes of administering immunotherapy in respiratory allergy are being studied as an alternative to conventional injective immunotherapy. We carried out a study to evaluate the clinical efficacy and effects of sublingual immunotherapy in patients with Parietaria judaica-induced respiratory allergy.

METHODS

A double-blind, placebo-controlled design was followed. Thirty patients with P. judaica rhinoconjunctivitis, mild asthma, or both were randomly chosen for sublingual immunotherapy (14 patients) or placebo treatment (16 patients). The patients underwent preseasonal rush induction treatment followed by coseasonal maintenance treatment during the Parietaria pollen season. Symptom and drug scores, as well as specific IgE and specific IgG4, were recorded.

RESULTS

Significantly lower symptom and drug scores were found (P=0.04), especially during the Parietaria pollination period, in the immunotherapy group. No significant difference in specific IgE and specific IgG4 was detected between the active and placebo groups; a statistically significant increase of specific IgE was detected in both groups (P=0.05). No patient undergoing active sublingual immunotherapy reported local or systemic side-effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that sublingual immunotherapy is both clinically effective and safe in treating patients with Parietaria-induced rhinoconjunctivitis and mild asthma.

A controlled study on the effectiveness of loratadine in combination with flunisolide in the treatment of nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilia (NARES)

BACKGROUND

Nonallergic rhinitis with eosinophilia (NARES), accounting for some 15% of perennial rhinitis, is a nasal disorder whose main features are eosinophil counts in nasal smear higher than 10% and negative IgE tests. The mainstay of treatment is topical corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the adjunctive effect of loratadine, a non-sedating antihistamine with anti-allergic activity, on nasal symptoms and eosinophil counts in nasal secretions in patients with NARES.

METHODS

Thirty patients with NARES were divided in two groups, half receiving flunisolide two 25 microg puffs per nostril morning and night plus loratadine 10 mg u.i.d. and half the same doses of flunisolide plus placebo, according to a double-blind fashion, for 3 weeks. The effectiveness of the treatment in the two groups was evaluated by comparing symptom scores and eosinophil counts, and safety was assessed by comparing the adverse effects.

RESULTS

The loratadine treated group had better results both in nasal symptoms, with a decrease in sneezing (P < 0.000001) and rhinorrhoea (P < 0.006), respectively, corresponding with 73.4% and 66.7% with respect to 46.6% and 26.7% in the control group, and in eosinophil counts which decreased by 20% compared with 14.3% in patients treated with placebo and flunisolide. As to safety, only nasal irritation in two patients, one in each group, was reported.

CONCLUSION

Loratadine improves the effectiveness of flunisolide in treatment of NARES with no change in safety, and with no sedation.

Rush sublingual immunotherapy in Parietaria allergic patients

Forty patients, monosensitized to Parietaria judaica with a clinical history of at least two years of rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma, were selected and randomly allocated in two groups. According to an open controlled experimental plan, twenty patients were submitted to sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with a solution of purified and biologically standardized extract of Parietaria judaica, following a preseasonal rush schedule. All patients, twenty belonging to the SLIT group and twenty belonging to the control group, were allowed to take authorized rescue drugs at need. At the end of the Parietaria pollen season. 15 patients for each group resulted to have complied with the criteria of the study. SLIT tolerance turned out to be excellent as no side effects were noticed in the group under treatment. No change could be detected in specific IgE and IgG4 in either group. According to the daily symptom and drug scores registered by each patient in a diary card, the SLIT group showed a statistically significant lower symptom score (p = 0.032) and lower drug plus symptom score (p = 0.037) during the peak pollen period (May-June 1994) in comparison to the group treated only with symptomatic drugs. Moreover, 13 out of 15 patients submitted to SLIT expressed a very favourable subjective opinion about the therapy and asked to continue the same treatment the following season. According to our results, the rush SLIT schedule, followed by maintenance during the pollen season, is simple, safe and effective for Parietaria pollen allergy and showed an excellent compliance.