scholarly journals Cladosporium herbarum Hot-Tub Lung Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis in a Greenhouse Worker

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
João Pedro Abreu ◽  
Joana Esteves ◽  
Maria Teresa Boncoraglio ◽  
Francisca M Pereira ◽  
Carla Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽  
Allergic Reaction ◽  
Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis ◽  
Repeated Exposure ◽  
Respiratory Compromise ◽  
Cladosporium Herbarum ◽  
Inflammatory Damage ◽  
Causative Agents ◽  
Pulmonary Parenchyma ◽  
Low Incidence

Hypersensitivity pneumonitis is understood to be a delayed allergic reaction to the repeated exposure of a usually innocent inhaled agent, causing inflammatory damage to the pulmonary parenchyma, alveoli and terminal bronchioles. With ongoing exposure, it can cause respiratory compromise and pulmonary fibrosis. Recognizing the heterogeneity of the causative agents and the low incidence of the disease, we considered it important to report the case of a greenhouse worker who developed aCladosporium sp. related hot-tub lung hypersensitivity pneumonitis. We believe it to be the first reported case of a greenhouse occupational hypersensitivity pneumonitis due to Cladosporium sp.

Difficulty Breathing

2018 ◽  
pp. 72-76
Author(s):  
Essie Reed-Schrader ◽  
William T. Rivers
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Allergic Reaction ◽  
Emergency Medical Services ◽  
Pediatric Patient ◽  
Clinical Diagnosis ◽  
Intravenous Fluids ◽  
Respiratory Compromise ◽  
Life Saving ◽  
Difficulty Breathing ◽  
Treatment Considerations

This case reviews the presentation and management of anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a clinical diagnosis defined as the involvement of two or more body systems (skin, respiratory, gastrointestinal, or cardiovascular) with or without the presence of hypotension or respiratory compromise. Epinephrine administered intramuscularly is life-saving and may be followed by the administration of antihistamines, steroids, and intravenous fluids. The recognition and management of anaphylaxis is discussed along with both prehospital and emergency department treatment considerations. The chapter focuses on the case of a pediatric patient who presents to emergency medical services with trouble breathing. The diagnosis is allergic reaction with anaphylaxis.

scholarly journals Low Incidence of Biphasic Allergic Reactions in Patients Admitted to Intensive Care after Anaphylaxis

2019 ◽  
Vol 130 (2) ◽  
pp. 284-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofie Højlund ◽  
Peter Søe-Jensen ◽  
Anders Perner ◽  
Morten H. Bestle ◽  
Peder Carl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Allergic Reaction ◽  
Respiratory Symptoms ◽  
Allergic Reactions ◽  
Total Incidence ◽  
Skin Symptoms ◽  
Initial Symptoms ◽  
Patient Groups ◽  
Low Incidence

Abstract Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Biphasic allergic reactions—recurrence of allergy symptoms after a symptom-free period—are reported to occur in 1 to 23% of allergic reactions. Patients admitted to an intensive care unit after anaphylaxis potentially have more severe reactions and a higher risk of biphasic allergic reactions. The purpose of this study was to examine incidence, triggers, symptoms, and treatment of biphasic allergic reactions, in patients admitted to an intensive care unit. Methods Records of patients admitted to intensive care units with anaphylaxis from 2011 to 2014 were reviewed. Only patients with a reaction fulfilling internationally accepted criteria for anaphylaxis were included. Potential biphasic allergic reactions, defined as renewed allergy symptoms 1 to 72 h after initial symptoms had resolved, without further exposure to the trigger, were identified. Results A total of 83 cases of anaphylaxis were identified, and the most frequent triggers were medications (58 of 83 [70%]). Skin symptoms occurred in 69 (83%) cases, and circulatory and respiratory symptoms in 48 (58%) and 45 (54%) cases, respectively. In total, 82 (99%), 80 (96%), and 66 (80%) were treated with antihistamines, corticosteroids, and epinephrine, respectively. Only 10 patients presented with one or more relevant symptoms after the initial allergic reaction. Of these, three were possible, and one was a probable biphasic allergic reaction, giving a total incidence of 4 of 83 (4.8% [95% CI, 1.6 to 12.5]) or 1 of 83 (1.2% [95% CI, 0.1 to 7.46]), respectively. All cases were mild, presenting with skin symptoms only, occurring on average 14 h after initial reactions. Conclusions The authors observed a low incidence of biphasic reactions in patients admitted to an intensive care unit after anaphylaxis, at a rate equivalent to that reported in other patient groups.

scholarly journals Pathologic separation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis from fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 616-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne L. Wright ◽  
Andrew Churg ◽  
Cameron J. Hague ◽  
Alyson Wong ◽  
Christopher J. Ryerson
Keyword(s):  
Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽  
Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽  
Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document