Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FEBRUARY 2011
Case Report Hospital, Verona, ITALY, 2Allergy and Oncology Department, Mantova,
M. Cabanillas Platero1, M. Pi~nero Saavedra2; 1Department of Pediatric ITALY, 3Allergy Unit, Department of Dermatology University Hospital
AllergyVirgen del Rocio Hospital, Sevilla, SPAIN, 2Department of Al- Basel, Basel, SWITZERLAND, 4Laboratory of Clinical Chemistry and Hae-
lergy, Virgen del Rocio Hospital, Sevilla, SPAIN. matology Verona General Hospital, Verona, ITALY, 5Laboratory of Clinical
RATIONALE: Cow’s milk allergy (CMA) is one of the most important Chemistry and Haematology Verona General Hospital, Verona, ITALY.
food allergy in infants. The existence of a high degree of cross-reactivity RATIONALE: The incidence of the skin rashes induced by PPI is less then
between milk caseins from different animals has been reported. Allergy 0.5%.The aim of our prospective study was to verify sensitivity (Se) and
to goat and sheep’s milk (GSM) without CMA is rare. Here we present a specificity (Sp) of skin prick test (PT) and intradermal test (ID) in the di-
10 year-old boy with several anaphylaxis episodes after eating goat and agnosis of PPI allergy
sheep’s cheeses with good tolerance to cow’s milk. METHODS: Our study was performed in 44 patients (37 female/7 male),
METHODS: Skin prick tests (SPT) were carried out using whey fractions with history of adverse reactions to PPI; mean age: 60 years.
of cow’s milk (casein, alfa-lactoglobuline and beta-lactoglobuline),whole PT with omeprazole, esomeprazole, pantoprazole and rabeprazole (40 mg/
cow’s milk and GSM allergenic extracts. Total serum IgE and specific ml) and lansoprazole (30 mg/ml), and ID (0.04-0.4 mg/ml) for esomepra-
IgE to cow’s milk proteins (casein, alfa-lactoglobuline and beta-lactoglo- zole, omeprazole and pantoprazole were performed in all patients.
buline), whole cow and goat’s milk extracts were determined (IgE to Thirty-five patients underwent to single-blind placebo-controlled chal-
sheep’s milk not available). lenge test (CT) with the culprit PPI.
RESULTS: SPT were positive to GSM allergenic extracts and were nega- RESULTS: 29.5% of patients reacted to esomeprazole, 16% to omeprazole,
tive to cow’s milk proteins and whole cow’s milk extract. Total serum IgE: 22.7% to pantoprazole, 27.3% to lansoprazole and 4.5% to rabeprazole.
84’5 KU/L. Every specific IgE were negative with the only exception of The symptoms reported were urticaria (50%), angioedema (13.6%), erythema
IgE to goat’s milk allergenic extract (34’7 KU/L.) (11.3%), dyspnea (6.9%) hypotension (6.9%) and anaphylaxis (11.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: We report a patient with allergy to goat and sheep’s PT were positive in 3 patients and ID were positive in 5 patients for the
milk proteins whithout any previous or current history of CMA. culprit drug. CT were positive in 6 cases (3 to esomeprazole, 2 to
lansoprazole and 1 to rabeprazole) but only in 3 cases PT and/or ID were
positive.We found a low Se (50%) but an high Sp (96.5%). The positive
predictive value (PPV) and the negative predictive value (NPV) were
respectively 75% and 90.3%.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a low predictive capacity of a pos-
itive skin test, that confirm the need to perform CT. Furthermore we didn’t
find cross-reactivity within PPI, in fact the 4 allergic patient tolerated
others PPI