4.5 Article

The First Case of Erythritol-Induced Anaphylaxis in Korea

期刊

JOURNAL OF KOREAN MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 37, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

KOREAN ACAD MEDICAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e83

关键词

Erythritol; Food Additives; Food Allergy; Anaphylaxis

资金

  1. Pusan National University Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A 36-year-old woman experienced anaphylaxis after drinking a beverage containing erythritol. The skin prick test confirmed that she was allergic to erythritol, and she was advised to avoid foods with erythritol.
Erythritol is a natural sugar alcohol found in some fruits and fermented foods, which is used as a dietary sweetener because it has few calories. Here, we describe a 36-year-old woman who experienced anaphylaxis upon ingestion of an erythritol-containing drink. She presented to the emergency department with dyspnea and angioedema after drinking a peachcontaining diet beverage. Her blood pressure dropped to 70/40 mmHg and the symptoms improved after administration of an antihistamine, glucocorticoid, and epinephrine. After 10 days, she drank another peach-containing diet beverage and experienced urticaria. No serumspecific immunoglobulin E findings were observed, including against peach components. A skin prick test (SPT) was performed using a peach, the two ingested diet beverages, and another peach-containing beverage. The SPT results for the peach and the peach-containing product were negative, but the wheal sizes for the two diet beverages were > 3 mm. The diet beverages contained erythritol as a food additive. The SPT result was positive for erythritol. The patient was diagnosed with anaphylaxis to erythritol and was instructed to avoid foods containing erythritol. She was prescribed a self-injectable epinephrine pen. To our knowledge, this is the first case of erythritol-induced anaphylaxis in Korea. Physicians should be aware of the possibility of allergic reactions to food additives, and additives should be evaluated to prevent the recurrence of symptoms.

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