RESUMO
Background: Peanut allergy has not been well characterized in Italy. Objective: Our aim was to better define the clinical features of peanut allergy in Italy and to detect the peanut proteins involved in allergic reactions. Methods: A total of 22 centers participated in a prospective survey of peanut allergy over a 6-month period. Clinical histories were confirmed by in vivo and/or in vitro diagnostic means in all cases. Potential risk factors for peanut allergy occurrence were considered. Levels of IgE to Arachis hypogea (Ara h) 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 and profilin were measured. Results: A total of 395 patients (aged 2-80 years) were enrolled. Of the participants, 35% reported local reactions, 38.2% reported systemic reactions, and 26.6% experienced anaphylaxis. The sensitization profile was dominated by Ara h 9 (77% of patients were sensitized to it), whereas 35% were sensitized to pathogenesis-related protein 10 (PR-10) and 26% were sensitized to seed storage proteins (SSPs). Sensitization to 2S albumins (Ara h 2 and Ara h 6) or lipid transfer protein (LTP) was associated with the occurrence of more severe symptoms, whereas profilin and PR-10 sensitization were associated with milder symptoms. Cosensitization to profilin reduced the risk of severe reactions in both Ara h 2- and LTP-sensitized patients. SSP sensitization prevailed in younger patients whereas LTP prevailed in older patients (P < .01). SSP sensitization occurred mainly in northern Italy, whereas LTP sensitization prevailed in Italy's center and south. Atopic dermatitis, frequency of peanut ingestion, peanut consumption by other family members, or use of peanut butter did not seem to be risk factors for peanut allergy onset. Conclusions: In Italy, peanut allergy is rare and dominated by LTP in the country's center and south and by SSP in the north. These 2 sensitizations seem mutually exclusive. The picture differs from that in Anglo-Saxon countries.
RESUMO
According to the data derived from several national and international registries, including SANI (Severe Asthma Network Italy), and considering the strong impact that frequent or regular use of oral corticosteroid has on quality of life (QoL) of severe asthmatics, as well as on the costs for managing corticosteroid-related diseases, oral corticosteroid sparing up to withdrawal should be considered a primary outcome in the management of severe asthma. New biologics have clearly demonstrated that this effect is possible, with concomitant reduction in the rate of exacerbations and in symptom control. Then, there is no reason for using so frequently oral corticosteroid before having explored all alternatives currently available for a large part of severe asthmatics.