-
摘要: 目的 了解北京地区变应性鼻炎(allergic rhinitis，AR)和(或)过敏性哮喘患者豚草花粉致敏特点，为豚草花粉致敏患者的防治提供依据。方法 回顾性分析2017年1月—2019年12月就诊于北京世纪坛医院变态反应科门诊AR和(或)哮喘的患者，采用豚草花粉过敏原试剂进行皮肤点刺试验(skin prick test，SPT)，比较不同年龄、性别和呼吸道疾病患者中豚草花粉致敏情况，观察豚草花粉致敏的人群分布特征。采用SAS 9.4软件进行统计学分析。结果 纳入9 727例患者，豚草花粉SPT总阳性率达45.50%(4 426/9 727)，其中13~17岁阳性率最高(65.54%)；AR合并哮喘患者豚草花粉SPT阳性率最高(49.79%)，其次为AR(46.46%)，单一过敏性哮喘患者最低(19.42%)。豚草花粉致敏和非豚草花粉致敏2组患者均为女性多于男性(P < 0.05)，30~39岁高于其他年龄段(P < 0.05)。AR组豚草花粉致敏高于非豚草花粉致敏(98.49% vs 94.76%，P < 0.05)。豚草花粉SPT阳性患者合并其他夏秋花粉过敏原中，排名前3位的是灰藜花粉、葎草花粉和大籽蒿花粉，阳性率分别为90.42%、89.63%和85.40%。豚草合并其他花粉致敏者占99.57%(4 407/4 426)。无论是单一豚草花粉或合并其他花粉致敏的患者均以AR为主，但2组差异无统计学意义(94.97% vs 98.50%，P>0.05)。结论 北京地区豚草花粉致敏性较高，单一豚草致敏少见，常合并多重花粉致敏，且以AR为主。Abstract: Objective To investigate the sensitization characteristics of ragweed pollen in patients with allergic rhinitis(AR) and(or) allergic asthma in Beijing area, and to provide basis for the prevention and treatment of ragweed pollen sensitized population.Methods Patients with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma from January 2017 to December 2019 in the outpatient department of Allergy Department of Beijing Shijitan Hospital were retrospectively analyzed in this study. Skin prick test(SPT) was performed with ragweed pollen allergen reagents to compare different ages, genders and respiratory diseases allergen distribution, and to observe the sensitization characteristics of its population. All of the analyses were performed using SAS software version 9.4.Results A total of 9 727 patients were enrolled in the end. The total positive rate of ragweed pollen SPT was 45.50%(4 426/9 727), the highest positive rate was 65.54% in 13-17 years old group; The positive rate of ragweed pollen SPT was 49.79% in allergic rhinitis combined with asthma patients, followed by 46.46% in allergic rhinitis patients, and the lowest rate was 19.42% in single allergic asthma patients. There were more females than males in both ragweed pollen sensitized and non-ragweed pollen sensitized groups(P < 0.05), and the proportion was higher in 30-39 years old than in other age groups(P < 0.05). Ragweed pollen sensitization was higher than non-ragweed pollen sensitization in the allergic rhinitis group(98.49% vs 94.76%, P < 0.05). Ragweed pollen with other summer and autumn pollen allergens in patients with positive SPT, the top three were Chenopodium pollen, Humulus pollen and Artemisia grandis pollen, with positive rates of 90.42%, 89.63% and 85.40%, respectively. Ragweed combined with other pollen sensitization accounted for 99.57%(4 407/4 426). Allergic rhinitis was the main disease in patients sensitized with ragweed pollen alone or combined with other pollens, and there was no significant difference between the two groups(94.97% vs 98.50%, P>0.05).Conclusion Ragweed pollen is highly sensitized in Beijing area, single ragweed pollen sensitization is rare, often combined with multiple pollen sensitization, and allergic rhinitis is the main disease.
