Component resolved analysis of ash pollen allergy in Bavaria
Abstract Background Sensitization to ash pollen is underestimated in various regions. The prevalence in Germany is about 10%. However, allergy to ash pollen is widely overlooked by allergists, since the pollination period of ash and birch in central Europe closely overlap and rhinoconjunctival sympt...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2018-11-01
|
| Series: | Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13223-018-0291-4 |
| _version_ | 1818138243902734336 |
|---|---|
| author | Katharina Eder Donata Gellrich Catalina Meßmer Martin Canis Moritz Gröger |
| author_facet | Katharina Eder Donata Gellrich Catalina Meßmer Martin Canis Moritz Gröger |
| author_sort | Katharina Eder |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Sensitization to ash pollen is underestimated in various regions. The prevalence in Germany is about 10%. However, allergy to ash pollen is widely overlooked by allergists, since the pollination period of ash and birch in central Europe closely overlap and rhinoconjunctival symptoms during April/May are often assigned to birch pollen. Component resolved analysis of the different ash allergens is not routinely available. Therefore, we would like to question the usefulness of component resolved diagnostic via olive components, as ash and olive are both part of the Oleaceae family. Methods 113 patients with nasal provocation and skin prick test to ash were retrospectively compared regarding their specific immunoglobulin E antibody profiles with response to native ash extract, rOle e 1, nOle e 7 and rOle e 9. Results In nasal provocation testing 58% of 113 patients sensitized to ash were allergic, 42% were only sensitized without showing symptoms. Skin prick testing and serology against native ash extract detected most patients sensitized to ash pollen, whereas rOle e 1 was less sensitive. However, the value of measurements of skin prick test, serology to native ash extract and rOle e 1 did not allow a differentiation between an allergy and clinically silent sensitization. Specific antibodies to nOle e 7 and rOle e 9 were only seen in individual patients and were all positive for native ash extract and rOle e 1. Conclusion Skin prick testing and serology to native extract of ash pollen are the most reliable tools to diagnose a sensitization to ash pollen for patients living in Germany. Component resolved diagnostic to the major allergen rOle e 1 as representative of the Oleaceae family is possible but was less sensitive. Diagnostic of nOle e 7 and rOle e 9 did not show any additional benefit. Regarding differentiation between allergy and clinically silent sensitization to ash pollen, provocation is the leading diagnostic tool. Concluding, in routine clinical practice the standard methods—skin prick test, serology to native ash extract and provocation testing—remain crucial in the diagnosis and differentiation of ash sensitization and allergy. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-11T10:09:06Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4b4b98dd47804e98818cfc4105c3ce46 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1710-1492 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-11T10:09:06Z |
| publishDate | 2018-11-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology |
| spelling | doaj.art-4b4b98dd47804e98818cfc4105c3ce462022-12-22T01:11:48ZengBMCAllergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology1710-14922018-11-011411610.1186/s13223-018-0291-4Component resolved analysis of ash pollen allergy in BavariaKatharina Eder0Donata Gellrich1Catalina Meßmer2Martin Canis3Moritz Gröger4Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University MunichDepartment of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University MunichDepartment of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University MunichDepartment of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University MunichDepartment of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University MunichAbstract Background Sensitization to ash pollen is underestimated in various regions. The prevalence in Germany is about 10%. However, allergy to ash pollen is widely overlooked by allergists, since the pollination period of ash and birch in central Europe closely overlap and rhinoconjunctival symptoms during April/May are often assigned to birch pollen. Component resolved analysis of the different ash allergens is not routinely available. Therefore, we would like to question the usefulness of component resolved diagnostic via olive components, as ash and olive are both part of the Oleaceae family. Methods 113 patients with nasal provocation and skin prick test to ash were retrospectively compared regarding their specific immunoglobulin E antibody profiles with response to native ash extract, rOle e 1, nOle e 7 and rOle e 9. Results In nasal provocation testing 58% of 113 patients sensitized to ash were allergic, 42% were only sensitized without showing symptoms. Skin prick testing and serology against native ash extract detected most patients sensitized to ash pollen, whereas rOle e 1 was less sensitive. However, the value of measurements of skin prick test, serology to native ash extract and rOle e 1 did not allow a differentiation between an allergy and clinically silent sensitization. Specific antibodies to nOle e 7 and rOle e 9 were only seen in individual patients and were all positive for native ash extract and rOle e 1. Conclusion Skin prick testing and serology to native extract of ash pollen are the most reliable tools to diagnose a sensitization to ash pollen for patients living in Germany. Component resolved diagnostic to the major allergen rOle e 1 as representative of the Oleaceae family is possible but was less sensitive. Diagnostic of nOle e 7 and rOle e 9 did not show any additional benefit. Regarding differentiation between allergy and clinically silent sensitization to ash pollen, provocation is the leading diagnostic tool. Concluding, in routine clinical practice the standard methods—skin prick test, serology to native ash extract and provocation testing—remain crucial in the diagnosis and differentiation of ash sensitization and allergy.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13223-018-0291-4Ash pollen allergyNative ash pollen extract diagnosticrOle e 1nOle e 7rOle e 9 |
| spellingShingle | Katharina Eder Donata Gellrich Catalina Meßmer Martin Canis Moritz Gröger Component resolved analysis of ash pollen allergy in Bavaria Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology Ash pollen allergy Native ash pollen extract diagnostic rOle e 1 nOle e 7 rOle e 9 |
| title | Component resolved analysis of ash pollen allergy in Bavaria |
| title_full | Component resolved analysis of ash pollen allergy in Bavaria |
| title_fullStr | Component resolved analysis of ash pollen allergy in Bavaria |
| title_full_unstemmed | Component resolved analysis of ash pollen allergy in Bavaria |
| title_short | Component resolved analysis of ash pollen allergy in Bavaria |
| title_sort | component resolved analysis of ash pollen allergy in bavaria |
| topic | Ash pollen allergy Native ash pollen extract diagnostic rOle e 1 nOle e 7 rOle e 9 |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13223-018-0291-4 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT katharinaeder componentresolvedanalysisofashpollenallergyinbavaria AT donatagellrich componentresolvedanalysisofashpollenallergyinbavaria AT catalinameßmer componentresolvedanalysisofashpollenallergyinbavaria AT martincanis componentresolvedanalysisofashpollenallergyinbavaria AT moritzgroger componentresolvedanalysisofashpollenallergyinbavaria |