Rodriguez J, Crespo J F, Lopez-Rubio A, De La Cruz-Bertolo J, Ferrando-Vivas P, Vives R, Daroca P
Servicio de Alergia and the Unidad de Investigación, Hospital Universitario Doce de Octubre, Madrid, Spain.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000 Jul;106(1 Pt 1):183-9. doi: 10.1067/mai.2000.106927.
Foods from the Rosaceae botanical family have been increasingly reported as causes of allergic reaction. Patients frequently have positive skin tests or radioallergosorbent test results for multiple members of this botanical family.
Our purpose was to investigate the clinical cross-reactivity assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) of Rosaceae foods (apricot, almond, plum, strawberry, apple, peach, and pear).
Thirty-four consecutive adult patients complaining of adverse reactions to Rosaceae were included in the study. Skin prick tests and CAP System (FEIA) were performed with Rosaceae foods in all patients. Clinical reactivity to Rosaceae was systematically evaluated by open food challenges (OFCs), unless there was a convincing history of a recent severe anaphylaxis. Positive reactions on OFCs were subsequently evaluated by DBPCFCs.
Twenty-six and 24 patients had positive skin prick tests and CAP FEIA with Rosaceae, respectively; from these 88% and 100% had positive tests with >/=2. No evidence of clinical reactivity was found in 66% percent of positive skin prick tests and 63% of positive specific IgE determinations to fruits. A total of 226 food challenges (including OFC and DBPCFC) were performed in the 28 patients with positive skin prick tests or CAP System FEIA. Of 182 initial OFCs carried out, 26 (14%) reactions were confirmed by DBPCFCs. Overall, 40 reactions were considered positive in 22 patients with positive skin tests or CAP FEIA. Thirty-eight reactions had been previously reported, the remaining two were detected by systematic challenges. Most reactions were caused by peach (22 patients), apple (6), and apricot (5). Ten patients (46%) were clinically allergic to peach and other Rosaceae.
Positive skin test and CAP System FEIA should not be taken as the only guide for multi-species dietary restrictions. Nevertheless, the potential clinical allergy to other Rosaceae should not be neglected. If the reported reaction is confirmed, current tolerance to other Rosaceae should be precisely established unless there has been ingestion without symptoms after the reaction.
越来越多的报道称蔷薇科植物性食物可引发过敏反应。患者针对该植物科多种食物的皮肤试验或放射变应原吸附试验结果常呈阳性。
我们的目的是通过双盲、安慰剂对照食物激发试验(DBPCFC)来研究蔷薇科食物(杏、杏仁、李子、草莓、苹果、桃和梨)的临床交叉反应性。
34例连续成年患者因对蔷薇科植物性食物有不良反应而纳入本研究。对所有患者均进行了蔷薇科食物的皮肤点刺试验和CAP系统(荧光酶免疫分析)检测。除非有近期严重过敏反应的确切病史,否则通过开放食物激发试验(OFC)对蔷薇科植物性食物的临床反应性进行系统评估。OFC阳性反应随后通过DBPCFC进行评估。
分别有26例和24例患者蔷薇科食物的皮肤点刺试验和CAP荧光酶免疫分析呈阳性;其中88%和100%对≥2种食物检测呈阳性。66%的皮肤点刺试验阳性和63%的水果特异性IgE测定阳性未发现临床反应性证据。对28例皮肤点刺试验或CAP系统荧光酶免疫分析呈阳性的患者共进行了226次食物激发试验(包括OFC和DBPCFC)。在182次初始OFC中,26次(14%)反应经DBPCFC确认。总体而言,22例皮肤试验或CAP荧光酶免疫分析呈阳性的患者中有40次反应被认为是阳性。之前已报道38次反应,其余2次是通过系统激发试验检测到的。大多数反应由桃(22例患者)、苹果(6例)和杏(5例)引起。10例患者(46%)对桃和其他蔷薇科植物临床过敏。
皮肤试验阳性和CAP系统荧光酶免疫分析不应作为多种食物限制的唯一指导依据。然而,对其他蔷薇科植物潜在的临床过敏也不应被忽视。如果所报告的反应得到证实,除非在反应后摄入但无症状,否则应准确确定目前对其他蔷薇科植物的耐受性。