Different Patterns of Response in Hypersensitivity Reactions to Arylpropionic Acid Derivatives.

BACKGROUND: Ibuprofen and other arylpropionic acid derivatives (APs) are among the most consumed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs worldwide at all age ranges; however, little is known about drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) they induce. OBJECTIVE: To characterize in detail patients reporting DHRs to APs. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated patients with symptoms suggestive of AP-DHRs and analyzed their clinical characteristics, reported reactions, and diagnostic approaches. RESULTS: Six hundred sixty-two patients confirmed as hypersensitive to APs were included: 489 with cross-reactive reactions (CRs) (73.86%) and 173 with selective reactions (SRs) (26.13%). The percentage of subjects reporting reactions to ibuprofen and dexketoprofen was higher in CRs (P = .005 and P = .01, respectively), whereas naproxen and ketoprofen were more frequently involved in SRs (P = .0002 and P = .00001, respectively). The most frequent symptoms induced by ibuprofen, dexketoprofen, and naproxen were isolated angioedema and urticaria, combined or not with angioedema in both CRs and SRs. The result of nasal provocation test with lysine acetylsalicylate was positive in 156 cases (77.14% in patients showing exclusively respiratory symptoms, and in 68.18% of those with both cutaneous and respiratory involvement). To confirm diagnosis, drug provocation test with acetylsalicylic acid was required in 246 CR patients (50.3%), whereas in 28 SR patients (16.18%) drug provocation test with the culprit AP was required. CONCLUSIONS: Skin is the organ most commonly involved in AP-DHRs, with ibuprofen and dexketoprofen inducing most frequently CRs, and naproxen and ketoprofen SRs. More studies are necessary to clarify the underlying mechanism in DHRs induced by APs.

Sensitisation to Pollen Allergens in Children and Adolescents of Different Ancestry Born and Living in the Same Area.

Background: Allergy can start at early ages, with genetic and environmental factors contributing to its development. Aim: The study aimed to describe the pattern of sensitisation and allergy in children and adolescents of Spanish versus Moroccan ancestry but born in the same rural area of Spain. Methods: Participants were children and adolescents (3-19 years) of Spanish or Moroccan descent, born in Blanca, Murcia (Spain). A detailed questionnaire was completed, and skin prick tests were performed to assess reactions to the most prevalent pollen allergens (O. europaea, P. pratense, S. kali, C. arizonica, P. acerifolia, A. vulgaris and P. judaica) plus molecular components Ole e 1 and Ole e 7. The association with ancestry was verified by studying participants' parents. Results: The study included 693 participants: 48% were aged 3-9 years and 52%, 10-19 years; 80% were of Spanish descent and 20% of Moroccan descent. Sensitisation to Olea europaea, Phleum pratense, Salsola kali and Cupressus arizonica were slightly higher in the Spanish group. The only significant differences were observed in sensitisation to Ole e 1 (p=0.02). Rhinitis, conjunctivitis, and rhinitis plus asthma were significantly higher in the Spanish group (p=0.03, p=0.02, p=0.007, respectively). The sensitisation pattern differed between Spanish and Moroccan parents, and between Moroccan parents and their children, but not between Spanish parents and their children. Conclusion: Both environment and ancestry may influence sensitisation and symptoms. Although the environment seems to have a stronger influence, other factors may contribute to the differences in prevalence and in the clinical entities in people of Spanish versus Moroccan descent.

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.

Prunus persica 9, a new occupational allergen from peach tree pollen involved in rhinitis and asthma.

OBJECTIVES: Several studies have described peach tree (PT) as an occupational allergen. The aim of this work was to assess the effect of Prunus persica 9 (Pru p 9), a recently identified allergen from PT pollen, in exposed workers. METHODS: The study included people who reported respiratory symptoms after handling PT in orchards during the flowering period (Blanca village, Murcia region, south-east Spain). After completing a detailed questionnaire, participants underwent skin prick test (SPT) and nasal provocation test (NPT). The IgE response was analysed by SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting assays. RESULTS: A total of 21 cases were included (mean age 45 years; 57% women). Most were polysensitised to common pollens, although one person was sensitised only to PT pollen. All cases had a positive SPT to this pollen, and 43% also to Pru p 9. All participants reported having rhinitis, and six participants reported having also asthma. Immunoblotting showed a heterogeneous IgE pattern for several proteins, with Pru p 9 recognised in nine cases. Most participants sensitised to PT pollen and Pru p 9 had positive NPTs, while those who were not sensitised to Pru p 9 tested negative. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate for the first time that Pru p 9, an allergen from PT pollen, can induce respiratory symptoms following occupational exposure. This must be considered a relevant allergen when people working with PT cultivars develop respiratory symptoms.

Correction: Pru p 9, a new allergen eliciting respiratory symptoms in subjects sensitized to peach tree pollen.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230010.].

