The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2018
Exploring the Diagnosis and Profile of Cannabis Allergy.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Decuyper Ine Ilona, Van Gasse Athina Ludovica, Faber Margaretha A, Elst Jessy, Mertens Christel, Rihs Hans-Peter, Hagendorens Margo M, Sabato Vito, Lapeere Hilde, Bridts Chris H, De Clerck Luc S, Ebo Didier Gaston
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cannabis allergy (CA) has mainly been attributed to Can s 3, the nonspecific lipid transfer protein (nsLTP) of Cannabis sativa. Nevertheless, standardized diagnostic tests are lacking and research on CA is scarce.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the performance of 5 cannabis diagnostic tests and the phenotypic profile of CA.
METHODS: A total of 120 patients with CA were included and stratified according to the nature of their cannabis-related symptoms; 62 healthy and 189 atopic controls were included. Specific IgE (sIgE) hemp, sIgE and basophil activation test (BAT) with a recombinant Can s 3 protein from Cannabis sativa (rCan s 3), BAT with a crude cannabis extract, and a skin prick test (SPT) with an nCan s 3-rich cannabis extract were performed. Clinical information was based on patient history and a standardized questionnaire.
RESULTS: First, up to 72% of CA reporting likely-anaphylaxis (CA-A) are Can s 3 sensitized. Actually, the Can s 3-based diagnostic tests show the best combination of positive and negative predictive values, 80% and 60%, respectively. sIgE hemp displays 82% sensitivity but only 32% specificity. Secondly, Can s 3+CA reported significantly more cofactor-mediated reactions and displayed significantly more sensitizations to other nsLTPs than Can s 3-CA. Finally, the highest prevalence of systemic reactions to plant-derived foods was seen in CA-A, namely 72%.
CONCLUSIONS: The most effective and practical tests to confirm CA are the SPT with an nCan s 3-rich extract and the sIgE rCan s 3. Can s 3 sensitization entails a risk of systemic reactions to plant-derived foods and cofactor-mediated reactions. However, as Can s 3 sensitization is not absolute, other cannabis allergens probably play a role.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the performance of 5 cannabis diagnostic tests and the phenotypic profile of CA.
METHODS: A total of 120 patients with CA were included and stratified according to the nature of their cannabis-related symptoms; 62 healthy and 189 atopic controls were included. Specific IgE (sIgE) hemp, sIgE and basophil activation test (BAT) with a recombinant Can s 3 protein from Cannabis sativa (rCan s 3), BAT with a crude cannabis extract, and a skin prick test (SPT) with an nCan s 3-rich cannabis extract were performed. Clinical information was based on patient history and a standardized questionnaire.
RESULTS: First, up to 72% of CA reporting likely-anaphylaxis (CA-A) are Can s 3 sensitized. Actually, the Can s 3-based diagnostic tests show the best combination of positive and negative predictive values, 80% and 60%, respectively. sIgE hemp displays 82% sensitivity but only 32% specificity. Secondly, Can s 3+CA reported significantly more cofactor-mediated reactions and displayed significantly more sensitizations to other nsLTPs than Can s 3-CA. Finally, the highest prevalence of systemic reactions to plant-derived foods was seen in CA-A, namely 72%.
CONCLUSIONS: The most effective and practical tests to confirm CA are the SPT with an nCan s 3-rich extract and the sIgE rCan s 3. Can s 3 sensitization entails a risk of systemic reactions to plant-derived foods and cofactor-mediated reactions. However, as Can s 3 sensitization is not absolute, other cannabis allergens probably play a role.