Clinical Management of Plant Food Allergy in Patients Sensitized to Lipid Transfer Proteins Is Heterogeneous: Identifying the Gaps.

IF 6.1 3区 医学 Q1 ALLERGY
B E García, M B Mateo-Borrega, S Garrido, C M D Amelio, E Compés, O Villarreal, I García-Núñez, M J Goikoetxea
{"title":"Clinical Management of Plant Food Allergy in Patients Sensitized to Lipid Transfer Proteins Is Heterogeneous: Identifying the Gaps.","authors":"B E García, M B Mateo-Borrega, S Garrido, C M D Amelio, E Compés, O Villarreal, I García-Núñez, M J Goikoetxea","doi":"10.18176/jiaci.0947","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Patients sensitized to lipid transfer protein (LTP) are characterized by wide clinical variability. The lack of practical diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines complicates their management. The aim of the study was to describe the clinical approach of Spanish allergists to sensitization to LTP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a survey designed following the PICO method and subsequent validation using the Delphi approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey was completed by 224 allergists (75% women; 57.1% with >20 years of professional experience). Clinical practice for the main points of diagnosis of LTP allergy was homogeneous, except for patients with suspected hypersensitivity to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (44.6% frequently included skin testing with LTP). Oral food challenges were not frequently performed (63.6% occasionally to never) and were generally (75.5%) used to confirm tolerance. It was common to recommend fruit skin avoidance (77.2%) and to maintain consumption of foods to which patients were sensitized but tolerant (99.1%). The results were heterogeneous for other dietary indications, modifications due to cofactors, and trace avoidance. Peach sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was considered very/quite effective by 55.9% of allergists. Most (79.5%) consider SLIT indicated in <25% of LTP-allergic patients based on severity (95.2%), frequency of reactions (99.4%), allergy to multiple food families (97.4%), and impairment of quality of life/nutrition (91.5%). Practice with respect to prescription of SLIT varied based on cofactor involvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These data suggest that there is a need to increase evidence to reduce heterogeneity in the clinical management of LTP allergy.</p>","PeriodicalId":50173,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology","volume":" ","pages":"395-403"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18176/jiaci.0947","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Patients sensitized to lipid transfer protein (LTP) are characterized by wide clinical variability. The lack of practical diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines complicates their management. The aim of the study was to describe the clinical approach of Spanish allergists to sensitization to LTP.

Methods: We used a survey designed following the PICO method and subsequent validation using the Delphi approach.

Results: The survey was completed by 224 allergists (75% women; 57.1% with >20 years of professional experience). Clinical practice for the main points of diagnosis of LTP allergy was homogeneous, except for patients with suspected hypersensitivity to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (44.6% frequently included skin testing with LTP). Oral food challenges were not frequently performed (63.6% occasionally to never) and were generally (75.5%) used to confirm tolerance. It was common to recommend fruit skin avoidance (77.2%) and to maintain consumption of foods to which patients were sensitized but tolerant (99.1%). The results were heterogeneous for other dietary indications, modifications due to cofactors, and trace avoidance. Peach sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was considered very/quite effective by 55.9% of allergists. Most (79.5%) consider SLIT indicated in <25% of LTP-allergic patients based on severity (95.2%), frequency of reactions (99.4%), allergy to multiple food families (97.4%), and impairment of quality of life/nutrition (91.5%). Practice with respect to prescription of SLIT varied based on cofactor involvement.

Conclusions: These data suggest that there is a need to increase evidence to reduce heterogeneity in the clinical management of LTP allergy.

对脂质转移蛋白敏感的患者的植物性食物过敏的临床管理是异质的:确定差距。
背景和目的:对脂质转移蛋白(LTP)敏感的患者表现出广泛的临床变异性。缺乏实用的诊断和治疗指南使其管理复杂化。本研究的目的是通过PICO方法设计的调查和随后的德尔菲方法验证,描述西班牙过敏专科医生对这种病理学的临床方法。方法:224名过敏专科医生(75%为女性;57.1%具有20年以上专业经验)参与了设计调查。除了疑似非甾体抗炎药超敏反应的患者(44.6%经常包括LTP皮肤测试)外,在LTP过敏诊断的要点上观察到临床实践的一致性。口服食物挑战并不频繁(63.6%偶尔或从不进行),通常(75.5%)用于确认耐受性。通常建议避免食用水果皮(77.2%),并保持食用患者敏感但耐受的食物(99.1%)。55.9%的过敏专科医生认为Peach舌下免疫疗法(SLIT)非常/非常有效。大多数人(79.5%)认为SLIT在结论中指出:这些数据表明,有必要增加证据来减少LTP过敏管理中的临床实践异质性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
9.70%
发文量
135
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology (J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol) provides an attractive and very active forum for basic and clinical research in allergology and clinical immunology.Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology publishes original works, reviews, short communications and opinions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信