Although formaldehyde is well known to cause type 4 hypersensitivity, immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated hypersensitivity to formaldehyde is rare. Here, we report a case of recurrent generalized urticaria after endodontic treatment using a para-formaldehyde (PFA)-containing root canal sealant and present a review of previous studies describing cases of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to formaldehyde. A 50-year-old man visited our allergy clinic for recurrent generalized urticaria several hours after endodontic treatment. Prick tests to latex, lidocaine, and formaldehyde showed negative reactions. However, swelling and redness at the prick site continued for several days. The level of formaldehyde-specific IgE was high (class 4). Thus, the patient was deemed to have experienced an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reaction caused by the PFA used in the root canal disinfectant. Accordingly, we suggest that physicians should pay attention to type I hypersensitivity reactions to root canal disinfectants, even if the symptoms occur several hours after exposure.
Disinfectants/*adverse effects ; Formaldehyde/*adverse effects ; Humans ; Hypersensitivity, Immediate/*chemically induced ; Immunoglobulin E/*immunology ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Recurrence ; Skin Tests ; Time Factors ; Urticaria/*chemically induced/diagnosis ; Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement/*chemistry

PURPOSE: Cefaclor is widely prescribed for various infectious diseases. As its consumption increases, the number of hypersensitivity reactions to cefaclor has increased. This study aimed to evaluate the immunologic findings of immediate hypersensitivity to cefaclor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We enrolled 47 patients with immediate hypersensitivity to cefaclor from Ajou University Hospital and Asan Medical Center. Serum specific IgE, IgG1, and IgG4 antibodies to cefaclor-human serum albumin (HSA) conjugate were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). RESULTS: The most common phenotype was anaphylaxis (Group I, 78.7%), followed by urticaria (Group II, 21.3%). The detection of specific IgE, IgG1, and IgG4 to cefaclor-HSA conjugate by ELISA tended to be higher in Group I (40.5%, 41.7%, 21.6%) than in Group II (20.0%, 20.0%, 0%) with no statistical significance. Significant associations were found between specific IgE and IgG1 or IgG4 (p<0.001, p=0.019). ELISA inhibition tests showed significant inhibitions by both free cefaclor and cefaclor-HSA conjugate. For basophil activation tests in patients having no specific IgE antibody, the CD63 expression level on basophils increased with incubations of free cefaclor. CONCLUSION: The most common manifestation of immediate hypersensitivity to cefaclor was anaphylaxis, most of which was mediated by IgE; however, a non-IgE mediated direct basophil activation mechanism was suggested in a subset of anaphylaxis patients.
Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Anaphylaxis/*chemically induced/immunology ; Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects/*immunology ; Antigens, CD63 ; Basophils/metabolism ; Cefaclor/*adverse effects/immunology ; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay ; Female ; Humans ; Hypersensitivity, Immediate/chemically induced/diagnosis/*immunology ; Immunoglobulin E/*blood ; Immunoglobulin G/immunology ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Retrospective Studies ; Skin Tests ; Urticaria/chemically induced/diagnosis/immunology ; Young Adult

Both immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) are relatively common. However, there are few data to determine the clinical utility of immunologic evaluation of ICM. To evaluate the utility of ICM skin testing in patients with ICM hypersensitivity, 23 patients (17 immediate and 6 delayed reactions) were enrolled from 3 university hospitals in Korea. With 6 commonly used ICM including iopromide, iohexol, ioversol, iomeprol, iopamidol and iodixanol, skin prick (SPT), intradermal (IDT) and patch tests were performed. Of 10 patients with anaphylaxis, 3 (30.0%) and 6 (60.0%) were positive respectively on SPTs and IDTs with the culprit ICM. Three of 6 patients with urticaria showed positive IDTs. In total, 11 (64.7%) had positive on either SPT or IDT. Three of 6 patients with delayed rashes had positive response to patch test and/or delayed IDT. Among 5 patients (3 anaphylaxis, 1 urticaria and 1 delayed rash) taken subsequent radiological examinations, 3 patients administered safe alternatives according to the results of skin testing had no adverse reaction. However, anaphylaxis developed in the other 2 patients administered the culprit ICM again. With 64.7% (11/17) and 50% (3/6) of the sensitivities of corresponding allergic skin tests with culprit ICM for immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions, the present study suggests that skin tests is useful for the diagnosis of ICM hypersensitivity and for selecting safe ICM and preventing a recurrence of anaphylaxis caused by the same ICM.
Anaphylaxis/chemically induced/diagnosis/immunology ; Contrast Media/*adverse effects ; Cross Reactions/immunology ; Dermatitis, Contact/*diagnosis/*immunology ; Drug Hypersensitivity/diagnosis ; Female ; Humans ; Iodides/*immunology ; Iohexol/analogs & derivatives ; Iopamidol/analogs & derivatives ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Republic of Korea ; Skin Tests/*methods ; Triiodobenzoic Acids ; Urticaria/diagnosis/immunology