Oral rush desensitization with tomato: A case report


Adverse food reaction in which no immunological mechanism is demonstrated should be termed nonallergic food hypersensitivity or food intolerance. We present the case of a 12-year-old girl with a clinical history of abdominal pain, nausea, and general malaise after tomato intake which completely remitted with antihistamines. The patient underwent a complete allergy evaluation: skin prick tests, serum specific IgE and IgG4 tests to tomato, and double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge. Skin prick tests and specific IgE to tomato were negative while the food challenge was positive. At the end of the workup, the patient underwent an oral rush desensitizing treatment. At the end of the treatment the patient could eat a maintenance dose of 100 g of tomato daily with no side effects at all. This successful result suggests that the oral desensitizing treatment can be used in patients with nonallergic food hypersensitivity.

Download full-text


Available from: Eleonora Nucera, Apr 18, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Specific oral tolerance in food allergy can be induced by oral administration of the offending food, starting with very low dosages, gradually increasing the daily dosage up to an amount equivalent to a usually relevant dose for daily intake, followed up by a daily maintenance dose. Unfortunately, the body of scientific evidence concerning specific oral tolerance induction (SOTI) is still rather poor. Following a couple of case reports, only a few studies on a limited number of patients including different allergens are available. So far, no placebo-controlled, long-term study has been published. Concerning the underlying immunological mechanism, a limited number of studies have reported on changes in antibody production, and more recently on the role of different T-cell populations. The individual pattern of clinical reaction during SOTI seems to vary considerably between patients and from allergen to allergen. Arguments in favour of SOTI are the safety for an inadvertent intake of the offending food and the increased quality of life. Arguments against SOTI are the necessity for a regular intake and possible long-term compliance problems. Indications to consider SOTI in the future might be (i) importance of the incriminated food for the individual nutritional regimen, (ii) avoidance of the corresponding food cannot be assured and (iii) persistent severe food allergy. However, before SOTI can be recommended for the daily praxis, more studies are warranted to clarify whether certain patients may profit from SOTI and to understand the underlying mechanism.
    Preview · Article · Aug 2006 · Allergy
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Specific oral tolerance induction (SOTI) seems to be a promising treatment of food allergy. Specific oral tolerance induction and elimination diet were compared with respect to efficacy rate and patterns of clinical reaction. Children with challenge proven immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated cow's milk (CM) allergy or hen's egg (HE) allergy were randomly assigned to SOTI or elimination diet as a control group. Specific oral tolerance induction treatment was performed at home on a daily basis according to a study protocol with fresh CM or lyophilized HE protein. Re-evaluation of clinically relevant food allergy was performed by food challenge after a median of 21 months. Children in the SOTI group received a secondary elimination diet for 2 months prior to follow-up challenge to evaluate persistence of induced oral tolerance. At follow-up challenge, nine of 25 children (36%) showed permanent tolerance in the SOTI group, three of 25 (12%) were tolerant with regular intake and four of 25 (16%) were partial responders. In the control group, seven of 20 children (35%) were tolerant. Allergen-specific immunoglobulin E decreased significantly both in children who developed natural tolerance during the elimination diet (P < 0.05) and in those with SOTI (P < 0.001). Specific oral tolerance induction seems a valid treatment option for patients with persistent food allergy. Indications may be given if avoidance cannot be guaranteed or for those who are eager to eat the food in question. Advantages of SOTI are the increased threshold dose for allergic reactions and the substantially reduced risk of severe allergic reactions after inadvertent ingestion of the allergen. However, careful monitoring during SOTI is mandatory.
    Preview · Article · Nov 2007 · Allergy
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) are consumed world-wide. The prevalence of sensitization to tomatoes remains unknown. To determine the prevalence of skin test reactivity to tomato and to describe the characteristics of tomato-sensitized subjects. Individuals attending for the first time during the period of the study to six Allergy centres, located along the Mediterranean coast of Spain, reporting respiratory and/or cutaneous symptoms, were included. All patients were skin prick tested with a battery of inhalant allergens and with peel and pulp of Canary tomato extracts. The study included 1734 individuals (757 males, 977 females; 31.9+/-17.8 years old). The prevalence of sensitization to tomato was 6.52% (113 patients; 65 males, 48 females; 29.5+/-13 years old). The peel extract was positive in 110 patients and the pulp extract in 47 patients; three patients were positive exclusively to pulp. Only 1.8% of individuals reported symptoms with tomato; 44% of them had skin test negative to both extracts. Among tomato-sensitized subjects, 16% reported symptoms with tomato, 97% were sensitized to inhalant aeroallergens, including 84% to pollens (mainly Artemisia vulgaris and Platanus hybrida), with differences between Northern and Southern centres. The prevalence found of skin test sensitivity to tomato is high. Peel extracts detected most of the sensitized subjects. Most of the sensitized subjects were asymptomatic and some patients reported symptoms without skin test sensitivity. Positive subjects were very frequently sensitized to pollens, suggesting allergen cross-reactivity. Regional differences may exist, possibly related to the pattern of sensitization to cross-reacting pollens.
    No preview · Article · Feb 2008 · Clinical & Experimental Allergy
Show more