Lipid Transfer Protein Sensitization: Risk of Anaphylaxis and Molecular Sensitization Profile in Pru p 3-Sensitized Patients.

BACKGROUND: Component-resolved diagnosis reveals the IgE response to many inhaled, food, and other allergens, improving the understanding and diagnosis of allergic diseases. OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study are to study the recognition of different lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) and other allergen families in a large group of people sensitized to Pru p 3 and to analyze the relationship between the clinical entities and the allergens. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included a large cohort of patients with positive skin tests to peach fruit and Pru p 3 specific IgE antibodies. Respiratory and food allergy symptoms were collected, and we performed prick tests with pollen, plant food, and other allergens plus the ImmunoCAP ISAC assay. RESULTS: Our sample consisted of 421 people with a mean age of 33.25 years (range 16-68); 54.6% were women. Clinical entities included anaphylaxis (37.1%), urticaria (67.9%), and oral allergy syndrome (59.1%). Rhinitis, rhinoconjunctivitis, and/or asthma were diagnosed in 71.8% of the participants. The most pronounced correlation existed between sensitization to Pru p 3 and to Jug r 3, Pla a 3, Ara h 9, and Cor a 8. We found a higher incidence of anaphylaxis in people with 5 or more recognized LTPs. No association was observed between inhaled and food allergies. CONCLUSION: Most Pru p 3-sensitized participants were sensitized to additional allergens from the same family and, to a lesser extent, to other allergens, mainly in the profilin and PR-10 protein families. Anaphylaxis occurred in more than a third of the cases evaluated, and almost three-quarters of them had respiratory symptoms. Respiratory and food allergies involving LTPs do not seem to be associated.

Skin Testing With Peach Peel Extract Versus Serum IgE to Pru p 3 as a Stronger Predictor of Peach-Induced Anaphylaxis.

The most important peach fruit allergen is Pru p 3, followed by Pru p 1, Pru p 4, and Pru p 7. We aimed to assess their role in subjects with peach fruit-induced allergy (anaphylaxis and OAS) and compare skin prick tests (SPT) vs. specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) for predicting anaphylaxis. We also selected a control group. SPT included prevalent inhalant and plant food allergens plus peach peel extract. The sIgE to Pru p 1, Pru p 3, Pru p 4, and Pru p 7 were quantified. Compared with controls (n = 42), cases (n = 41) were younger (P = 0.003), more frequently female (P < 0.05) and had higher SPT positivity to peach peel (44% vs. 2.4%, P < 0.0001). There were significant differences in sensitization to several pollens: Olea europaea, Artemisia vulgaris, Prunus persica, Platanus acerifolia (all P < 0.001); and fruits: apple (P < 0.04), peanut (P < 0.002), tomato (P < 0.005), and melon (P < 0.05). Pru p 3 sIgE was detected in 61% of all cases (85% anaphylaxis and 38% OAS; P < 0.01 each) and 5% of controls (P < 0.001). Pru p 4 sIgE was present in 19% of cases and 7% of controls. The sIgE to Pru p 1 and Pru p 7 were not found. The odds ratio to predict anaphylaxis for peach peel SPT was 113 (confidence interval [CI], 20-613; P < 0.0001); for sIgE to Pru p 3, 22 (CI, 5.3-93; P < 0.0001); and for SPT positivity to selected plant food allergens, 5 (CI, 1-19; P < 0.05). In our study group, SPT with peel peach extract was a better predictor of anaphylaxis than Pru p 3 sIgE or other variables considered. The role of sIgE to Pru p 1, Pru p 4, and Pru p 7 seemed negligible.

Subjects develop tolerance to Pru p 3 but respiratory allergy to Pru p 9: A large study group from a peach exposed population.

Peach tree allergens are present in fruit, pollen, branches, and leaves, and can induce systemic, respiratory, cutaneous, and gastrointestinal symptoms. We studied the capacity of peach fruit/Pru p 1, Pru p 3, Pru p 4, Pru p 7 and peach pollen/Pru p 9 for inducing symptoms following oral or respiratory exposure in a large group of subjects. We included 716 adults (aged 21 to 83 y.o.) exposed to peach tree pollen and fruit intake in the study population. Participants completed a questionnaire and were skin tested with a panel of inhalant and food allergens, including peach tree pollen, Pru p 9 and peach fruit skin extract. Immunoglobulin E antibodies (SIgE) to Pru p 1, Pru p 3, Pru p 4 and Pru p 7 were quantified. Sensitised subjects underwent oral food challenge with peach fruit and nasal provocation test with peach tree pollen and Pru p 9. The prevalence of sensitisation to peach fruit was 5% and most of these had SIgE to Pru p 3, with a very low proportion to Pru p 4 SIgE and no SIgE to Pru p 1 and Pru p 7. In only 1.8%, anaphylaxis was the clinical entity induced. Cases with positive skin tests to peach and SIgE to Pru p 3 presented a good tolerance after oral challenge with peach fruit. The prevalence of skin sensitisation to peach tree pollen was 22%, with almost half recognising Pru p 9. This induced respiratory symptoms in those evaluated by nasal provocation. In a large population group exposed to peach fruit and peach tree pollen, most individuals were tolerant, even in those with SIgE to Pru p 3. A positive response to Pru p 9 was associated with respiratory allergy.

Allergological Study of 565 Elderly Patients Previously Labeled as Allergic to Penicillins.

PURPOSE: Elderly people thought to have an allergy to beta-lactams (BLs) may tolerate the drugs in subsequent exposures due to initial false labeling of allergies, the spontaneous loss of sensitivity to BLs over time or age-related decline in sensitization. As a result, they may be treated with less appropriate antibiotics, causing more side effects and entailing increased costs for health systems. The aim of this investigation was to assess whether patients in the third and fourth age with previously confirmed allergies to BLs had lost sensitization and could tolerate these antibiotics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients allergic to BLs were divided into group A (aged 60-79 years) and B (aged ≥80 years). Clinical history, skin testing, drug challenge tests (DCT) and evaluation of resensitization were used to classify participants as showing immediate reactions, non-immediate reactions, or tolerance. We compared clinical entities, drugs involved, and final outcome by age group. RESULTS: Of 1362 cases evaluated, 565 underwent an allergological study. The skin was the most common organ involved. Anaphylaxis and side chain reactions were more frequent in group A (p<0.01), as were positive DCT. Classical benzylpenicillin determinants (benzylpenicilloyl and/or minor determinant mixture) were more frequent triggers in group B (p< 0.01). Resensitization after challenge occurred in very few participants. CONCLUSION: The risk for allergy to BLs decreases with age and a history of anaphylaxis by BLs is a predictor of positive results in skin tests (ST). Both immunoglobin E (IgE) and T-cell-mediated responses can disappear in elderly people, who can develop tolerance to these antibiotics. These results are of clinical relevance to patients who need to be treated with antibiotics from this family.