-
Key words:
- allergic rhinitis /
- allergic asthma /
- ragweed /
- skin prick test /
- cross-reaction
-
-
表 1 患者基本资料(n=9727)
项目 豚草花粉致敏(n=4 426) 非豚草花粉致敏1)(n=5 301) χ2/t P 年龄/岁 34.13±15.53 36.36±16.34 6.9 < 0.000 1 年龄段/例(%) 169.8 < 0.000 1 0~6岁 112(2.53) 248(4.68) 7~12岁 387(8.74) 291(5.49) 13~17岁 253(5.72) 133(2.51) 18~29岁 860(19.43) 1 068(20.15) 30~39岁 1 372(31.00) 1 604(30.26) 40~49岁 681(15.39) 777(14.66) 50~59岁 469(10.6) 657(12.39) 60~69岁 247(5.58) 426(8.04) ≥70岁 45(1.02) 97(1.83) 性别/例(%) 34.7 < 0.000 1 男 1 943(43.90) 2 015(38.01) 女 2 483(56.10) 3 286(61.99) 疾病组 AR 4 359(98.49) 5 023(94.76) 98.1 < 0.000 1 过敏性哮喘 551(12.45) 766(14.45) 8.2 0.004 1 单一AR2) 3 875(87.55) 4 535(85.55) 8.2 0.004 1 单一过敏性哮喘3) 67(1.51) 278(5.24) 98.1 < 0.000 1 AR合并哮喘 484(10.94) 488(9.21) 8.0 0.004 6 注：1)除豚草花粉致敏以外的所有花粉致敏患者；2)AR为临床唯一诊断；3)过敏性哮喘为临床唯一诊断。 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 AR和(或)哮喘患者豚草花粉致敏情况
疾病类型 患者例数(n=9 727) 豚草致敏例数(n=4 426) 百分比/% AR 9 382 4 359 46.46 过敏性哮喘 1 317 551 41.84 AR合并哮喘 972 484 49.79 单一AR 8 410 3 875 46.08 单一过敏性哮喘 345 67 19.42
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 豚草花粉SPT阳性患者合并其他夏秋季花粉过敏原情况(n=4 426)
花粉过敏原 阳性例数 阳性率/% 灰藜花粉 4 002 90.42 葎草花粉 3 967 89.63 大籽蒿花粉 3 780 85.40 向日葵花粉 3 313 74.85 玉米花粉 3 264 73.75 油菜花花粉 2 811 63.51 银杏花粉 2 381 53.80
下载: 导出CSV
表 4 单一豚草致敏与合并其他花粉致敏患者基本特征比较
例(%) 特征 单一豚草致敏(n=19) 合并其他花粉致敏(n=4 407) χ2/t P 性别 4.0 0.044 3 男 4(21.05) 1939(44.00) 女 15(78.95) 2468(56.00) 年龄/岁 9.0 0.346 4 0~6 2(10.53) 110(2.50) 7~12 1(5.26) 386(8.76) 13~17 1(5.26) 252(5.72) 18~29 4(21.05) 856(19.42) 30~39 4(21.05) 1368(31.04) 40~49 1(5.26) 680(15.43) 50~59 5(26.32) 464(10.53) 60~69 1(5.26) 246(5.58) ≥70 0(0) 45(1.02) 疾病类型 AR 18(94.74) 4341(98.50) 1.1 0.293 7 过敏性哮喘 6(31.58) 545(12.37) 4.8 0.028 7 AR合并哮喘 5(26.32) 479(10.87) 3.5 0.061 6 单一AR 13(68.42) 3862(87.63) 4.8 0.028 7 单一过敏性哮喘 1(5.26) 66(1.50) 1.1 0.293 7
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] Wang XY, Ma TT, Wang XY, et al. Prevalence of pollen-induced allergic rhinitis with high pollen exposure in grasslands of northern China[J]. Allergy, 2018, 73(6): 1232-1243. doi: 10.1111/all.13388
[2] 张小利, 崔建臣, 姚丹丹, 等. 植物源壬酸水剂对三裂叶豚草的防除效果[J]. 植物保护, 2018, 44(2): 227-230. doi: 10.16688/j.zwbh.2017181
[3] 王子熹, 曲辉, 王瑞琦, 等. 青岛及北京地区五年间空气中豚草花粉的调查与分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2019, 33(1)73-76. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SDYU201901016.htm
[4] Oswalt ML, Marshall GD. Ragweed as an example of worldwide allergen expansion[J]. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol, 2008, 4(3): 130-135. doi: 10.1186/1710-1492-4-3-130
[5] Sommer J, Smith M, Šikoparija B, et al. Risk of exposure to airborne Ambrosia pollen from local and distant sources in Europe-an example from Denmark[J]. Ann Agric Environ Med, 2015, 22(4): 625-631. doi: 10.5604/12321966.1185764
[6] Lake IR, Jones NR, Agnew M, et al. Climate Change and Future Pollen Allergy in Europe[J]. Environ Health Perspect, 2017, 125(3): 385-391. doi: 10.1289/EHP173
[7] 中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志编辑委员会鼻科组, 中华医学会耳鼻咽喉头颈外科学分会鼻科学组. 中国变应性鼻炎诊断和治疗指南(2022年, 修订版)[J]. 中华耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2022, 57(2): 106-129. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115330-20211228-00828
[8] Bousquet J, Hellings PW, Agache I, et al. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma(ARIA)Phase 4(2018): Change management in allergic rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity using mobile technology[J]. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 2019, 143(3): 864-879. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2018.08.049
[9] 中华医学会变态反应分会呼吸过敏学组(筹), 中华医学会呼吸病学分会哮喘学组. 中国过敏性哮喘诊治指南(2019年)[J]. 中华内科杂志, 2019, 58(9): 636-655.
[10] 王洪田, 马琳, 王成硕, 等. 过敏原皮肤点刺试验的专家共识[J]. 北京医学, 2020, 42(10): 1-19. doi: 10.15932/j.0253-9713.2020.10.912
[11] Eugene G. Weinberg. The WAO white book on allergy 2011-2012: Executive Summary[J]. Allergy Clin Immunol, 2011, 24, 156-157.
