Skin Testing With Peach Peel Extract Versus Serum IgE to Pru p 3 as a Stronger Predictor of Peach-Induced Anaphylaxis
Copyright © 2021 The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology • The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease..
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.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:13 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Allergy, asthma & immunology research - 13(2021), 6 vom: 21. Nov., Seite 922-932 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Somoza, Maria Luisa [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Allergy |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 18.11.2021 published: Print Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.4168/aair.2021.13.6.922 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM332726274 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM332726274 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225220152.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.4168/aair.2021.13.6.922 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1109.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM332726274 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)34734509 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Somoza, Maria Luisa |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Skin Testing With Peach Peel Extract Versus Serum IgE to Pru p 3 as a Stronger Predictor of Peach-Induced Anaphylaxis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 18.11.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2021 The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology • The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease. | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Peach | |
| 650 | 4 | |a allergy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a anaphylaxis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a food hypersensitivity | |
| 650 | 4 | |a fruit | |
| 650 | 4 | |a immunoglobulin E | |
| 650 | 4 | |a pollen | |
| 650 | 4 | |a skin tests | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Prieto-Moreno Pfeifer, Ana |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Martín-Pedraza, Laura |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Victorio Puche, Laura |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Esteban Rodríguez, Angel |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Blanca-López, Natalia |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Eva Fernández González, Abel |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fernández-Caldas, Enrique |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Morán Morales, Miriam |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fernández-Sánchez, Francisco Javier |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a López Sánchez, José Damián |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Garrido-Lestache, José Luis Subiza |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Canto, Gabriela |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Blanca, Miguel |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Allergy, asthma & immunology research |d 2009 |g 13(2021), 6 vom: 21. Nov., Seite 922-932 |w (DE-627)NLM195747658 |x 2092-7355 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:13 |g year:2021 |g number:6 |g day:21 |g month:11 |g pages:922-932 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.4168/aair.2021.13.6.922 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 13 |j 2021 |e 6 |b 21 |c 11 |h 922-932 | ||