Background The development of vaccines to prevent COVID-19 breakouts came with highly positive results but some unexpected side effects. Rare side effects have been seen with the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV 2 vaccine. Case Presentation We present the case of a 45-year-old female patient who developed an acute kidney injury needing urgent hemodialysis one week after the second administration of the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV 2 vaccine. She developed a macular rash on her lower limbs and palms as well. A kidney biopsy was performed 10 days after vaccine inoculation, diagnosing acute interstitial nephritis and acute tubular necrosis with cellular casts. The patient was treated with three corticosteroid pulses followed by daily prednisolone. We witnessed clinical improvement 4 days after the initial corticosteroid treatment with progressive recovery of kidney function and hemodialysis withdrawal. After 2 weeks, the patient had recovered her kidney function. Immunophenotyping was performed, diagnosing a hypersensitivity to the vaccine and the polyethylene glycol excipient. Conclusion Patients may develop acute reactions to vaccines. In this case, symptoms seem to correlate significantly with its inoculation and, although this case had a favourable outcome, these side effects must be made aware for clinicians and patients.

Background Chronic urticaria (CU) is defined as recurrent urticaria lasting for more than 6 weeks. Objectives We aimed to characterize the phenotypes of patients with CU refractory to standard dose anti-H1 antihistamine treatment and search for clinical predictors of poor disease control. Methods Retrospective collection of data regarding clinical characteristics, comorbidities, treatment, and disease control of all adult refractory CU patients presenting to the Allergy and Immunology Department during 1 year. Results Sixty-one adult patients were included, 74% females, average age 44.5 years (18 to 84 years old). Most patients (78.7%) had initiated CU less than 1 year before enrolment. Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) accounted for 55.7% of the patients, CSU associated with chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU) as a comorbidity for 44.3%, and angioedema was present in 55.7%. Medically-confirmed psychiatric disorders were present in 78.7%. Complementary diagnostic tests were performed in cases with more severe presentation (UAS7 ≥ 28 and/or UCT < 12) or with longer evolution (> 1 year), corresponding to 42 tested patient. Evidence for autoimmunity (positive anti-thyroid peroxidase antibodies, anti-nuclear antibodies or autologous serum test) was found in 45.2% (n = 19/42), and high C-reactive protein was present in 14.3% (n = 6/42), half of these also had positive antinuclear antibodies. Forty-six patients (75.4%) had at least one significant exacerbation, requiring medical appointment, emergency room, hospitalization or job absenteeism. The number of exacerbations correlated with the presence of angioedema (p = 0.022), with a recent diagnosis (< 1 year), and with higher UAS7 severity (p = 0.006). Although ClndU was associated with poor symptom control (p = 0.022), it was also associated with less exacerbations requiring medical observation or hospitalization (p = 0.015). All patients were using antihistamines and 21.3% (n = 13) of them were also under treatment with omalizumab, ciclosporine or montelukast for disease control. Conclusions Autoimmunity can affect about half of the patients with severe or long-term CU. UAS7 and angioedema are associated with disease exacerbations. UAS7 and UCT presented unequal accuracy, with UAS7 better associating with the occurrence of exacerbations and treatment doses. Patients with refractory CU frequently present psychiatric disorders. Accurate diagnostic tests, namely autoimmune parameters and inflammatory markers, should be recommended in some individual cases.

An overlapping pattern between MPE and DRESS was identified and characterized. There may be a continuum spectrum between MPE and DRESS.

No abstract

Background. Anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal medical emergency. The frequency of hospital admissions for anaphylaxis seems to be increasing in the recent decades. Objective. Characterize the patients admitted for anaphylaxis to the adult emergency department (ED) of a tertiary care hospital over a 10-year period, discriminating aetiologies, clinical features and therapy administered. Methods. Retrospective, descriptive and inferential study, evaluating age, sex, Manchester triage system, suspected allergen, site of allergen exposure, comorbidities, cofactors, clinical findings and symptoms, treatment and management. Patients admitted between January 2007 and December 2016 were included. Results. Forty-three patients were enrolled: 23 males, mean age 54.3 ± 16.2 years, n = 22 had history of allergic disease. Two patients were triaged as non-urgent. The most frequently suspected causes of anaphylaxis were: drugs (33%, n = 14), Hymenoptera venoms (23%, n = 10), foods (21%, n = 9) and iodinated contrast products (12%, n = 5). Adrenaline was used in 88% of the episodes (n = 38), 55% of which (n = 21) intramuscularly. Mortality was registered in one case. At discharge, adrenaline auto-injector was prescribed in 7% (n = 3) of the patients, and Allergy and Clinical Immunology consultation (ACIC) was requested in 65% of the episodes (n = 28). Statistically significant associations (p < 0.05) were established: a, anaphylaxis to drugs associated with a low intramuscular adrenaline use and with frequent oxygen therapy; b, anaphylaxis to food associated with intramuscular adrenaline administration; c, anaphylaxis to Hymenoptera venom associated with male sex; and d, anaphylaxis to iodinated contrasts associated with referral to ACIC and with shock. All obese patients developed shock. Conclusions. Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening condition that requires early recognition. Although most patients received adrenaline, administration was not always performed by the recommended route and only a few patients were prescribed adrenaline auto-injector. but may also involve airway, respiratory, gastrointestinal and/or circulatory disfunction (4-6). Patients may report to the emergency department (ED) at various stages of the anaphylaxis reaction, with symptoms ranging from urticaria to cardiorespiratory failure (7). Severe reactions may require evaluation in the emergency department, management in intensive care units or hospitalization (8).