Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2009
Assessment of the tolerance to lupine-enriched pasta in peanut-allergic children.
Контролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Fiocchi A, Sarratud P, Terracciano L, Vacca E, Bernardini R, Fuggetta D, Ballabio C, Duranti M, Magni C, Restani P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Reports of allergy to lupine derivatives (as de novo sensitization or cross-reactivity in subjects allergic to peanut) are increasing as their use in food products increases.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess: (1) lupine tolerance in a group of children allergic to peanut, using lupine enriched-pasta instead of raw flour as has been done in previous clinical studies; (2) whether technological treatments of lupine modify its cross-reactivity or co-sensitization with peanut; (3) the role of lupine seed proteins in sensitization, and (4) to identify the eliciting doses (EDs) by using double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC).
METHODS: Twelve patients with a history of clinical allergic reactions to peanut were evaluated by skin prick tests (SPTs), the ImmunoCAP test, immunoblotting, and DBPCFC. The 12 selected subjects were included in a trial where lupine-enriched pasta and placebo pasta were administered in a DBPCFC protocol.
RESULTS: Positive clinical reactions were observed in two children, the EDs being 0.2 and 6.4 g of pasta, corresponding to 50 mg and 1.6 g of lupine proteins, respectively. Beta-conglutin was the protein most involved in SPT positivity.
CONCLUSION: Lupine-enriched pasta can be tolerated by most subjects suffering from peanut allergy, but a sizeable minority (2/12 of them in this case) can develop potentially dangerous clinical reactions. Information about possible reactions to lupine derivatives by those allergic to peanuts must be included in the labelling of lupine-enriched products to protect consumers at risk.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess: (1) lupine tolerance in a group of children allergic to peanut, using lupine enriched-pasta instead of raw flour as has been done in previous clinical studies; (2) whether technological treatments of lupine modify its cross-reactivity or co-sensitization with peanut; (3) the role of lupine seed proteins in sensitization, and (4) to identify the eliciting doses (EDs) by using double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC).
METHODS: Twelve patients with a history of clinical allergic reactions to peanut were evaluated by skin prick tests (SPTs), the ImmunoCAP test, immunoblotting, and DBPCFC. The 12 selected subjects were included in a trial where lupine-enriched pasta and placebo pasta were administered in a DBPCFC protocol.
RESULTS: Positive clinical reactions were observed in two children, the EDs being 0.2 and 6.4 g of pasta, corresponding to 50 mg and 1.6 g of lupine proteins, respectively. Beta-conglutin was the protein most involved in SPT positivity.
CONCLUSION: Lupine-enriched pasta can be tolerated by most subjects suffering from peanut allergy, but a sizeable minority (2/12 of them in this case) can develop potentially dangerous clinical reactions. Information about possible reactions to lupine derivatives by those allergic to peanuts must be included in the labelling of lupine-enriched products to protect consumers at risk.