Evaluation of Clinical Symptoms and Clinical Course in Pediatric Patients with Tree Nut Allergy

Öz

Objective: Tree nut allergies (TNA) are an important health problem can cause severe reactions such as anaphylaxis and the frequency of improvement with age is low. This study aims to evaluate the clinical features and tolerance development of TNAs.

Material and Methods: In our study, the clinical characteristics, laboratory findings and tolerances of the patients who were followed with allergy to tree nuts between 2010-2017 in the Department of Pediatric Immunology and Allergy of Ankara Child Health and Diseases Hematology Oncology Training and Research Hospital were evaluated.

Results: A hundred and twenty eight (73.4% male) patients were included in the study with a median age of 61 (min-max:4-209) months. Of the patients, 109(85.2%) were hazelnuts, 60(46.8%) were allergic to walnuts, 47(36.7%) were allergic to pistachios, 37(28.9) were allergic to almonds, 22(17.2%) were allergic to cashew nuts.Presenting reaction was anaphylaxis in 47 (36,7%) patients. The median value of the follow-up period was 56.3 (16.3-134.2) months. Of the 128 patients, 37(29%) have overgrown all TNAs, 9 (7%) have outgrown some of TNAs and TNAs of 70(54.6%) patients persisted. Twelve patients (9.4%) couldn’t evaluated. Forty-two percent of patients with single TNA, 31.5% of patients with multi-TNA has developed tolerance within follow-up period.

Conclusion: Tolerance development to TNA seems to be encouraging. Therefore, regular monitoring of these patients is important.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• tree nut allergy
• children
• prognosis
• semptomlar

Kuruyemiş Alerjisi Olan Çocuklarda Klinik Bulgular ve Doğal Seyrin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Kuruyemiş alerjileri (KA), anafilaksi gibi ağır reaksiyonlara neden olabilmeleri ve yaşla düzelme sıklıklarının az olması nedeni ile önemli bir sağlık sorunudur. Çalışmamızda kuruyemiş alerjilerinin klinik özellikleri ve tolerans gelişiminin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmamızda T.C. Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Ankara Çocuk Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Hematoloji Onkoloji Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Çocuk Alerji Kliniği’nde 2010-2017 yıllarında kuruyemiş alerjisi nedeni ile izlenen hastaların klinik özellikleri, laboratuvar bulguları ve prognozu değerlendirildi.

Bulgular: Çalışmaya ortanca yaşı 2.5 yıl (min-maks: 1-17) olan yüz yirmi sekiz (%73.4 erkek) hasta alındı. Hastaların 109’unda (%85.2) fındık, 60’ında (%46.8) ceviz 47’sinde (%36.7) antep fıstığı, 37’sinde (28.9) badem, 22’sinde (%17.2) kaju fıstığı alerjisi vardı. Kırk yedi (%36.7) hastada başvuru reaksiyonu anafilaksiydi. Takip süresi ortanca 56.3 (min-maks:16.3-134.2) aydı. Yüz yirmi sekiz hastanın 37’sinde (%29) tüm KA’leri düzelmişken, 9’unda (%7) bazı KA’leri düzelmiş 70 (%54.6) hastada ise KA devam etmiştir. On iki hasta (%9.4) değerlendirilemedi. Tekli KA’li hastaların %42’si, çoklu KA’li hastaların %31.5’i takip süresi içinde tolerans geliştirmiştir.

Sonuç: Kuruyemiş alerjilerine tolerans gelişimi cesaret verici görünüyor. Bu nedenle bu hastaların düzenli takibi önemlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• kuruyemiş alerjisi
• prognoz
• çocuklarda
• semptomlar

Kaynakça

1. References 1.Bock SA, Munoz-Furlong A, Sampson HA. Further fatalities caused by anaphylactic reactions to food, 2001-2006. J Allergy Clin Immunol.2007;119(4):1016–1018.
2. 2 Stiefel G, Anagnostou K, Boyle RJ, Brathwaite N, Ewan P, Fox AT et al. BSACI guideline for the diagnosis and management of peanut and tree nut allergy. Clin Exp Allergy. 2017;47(6):719–739
3. 3.Sicherer SH, Muñoz-Furlong A, Godbold JH, Sampson H. US prevalence of self-reported peanut, tree nut, and sesame allergy: 11-year follow-up. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2010;25:1322-1326.
4. 4.Bollinger ME, Dahlquist LM, Mudd K, Sonntag C, Dillinger L, McKenna K. The impact of FA on the daily activities of children and their families. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2006; 96: 415-21
5. 5.Tamar Weinberger, Scott Sicherer. Current perspectives on tree nut allergy: a review. J Asthma Allergy.2018;11:41-51.
6. 6.Nowak-Wegrzyn A , Assa'ad AH, Bahna SL, Bock SA, Sicherer SH, Teuber SS; Adverse Reactions to Food Committee of American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Work Group report: oral food challenge testing. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 2009(123):365-383.
7. 7.McWilliam V1, Koplin J, Lodge C, Tang M, Dharmage S, Allen K . Prevalence of Tree Nut Allergy: A Systematic Review .Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2015 ;15(9):54.
8. 8.HD Şenol, BT Köksal. The Clinical Characteristics of Children with Food Allergy in Van Van Medical Journal. 2015;22(4): 266-272

9. 9.Barlık F, Güner, Ş , Barlık M , Söğüt A , Sancak R .Prevalence of food allergy in nursery and kindergarten children in Samsun. Turk Arch Ped 2013 (4); 288-93 .
10. 10.Couch C, Franxman T, Greenhawt M. Characteristics of tree nut challenges in tree nut allergic and tree nut sensitized individuals. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology 2017;118 (5):591-596.
11. 11.Cetinkaya PG, Buyuktiryaki B, Soyer O, Sahiner UM, Sekerel BE. Factors predicting anaphylaxis in children with tree nut allergies. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2019:1;40(3):180-186.
12. 12.Fleischer DM, Conover-Walker MK, Matsui EC, Wood RA . The natural history of tree nut allergy. J Allergy ClinImmunol. 2005;116(5):1087.