Search

The role of profilin as an allergen has long been questioned. The capacity of profilin to induce respiratory symptoms has recently been demonstrated; moreover, over 50% of patients sensitized to profilin experienced symptoms after the ingestion of plant-derived foods, suggesting that profilin should be considered as a clinically relevant food allergen. We describe the cases of seven allergic patients with oral allergy syndrome and other adverse reactions after eating plant-derived food, that have been undergone to profilin desensitization treatment. The protocol started with a drop of profilin solution (50 µg/mL) diluted 1:1018 in water until the highest dose of 10 drops of undiluted solution three times a week. At the end of the treatment we observed a decreased mean diameter of profilin wheal in skin prick test (SPT) in five of the seven participants and in profilin specific IgE values in six patients that repeated the test. Regarding basophil activation test (BAT) and the detection of IgG4, we do not have significant results because the tests have to be repeated in some patients. Regarding the double-blind placebo-controlled challenges, after about 10 months of induction phase all the patients showed tolerance to several foods that they previously did not tolerate. Moreover, the immunotherapy with profilin has proved to be safe because no serious adverse events have been reported in our patients. In summary, the results of this exploratory study of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for profilin allergy show that it can be a promising therapeutic option that could modify the clinical reactivity of the patients to the intake of plant-derived food.

INTRODUCTION: Lipid transfer proteins (LTP), profilin and PR-10 are the most important panallergens in central and southern Italy. Lipid transfer proteins are stable molecules, predominantly present in the fruit peel, which can induce systemic symptoms after ingestion of vegetables. Profilin and PR-10 are randomly distributed in the pulp and peel. Both are labile proteins and usually determine reactions restricted to the oral cavity. Panallergens-specific IgE may cross-react with homologues from different plant sources, due to their conserved structure. AIM: To assess the pattern of sensitization to panallergens and the correlation with the clinical history and the allergological evaluation of food and aeroallergens. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients with adverse reactions after vegetables ingestion underwent skin prick tests (SPT) with commercial extracts of plant-derived foods and inhalant allergens and commercial extracts of LTP, profilin and PR-10. RESULTS: Many patients presented positive SPT with different plant-food allergens. We found that 76 patients were sensitized to LTP, 14 to profilin and 5 to PR-10. In the LTP-sensitized group, 64 (84%) patients suffered from systemic symptoms while the patients sensitized only to profilin referred the oral allergy syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a high rate of sensitization to LTP in our population according to the literature about food allergy in our geographical area and confirms the literature data about the symptoms referred by patients with sensitization to panallergens. Panallergens should be considered as clinically relevant food allergens.

Nickel (Ni) oral hyposensitization treatment (NiOHT) is an effective management approach for Ni allergy. No health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data exist for the pre- and post-treatment with NiOHT in systemic nickel allergy syndrome (SNAS). The aims of this study were (a) to explore HRQoL in SNAS patients, (b) to assess changes of HRQoL after 1 year of NiOHT; (c) to evaluate psychological status of patients. SNAS patients completed the Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey and Psychological General Well-Being Index before and 1 week after the end of NiOHT. Moreover, psychological state was assessed with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2). A total of 52 patients self-reported pre- and post-treatment questionnaires. HRQoL was poor at baseline. After 1 year of NiOHT, all outcome measure scores improved by about 20% with respect to baseline data ( P

Background and objective Administration of carbapenems to β-lactam-allergic patients has always been considered potentially harmful because of a 47.4% rate of cross-reactivity to imipenem reported in a single study. Nevertheless, recent studies have shown that the rate of cross-reactivity of imipenem and meropenem with penicillins is lower than 1%. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possibility of using ertapenem in patients with an established IgE-mediated β-lactam allergy. Patients and methods We studied all participants who came to our allergy unit and had a clinical history of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to β-lactams. The inclusion criteria were a positive skin test result to at least 1 β-lactam molecule and/or positive specific IgE (when available). All participants underwent immediate-type skin tests with several β-lactam molecules including ertapenem. Challenges with intravenous ertapenem were performed on 2 different days in patients with negative skin test results. Results We examined 49 patients with a clinical history of immediate reactions to β-lactams. All the patients had positive skin tests and/or positive specific IgE to at least 1 β-lactam reagent and negative carbapenem skin tests. Thirty-six patients agreed to undergo the challenges and 35 tolerated the full dose of ertapenem. Conclusions The practice of avoiding carbapenems in patients with β-lactam allergy should be abandoned considering the very low rate of cross-reactivity. β-Lactam-allergic patients who need ertapenem therapy should undergo skin tests and, if negative, a graded challenge to assess tolerability.

