首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology >Giant ragweed specific immunotherapy is not effective in a proportion of patients sensitized to short ragweed: analysis of the allergenic differences between short and giant ragweed.
【24h】

Giant ragweed specific immunotherapy is not effective in a proportion of patients sensitized to short ragweed: analysis of the allergenic differences between short and giant ragweed.

机译:豚草特异性免疫疗法在对短豚草敏感的部分患者中无效:分析短豚草和巨型豚草之间的致敏性差异。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Short ragweed and giant ragweed pollen allergens are considered largely cross-reactive, and it is generally believed that 1 species is sufficient for skin testing and immunotherapy. However, in the area north of Milan (a zone widely invaded only by short ragweed), about 50% of patients submitted to injection specific immunotherapy with giant ragweed showed little or no clinical response, but showed an excellent outcome if they were shifted to short ragweed specific immunotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate allergenic differences between short and giant ragweed. METHODS: IgE reactivity to short ragweed of sera from 16 patients allergic to ragweed was assessed by immunoblot before and after absorption with short and giant ragweed. Moreover, 41 ragweed-monosensitive patients underwent skin prick test with both ragweed species. RESULTS: In several cases, preabsorption of sera with giant ragweed extract was unable to inhibit IgE reactivity fully against both a 43-kd allergen and other allergens at different molecular weights in short ragweed. On skin prick test, short ragweed induced larger wheals than giant ragweed in the majority of patients, and 6 of 41 (15%) patients were strongly short ragweed-positive but giant ragweed-negative. The immunoblot with the serum from 1 of these subjects showed a strong IgE reactivity to short ragweed at about 43 kd in the absence of any reactivity to giant ragweed. CONCLUSION: Short and giant ragweed are not allergenically equivalent. Allergenic differences involve both the major allergens Amb a 1-2/Amb t 1-2 and some minor allergens. In patients allergic to ragweed, both diagnosis in vivo and immunotherapy should always be performed by using the ragweed species present in that specific geographic area.
机译:背景:短豚草和巨型豚草花粉过敏原被认为具有很大的交叉反应性,通常认为1种足以进行皮肤测试和免疫治疗。但是,在米兰北部地区(仅短短豚草广泛入侵的地区),约有50%接受巨豚草注射特异性免疫治疗的患者几乎没有临床反应,但如果改用短豚草则显示出极好的结果豚草特异性免疫疗法。目的:研究短豚草和巨型豚草之间的致敏性差异。方法:通过免疫印迹法评估短豚草和巨豚草吸收前后16名对豚草过敏的患者的血清短豚草的IgE反应性。此外,有41种豚草单敏患者接受了两种豚草种类的皮肤点刺试验。结果:在几种情况下,短豚草预吸收血清不能完全抑制针对43 kd变应原和不同分子量的其他变应原的IgE反应性。在皮肤点刺试验中,大多数患者中短豚草比大豚草产生更大的风,并且41名患者中有6名(15%)是短豚草阳性,而大豚草阴性。来自这些受试者之一的血清的免疫印迹在约43kd下显示出对短豚草的强IgE反应性,而对巨型豚草没有任何反应性。结论:短豚草和变质豚草在过敏性上并不等效。致敏性差异涉及主要过敏原Amb a 1-2 / Amb t 1-2和一些次要过敏原。对豚草过敏的患者,应始终使用该特定地理区域中存在的豚草物种进行体内诊断和免疫治疗。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号