Allergy in adolescent population (14-18 years) living in Campania region (Southern Italy). A multicenter study.

Summary: Adolescents (Ad) constitute a difficult to manage population among individuals suffering from asthma. The aim of our study was to assess the prevalence, clinical characteristics and age of onset of allergic sensitization and clinical symptoms in a sample of atopic Ad living in the Campania region (Southern Italy). Sixteen Allergy units or Centers belonging to the Italian Association of Hospital and Territorial Allergologists (AAIITO, Campania region) participated in this cross-sectional study. A case report form (CRF) was specifically designed for this study and commercial allergen extracts used for screening SPTs were provided by ALK-Abelló Group (Milan, Italy). A total of 443 patients were examined (females, f 220, 49.6 %; males, m 223, 50.3%). Dust mites represent the most common sensitizing agents in allergic Ad living in Campania region (Dermatoph. pteronyssinus 67.4% and Dermatoph. farinae 66.5%), followed by Parietaria (58.9%), grasses (45.8%), Artemisia vulgaris (16.7%), Olea Europaea (32.2%), dog dander (17.1%), cat dander (20.0%), Alternaria alternata (8.1%), Cupressus sempervirens (4.9%), Betula pendula (4.7%), other allergens (19.4%). An interesting comparison has been made between clinical data of our Ad with data of elderly patients (E). The role of allergic sensitization is significantly higher in Ad compared to E. Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus is the first sensitizing allergen in Ad and the last in E. Parietaria constitutes the first sensitizing pollen both in Ad and E, the percentage of sensitization is higher in Ad. Another important difference is the higher prevalence of As, as only symptom, in E compared to Ad (19.7% versus 7.6%). In conclusion, our findings confirm the high prevalence and clinical significance of airway allergic sensitization in the adolescents living in Campania region.

Dog allergy: can a prevalent or exclusive sensitization to Can f 5 be considered a lucky or negative event in real life?

Summary: Recent studies have shown the increasing relevance of allergic sensitization to Can f 5 (a prostatic kallikrein), which is an androgen-regulated protein expressed in the prostate and detectable only in male dogs. Can f 5 can be a prevalent or exclusive sensitizing agent in a considerable percentage of dog-allergic patients. Its specific allergenic characteristics are able to induce possible negative as well as positive clinical effects in individuals sensitized to dogs. In the present article we pointed out the possible pros or cons of sensitization to this allergen in real life. Further studies should be carried out to correctly assess some peculiar characteristics of Can f 5, in order to support the most of positive aspects and remedy at best the negative effects.

What could the role of can f 5 allergen be in dog-sensitized patients in "Real Life"?

No disponible

What could be the role of molecular-based allergy diagnostics in detecting the risk of developing allergic sensitization to furry animals?

Although this highly refined diagnostic approach has been used in several fields of allergy diagnosis, we noticed the scarcity of data on the role of CDR in detecting current sensitization to the allergens of common pets (cat / dog) and, especially, its potential usefulness in predicting the risk of sensitization to other furry animals. Reported data suggest that cross-reacting mechanisms might play an important role in a significant proportion of allergic sensitizations to furry animals (common pets and unusual / exotic mammals) especially in the absence of any possible direct / indirect contact. In this context an evaluation of specific IgE by using the micro-array technique ImmunoCAP ISAC (Thermofisher Scientific - Immuno-Diagnostics, Sweden) for lipocalins (Can f 1, Can f 2, Equ c 1, Fel d 4, Mus m 1) and albumins (Bos d 6, Can f 3, Equ c 3, Fel d 2) might be very useful to evaluate the possibility of cross-reactions between the allergens of different animals. In fact, allergic sensitization without animal exposure is a relevant risk for patients, because they are not aware about the possibility that even severe respiratory symptoms may develop after an occasional animal contact. This aspect should be taken into account by susceptible individuals before acquiring new pets, after removal of common pets or beginning a contact for working / leisure activity with a common as well as uncommon animal.