ABSTRACT
The European baseline series was last updated in 2019. This article discusses the reasoning behind a further iteration of the series for 2023.
Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Humans , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Allergens , Patch Tests , EuropeSubject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Orthotic Devices , Silicones/adverse effects , Toes , Adolescent , Humans , MaleSubject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Facial Dermatoses/etiology , Glycerides/adverse effects , Terpenes/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/drug therapy , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Occupational/drug therapy , Facial Dermatoses/diagnosis , Facial Dermatoses/drug therapy , Female , Forearm , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Histamine Antagonists/therapeutic use , Humans , Manufacturing Industry , Middle Aged , Skin CreamABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Commercial available skin prick test with fruits can be negative in sensitized or allergic patients due to a reduction in biological activity during the manufacturing process. Prick-prick tests with fresh foods are often preferred, but they are a non-standardized procedure. The usefulness of freeze-dried extracts of Canary Islands tomatoes, comparing the wheal sizes induced by prick test with the prick-prick method in the diagnosis of tomato sensitization has been analyzed.The objective of the study was to assess the potential diagnostic of freeze-dried extracts of Canary Islands tomatoes, comparing the wheal sizes induced by prick test with the prick-prick method. METHODS: Two groups of patients were analyzed: Group I: 26 individuals reporting clinical symptoms induced by tomato contact or ingestion. Group II: 71 control individuals with no symptoms induced by tomato: 12 of them were previously skin prick test positive to a tomato extract, 39 were atopic and 20 were non-atopic. All individuals underwent prick-prick with fresh ripe peel Canary tomatoes and skin prick tested with freeze-dried peel and pulp extracts obtained from peel and pulp of Canary tomatoes at 10 mg/ml. Wheal sizes and prick test positivity (>/= 7 mm2) were compared between groups. RESULTS: In group I, 21 (81%) out of 26 patients were prick-prick positive. Twenty patients (77%) had positive skin prick test to peel extracts and 12 (46%) to pulp extracts. Prick-prick induced a mean wheal size of 43.81 +/- 40.19 mm2 compared with 44.25 +/- 36.68 mm2 induced by the peel extract (Not significant), and 17.79 +/- 9.39 mm2 induced by the pulp extract (p < 0.01).In group II, 13 (18%) out of 71 control patients were prick-prick positive. Twelve patients (all of them previously positive to peel extract) had positive skin prick test to peel and 3 to pulp. Prick-prick induced a mean wheal size of 28.88 +/- 13.12 mm2 compared with 33.17 +/- 17.55 mm2 induced by peel extract (Not significant), and 13.33 +/- 4.80 mm2 induced by pulp extract (p < 0.05 with peel extract and prick-prick). CONCLUSION: Canary peel tomato extract seems to be as efficient as prick-prick tests with ripe tomatoes to diagnose patients sensitized to tomato. The wheal sizes induced by prick-prick and peel extracts were very similar and showed a high correlation coefficient.
ABSTRACT
A child allergic to cow's milk developed a mild systemic allergic reaction after the first dose of Ferplex 40 (iron proteinsuccinylate). Skin tests and in vitro studies were performed in the child, in three cow's milk-allergic controls and in a non-allergic control. Milk, casein and iron proteinsuccinylate (Ferplex 40) were used for skin tests, specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) determination, sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), immunoblotting and enzyme allergo sorbent test (EAST) inhibition. A review of the drug information sheet and contact with the manufacturer were also performed. Although proteinsuccinylate is indeed a succinylated casein (each dose containing about 575 mg of casein) there was no indication of the milk protein content in the prescribing information provided by the manufacturer. Skin tests and specific IgE were positive in the case and in all allergic controls, except for EAST to iron proteinsuccinylate in one control. In EAST, iron proteinsuccinylate in solid phase was 100% inhibited by casein and casein in solid phase was inhibited 74% by iron proteinsuccinylate. SDS-PAGE of iron proteinsuccinylate showed a broad 46 kDa band and a blur of aggregated material. On immunoblot, the patient's IgE reacted to this heavily aggregated material and in the native casein extract recognized a 35-kDa band. The allergenicity of succinylated casein (proteinsuccinylate) among milk-allergic children is demonstrated. The protein source used in drug-protein conjugates should always be indicated by the manufacturer (as it should be in foods) to avoid potential risks to allergic patients.
