Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Front Allergy ; 3: 868267, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35769570

RESUMO

Many clinical lab settings still use 0.35 KUA/L as the cut-off for serum specific-IgE (sIgE) immunoassays, while the detection limit is 0.1 KUA/L. The clinical relevance of -low-level sIgE (0.1-0.35 KUA/L) remains controversial. Pru p 3 sIgE is considered to be the main routine tool for assessing lipid transfer protein (LTP) sensitization. We aimed to evaluate the clinical relevance of Pru p 3 sIgE low levels in a population diagnosed with LTP allergy. Adults diagnosed with LTP allergy and Pru p 3 sIgE ≥ 0.1 KUA/L between 2012 and 2019 were included. Clinical data were reviewed. nPru p 3 basophil activation test (BAT) was performed and basophil reactivity (BR) and sensitivity (BS) correlated with the peach allergy symptoms. Pru p 3 sIgE from 496 subjects was recorded, 114 (23.0%) between 0.1 and 0.34 KUA/L (grLOW), the rest ≥ 0.35 KUA/L (grB). A total of 44.7% in grLOW and 59.9% in grB were allergic. Urticaria was more frequent in grLOW. In grLOW, Pru p 3 sIgE was higher in patients with local compared with systemic symptoms. In grB, Pru p 3 sIgE was higher in allergic patients. Pru p 3/Total IgE ratios were higher in allergic vs. tolerant in both groups. In BAT, BR was similar in both groups. In grLOW, it was higher on allergic compared with tolerant (p = 0.0286), and on those having systemic vs. local symptoms (p = 0.0286). BS showed no significant difference between groups. Patients with low levels represent a non-negligible fraction and around 45% are peach allergic. BAT showed functional sIgE in them. Pru p 3 sensitizations should be carefully evaluated even when sIgE levels are low.

3.
Int Arch Allergy Immunol ; 183(1): 75-79, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34515140

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Wheat lipid transfer protein (LTP; Tri a 14) and ω5-gliadin have been described as major allergens in wheat allergy (WA) and relevant in wheat-induced anaphylaxis, frequently associated with cofactors. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare tools currently available in routine diagnosis to detect Tri a 14 sensitization, its clinical relevance, and cosensitization to ω5-gliadin and other LTPs. METHODS: One hundred eighteen adults sensitized to rTri a 14 by ImmunoCAP® (cutoff ≥0.1 kUA/L) identified among 210 LTP allergic patients were included. We evaluated (1) wheat skin prick test (SPT), (2) specific IgE (sIgE) to wheat, rTri a 14, rTri a 19, peach, apple, walnut, hazelnut, and peanut LTPs using ImmunoCAP® and microarray ImmunoCAP®ISAC (cutoff ≥0.3I SU), and (3) wheat-related symptoms. RESULTS: Wheat SPT and sIgE were positive in 31% and 85% of subjects, respectively. rTri a 14 by microarray was detected in 25%. Eight percent showed cosensitization to ω5-gliadin. Thirty percent referred symptoms (gastrointestinal [13%], urticaria [11%], and anaphylaxis [8%]). Cofactors (45%) were significantly associated with systemic reactions. CONCLUSION: WA due to Tri a 14 is frequently related with systemic reactions and because are frequently related to cofactors, the culprit may not be suspected. Together with the poor performance to identify Tri a 14 sensitization of the current routine diagnostic tools based on the analysis of whole wheat extract, such as wheat SPT or sIgE, there is a high risk that WA may be overlooked. Thus, when WA is suspected, sIgE Tri a 14 assessment is recommended, together with wheat and ω5-gliadin, preferably in the singleplex format, and carefully evaluated considering ≥0.1 kUA/L as a cutoff.


Assuntos
Antígenos de Plantas/imunologia , Peptídeos e Proteínas de Sinalização Intracelular/imunologia , Hipersensibilidade a Trigo/epidemiologia , Hipersensibilidade a Trigo/imunologia , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Proteínas de Transporte/imunologia , Tomada de Decisão Clínica , Árvores de Decisões , Gerenciamento Clínico , Feminino , Humanos , Imunização , Imunoensaio , Imunoglobulina E/sangue , Imunoglobulina E/imunologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Hipersensibilidade a Trigo/diagnóstico , Adulto Jovem
4.
Allergy ; 76(5): 1480-1492, 2021 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33289951

