Self-reported food allergy and its clinical significance in adult bronchial asthma patients:– A prospective study

Priya Sharma, Bharath Janapati, Rachna Rohatgi, Anil Jain
{"title":"Self-reported food allergy and its clinical significance in adult bronchial asthma patients:– A prospective study","authors":"Priya Sharma, Bharath Janapati, Rachna Rohatgi, Anil Jain","doi":"10.4103/ijaai.ijaai_73_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND: Self-reported food allergy is very common in asthmatics and hence these food items are frequently avoided by the patients. Food allergy is defined as an adverse immunological response to a dietary protein. Skin prick test (SPT) is a sensitive tool for identifying the presence of specific immunoglobulin E antibodies that can be associated with acute allergic reactions. However, sensitization often exists without clinical consequences, and at the same time, self-reported food allergens are frequently negative on SPT. The purpose of our study was to assess the clinical relevance of self-reported food allergy and the role of SPT in identifying food allergies in patients with bronchial asthma. METHODOLOGY: One hundred bronchial asthma patients were screened for this study, and skin prick testing for 22 food allergens frequently consumed in India, particularly Northern India was performed. RESULTS: A total of 36 subjects reported perceiving precipitation or an increase in severity of the asthmatic symptoms by one or more food items, and the most common food items mentioned in history were curd in 24%, rice in 19%, citrus fruits such as lemon in 14%, orange in 14%, banana in 8%, cold drinks in 16%, and ice creams in 16%. There were 68 patients negative for food allergens by SPT (food allergen negative [FAN] group) and 32 patients were positive (Food allergen Positive [FAP] group). Out of 36 asthmatics with self-reported food allergy, none was found to be SPT positive to the reported food allergens. However, 50% of patients with self-reported and only 21.9% with no history of food allergy were positive to one or more food allergens. Further, FAP group patients were tolerating these foods without any trouble or exacerbation of symptoms. Among the FAP group, 96.9% of patients had positive SPT for one or more other allergens also such as insects, pollens, fungi, or other aeroallergens. Only one patient had isolated food allergy by SPT. It implies that isolated food allergy is very rare in asthmatic patients. Common food allergens found positive by SPT were black gram in 12%, followed by red gram 9% and bengal gram, rice, and Baker's yeast 7% each. CONCLUSION: We concluded that the prevalence of food allergy in India among asthmatic adults though high, has a very poor correlation between patient's history of food allergens that is perceived as a precipitating or exaggerating factor for symptoms and actual sensitization as elicited by SPT. At the same time, there is high nonspecific food sensitization in self-reported patients as compared to those with no history of any perceived food allergy.","PeriodicalId":53075,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Allergy Asthma and Immunology","volume":"33 1","pages":"82 - 87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Allergy Asthma and Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijaai.ijaai_73_20","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: Self-reported food allergy is very common in asthmatics and hence these food items are frequently avoided by the patients. Food allergy is defined as an adverse immunological response to a dietary protein. Skin prick test (SPT) is a sensitive tool for identifying the presence of specific immunoglobulin E antibodies that can be associated with acute allergic reactions. However, sensitization often exists without clinical consequences, and at the same time, self-reported food allergens are frequently negative on SPT. The purpose of our study was to assess the clinical relevance of self-reported food allergy and the role of SPT in identifying food allergies in patients with bronchial asthma. METHODOLOGY: One hundred bronchial asthma patients were screened for this study, and skin prick testing for 22 food allergens frequently consumed in India, particularly Northern India was performed. RESULTS: A total of 36 subjects reported perceiving precipitation or an increase in severity of the asthmatic symptoms by one or more food items, and the most common food items mentioned in history were curd in 24%, rice in 19%, citrus fruits such as lemon in 14%, orange in 14%, banana in 8%, cold drinks in 16%, and ice creams in 16%. There were 68 patients negative for food allergens by SPT (food allergen negative [FAN] group) and 32 patients were positive (Food allergen Positive [FAP] group). Out of 36 asthmatics with self-reported food allergy, none was found to be SPT positive to the reported food allergens. However, 50% of patients with self-reported and only 21.9% with no history of food allergy were positive to one or more food allergens. Further, FAP group patients were tolerating these foods without any trouble or exacerbation of symptoms. Among the FAP group, 96.9% of patients had positive SPT for one or more other allergens also such as insects, pollens, fungi, or other aeroallergens. Only one patient had isolated food allergy by SPT. It implies that isolated food allergy is very rare in asthmatic patients. Common food allergens found positive by SPT were black gram in 12%, followed by red gram 9% and bengal gram, rice, and Baker's yeast 7% each. CONCLUSION: We concluded that the prevalence of food allergy in India among asthmatic adults though high, has a very poor correlation between patient's history of food allergens that is perceived as a precipitating or exaggerating factor for symptoms and actual sensitization as elicited by SPT. At the same time, there is high nonspecific food sensitization in self-reported patients as compared to those with no history of any perceived food 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
成人支气管哮喘患者自我报告的食物过敏及其临床意义:一项前瞻性研究
背景:自我报告的食物过敏在哮喘患者中很常见,因此这些食物经常被患者避免。食物过敏被定义为对膳食蛋白质的不良免疫反应。皮肤点刺试验(SPT)是一种敏感的工具,用于识别与急性过敏反应相关的特异性免疫球蛋白E抗体的存在。然而,致敏往往没有临床后果,同时,自我报告的食物过敏原在SPT上经常是阴性的。本研究的目的是评估自我报告的食物过敏的临床相关性,以及SPT在支气管哮喘患者食物过敏识别中的作用。方法:本研究筛选了100例支气管哮喘患者,并对印度,特别是印度北部经常食用的22种食物过敏原进行了皮肤点刺试验。结果:共有36名受试者报告通过一种或多种食物感知到哮喘症状的沉淀或严重程度的增加,历史上最常见的食物是凝乳(24%)、大米(19%)、柑橘类水果(14%)、橙子(14%)、香蕉(8%)、冷饮(16%)和冰淇淋(16%)。食物过敏原SPT阴性(食物过敏原阴性[FAN]组)68例,阳性(食物过敏原阳性[FAP]组)32例。在36名自我报告食物过敏的哮喘患者中,没有发现对报告的食物过敏原呈SPT阳性。然而,50%的自我报告的患者和只有21.9%的没有食物过敏史的患者对一种或多种食物过敏原呈阳性反应。此外,FAP组患者耐受这些食物,没有任何麻烦或症状加重。在FAP组中,96.9%的患者对一种或多种其他过敏原(如昆虫、花粉、真菌或其他气体过敏原)的SPT呈阳性。仅1例患者经SPT分离出食物过敏。这表明孤立的食物过敏在哮喘患者中非常罕见。SPT检测呈阳性的常见食物过敏原是黑克(12%)、红克(9%)、孟加拉克(7%)、大米和贝克酵母(7%)。结论:我们的结论是,印度哮喘成人中食物过敏的患病率虽然很高,但患者的食物过敏原史(被认为是症状的促成或夸大因素)与SPT引起的实际致敏性之间的相关性非常低。与此同时,与那些没有任何食物过敏史的患者相比,自我报告的患者有很高的非特异性食物过敏。
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
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Serum level of interleukin-6, interleukin-17A, and interferon-α in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and their clinical correlation: A hospital-based case–control study from North-East India Fungal sensitization and its impact on asthma control – A prospective study at allergy clinic Concurrent administration of COVID-19 vaccine and seasonal influenza vaccine: Expected rate of adverse effect Quality of life assessment in children and their caregivers suffering from allergic rhinitis and/or asthma Asthma management with the help of digital therapeutics: Review of clinical trials
×
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