Suchergebnisse

ZusammenfassungBei 10 % aller Birkenpollenallergiker wurden allergische Reaktionen auf die Sojabohne nachgewiesen. Typischerweise manifestieren diese sich in Form eines milden oralen Allergiesyndroms. Wir stellen 4 Patienten (1 Mann, 3 Frauen, 50 – 72 Jahre) mit primärer Birkenpollenallergie aus unserer Allergieabteilung vor, bei denen sich jedoch nach Verzehr von Sojamilch/-drink schwere allergische Reaktionen bis hin zur Anaphylaxie entwickelten. Diese Patienten litten unter einer Rhinoconjunctivitis allergica im Frühjahr und zusätzlichen pollenassoziierten Nahrungsmittelallergien. Haut-Pricktestungen auf Sojaprodukte waren positiv. Bei 3 von 4 Patienten war die Sojaallergie lediglich durch spezifische IgE-Antikörper auf das birkenpollenhomologe PR-10-Protein Gly m 4 nachweisbar, jedoch nicht auf den Sojagesamtextrakt (< 0,35 KU/l). Bei einer Patientin, die Sojaprodukte bisher immer vertragen hatte, wurde die Sojaallergie erst durch orale Provokationstestung nachgewiesen. Es handelt sich bei allen Patienten um eine sekundäre birkenpollenassoziierte Sojaanaphylaxie nach Einnahme großer Mengen an geringgradig verarbeiteten Sojaprodukten (Sojadrink). Diese stellt für Birkenpollenallergiker mit IgE-vermittelten Allergien sowohl auf das Birkenpollenallergen Bet v 1 als auch auf das homologe Gly m 4 in der Sojabohne aufgrund einer Kreuzreaktion ein Risiko dar.

ZusammenfassungEin 23-jähriger Patient erlitt mehrere anaphylaktische Reaktionen nach dem Verzehr von Schafsmilch- und Ziegenmilchkäse bei gleichzeitiger Toleranz von Kuhmilchprodukten. Die Pricktestung und die serologische Diagnostik zeigten eine Sensibilisierung gegen Ziegen- und Schafsmilch. Eine orale Provokation mit Kuhmilch sowie Rohmilch wurde vertragen. Wir diagnostizierten eine isolierte Ziegenmilch- und Schafsmilchallergie und empfahlen eine konsequente Meidung von Ziegenmilch- und Schafsmilchprodukten.

BACKGROUND: The European Union requires allergenic food ingredients to appear on labels in order to protect allergic consumers. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether traces of egg-, milk-, and fish-derived processing aids used in winemaking might elicit clinical reactions in food-allergic patients. METHODS: Five German wines were fined with a high dose of egg albumin, lysozyme, milk casein, fish gelatin, or isinglass, and filtered. Fourteen adults with allergy to egg (n = 5), milk (n = 5), or fish (n = 4) were included. Skin prick tests were performed with fining agents, and fined and unfined wines. All patients underwent double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges with fined and unfined wines. RESULTS: Skin prick tests were positive to hen's egg (n = 5), ovalbumin (n = 5), lysozyme (n = 4), cow's milk (n = 5), casein (n = 4), and cod (n = 3), but not to isinglass or fish gelatin (n = 0). Positive skin prick test results were observed for wines fined with albumin (n = 3), lysozyme (n = 2), casein (n = 1), gelatin (n = 0), and isinglass (n = 3), and for unfined wines (n = 1-2 in each patient group), with no significant differences between groups. Seventy-five percent of skin test-positive patients had specific immunoglobulin E to other allergens present in wine (eg, carbohydrates). The provocation test revealed no reactions to fined or unfined wines. CONCLUSIONS: Although concentrated fining agents containing ovalbumin, lysozyme, and casein were allergenic in the skin prick test, no patient reacted adversely in the provocation test to fined wine. Wines treated with fining agents at commercial concentrations appear not to present a risk to allergic individuals when filtered

Background: For patients with food allergy there has been no alternative treatment to food allergen avoidance. In a study supported by the European union, a new approach aimed to reduce the allergenicity of foods of animal origin to achieve better tolerance. Patients and methods: the prevalence of food allergy was assessed by telephone interviews with more than 40000 persons in 10 European countries. By thermal and enzymatic the allergenicity of the animal food allergens hen's egg, cow's milk, beef and poultry was reduced. Patients with proven food allergy to those foods of animal origin were recruited and assessed allergologically. In-vitro cellular test systems were established. The allergenicity of food products were investigated before and after allergen reduction. Results: The prevalence of food allergy in Europe is 3% with considerable regional differences. In 41.1% of food allergic patients, food allergens of animal origin were thought to be responsible for eliciting symptoms. In total, 249 patients with food allergy were recruited. The threshold for eliciting symptoms was below the lowest test dose (e.g. 10 mu g egg powder) in the double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge in 53 of 249 (21%) of patients, whereas 50 of 249 patients (20%) only reacted to the highest given dose (e.g. one full egg). Symptoms in the provocation test developed predominantly on the skin and in the gastrointestinal tract, however, also involved respiratory tract and cardiovascular system. Allergen-reduced cow's milk and hen's egg were produced and in part tolerated by patients in the skin prick test and provocation test. The extent of allergen reduction was characterized, also by cellular test systems involving mast cell lines. Conclusions: the concept of allergen reduction in food allergy is a new approach, which could reduce dietary interventions and support tolerance in food allergic patients.