European annals of allergy and clinical immunology · 2012
Allergy to kiwi: is component-resolved diagnosis in routine clinical practice really impossible?
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Asero R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Kiwi allergy is frequent and can be the result of sensitization to a number of allergens showing different physicochemical characteristics. Component-resolved diagnosis of kiwi allergy is still unavailable in routine clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether component resolved-diagnosis of kiwi allergy can be, at least in part, carried out by a proper combination of routinely available diagnostic tools.
METHODS: 63 adults with plant food allergy were studied 36 were kiwi-allergic while 27 were kiwi-tolerant and served as controls. Patients and controls underwent SPT with commercial peach and kiwi extracts, and with aprofilin-enriched date palm pollen extract (all by ALK-Abellò), and the measurement of IgE to birch, kiwi, and natural rubber latex.
RESULTS: The in-vitro test showed poor sensitivity and specificity, as it scored positive in about 50% of patients and controls irrespective of clinical allergy to kiwi. The kiwi SPT showed overall poor sensitivity; however, it scored negative in all subjects with pollen food-allergy syndrome, was weakly positive in some lipid transfer protein-hypersensitive/kiwi tolerant subjects and in one latex-sensitized subject, and strongly positive in all subjects with primary kiwi sensitization.
CONCLUSION: SPT with this commercial kiwi extract sensitively and specifically detects patients reacting to specific kiwi allergens. This can be useful to detect patients that are at risk of potentially severe reactions, particularly in case of co-sensitization to labile allergens, while we wait that the whole spectrum of kiwi allergens becomes available for routine in-vitro testing.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether component resolved-diagnosis of kiwi allergy can be, at least in part, carried out by a proper combination of routinely available diagnostic tools.
METHODS: 63 adults with plant food allergy were studied 36 were kiwi-allergic while 27 were kiwi-tolerant and served as controls. Patients and controls underwent SPT with commercial peach and kiwi extracts, and with aprofilin-enriched date palm pollen extract (all by ALK-Abellò), and the measurement of IgE to birch, kiwi, and natural rubber latex.
RESULTS: The in-vitro test showed poor sensitivity and specificity, as it scored positive in about 50% of patients and controls irrespective of clinical allergy to kiwi. The kiwi SPT showed overall poor sensitivity; however, it scored negative in all subjects with pollen food-allergy syndrome, was weakly positive in some lipid transfer protein-hypersensitive/kiwi tolerant subjects and in one latex-sensitized subject, and strongly positive in all subjects with primary kiwi sensitization.
CONCLUSION: SPT with this commercial kiwi extract sensitively and specifically detects patients reacting to specific kiwi allergens. This can be useful to detect patients that are at risk of potentially severe reactions, particularly in case of co-sensitization to labile allergens, while we wait that the whole spectrum of kiwi allergens becomes available for routine in-vitro testing.