Neue Charakteristika klinisch manifester Latexallergiker

V. Mahler
{"title":"Neue Charakteristika klinisch manifester Latexallergiker","authors":"V. Mahler","doi":"10.1159/000496051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Natural rubber latex (NRL) allergy is commonly diagnosed according to medical history, skin allergy tests, and serological analyses. However, skin tests are increasingly being abandoned because of (i) their time-consuming nature, (ii) latex preparations for skin tests being not commercially available, and (iii) the use of in-house prepared test solutions is becoming ever more difficult due to increasing regulatory hurdles. In this light, we have evaluated differences in the profiles of current and former patients with suspected latex allergy. Methods: Sera of skin test-positive patients from a historic cohort (1995-2001, n = 149 patients) and currently (2014-2015, n = 48 patients) were simultaneously analyzed for specific IgE to latex by ImmunoCAP. If the serological screening was positive (≥ 0.35 kU/l), component-resolved diagnostics including profilins and cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs) were performed. Results: In contrast to 88% (131/149) of the skin test-positive patients from the 1990s, only 51.1% (24/47) of the current cohort were found positive for specific IgE to latex. While 48.3% (72/149) of the patients had a convincing positive history in the 1990s, current skin test-positive patients rarely reported a relevant medical history (8.5%, 4/47). Specific IgE levels to latex were significantly higher in former patients with suspected latex allergy (p < 0.001) than in former sensitized individuals without allergy. However, this significant difference was lost in current allergic and sensitized patients with positive skin tests. Conclusion: Sensitization profiles in patients with latex allergy have changed significantly over the last 2 decades. Discrimination between NRL sensitization and clinical allergy remains a diagnostic challenge. Our data highlight the need for a combination of all 3 criteria, i.e., patient history, skin test, and analysis of specific IgE, for a correct diagnosis of latex allergy.","PeriodicalId":390963,"journal":{"name":"Karger Kompass Dermatologie","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Karger Kompass Dermatologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000496051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Natural rubber latex (NRL) allergy is commonly diagnosed according to medical history, skin allergy tests, and serological analyses. However, skin tests are increasingly being abandoned because of (i) their time-consuming nature, (ii) latex preparations for skin tests being not commercially available, and (iii) the use of in-house prepared test solutions is becoming ever more difficult due to increasing regulatory hurdles. In this light, we have evaluated differences in the profiles of current and former patients with suspected latex allergy. Methods: Sera of skin test-positive patients from a historic cohort (1995-2001, n = 149 patients) and currently (2014-2015, n = 48 patients) were simultaneously analyzed for specific IgE to latex by ImmunoCAP. If the serological screening was positive (≥ 0.35 kU/l), component-resolved diagnostics including profilins and cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs) were performed. Results: In contrast to 88% (131/149) of the skin test-positive patients from the 1990s, only 51.1% (24/47) of the current cohort were found positive for specific IgE to latex. While 48.3% (72/149) of the patients had a convincing positive history in the 1990s, current skin test-positive patients rarely reported a relevant medical history (8.5%, 4/47). Specific IgE levels to latex were significantly higher in former patients with suspected latex allergy (p < 0.001) than in former sensitized individuals without allergy. However, this significant difference was lost in current allergic and sensitized patients with positive skin tests. Conclusion: Sensitization profiles in patients with latex allergy have changed significantly over the last 2 decades. Discrimination between NRL sensitization and clinical allergy remains a diagnostic challenge. Our data highlight the need for a combination of all 3 criteria, i.e., patient history, skin test, and analysis of specific IgE, for a correct diagnosis of latex allergy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
给系统杀手做独特的诊断
背景:天然胶乳(NRL)过敏通常根据病史、皮肤过敏试验和血清学分析诊断。然而,皮肤试验越来越多地被放弃,因为(i)其耗时性质,(ii)用于皮肤试验的乳胶制剂没有市售,以及(iii)由于越来越多的监管障碍,使用内部制备的测试溶液变得越来越困难。在这种情况下,我们已经评估了目前和以前的病人的档案的差异与怀疑乳胶过敏。方法:采用ImmunoCAP对1995-2001年历史队列(149例)和2014-2015年当前队列(48例)皮肤试验阳性患者的血清进行乳胶特异性IgE分析。如果血清学筛查呈阳性(≥0.35 kU/l),则进行成分分辨诊断,包括谱蛋白和交叉反应性碳水化合物决定因子(CCDs)。结果:与20世纪90年代88%(131/149)的皮肤试验阳性患者相比,当前队列中只有51.1%(24/47)的患者对乳胶特异性IgE呈阳性。48.3%(72/149)的患者在20世纪90年代有令人信服的阳性病史,而目前皮肤试验阳性的患者很少报告相关病史(8.5%,4/47)。疑似乳胶过敏的前患者对乳胶的特异性IgE水平显著高于未过敏的前患者(p < 0.001)。然而,在皮肤试验阳性的当前过敏和致敏患者中,这种显著差异消失了。结论:乳胶过敏患者的致敏特征在过去20年中发生了显著变化。鉴别NRL致敏和临床变态反应仍然是一个诊断挑战。我们的数据强调需要结合所有3个标准,即患者病史,皮肤试验和特异性IgE分析,以正确诊断乳胶过敏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Erfolgreiche Applikation von modifizierten Keystone-Lappen nach Hauttumorablation Akrales amelanotisches Melanom, das wie ein nicht heilendes arterielles Ulcus erscheint Wo gute Ideen herkommen Defektdeckung: Stufenweise Modifikation der Lappenpräparation bringt Vorteile PharmaNews
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1