4.3 Article

Survey of Mast Cell Mediator Levels from Patients Presenting with Symptoms of Mast Cell Activation

期刊

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000503964

关键词

Leukotrienes C-4 and E-4; Mast cell activation; Prostaglandin D-2; N-methylhistamine; Tryptase

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Although 4 mast cell mediators can be routinely measured, the results of initial testing to evaluate symptoms of mast cell activation have not been widely reported. Objective: We examined the results of mast cell mediator tests used to assess patients with mast cell activation symptoms during a 5-year time span. Methods: After excluding patients with alternative diagnoses, records of 108 patients were reviewed for initial mediator test results. Mediators included serum tryptase plus urinary N-methyl histamine (N-MH), leukotriene (LT)E-4, and 11 beta-prostaglandin (PG) F2 alpha or 2,3-dinor-11 beta-PGF2 alpha (BPG). Results: Most commonly, either a single measured elevation of 1 mediator (48.1%) or elevations of 2 (33.3%) mediators was found at baseline, during symptoms or at both time points. Elevated levels of a single mediator in order of frequency were: BPG > tryptase > LTE4 > N-MH, and for two mediators: BPG + tryptase (n = 16 cases) > BPG + LTE4 (n = 9) > BPG + N-MH (n = 6). Elevations in 3 mediators (n = 8) or 4 mediators (n = 2) were much less frequent. Monoclonal mast cell activation syndrome (n = 6), and systemic and cutaneous mastocytosis (n = 4) were also infrequent. Baseline plus symptom-associated tryptase values were obtained in only 7 patients. Conclusions: This survey suggests that elevations of 1 or 2 mediators are the most common (total 81.4% of cases) findings from initial tests for mast cell activation. Elevated levels of BPG were most commonly found both singly and in combination with other mediators, followed by the finding of elevated levels of tryptase. Baseline plus symptom-associated tryptase levels were measured in only a minority of patients. (C) 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.3
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