STUDY/PRINCIPLES: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics of meat allergy, to validate the routine diagnostic tools and to compare our results with data from the literature. METHODS: We recruited within the framework of the EU-project REDALL adult patients and children with a positive case history of meat allergy. Definitive inclusion criteria were either a history of an anaphylactic reaction to meat or a positive titrated double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge with the incriminated meat. Sensitisation to meat was assessed in all patients by skinprick-testing with meat extracts and in vitro determination of specific IgE to pork, beef and chicken (CAP-FEIA). RESULTS: Between 3/2003 to 6/2005 we identified thirteen patients with a positive case history of a meat allergy to either chicken (n = 6), beef (n = 5) or pork (n = 2), respectively. Meat allergy associated symptoms as reported by the patients ranged from contact urticaria of the oral mucosa (oral allergy syndrome, OAS) to anaphylactic reactions. Skin testing with the responsible meat was positive in nine patients, and in vitro determination of specific IgE in four patients. Under DBPCFC one patient responded with nausea and dysphagia after 10.2 g of chicken and two patients either with urticaria or nausea, diarrhoea, emesis and abdominal pain at 0.102 g and 34 g of beef, respectively. CONCLUSION: Meat allergy seems to be an uncommon food allergy in Central Europe. Meat induced symptoms range from OAS to severe anaphylactic reactions. The routine-diagnostic tools, i.e., skin testing and in vitro determination of specific IgE had a low sensitivity among our patients.
STUDY/PRINCIPLES: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics of meat allergy, to validate the routine diagnostic tools and to compare our results with data from the literature. METHODS: We recruited within the framework of the EU-project REDALL adult patients and children with a positive case history of meat allergy. Definitive inclusion criteria were either a history of an anaphylactic reaction to meat or a positive titrated double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge with the incriminated meat. Sensitisation to meat was assessed in all patients by skinprick-testing with meat extracts and in vitro determination of specific IgE to pork, beef and chicken (CAP-FEIA). RESULTS: Between 3/2003 to 6/2005 we identified thirteen patients with a positive case history of a meat allergy to either chicken (n = 6), beef (n = 5) or pork (n = 2), respectively. Meat allergy associated symptoms as reported by the patients ranged from contact urticaria of the oral mucosa (oral allergy syndrome, OAS) to anaphylactic reactions. Skin testing with the responsible meat was positive in nine patients, and in vitro determination of specific IgE in four patients. Under DBPCFC one patient responded with nausea and dysphagia after 10.2 g of chicken and two patients either with urticaria or nausea, diarrhoea, emesis and abdominal pain at 0.102 g and 34 g of beef, respectively. CONCLUSION: Meat allergy seems to be an uncommon food allergy in Central Europe. Meat induced symptoms range from OAS to severe anaphylactic reactions. The routine-diagnostic tools, i.e., skin testing and in vitro determination of specific IgE had a low sensitivity among our patients.
Authors: Raymond James Mullins; Hayley James; Thomas A E Platts-Mills; Scott Commins Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 10.793