Plant lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) are widespread plant food allergens, highly resistant to food processing and to the gastrointestinal environment, which have been described as the most common food allergens in the Mediterranean area. LTP allergy is widely described in adults, but it represents an emerging allergen also in the pediatric population. Little is known about the real prevalence and the clinical features of this allergy in children and it still often remains underdiagnosed in these patients. An early identification and a deeper knowledge of this allergy in childhood can avoid severe systemic reactions and improve the child's quality of life. Pediatricians should always consider the possibility of LTP involvement in cases of plant-derived food allergy.

The aim of this paper is to assess in an open prospective pilot case-control study the tolerability, safety and efficacy of an ultra-rush sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) protocol with Vespula venom in wasp allergic patients compared to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). Forty-one wasp allergic patients were treated with sublingual (SLIT group) or subcutaneous (SCIT group) ultrarush immunotherapy with Vespula venom extract. All patients underwent skin tests and serum specific IgE and IgG₄ detection before enrolment and after 6, 12 and 24 months of immunotherapy. The SLIT group consisted of 21 (6 females and 15 males) patients who received increasing doses of Vespula venom (Aquagen, ALK-Abelló) until the final dose of 30 drops of extract in 3 hours, containing 100,000 SQ-U/ml. The maintenance dose was of 10 drops of pure venom extract 3 times a week, for a total dose of 100,000 SQ-U weekly (corresponding to 100 μg of venom extract). The SCIT group consisted of 20 patients (16 males and 4 females) who were treated with subcutaneous ultrarush immunotherapy with Vespula venom extract (Pharmalgen, Alk-Abelló). Patients received 101.1 μg of Vespula venom in 3 hours and were treated with 100 μg of wasp venom monthly. During the ultrarush sublingual treatment 2 patients (9.5%) experienced mild side-effects. Specific IgE and specific IgG to wasp venom did not show any significant modification. Four patients were field-stung by a wasp during the treatment (for a total of 6 stings). Two patients (3 stings), with a previous clinical history of a grade III and IV reaction, did not experience any reaction. One patient, with a previous grade II reaction, showed a large local reaction. The fourth patient, with a previous grade III reaction, was re-stung twice (after 12 and 24 months) with two systemic reactions (SR) (mild throat constriction). During the ultrarush SCIT phase, 3 (15%) patients experienced side-effects: 2 of them showed a large local reaction and 1 had headache and stomach ache. Specific IgE showed a significant (P=0.001) increase after 6 months of treatment and then returned to baseline levels while specific IgG showed a significant (P=0.001) increase after 6, 12 and 24 months in comparison with baseline. Nine patients were field-stung during the treatment: 8 of them experienced large local reactions; one patient (11%) experienced an SR (dizziness). Our results, even if in a small number of patients, suggest that in patients with Hymenoptera sting allergy SLIT could be efficacious with a good tolerability profile when compared to SCIT. Larger studies are needed to assess efficacy, safety and tolerability profile of wasp venom SLIT.

Introduction The only etiological and decisive therapy, able to influence the natural history of latex allergy is the specific desensitization. Aim To verify the clinical efficacy and immunological changes determined by latex sublingual immunotherapy in allergic patients who underwent this...

Hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to contrast media (CM) are a major problem. We compared differences of HRs to iodinated contrast media (ICM) versus gadolinium-based contrast media (GBCM), collecting data on prevalence, type, latency and severity. Secondly, the predisposition to perform new contrast tests, use of premedication and possible appearance of new reactions were explored in a long-term follow-up of 5 years. Clinical data, comorbidities, skin test (ST) results, re-exposure to CM procedures with any new reactions, premedication and CM used were collected. In a retrospective single-center study, 350 patients with mild to moderate HRs were enrolled. Asthma, food allergy, non-allergic drug hypersensitivity and neurologic disease were significantly more frequent in patients with HRs to GBCM compared to the high evidence of cardiovascular disease and history of cancer in patients with HRs to ICM. A marked delay in performing STs was reported by patients with negative results (66 months, p < 0.01). Iomeprol, iopamidol and gadobenic acid were the culprit CM most involved in HRs in patients with positive STs. During follow-up, 7.1% of responders reported new HRs to CM despite negative STs, premedication and infusion of alternative CM in most cases.

Midazolam is a short-acting benzodiazepine with central nervous system depressing action, commonly used for conscious sedation for various procedures and for its pharmacologic properties. In literature, severe adverse reactions to this drug are described, but only in few cases positive allergological tests were demonstrated. The authors collected herein five clinical cases of different allergic reactions to midazolam demonstrated by positive skin tests. The 1° case is a suspected Kounis syndrome with cardiorespiratory arrest during an elective video laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The 2° and 5° cases are two systemic reactions with involvement of the skin and the gastrointestinal/respiratory system during elective surgeries in two patients with clinical history of atopia, while the 3° and 4° cases are local skin reactions in correspondence with the infusion site of midazolam during the execution of a colonoscopy. All the patients performed a complete allergological evaluation for the reaction involved drugs. In all cases, only the intradermal test (IDT) with midazolam at 0.5 mg/mL was positive.Allergological tests performed in 10 healthy controls with negative results supported the diagnosis. Therefore, midazolam is often considered a safe drug, because it does not have any active metabolites, in rare cases, it could cause different types of allergic adverse reactions: from severe anaphylaxis with cardiorespiratory arrest to simple local skin reactions. Skin tests remain the first line in the diagnosis of an immediate-type hypersensitivity to midazolam; even if they could lose in sensitivity with increasing latency from the event. However the concentrations recommended by current guidelines of European Network for Drug Allergy (ENDA) and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) drug allergy interest groups might not rule out some false-positive reactions due to an irritant effect that should be considered. In doubt cases, other allergological or laboratory tests (i.e., basophil activation tests, serum tryptase, or provocation tests) remain useful to support the diagnosis of an IgE-mediated reaction. Midazolam associated anaphylaxis is relatively rare and the risk factors associated with this event are actually unknown; however, it remains important to obtain a detailed allergic history and each surgical/endoscopic examination unit should be prepared to handle any situation or emergency that may occur.

Introduction: Lipid transfer proteins (LTP), profilin and PR-10 are the most important panallergens in central and southern Italy. Lipid transfer proteins are stable molecules, predominantly present in the fruit peel, which can induce systemic symptoms after ingestion of vegetables. Profilin...