Coconut allergy: Characteristics of reactions and diagnostic predictors in a pediatric tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: Little is known on the clinical manifestations of coconut allergy. Our knowledge to date is mainly based on case reports. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the allergic reactions to coconut and suggest diagnostic cutoffs for specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) and skin prick testing (SPT) to predict clinically reactive coconut allergy. METHODS: Methods include retrospective chart review at an urban tertiary care center of patients with positive testing result for coconut. Probability curves were computed by logistic regression for SPT and coconut sIgE. RESULTS: Of 275 records reviewed, 69 patients reported coconut reactions and 206 were sensitized only or nonallergic. The reactions occurred with breastfeeding (n = 2), contact (n = 10), or oral ingestion (n = 57). Approximately 50% of oral ingestion reactions were associated with mild/moderate anaphylaxis. Clinical reactivity vs sensitization was more common in topical coconut users (2-fold) (P = .02). Although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward more coconut allergy vs sensitization in Asian and African American patients. The probability of allergy with positive SPT result was approximately 50% and with sIgE was approximately 60%. At an SPT of 9 mm wheal or sIgE of 58 kU of allergen/L, there is a 95% probability of reaction. Cosensitization with tree nuts, legumes, and seeds was common. Macadamia nut had the strongest correlation with coconut (r = 0.81, P < .001, n = 101). CONCLUSION: Although the rate of reactivity to coconut in sensitized individuals is low, half of the reactions from consumption met the criteria for anaphylaxis. Clinicians should be aware of the spectrum of reactions and diagnostic use of sIgE and SPT.

Association of tree nut and coconut sensitizations.

BACKGROUND: Coconut (Cocos nucifera), despite being a drupe, was added to the US Food and Drug Administration list of tree nuts in 2006, causing potential confusion regarding the prevalence of coconut allergy among tree nut allergic patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether sensitization to tree nuts is associated with increased odds of coconut sensitization. METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis of serum specific IgE levels to coconut, tree nuts (almond, Brazil nut, cashew, chestnut, hazelnut, macadamia, pecan, pistachio, and walnut), and controls (milk and peanut) was performed using deidentified data from January 2000 to August 2012. Spearman correlation (ρ) between coconut and each tree nut was determined, followed by hierarchical clustering. Sensitization was defined as a nut specific IgE level of 0.35 kU/L or higher. Unadjusted and adjusted associations between coconut and tree nut sensitization were tested by logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 298 coconut IgE values, 90 (30%) were considered positive results, with a mean (SD) of 1.70 (8.28) kU/L. Macadamia had the strongest correlation (ρ = 0.77), whereas most other tree nuts had significant (P < .05) but low correlation (ρ < 0.5) with coconut. The adjusted odds ratio between coconut and macadamia was 7.39 (95% confidence interval, 2.60-21.02; P < .001) and 5.32 (95% confidence interval, 2.18-12.95; P < .001) between coconut and almond, with other nuts not being statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that although sensitization to most tree nuts appears to correlate with coconut, this is largely explained by sensitization to almond and macadamia. This finding has not previously been reported in the literature. Further study correlating these results with clinical symptoms is planned.

[Allergy to macadamia nut].

The patient was a 23-year-old female with a history of atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, and allergic conjunctivitis. In her fourth year of primary school, she ate macadamia nuts and developed oral discomfort and generalized uticaria. In her second year of junior high school, she ate macadamia nuts and developed oral and pharyngeal discomfort, followed by generalized uticaria and dyspnea. At the age of 20 years, she also developed oral discomfort after eating vegetables in a Chinese dish containing macadamia nuts and visited our department for close examination. A scratch test of extract oil (concentration, as is) was positive, and a diagnosis of immediate allergy due to macadamia nuts was made. Thereafter, she avoided macadamia nuts completely and had no further recurrence. This patient developed oral allergy syndrome (OAS) after eating macadamia nuts. However, she was negative for Bet v1 and Bet v2 as allergens in white birch pollinosis, in which OAS has been most frequently reported. She had Japanese cedar pollinosis, but its onset was when she was in her second year of high school. Therefore, it is unlikely that Japanese cedar pollen is a sensitization antigen for macadamia nut allergy.