Objectives: One-fifth of Covid-19 patients suffer a severe course of Covid-19 infection; however, the specific causes remain unclear. Mast cells (MCs) are activated by SARS-CoV-2. Although only recently recognized, MC activation syndrome (MCAS), usually due to acquired MC clonality, is a chronic multisystem disorder with inflammatory and allergic themes, and an estimated prevalence of 17%. This paper describes a novel conjecture explaining how MCAS might cause a propensity for severe acute Covid-19 infection and chronic post-Covid-19 illnesses. Methods: Observations of Covid-19 illness in patients with/without MCAS were compared with extensive clinical experience with MCAS. Results: The prevalence of MCAS is similar to that of severe cases within the Covid-19-infected population. Much of Covid-19's hyperinflammation is concordant with manners of inflammation which MC activation can drive. Drugs with activity against MCs or their mediators have preliminarily been observed to be helpful in Covid-19 patients. None of the authors' treated MCAS patients with Covid-19 suffered severe infection, let alone mortality. Conclusions: Hyperinflammatory cytokine storms in many severely symptomatic Covid-19 patients may be rooted in an atypical response to SARS-CoV-2 by the dysfunctional MCs of MCAS rather than a normal response by normal MCs. If proven, this theory has significant therapeutic and prognostic implications.

Advances in information technology (IT) enable a fundamental redesign of health care processes based on the use and integration of electronic communication at all levels. New communication technologies can support a transition from institution centric to patient-centric applications. This white paper defines key principles and challenges for designers, policy makers, and evaluators of patient-centered technologies for disease management and prevention. It reviews current and emerging trends; highlights challenges related to design, evaluation, reimbursement and usability; and reaches conclusions for next steps that will advance the domain.

Mast cell activation disease comprises disorders characterized by accumulation of genetically altered mast cells and/or abnormal release of these cells' mediators, affecting functions in potentially every organ system, often without causing abnormalities in routine laboratory or radiologic testing. In most cases of mast cell activation disease, diagnosis is possible by relatively non-invasive investigation. Effective therapy often consists simply of antihistamines and mast cell membrane-stabilising compounds supplemented with medications targeted at specific symptoms and complications. Mast cell activation disease is now appreciated to likely be considerably prevalent and thus should be considered routinely in the differential diagnosis of patients with chronic multisystem polymorbidity or patients in whom a definitively diagnosed major illness does not well account for the entirety of the patient's presentation.

Mast cells are tissue-resident immune cells that release immuno-modulators, chemo-attractants, vasoactive compounds, neuropeptides and growth factors in response to allergens and pathogens constituting a first line of host defense. The neuroimmune interface of immune cells modulating synaptic responses has been of increasing interest, and mast cells have been proposed as key players in orchestrating inflammation-associated pain pathobiology due to their proximity to both vasculature and nerve fibers. Molecular underpinnings of mast cell-mediated pain can be disease-specific. Understanding such mechanisms is critical for developing disease-specific targeted therapeutics to improve analgesic outcomes. We review molecular mechanisms that may contribute to nociception in a disease-specific manner.

The concept that disease rooted principally in chronic aberrant constitutive and reactive activation of mast cells (MCs), without the gross MC neoplasia in mastocytosis, first emerged in the 1980s, but only in the last decade has recognition of “mast cell activation syndrome” (MCAS) grown significantly. Two principal proposals for diagnostic criteria have emerged. One, originally published in 2012, is labeled by its authors as a “consensus” (re-termed here as “consensus-1”). Another sizable contingent of investigators and practitioners favor a different approach (originally published in 2011, newly termed here as “consensus-2”), resembling “consensus-1” in some respects but differing in others, leading to substantial differences between these proposals in the numbers of patients qualifying for diagnosis (and thus treatment). Overdiagnosis by “consensus-2” criteria has potential to be problematic, but underdiagnosis by “consensus-1” criteria seems the far larger problem given (1) increasing appreciation that MCAS is prevalent (up to 17% of the general population), and (2) most MCAS patients, regardless of illness duration prior to diagnosis, can eventually identify treatment yielding sustained improvement. We analyze these proposals (and others) and suggest that, until careful research provides more definitive answers, diagnosis by either proposal is valid, reasonable, and helpful.