4.2 Article

A study of IgE sensitization and skin response to histamine in Asian-Pacific American adults

期刊

ALLERGY AND ASTHMA PROCEEDINGS
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 341-347

出版社

OCEAN SIDE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.2500/aap.2012.33.3575

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Allergic disorders and skin response to histamine have been noted to vary in different ethnicities. We investigated IgE-mediated allergic sensitization and skin response to histamine in Asian Pacific Americans (APAs), black and Hispanic Americans, and white adults. A retrospective questionnaire-based study was performed of 2222 adults presenting at a New York City allergy referral center from 1994 to 2003. Questionnaire data included sex, age, and ethnicity and personal and family history of atopic disorders. Skin-prick test (SPT) data included saline and histamine controls and response to a standardized panel of 10 aeroallergens. APA patients had a lower odds of asthma (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.89; p = 0.005) and/or animal allergies (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82; p = 0.0003). Histamine response was not significantly different in APA (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73-1.12; p = 0.36) or Hispanic Americans (aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.85-1.24; p = 0.76), but was higher in black Americans (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.67-3.21; p < 0.0001). APA had higher odds of a positive SPT to trees (aOR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.16-1.91; p = 0.002), grasses (aOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05-1.43; p = 0.02), feathers (aOR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.31-2.09; p < 0.0001), and cockroaches (aOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.10-1.62; p = 0.005). Moreover, APA had a higher total number of positive SPTs when compared with white patients (5.5 +/- 3.2 versus 4.9 +/- 3.3; aOR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.62 p = 0.004). APA adults in our patient population had more IgE sensitizations but not an increased skin response to histamine. In contrast, black Americans had increased skin response to histamine. (Allergy Asthma Proc 33:341-347, 2012; doi: 10.2500/aap.2012.33.3575)

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

4.2
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