Differentiating of cross-reactions in patients with latex allergy with the use of ISAC test

13Citations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction: Diferentiating between cross-reactivity and double sensitization is still a challenging issue in allergology. Aim: To diferentiate cross-reactions accompanying latex allergy with the use of the ISAC test. Material and methods: Thirty-nine patients reporting immediate allergic reactions to latex were enrolled into the study (group A). The control group was comprised of 41 patients with allergic diseases not associated with latex (group B) and 20 healthy individuals (group C). Their history was recorded and skin prick tests were performed with latex, airborne and food allergens. Specific IgE against food allergens, latex (k82) and recombined latex allergens were determined. ImmunoCAP ISAC test was performed with 103 molecules. Results: Sensitization to latex was found by means of skin tests in 16 cases and sIgE against latex was revealed in 12 cases (including 10 positive in both SPT and sIgE). In the ISAC test antibodies against recombined latex allergens were found in 8 patients with rHev b 6 as the most common. All the patients positive for rHev b 1, 5, 6, 8 had allergy or asymptomatic sensitization to food allergens cross-reacting with latex. Some reactions could not have been diferentiated due to the lack of allergens in the ISAC test. Others, not related to latex-fruits syndrome were explained by cross-reactivity with other proflins or PR-10 proteins. Conclusions: ImmunoCAP ISAC test could be useful in diferentiating between cross-reactions and double sensitizations. However, in the case of latex its advantages are limited due to a small panel of allergens.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chełminska, M., Specjalski, K., Rózyło, A., Kołakowska, A., & Jassem, E. (2016). Differentiating of cross-reactions in patients with latex allergy with the use of ISAC test. Postepy Dermatologii i Alergologii, 33(2), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.5114/ada.2016.59154

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free