4.5 Review

Alpha-Gal Syndrome in Children: Peculiarities of a Tick-Borne Allergic Disease

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2021.801753

关键词

food allergy; alpha-gal (alpha-gal); delayed anaphylaxis; red meat allergy; children; cetuximab

资金

  1. Italian Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alpha-gal syndrome is an allergic syndrome with immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. It is often misdiagnosed, especially in tick-endemic areas, with tick bites being a related factor. Diagnosis relies on specific IgE testing, and elimination diet may improve symptoms.
The alpha-gal syndrome is an allergic syndrome that comprises two clinical pictures: an immediate hypersensitivity to drugs containing alpha-gal and a delayed hypersensitivity to the ingestion of red mammalian meat. This allergic syndrome is often under-recognized, and patients are mislabeled with diagnosis as spontaneous urticaria or idiopathic anaphylaxis. Even though less frequently, children could also be of interest, especially in tick-endemic areas. In most cases, a positive anamnesis for tick bites months before the onset of symptoms is recorded. The clinical manifestations could range from asymptomatic cases to severe anaphylaxis. The most frequently used diagnostic test is the determination of specific IgE for alpha-gal. Oral provocation test is usually reserved to unclear cases or to verify tolerance after diet. No long-term follow-up studies have been published, although an elimination diet could lead to a decrease of specific IgE for alpha-gal and a possible reintroduction of some avoided foods. This paper provides a literature review, focused on pediatric age, and an evaluation of available diagnostic tests. We analyze the correlation between tick bites and symptom onset and unfold the different clinical pictures to help clinicians to promptly recognized this syndrome. Lastly, we address unmet needs in this specific allergy.

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

4.5
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