4.1 Article

Single and multiple food allergies in infants with proctocolitis

期刊

ALLERGOLOGIA ET IMMUNOPATHOLOGIA
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 3-8

出版社

ELSEVIER ESPANA SLU
DOI: 10.1016/j.aller.2017.02.006

关键词

Allergic proctocolitis; Bloody stool; Colonoscopy; Eosinophil count; Multiple food allergies; Skin prick test; Specific immunoglobulin E

资金

  1. Baskent University Institutional Review Board [KA16/66]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Food protein-induced allergic proctocolitis is a frequent cause of rectal bleeding in infants. Characteristics of infants with multiple food allergies have not been defined. Objective: This study aimed to identify characteristics of infants with proctocolitis and compare infants with single and multiple food allergies. Methods: A total of 132 infants with proctocolitis were evaluated retrospectively. All of the infants were diagnosed by a paediatric allergist and/or a paediatric gastroenterologist according to guidelines. Clinical features of the infants, as well as results of a complete blood count, skin prick test, specific immunoglobulin E, and stool examinations or colonoscopy were recorded. Results: Cow's milk (97.7%) was the most common allergen, followed by egg (22%). Forty-five (34.1%) infants had allergies to more than one food. Infants with multiple food allergies had a higher eosinophil count (613 +/- 631.2 vs. 375 +/- 291.9) and a higher frequency of positive specific IgE and/or positive skin prick test results than that of patients with a single food allergy. Most of the patients whose symptoms persisted after two years of age had multiple food allergies. Conclusions: There is no difference in clinical presentations between infants with single and multiple food allergies. However, infants with multiple food allergies have a high blood total eosinophil count and are more likely to have a positive skin prick test and/or positive specific IgE results. (C) 2017 SEICAP. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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