Objective: The quantification of basophil activation by flow cytometry is a useful tool for the assessment of immediate-type responses to food allergens and the prediction of clinical tolerance in food allergy patients. The aim of this study is to investigate how the analysis of allergen-induced CD63 up-regulation by flow cytometry can be effective in monitoring the acquisition of clinical tolerance by specific oral desensitization in food allergy. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine this topic. Materials and methods: Three male patients affected by cow’s milk allergy underwent successful oral desensitization to cow’s milk. In order to monitor the acquired clinical tolerance that occurred after treatment, we performed laboratory tests for total and specific IgE, specific IgG4 and the Basophil Activation Test (BAT) both at baseline and at the end of the desensitization protocol. Results: Using a fluorescent enzyme immunoassay, the comparison of specific cow’s milk antibodies before and after treatment showed a decrease of specific IgE levels, without reaching normal values, and an increase of specific IgG4 levels. A complete suppression of cow’s milk proteins (a-lactoalbumin, b-lactoglobulin and casein) induced CD63 regulation was observed in all three reported cases. Conclusions: Using flow cytometry, food allergen-specific basophil responses could be monitored in order to identify an acquired tolerance induced by desensitization treatment. Although further studies are needed to develop this important new topic, it was interesting to note that the BAT seemed to be more sensitive and characterized by a close correlation with clinical tolerance.

Adverse reactions to folic acid are an extremely uncommon condition; we present three cases of hypersensitivity to folic acid with different symptomatic manifestations. In the first and second cases, we made the diagnosis of IgE-mediate-type allergy to folic acid, while in the third one, we found a fixed drug eruption to folic acid.

Profilins constitute a family of highly conserved proteins, which are present in all eukaryotic cells and are involved in processes related to cell motility. The first allergenic profilin was described in birch pollen and was designated Bet v 2. Allergenic profilin were identified in tree and grass pollens, in weeds, in plant-derived foods, as well as in latex. Due to conserved structure of the profilins, specific IgE may cross-react with homologues from virtually every plant source. Therefore, profilin sensitization is a risk factor for allergic reactions to multiple pollen and food allergen sources. Profilins are randomly distributed in pulp and peel and they are labile to heat denaturation and pepsin digestion. In fact the ingestion of vegetables in profilin sensitized patients usually determines reactions restricted to the oral cavity (oral allergy syndrome, OAS), despite in literature systemic reactions to zucchini and litches are reported. We describe the history of six patients with adverse reactions after eating plant-derived food and positive allergological evaluation (skin tests, specific IgE, basophil activation test and double-blind placebo-control challenges (DBPCFC) for profilin, that have been undergone to desensitization treatment. The protocol of desensitization started with a drop of profilin solution (50 µg/ml) diluted 1:1018 in water until the highest dose of 10 drops of undiluted solution three times a week. They underwent this desensitization treatment at home and were followed in Day Hospital regimen monthly. According to the protocol they were trained in medical treatment of allergic reactions and equipped with an emergency kit: autoinjectable epinephrine, betamethasone and clorphenamine. At the end of the treatment all patients had negative DBPCFCs with culprit foods and a decrease of specific IgE levels for profilin and vegetable foods. Moreover, the desensitization with profilin has proved to be safe as no serious adverse events were observed in our patients. Profilin desensitization allowed that our patients could manage their diet without restriction, eating several foods previously not tolerated.