4.6 Article

Variability of IgE reactivity profiles among European mite allergic patients

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 38, 期 12, 页码 959-965

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2008.02048.x

关键词

Diagnosis; HDM allergy; IgE prevalence; recombinant allergens; storage mite allergy

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund [F1803, F1815]
  2. Christian Doppler Research Association, Biomay, Vienna, Austria
  3. Swedish Asthma and Allergy Association's Research Foundation
  4. Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

House dust mites (HDM) Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus are a frequent indoor allergen source. Our aim was to determine the frequencies of IgE reactivity to purified HDM allergen molecules in mite allergic patients from different parts of Europe in order to establish an allergen panel for diagnosis of HDM allergy. Populations of D. pteronyssinus-allergic patients from Austria (n = 56), France (n = 55), Italy (n = 67) and Sweden (n = 65) and storage mite allergic patients from Sweden (n = 31) were analysed for IgE reactivity to eight purified natural (n) and recombinant (r) D. pteronyssinus allergens (nDer p 1, rDer p 2, nDer p 4, rDer p 5, rDer p 7, rDer p 8, rDer p 10 and rDer p 14) in RAST-based dot blot assays. Using a combination of Der p 1 and Der p 2, at least 97% of the D. pteronyssinus-allergic patients could be diagnosed in each of the HDM allergic populations. However, more than 50% of the patients also reacted with other allergens and significant variabilities regarding the frequencies of IgE reactivity to individual allergen molecules were found. Patients with a predominant storage mite allergy showed none or only very weak IgE reactivity to purified D. pteronyssinus allergens. Purified Der p 1 and Der p 2 are sufficient for the diagnosis of >= 97% of D. pteronyssinus allergic patients in Europe, but other allergens may also play an important role for the diagnosis and treatment of HDM allergy. Eur J Clin Invest 2008; 38 (12): 959-965.

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

4.6
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