China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Fish Allergy
Published in Andreas L. Lopata, Food Allergy, 2017
Annette Kuehn, Karthik Arumugam
An important clinical feature of fish allergy is the reaction upon ingestion of various fish species (Kuehn et al. 2014a). This cross-reactivity has been explained as a specific IgE- recognition of conserved antigen epitopes from distinct fishes manifesting as allergies to the corresponding species (see paragraph Parvalbumins) (Swoboda et al. 2002). Many clinical studies have described these fish poly-sensitized patients (Sten et al. 2004, Van Do et al. 2005, Perez-Gordo et al. 2011, Kuehn et al. 2013). Clinical cross-reactivity seems to be high especially in fish species which are closely related. However, the fact that fishes belong to separate families does not rule out the potential for allergic cross- reactivity. Patients with severe symptoms to any tested fish have been described. In general, fish-allergic patients react to fish species which are included in the local diet (Zinn et al. 1997, Lim et al. 2008). As eating habits and the availability of fishes vary across countries and regions, species with high allergenic potential might not be the same for instance in Europe and Asia.
Contact Urticaria Syndrome from Foods and Food Derivatives
Published in Ana M. Giménez-Arnau, Howard I. Maibach, Contact Urticaria Syndrome, 2014
Angèle Soria, Pascale Mathelier-Fusade
Fish is a common cause of food allergy in adult as well as in children.[32,33] Such reactions usually result from ingestion, as with any other food allergen, with the risk of severe anaphylaxis.[34] In these cases, patients react to heat- and denaturation-resistant allergens. Fish allergy may also emerge in CUS. Interestingly, contact urticaria and PCD are described in individuals having prolonged and repeated skin contact with raw fish; for example, cooks and fishmongers.[35] It appears that in these cases, fish allergy is the result of hypersensitivity to a thermolabile and gastrosensitive allergen and is limited to the contact site, because most of the time there is a good tolerance to fish ingestion.[36] This selectivity of such reactions has been studied by Porcel et al., who described a 36-year-old woman with contact urticaria from handling raw fish and good tolerance to its ingestion.[37] The in vivo (prick tests) and in vitro (sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, IgE immunoblot) tests performed with sole, hake, and cod demonstrate a type I hypersensitivity to heat-sensitive fish allergens as the underlying cause of contact urticaria from fish.
Second window indocyanine green localizes CNS lymphoma in real time in the operating room: report of two cases
Published in British Journal of Neurosurgery, 2023
Fraser Henderson, Steven Brem, Jasmin Hussain, Love Buch, Eileen Maloney, Sunil Singhal, John Y. K. Lee
ICG, a small water-soluble molecule with molecular weight 744.96 Da, is metabolized through the liver and at clinical doses is widely considered safe. There have been a few anaphylactic reactions reported, usually in patients with an iodine or shell-fish allergy. Once administered intravenously, ICG binds plasma proteins, accounting for prolonged clearance times in vivo.12 ICG has reported excitation wavelength 780 nm and reading emission wavelength >795 nm, and can only be visualized with a monitor, but not the naked eye.13,14
Possible Allergenic Role of Tropomyosin in Patients with Adverse Reactions after Fish Intake
Published in Immunological Investigations, 2018
Juan González-Fernández, Marina Alguacil-Guillén, Carmen Cuéllar, Alvaro Daschner
When working up with suspected adverse reactions associated with fish consumption, allergic and non-allergic mechanisms have to be addressed. Food allergy is found in the latest reviews as an emerging disease of industrialized countries, as is the special case of fish (Kuehn et al., 2014; Mourad and Bahna, 2015) with a variation in prevalence ranging from 0% to 2% considering the cases of self-reported fish allergy or less than 0.5% considering only symptomatic and sensitized subjects (Rona et al., 2007).