Isotretinoin-associated exercise-induced anaphylaxis in a patient with birch pollinosis and soybean sensitization: case presentation and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peanut and soybean allergies are listed as contraindication in the package leaflet of isotretinoin, a widely used treatment of acne vulgaris. Cross-reactivity between PR10-proteins in peanut, tree nuts, and soybean is particularly common in patients with birch pollinosis and may lead to anaphylactic reactions in sensitized patients after intake of soybean oil containing isotretinoin capsules. CASE PRESENTATION: Here, we describe a young man with hazelnut and birch pollen allergy, who experienced exercise-induced anaphylaxis after isotretinoin intake on the third day of treatment. A complete allergy work-up was carried out, and sensitization to both peanut and soybean PR10-proteins was confirmed. However, oral provocation with isotretinoin remained negative in the absence of intense physical activity and longterm treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first report of an exercise-induced anaphylaxis due to isotretinoin therapy. Our literature review to assess tolerability of isotretinoin in patients allergic to peanut, tree nuts or soybean revealed only one other case of anaphylaxis in a cashew-nut allergic patient sensitized to soybean PR10-protein Gly m 4. While there are no reports on soybean allergic patients treated with isotretinoin, the vast majority of peanut or tree nut allergic patients tolerated isotretinoin. Therefore, we conclude that sensitization to soybean, peanut or tree nuts should not preclude isotretinoin therapy. Particular caution is however warranted in patients with soybean sensitization. Pre-treatment oral challenges with isotretinoin may be recommended and physicians should be aware of the potential role of cofactors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".