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In up to 70%-80% of patients with a suspected non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug hypersensitivity (NSAIDH), challenge tests with the culprit drug yield negative results. On the other hand, there could be a NSAIDH overdiagnosis when anaphylaxis is the clinical manifestation. We hypothesize that some negative NSAID challenge tests and an overdiagnosis of NSAIDH occur in patients with food-dependent NSAID-induced hypersensitivity (FDNIH). METHODS: We studied 328 patients with a suspected acute NSAIDH. FDNIH was diagnosed in patients meeting all the following: (1) tolerance to the food ingested more temporally closed before the reaction, later the episode, (2) respiratory or cutaneous symptoms or anaphylaxis related to NSAID, (3) positive skin prick test to foods and/or specific IgE to food allergens (Pru p 3, Tri a 19, Pen a 1) involved in the reaction, and (4) negative oral provocation test to the culprit NSAID. RESULTS: 199 patients (60%) were diagnosed with NSAIDH and 52 (16%) with FDNIH. Pru p 3 was involved in 44 cases (84.6%) and Tri a 19 in 6 cases (11%). FDNIH subjects were younger (p < .001), with a higher prevalence of rhinitis (p < .001) and previous food allergy (p < .001), together with a higher proportion of subjects sensitized to pollens (p < .001) and foods (p < .001). Using just four variables (Pru p 3 sensitization, Tri a 19 sensitization, anaphylaxis, and any NSAID different from pyrazolones), 95.3% of cases were correctly classified, with a sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 96%. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of FDNIH should be included in the diagnostic workup of NSAIDH.


Assuntos
Hipersensibilidade a Drogas , Hipersensibilidade Alimentar , Alérgenos , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/efeitos adversos , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas/epidemiologia , Hipersensibilidade Alimentar/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidade Alimentar/epidemiologia , Humanos , Fatores de Risco , Testes Cutâneos
5.
Front Immunol ; 11: 623071, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33679712

RESUMO

Cofactors may explain why in some cases food ingestion leads to anaphylaxis while in others elicits a milder reaction or tolerance. With cofactors, reactions become more severe and/or have a lower allergen threshold. Cofactors are present in up to 58% of food anaphylaxis (FAn). Exercise, NSAIDs, and alcohol are the most frequently described, although the underlying mechanisms are poorly known. Several hypotheses have suggested the influence of these cofactors on basophils and mast cells (MCs). Exercise has been suggested to enhance MC activation by increasing plasma osmolarity, redistributing blood flow, and activating adenosine and eicosanoid metabolism. NSAIDs' cofactor effect has been related with cyclooxygenase inhibition and therefore, prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) production. Indeed, overexpression of adenosine receptor 3 (A3) gene has been described in NSAID-dependent FAn; A3 activation potentiates FcϵRI-induced MC degranulation. Finally, alcohol has been related with an increase of histamine levels by inhibition of diamino oxidase (DAO) and also with and increase of extracellular adenosine by inhibition of its uptake. However, most of these mechanisms have limited evidence, and further studies are urgently needed. In conclusion, the study of the immune-related mechanisms involved in food allergic reactions enhanced by cofactors is of the utmost interest. This knowledge will help to design both tailored treatments and prophylactic strategies that, nowadays, are non-existent.


Assuntos
Anafilaxia/imunologia , Basófilos/imunologia , Hipersensibilidade Alimentar/imunologia , Mastócitos/imunologia , Consumo de Bebidas Alcoólicas/efeitos adversos , Consumo de Bebidas Alcoólicas/imunologia , Anafilaxia/patologia , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/efeitos adversos , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/uso terapêutico , Basófilos/patologia , Degranulação Celular , Hipersensibilidade Alimentar/patologia , Humanos , Mastócitos/patologia , Receptores de IgE/imunologia
6.
J Clin Med ; 8(9)2019 Aug 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31470575

RESUMO

Platelet-activating factor (PAF) is a lipid mediator involved in several allergic reactions. It is released from multiple cells of the immune system, such as eosinophils, neutrophils, and mast cells, and also exerts its effect on most of them upon specific binding to its receptor, becoming a pleiotropic mediator. PAF is considered a potential relevant mediator in allergic rhinitis, with a key role in nasal congestion and rhinorrhoea due to its effect on vascular permeability. Interestingly, despite its potential relevance as a therapeutic target, no specific PAF inhibitors have been studied in humans. However, rupatadine, a second-generation antihistamine with dual antihistamine and anti-PAF effects has shown promising results by both blocking nasal symptoms and inhibiting mast cell activation induced by PAF, in comparison to antihistamine receptor drugs. In conclusion, the inhibition of PAF may be an interesting approach in the treatment of allergic rhinitis as part of a global strategy directed at blocking as many relevant inflammatory mediators as possible.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...