Type IV delayed-type hypersensitivity of the respiratory tract due to budesonide use: report of two cases and a literature review

Respiratory type-IV hypersensitivity reactions due to corticosteroids is a rare phenomenon. We describe two such cases. The first is a 37- year-old atopic woman who developed labial angioedema and nasal itching after the use of budesonide nasal spray. A month later, after the first puffs of a formoterol/budesonide spray prescribed for asthma, she noticed symptoms of tongue and oropharyngeal itching and redness with subsequent dysphagia, labial and tongue angioedema, and facial oedema. The second is a 15-year-old non-atopic woman who reported pruritic eruptions around the nostrils after using a budesonide nasal spray. A year later she presented with nasal pruritus with intense congestion and labial and facial oedema after using the same spray. Both patients were evaluated with patch-tests using the commercial T.R.U.E. test, a budesonide solution, and corticosteroid creams. Test evaluation was performed at 48 and 96 hours. In both patients, patch tests were positive to budesonide (++) on the second day. The first patient also had a positive (+) reaction to tixocortol-21-pivalate. All the other patch tests were negative. Clinicians should be aware that hypersensitivity reactions may occur during the use of nasal or inhaled corticosteroids.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions involving skin

Immune reactions to drugs can cause a variety of diseases involving the skin, liver, kidney, lungs, and other organs. Beside immediate, IgE-mediated reactions of varying degrees (urticaria to anaphylactic shock), many drug hypersensitivity reactions appear delayed, namely hours to days after starting drug treatment, showing a variety of clinical manifestations from solely skin involvement to fulminant systemic diseases which may be fatal. Immunohistochemical and functional studies of drug-specific T cells in patients with delayed reactions confirmed a predominant role for T cells in the onset and maintenance of immune-mediated delayed drug hypersensitivity reactions (type IV reactions). In these reactions, drug-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells are stimulated by drugs through their T cell receptors (TCR). Drugs can stimulate T cells in two ways: they can act as haptens and bind covalently to larger protein structures (hapten-carrier model), inducing a specific immune response. In addition, they may accidentally bind in a labile, noncovalent way to a particular TCR of the whole TCR repertoire and possibly also major histocompatibility complex (MHC)-molecules - similar to their pharmacologic action. This seems to be sufficient to reactivate certain, probably in vivo preactivated T cells, if an additional interaction of the drug-stimulated TCR with MHC molecules occurs. The mechanism was named pharmacological interaction of a drug with (immune) receptor and thus termed the p-i concept. This new concept may explain the frequent skin symptoms in drug hypersensitivity to oral or parenteral drugs. Furthermore, the various clinical manifestations of T cell-mediated drug hypersensitivity may be explained by distinct T cell functions leading to different clinical phenotypes. These data allowed a subclassification of the delayed hypersensitivity reactions (type IV) into T cell reactions which, by releasing certain cytokines and chemokines, preferentially activate and recruit monocytes (type IVa), eosinophils (type IVb), or neutrophils (type IVd).

The role of central hypersensitivity in the determination of intradiscal mechanical hyperalgesia in discogenic pain

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of the present study was to investigate whether there is a relationship between central hypersensitivity (assessed by pressure pain thresholds of uninjured tissues) and intradiscal pain threshold during discography. The secondary aim was to test the hypothesis that peripheral noxious stimulation dynamically modulates central hypersensitivity. PATIENTS: Twenty-four patients with positive provocation discography were tested for central hypersensitivity by pressure algometry before and after the intervention with assessments of pressure pain detection and tolerance thresholds. Intradiscal pain threshold was assessed by measuring intradiscal pressure at the moment of pain provocation during discography. Correlation analyses between intradiscal pain threshold and pressure algometry were made. For the secondary aim, pressure algometry data before and after discography were compared. RESULTS: Significant correlation with intradiscal pain threshold was found for pressure pain detection threshold at the toe (regression coefficient: 0.03, P = 0.05) and pressure pain tolerance thresholds at the nonpainful point at the back (0.02, P = 0.024). Tolerance threshold at the toe was a significant predictor for intradiscal pain threshold only in multiple linear regression (0.036, P = 0.027). Detection as well as tolerance thresholds significantly decreased after discography at the painful and the nonpainful point at the back, but not at the toe. CONCLUSIONS: Central hypersensitivity may influence intradiscal pain threshold, but with a modest quantitative impact. The diagnostic value of provocation discography is therefore not substantially impaired. Regional, but not generalized central hypersensitivity is dynamically modulated by ongoing peripheral nociceptive input.

