4.3 Review

Idiopathic Anaphylaxis: a Perplexing Diagnostic Challenge for Allergists

期刊

CURRENT ALLERGY AND ASTHMA REPORTS
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

CURRENT MEDICINE GROUP
DOI: 10.1007/s11882-021-00988-y

关键词

Anaphylaxis; Mast cells; Idiopathic anaphylaxis; Tryptase; Mast cell activation; Mastocytosis

资金

  1. Karolinska Institute
  2. Konsul TH C Bergh Foundation, Sweden
  3. Stockholm County Council
  4. Karolinska Institutet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The systematic review aims to present proposed theories of pathogenesis for idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA), discuss its classification, diagnostic approach, and management. Recent findings show that IA represents a major diagnostic challenge and certain conditions such as mastocytosis and red meat allergy may overlap with its symptomatology. Patients with IA should always carry an epinephrine autoinjector for prompt treatment and prophylaxis.
Purpose of ReviewThe aim of this systematic review is to present the proposed theories of pathogenesis for idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA), to discuss its classification, its diagnostic approach, and management.Recent FindingsIA represents a major diagnostic challenge and is diagnosed when excluding the possible identifiable triggers of anaphylaxis. The current research, however, revealed that certain conditions including mastocytosis, mast cell activation syndromes, and hereditary alpha tryptasemia can masquerade and overlap with its symptomatology. Also, newly identified galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose mammalian red meat allergy has recently been recognized as underlying cause of anaphylaxis in some cases that were previously considered as IA.SummaryIA comprises a heterogenous group of conditions where, in some cases, inherently dysfunctional mast cells play a role in pathogenesis. The standard trigger avoidance strategies are ineffective, and episodes are unpredictable. Therefore, prompt recognition and treatment as well as prophylaxis are critical. The patients should always carry an epinephrine autoinjector.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据