Pru p 9, a new allergen eliciting respiratory symptoms in subjects sensitized to peach tree pollen.

Peach tree (PT) pollen sensitization is highly prevalent in subjects living in areas where this tree is widely cultivated. None of the allergens responsible for these sensitizations have been identified so far. Our aim was to identify the most relevant PT pollen allergens and analyze their capacity for inducing respiratory symptoms. We studied sixty-two individuals sensitized to PT pollen who developed symptoms after its exposure. The IgE binding profile on peach pollen extract by means of immunoblotting using sera from these subjects was analyzed. Protein extract was fractionated by anion-exchange chromatography and HPLC, fractions run in SDS-PAGE and proteins were identified from IgE-binding bands by mass spectrometry. Several allergenic proteins in the PT pollen extract were recognized by patients' IgE: a glucan endo-1,3-beta-glucosidase-like, a polygalacturonase, an UTP-glucose-1-phosphate uridylyltransferase and a PR-1a protein. This PR-1a protein is a novel allergen frequently recognized with a molecular mass of 18 kDa, named as Pru p 9 following the WHO-IUIS nomenclature. Skin Prick Test (SPT) performed with this allergen was positive in 41% of the PT pollen-sensitized clinical cases. Most of them had rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis, but a significant percentage experienced asthma with seasonal symptoms during the period of PT flowering. Nasal Provocation test (NPT) with Pru p 9 was positive in all cases with positive SPT to this new allergen eliciting nasal symptoms similar to those challenged with PT pollen. We demonstrate that PT pollen can induce sensitization and allergy in an exposed population, being Pru p 9 a relevant allergen responsible of respiratory symptoms. Considering the extensive peach worldwide production with a large number of people involved, our results add a great value for the diagnosis and management of subjects allergic to this pollen.

Peach Tree Pollen and Prunus persica 9 Sensitisation and Allergy in Children and Adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Although plant and fruit pollens are entomophilous and relevant in exposed workers, we have shown a high frequency of sensitisation and symptoms induction of peach tree pollen (PTP) and Prunus persica 9 (Pru p 9) in adults from areas of peach cultivars. METHODS: We studied the sensitisation and clinical relevance of PTP and Pru p 9 in a large group of children and adolescents aged 3-19 years. A detailed questionnaire plus skin prick testing to prevalent allergens, PTP, and Pru p 9 were carried out. The clinical relevance was established by nasal provocation test (NPT) and symptom score index. RESULTS: We evaluated 685 children (mean age 8.75 ± 3.3 years, median 9 years), 52% of them female. Sensitisation to PTP occurred in 20% of the cases following olive tree (33%) and Phleum pratense (26%). In a randomly selected subgroup of subjects sensitised to PTP, 30% were skin prick test-positive to Pru p 9. Most cases had rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis. NPT showed the relevance of PTP and Pru p 9 in the induction of symptoms. CONCLUSION: PTP and Pru p 9 are relevant in the induction of sensitisation and respiratory symptoms in children and adolescents. This allergen should be evaluated in children living in regions of peach tree cultivars.

Guía de actuación ante una rinitis alérgica en atención primaria / Allergic rhinitis protocol in primary care

La rinitis alérgica (RA) es una enfermedad muy prevalente en la mayoría de los países desarrollados, afectando a un 10-20 por ciento de la población general. Diversos estudios indican su prevalencia creciente en los países de la CEE en las últimas décadas. En Europa, se estiman unos costes anuales ocasionados por la rinitis alérgica, entre 1.000 y 1.500 millones de euros los costes directos y entre 1.500 y 2.000 millones de euros los indirectos.En todos los casos debe de intentarse la evitación del alérgeno. Si los síntomas son leves u ocasionales, pero el paciente requiere tratamiento, los antihistamínicos son los de elección. Si el paciente presenta síntomas moderados o síntomas de larga duración, o si los síntomas son leves pero no se controlan con antihistamínicos, se recomienda añadir un esteroide tópico nasal. En el caso de que los síntomas oculares concomitantes sean molestos y no se controlen con el esteroide tópico nasal, es recomendable añadir un antihistamínico tópico ocular o una cromona. Si el paciente presenta síntomas graves o si el tratamiento con esteroides tópicos nasales no tiene un efecto adecuado, está indicada la asociación de esteroides tópicos nasales y antihistamínicos (orales o tópicos).Si estas medidas no proporcionan un alivio suficiente de los síntomas, es recomendable añadir ciclos cortos de descongestionantes orales en caso de obstrucción nasal, bromuro de ipratropio en caso de rinorrea acuosa, o una tanda corta de esteroides orales. En los pacientes que presentan síntomas moderados/severos, de estación prolongada, asociados a asma, o de difícil control con medidas ambientales y tratamiento sintomático, está indicada la inmunoterapia específica (AU)