Hypersensitivity and oral tolerance in the absence of a secretory immune system

Mucosal immunity protects the epithelial barrier by immune exclusion of foreign antigens and by anti-inflammatory tolerance mechanisms, but there is a continuing debate about the role of secretory immunoglobulins (SIgs), particularly SIgA, in the protection against allergy and other inflammatory diseases. Lack of secretory antibodies may cause immune dysfunction and affect mucosally induced (oral) tolerance against food antigens.

Vaccine hypersensitivity--update and overview

Concerns about possible reactions to vaccines or vaccinations are frequently raised. However, the rate of reported vaccine-induced adverse events is low and ranges between 4.8-83.0 per 100,000 doses of the most frequently used vaccines. The number of true allergic reactions to routine vaccines is not known; estimations range from 1 per 500,000 to 1 per 1,000,000 doses for most vaccines. When allergens such as gelatine or egg proteins are components of the formulation, the rate for serious allergic reactions may be higher. Nevertheless, anaphylactic, potentially life-threatening reactions to vaccines are still a rare event (approximately 1 per 1,500,000 doses). The variety of reported vaccine-related adverse events is broad. Most frequently, reactions to vaccines are limited to the injection site and result from a non specific activation of the inflammatory system by, for example, aluminium salts or the active microbial components. If allergy is suspected, an accurate examination followed by algorithms is the key for correct diagnosis, treatment and the decision regarding revaccination in patients with immediate-type reactions to vaccines.

General considerations on rapid desensitization for drug hypersensitivity - a consensus statement

Drug hypersensitivity reactions can occur with most drugs, are unpredictable, may affect any organ or system, and range widely in clinical severity from mild pruritus to anaphylaxis. In most cases, the suspected drug is avoided in the future. However, for certain patients, the particular drug may be essential for optimal therapy. Under these circumstances, desensitization may be performed. Drug desensitization is defined as the induction of a temporary state of tolerance of a compound responsible for a hypersensitivity reaction. It is performed by administering increasing doses of the medication concerned over a short period of time (from several hours to a few days) until the total cumulative therapeutic dose is achieved and tolerated. It is a high-risk procedure used only in patients in whom alternatives are less effective or not available after a positive risk/benefit analysis. Desensitization protocols have been developed and are used in patients with allergic reactions to antibiotics (mainly penicillin), insulins, sulfonamides, chemotherapeutic and biologic agents, and many other drugs. Desensitization is mainly performed in IgE-mediated reactions, but also in reactions where drug-specific IgE have not been demonstrated. Desensitization induces a temporary tolerant state, which can only be maintained by continuous administration of the medication. Thus, for treatments like chemotherapy, which have an average interval of 4 weeks between cycles, the procedure must be repeated for every new course. In this paper, some background information on rapid desensitization procedures is provided. We define the drugs and drug reactions indicated for such procedures, describe the possible mechanism of action, and discuss the indications and contraindications. The data should serve as background information for a database (accessible via the EAACI-homepage) with standardized protocols for rapid desensitization for antibiotics, chemotherapeutic agents, monoclonal antibodies/fusion proteins, and other drugs.

Cross-reactivity in drug hypersensitivity reactions to sulfasalazine and sulfamethoxazole

Sulfonamides are generally classified into 2 groups: antibiotics and non-antibiotics. Recent studies showed that patients allergic to sulfonamide antibiotics do not have a specific risk for an allergy to sulfonamide non-antibiotic. However, the anti-inflammatory drug sulfasalazine represents an important exception. Used in rheumatic diseases, it is classified as a non-antibiotic sulfonamide, but is structurally related to antibiotic sulfonamides. Therefore, we aimed to analyze in vitro the cross-reactivity between the antimicrobial sulfamethoxazole and the anti-inflammatory drug sulfasalazine.