4.4 Article

Molecular Diagnosis in House Dust Mite-Allergic Patients Suggests That Der p 23 Is Clinically Relevant in Asthmatic Children

出版社

ESMON PUBLICIDAD S A, DEPT ALLERGY & CLIN IMMUNOL, CLIN UNIV NAVARRA
DOI: 10.18176/jiaci.0431

关键词

Asthma; Component-resolved diagnosis; Der p 1; Der p 2; Der p 10; Der p 23; House dust mites; Storage mites; Tropomyosin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patterns of sensitization to house dust mites depend on geographic area and are important in clinical practice. However, the role of molecular diagnosis is not currently defined.We sought to characterize a pediatric population by focusing on sensitization to different mite species and major mite components in order to assess the clinical relevance of sensitization to allergenic components in our practice. Methods: Consecutive children with respiratory allergy sensitized to house dust mites (determined by skin prick test [SPTJ) were recruited. We determined specific IgE to nDer p 1, rDer p 2, and rDer p 23 using ImmunoCAP and sIgE using ImmunoCAP-ISAC microarray. Patients were followed up for 3 years. Results: A total of 276 children were recruited. The frequency of sensitization was 86.6% for nDer p 1, 79.3% for rDer p 2, and 75.8% for rDer p 23. Lepidoglyphus species was the most common storage mite detected by SPT. Twenty-six patients (9.4%) were not sensitized to Der p 1 or Der p 2. It is noteworthy that IgE binding to Der p 23 was positive in 14 (53.8%). Asthmatic patients, especially those with a persistent moderate-severe phenotype, more frequently recognized the 3 major allergens. Conclusions: Most patients with mite allergy were sensitized to the major allergens Der p 1, Der p 2, and Der p 23. Of the allergens evaluated, 5% were sensitized to Der p 23 but not to Der p 1 or Der p 2. Sensitization to Der p 23 should be considered in the diagnosis and treatment of mite allergy, especially in patients with moderate-severe asthma, because it may worsen the clinical phenotype.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据