Background Polyethylene glycols (PEGs) and their derivatives are non-ionic polymers of ethylene oxide commercially available with numerous synonyms, such as macrogol, oxyethylene polymer, and laureth-9. Although these polymers are usually safe, mild to life-threatening immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions have been reported. Nevertheless, awareness about their allergic potential is minimal due to the non-standardization of their nomenclature. Case presentation We present the case of a 29-years-old woman who developed several local and systemic type I hypersensitivity reactions including a severe anaphylactic reaction to different pharmacologic and cosmetic products whose excipients included PEG. Prick tests and basophil activation tests were performed to several pharmacological and cosmetic products, but only those containing PEGs and their derivatives were positive. The patient was diagnosed with immediate hypersensitivity IgE-mediated to PEGs and its derivatives. Conclusions Standardization of the terminology used to describe the presence of PEGs in products would help patients to identify them clearly and unequivocally and thus avoid the development of hypersensitivity reactions. It is also recommended studying PEG allergy in reactions to products containing PEGs, once allergy to the active ingredients has been excluded and in reactions to multiple unrelated drugs. Clinical study protocol number PI2018/29 (registered on 24 September 2018)

No abstract

Background One of the main barriers to vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is the fear of developing hypersensitivity reactions to any of its components. Although these reactions are very rare, it is necessary to establish an effective protocol to detect patients at risk of developing them. The aim of this study was to evaluate hypersensitivity reactions in vaccinated patients in order to allow or not to complete the vaccination protocol. Methods Descriptive and cross-sectional study in which patients with suspected hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were evaluated. All patients underwent skin prick test (SPT) and/or intradermal test (IDT) with the vaccines and their excipients. In patients with positive IDT with the vaccine, a histopathological and immunohistochemical study was performed by skin biopsy. A basophil activation test (BAT) and a lymphoblastic transformation test (LTT) were also performed. Results Sixteen patients with suspected hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (12 received Comirnaty®, 3 received Vaxzevria®, and 1 received Spikevax®) were evaluated. Half had immediate hypersensitivity reactions and half had delayed reactions. All SPTs to excipients and vaccines were negative. IDTs with all excipients were negative. IDTs with vaccines were positive in 11 patients and negative in 5. The histological and immunohistochemical study of the two selected patients with positive IDT with vaccine showed T-lymphocyte involvement. BAT and LTT were negative in both cases. The vaccination protocol could be completed in 7 of 16 patients (44%) studied. The remaining 9 patients did not receive the second dose: 5 because vaccination was not required and 4 because they refused to be vaccinated. Conclusions Thanks to the allergological and immunohistochemical study, the vaccination protocol could be completed in about half of the patients who presented suspected hypersensitivity reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. IDTs with vaccines could be a valuable method for assessing the immunogenicity of the vaccines.

BackgroundEosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a complex pathology. Attempts have been made in order to relate EoE with the intake of certain food. The problem is to establish which foods are really involved in the pathophysiology of this condition and to objectify a reliable inflammation biomarker for the follow-up of patients undergoing pharmacological treatment and/or diets. Our aim is to assess the food sensitization profile of patients with objective diagnosis of EoE and objectify the utility of ECP as an inflammation biomarker for the follow-up of patients with EoE treated with specific diets, based on the hypothesis that we will observe a decrease and clinical improvement after maintenance of these diets.MethodsA total of 19 subjects were included between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2015. Diets based on allergy testing were established. Prior to the initiation of the diets, baseline ECP was determined. Appointments were arranged for the patients between 4 and 6 months later to assess the clinical response to the specific diets and to request a second blood sample for blood counts and serum ECP levels to compare with the previous baseline.Results19 patients diagnosed with EoE (12 males and 7 females) between January 2012 and June 2015, aged between 17 and 68 (33.52; SD 13.67 years), were included consecutively, 15 of whom showed optimum response to specific diets based on allergy testing. A statistically significant difference ECP decrease was observed in our patients.DiscussionUntil now most of the studies previously published in reference to the use of ECP as a biomarker for monitoring patients on treatment with diets show consistent but insignificant decreases in ECP levels. However, ECP seems to be a good marker of inflammation if the determinations are performed avoiding confounding factors.ConclusionThe serial determination of ECP is useful when monitoring patients with EoE treated with specific diets.

There is a profile of patient with eosinophilic oesophagitis and atopic background, marked by the existence of IgE-mediated sensitizations. Our aim is to report the observed sensitivities to environmental and food allergens and panallergens in patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis with atopic background as well as characterizing other markers or analytical parameters. We suspect that the prevalence of sensitization to panallergens will be high and this will probably be relevant in terms of the onset and clinical course of the disease. We collated clinical and analytical data from 160 adult patients with a reported diagnosis of eosinophilic oesophagitis. These patients were studied between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2020. During an initial visit skin tests were performed with full batteries of routine aero-allergens and foodstuffs. Patients were subsequently referred for blood test and determination of specific IgE, blood count and total IgE (in all cases), as well as eosinophilic cation protein and IMMUNOISAC in the centres in which this was available. We were able to detect a broad spectrum of sensitizations to environmental, foodstuffs and panallergens. The most common allergic disease was rhinoconjuntivitis. The sensitizations observed to foodstuffs were atypical for the adult population and were not responsible for manifestations compatible with immediate allergy. An important percentage of patients presented seasonal worsening of choking symptoms. We should be able to identify patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis and atopic background. Identifying this phenomenon would enable giving dietary and environmental recommendations as well as more specific and effective treatments to our patients.