Search

Objective: The knowledge concerning allergy to legumes is limited. We aimed to evaluate the clinical features and prognosis of legume allergy in children. Materials and Methods: We evaluated patients with legume allergy who were followed up from 2010 to 2017 at the Division of Pediatrics Allergy and Immunology, with their clinical features, laboratory findings, and prognosis. Results: The median age of the enrolled 37 patients in our study was 7 (interquartile range, 4.3-9.2) years. Twenty-nine (78.3%) were male. Thirteen (35.1%) patients were found to have an allergic reaction against more than one legume. The distribution of legume allergies was as follows: peanut (n=21, 56.8%), lentil (n=16, 43.2%), chickpea (n=13, 35.1%), pea (n=6,16.2%), bean (n=5, 13.5%), lupine (n=2, 5.4%), and kidney bean (n=1, 2.7%), with a total of 64 allergic reactions. The distribution of these different legume allergy reactions was as follows: urticaria and angioedema (n=31, 48.4%), anaphylaxis (n=23, 35.9%), atopic dermatitis (n=6, 9.3%), eosinophilic esophagitis (n=3, 7.8%), and food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (n=1, 1.5%). Thirty-two (86.5%) of 37 patients had an allergy to a non-legume food. Tolerance to 50 legume allergies affecting 27 patients being followed up for more than 12 months were given. Eight of the 18 patients with a single legume allergy and 1 of the 9 patients who were allergic to multiple legumes developed tolerance. Conclusion: Peanut and lentil were the most frequent legumes that caused allergic reactions in our study. The rate of allergies to non-legume foods was high. In patients who were allergic to a single legume, the tolerance rate was 44.4%.

Amaç: Akut ürtike rçocuklarda hastane başvurularının en sık nedenlerinden biridir. Çalışmanın amacı çocuk alerji polikliniğinde akut ürtikertanısı alan hastaların etiyolojik açıdan değerlendirilmesidir.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya 1 Ocak 2016 - 31 Aralık 2016 tarihleri arasında hastanemizin çocuk alerji polikliniklerinde akut ürtikertanısı alan hastalar alındı. Hasta bilgileri dosya kayıtlarından geriye dönük olarak kaydedildi.Bulgular: Çalışmada akut ürtiker tanısı alan 469 hasta değerlendirildi. Hastaların yaş ortancası (min-maks) 7 yıl (2 ay-18 yıl) olup, %48.8’ierkekti. Hastaların % 33.5’inde (n=157) tekrarlayan akut ürtiker öyküsü vardı ve % 20’sine anjiyoödem de eşlik ediyordu. Öyküde tetikleyiciolarak hastaların % 37.5’ünde (n=176) enfeksiyonlar, % 17.9’unda (n=84) ilaç, % 10.9’unda (n=51) besin, % 3.2’sinde (n=15) böcek ısırığıve % 0.2’sinde (n=1) aşı bulunuyordu. Hastalar anamnez, fizik muayene ve laboratuvar bulguları ile değerlendirildiğinde; %59’unda (n=276)tetikleyici saptanamadı ve bu hastalar idiopatik akut ürtiker olarak tanı aldılar. Tetikleyici saptanan hastalarda enfeksiyonlar (% 37.5; n=176)ilk sırada yer alıyordu. Besin ve ilaç alerjisi ise sadece 1’er hastada doğrulandı. Yaş gruplarına gore etiyolojik dağılıma bakıldığında, 12-18yaş grubunda daha çok idiyopatik akut ürtiker, 2 yaş altı grupta ise enfeksiyonla tetiklenen akut ürtiker olduğu görüldü (p=0.009).Sonuç: Akut ürtiker nedeniyle alerji kliniğine başvuran çocuklarda çoğunlukla tetikleyici bulunamamaktadır. Tetikleyici tespit edilebilenhastalarda ise enfeksiyonlar ilk sırada yer almaktadır. Ancak hastaların klinik öykülerinde şüpheli tetikleyici olarak yiyecek veya ilaç(lar) dabulunabilir ve bu hastaların tanısal alerji testleri ile değerlendirilmesi önemlidir. Böylece hastaların yanlış tanı almaları ve gereksiz besin veyailaç kısıtlamaları önlenebilecektir., Objective: Acute urticaria is one of the most common causes of admission to hospitals in children. The aim of the studyis to evaluate the etiology of acute urticaria in patients who admitted to pediatric allergy outpatient clinics.Material and Methods: The patients who were diagnosed as acute urticaria in pediatric allergy outpatient clinicsbetween January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016 were included in the study. Patient information was recordedretrospectively from medical files.Results: In this study, 469 patients with acute urticaria were evaluated. The median (min-max) age of the patients was7 years (2 months-18 years), and 48.8 % of them were male. Angioedema was accompanying in 20 % of the patients.Recurrent acute urticaria was seen in 33.5 % (n = 157) of the patients. In the history, infections were the triggers in37.5 % (n=176) of the patients, drugs in 17.9 % (n=84), food in 10.9 % (n=51), insect bites in 3.2 % (n=15), and 0.2 %(n=1) of them had the vaccine. When the patients were evaluated with the medical histories, physical examination andlaboratory findings; triggers could not be detected in 59 % (n=276) and these patients were diagnosed as idiopathicacute urticaria. Infections (37.5 %; n=176) were in the first place in patients with triggers. Food and drug allergies wereconfirmed in only one patient each. Considering the etiological distribution according to age groups, it was seen thatidiopathic acute urticaria was more common in the 12-18 age group and infection-associated acute urticaria in thegroup under 2 years old (p=0.009).Conclusion: Mostly, triggers cannot be found in children who apply to the allergy clinic due to acute urticaria. In patientswho can be identified triggers, infections are in the first place. However, patients’ clinical histories may also include food ordrug(s) as a suspected trigger, and it is important to evaluate these patients with diagnostic allergy tests. Thus, misdiagnosisof patients and unnecessary food or drug restrictions would be prevented.