Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Hôpital-Camfrout, France

Magerl M.,Charite - Medical University of Berlin | Altrichter S.,Charite - Medical University of Berlin | Borzova E.,Moscow Medical Academy | Gimenez-Arnau A.,University of Barcelona | And 7 more authors.
Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology | Year: 2016

These recommendations for the definition, diagnosis and management of chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU) extend, revise and update our previous consensus report on physical urticarias and cholinergic urticaria (Allergy, 2009). The aim of these recommendations is to improve the diagnosis and management of patients with CIndU. Our recommendations acknowledge the latest changes in our understanding of CIndU, and the available therapeutic options, as well as the development of novel diagnostic tools. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Source


Mathelier-Fusade P.,Service de Dermatologie et Allergologie
Annales de Dermatologie et de Venereologie | Year: 2014

Urticaria is a common skin disease that may affect 20 % of the general population. Most of the time, urticaria is an acute disorder that rarely can be chronic.The difficulty in urticaria is not the clinical diagnosis because the rash is characteristic, but the underlying causes and treatment that result. Urticaria is a benign disease when chronic and potentially dangerous when acute and associated with allergy. This allergy risk, needs an allergy exploration, based on skin tests and/or specific IgE assays. Because allergy is unusual in chronic urticaria, no allergy tests should be performed. By contrast, these tests must be undertaken in case of acute urticaria with a strong suspicion of IgE-mediated reaction because of the risk of severe anaphylaxis in case of allergenic re-exposure. © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. Source


Olaiwan A.,Service de Dermatologie et Allergologie | Pecquet C.,Service de Dermatologie et Allergologie | Mathelier-Fusade P.,Service de Dermatologie et Allergologie | Frances C.,Service de Dermatologie et Allergologie
Annales de Dermatologie et de Venereologie | Year: 2010

Background: Hydrolyzed wheat protein, produced by hydrolysis of gluten, is used in certain cosmetics and foods as emulsifiers and stabilizers. It can induce contact urticaria to cosmetics and/or anaphylaxis to food via an immunologic mechanism. Patients and methods: A 28-year-old female beautician presented recurrent contact urticaria, initially on the hands and then more diffused, immediately after applying cosmetics of the same brand containing hydrolyzed wheat protein. Skin tests were positive with the cosmetics and with the hydrolyzed wheat protein contained therein. A 34-year-old woman presented four episodes of generalized urticaria after eating industrially prepared foods. She had also experienced contact urticaria with cosmetics. Skin tests with hydrolyzed wheat protein were positive. For both patients, withdrawal of cosmetics and foods containing hydrolyzed wheat protein led to the regression of symptoms. They were both tolerant to traditional wheat products, such as bread and pastries. Discussion: Although contact urticaria to hydrolyzed wheat protein is rarely described, it must be understood since treatment by eradication of this product is simple and because contact urticaria may precede food allergy. Patients are tolerant to products containing unmodified wheat protein. © 2010 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved. Source


Amsler E.,Service de Dermatologie et Allergologie | Bayrou O.,Service de Dermatologie et Allergologie | Pecquet C.,Service de Dermatologie et Allergologie | Frances C.,Service de Dermatologie et Allergologie
Dermatology | Year: 2012

Skin contact with animal hair may induce contact urticaria (syndrome) or protein contact dermatitis. We report here 5 cases of dermatitis due to contact with ferrets kept as pets. The nature of the skin lesions, i.e. eczematous dermatitis, as well as the history of our 5 cases point to protein contact dermatitis. Further studies are requested to confirm this hypothesis and to identify the mechanisms and allergens. Physicians must be aware of the possibility of contact dermatitis with ferrets, especially when the patient has no previous history of atopic dermatitis and presents dermatitis of the neck, arm and around mouth. Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel. Source


Phan C.,Service de Dermatologie et Allergologie | Vial-Dupuy A.,Service de Dermatologie et Allergologie | Autegarden J.-E.,Service de Dermatologie et Allergologie | Amsler E.,Service de Dermatologie et Allergologie | And 5 more authors.
Annales de Dermatologie et de Venereologie | Year: 2014

Background Allergic hypersensitivity to unfractioned or low-molecular-weight heparins is uncommon but is known, and in particular the most common form is localized dermatitis, although such cases have seldom turned into maculopapular exanthema. Since cross-reactions with other heparins are frequent, identification of therapeutic alternatives is essential. Patients and methods This retrospective study included patients referred to the Department of Dermatology and Allergology at Tenon Hospital between 2000 and 2012 with suspicion of allergy to unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and sensitized to at least one heparin (i.e. positive skin tests to at least one heparin). The heparins and hirudins used were tested in the forearm by means of intradermal skin tests. All patients were contacted in 2012 to establish whether they had used some form of heparin since the cutaneous allergy tests. Results Nineteen patients had at least one positive skin test for heparin; 1 patient had presented anaphylactic shock, while 18 others had presented localized eczema (12) or generalized dermatitis (6). The heparin most often responsible for these adverse reactions was enoxaparin (13/19). An LMWH was responsible in most cases (18 vs. 1 with UFH). Of these 18 patients, 16 also presented positive skin tests for UFH, 9 for synthetic heparinoid and 1 for hirudin. 11/19 patients were tested for fondaparinux (a synthetic pentasaccharid) and all had negative skin tests. 5/7 patients with negative skin tests had taken fondaparinux without any visible reaction, whereas 2 who also tested negative experienced localized eruption at the injection site. Discussion Our results underline the greater frequency of delayed hypersensitivity reactions compared with immediate reactions to heparins. Skin tests can help to identify substitution molecules. Fondaparinux might be an alternative but certain diagnosis relies on rechallenge. © 2013 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved. Source

Discover hidden collaborations