[12] 马婷婷, 王洪田, 陈艳蕾, 等. 北京地区门诊患者常见吸入过敏原致敏谱[J]. 中华临床免疫和变态反应杂志, 2021, 15(2): 136-143. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-8705.2021.02.002
[13] Salo PM, Calatroni A, Gergen PJ, et al. Allergy-related outcomes in relation to serum IgE: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005—2006[J]. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 2011, 127(5): 1226-1235. e7. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2010.12.1106
[14] Forkel S, Beutner C, Heetfeld A, et al. Allergic Rhinitis to Weed Pollen in Germany: Dominance by Plantain, Rising Prevalence, and Polysensitization Rates over 20 Years[J]. Int Arch Allergy Immunol, 2020, 181(2): 128-135. doi: 10.1159/000504297
[15] 张楠楠, 吴云文, 张庆丰, 等. 深圳地区的变应性鼻炎患者吸入性变应原分布特点及结果分析[J]. 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2022, 36(6): 467-472. https://lceh.whuhzzs.com/article/doi/10.13201/j.issn.2096-7993.2022.06.012
[16] 王云梦, 方宏艳, 刘敩, 等. 长春及周边地区秋季变应性鼻炎变应原分布特点及临床特征分析[J]. 临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志, 2021, 35(12): 1124-1129. doi: 10.13201/j.issn.2096-7993.2021.12.014 https://lceh.whuhzzs.com/article/doi/10.13201/j.issn.2096-7993.2021.12.014
[17] 占少华, 杨楠, 苑腾, 等. 北京大学第三医院16362例过敏性疾病患者过敏原检测结果分析[J]. 中国医学科学院学报, 2022, 44(6): 1013-1022.
[18] 祝兴元, 李梨平. 健康儿童淋巴细胞免疫表型参考范围与年龄关系的研究进展[J]. 实用预防医学, 2011, 18(4): 776-778. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-3110.2011.04.081
[19] Berger M, Bastl K, Bastl M, et al. Impact of air pollution on symptom severity during the birch, grass and ragweed pollen period in Vienna, Austria: Importance of O3 in 2010-2018[J]. Environ Pollut, 2020, 263(Pt A): 114526.
[20] 王晓艳, 丁佳琪, 陈艳蕾, 等. 豚草花粉在夏秋季花粉症中的致敏特点分析[J]. 中国耳鼻咽喉头颈外科, 2020, 27(4): 180-183. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-EBYT202004003.htm
[21] Stemeseder T, Metz-Favre C, de Blay F, et al. Do Plantago lanceolata Skin Prick Test-Positive Patients Display IgE to Genuine Plantain Pollen Allergens? Investigation of Pollen Allergic Patients from the North-East of France[J]. Int Arch Allergy Immunol, 2018, 177(2): 97-106.
[22] Chen KW, Marusciac L, Tamas PT, et al. Ragweed Pollen Allergy: Burden, Characteristics, and Management of an Imported Allergen Source in Europe[J]. Int Arch Allergy Immunol, 2018, 176(3-4): 163-180.
[23] Bouley J, Groeme R, Le Mignon M, et al. Identification of the cysteine protease Amb a 11 as a novel major allergen from short ragweed[J]. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 2015, 136(4): 1055-1064.
[24] Gadermaier G, Hauser M, Ferreira F. Allergens of weed pollen: an overview on recombinant and natural molecules[J]. Methods, 2014, 66(1): 55-66.
[25] Augustin SWM, Asero R, Reese G, et al. Assessment of Amb a 1 isoallergens as basis for development of a recombinant ragweed immunotherapeutic vaccine[J]. Allergy, 2013, 68(Supplement s97): 111.
[26] Wolf M, Twaroch TE, Huber S, et al. Amb a 1 isoforms: Unequal siblings with distinct immunological features[J]. Allergy, 2017, 72(12): 1874-1882.
[27] Skypala IJ, Asero R, Barber D, et al. Non-specific lipid-transfer proteins: Allergen structure and function, cross-reactivity, sensitization, and epidemiology[J]. Clin Transl Allergy, 2021, 11(3): e12010.
[28] Wopfner N, Gruber P, Wallner M, et al. Molecular and immunological characterization of novel weed pollen pan-allergens[J]. Allergy, 2008, 63(7): 872-881.
[29] Zbîrcea LE, Buzan MR, Grijincu M, et al. Relationship between IgE Levels Specific for Ragweed Pollen Extract, Amb a 1 and Cross-Reactive Allergen Molecules[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2023, 24(4): 4040.
[30] Buzan MR, Zbîrcea LE, Gattinger P, et al. Complex IgE sensitization patterns in ragweed allergic patients: Implications for diagnosis and specific immunotherapy[J]. Clin Transl Allergy, 2022, 12(7): e12179.
[31] Hirschwehr R, Heppner C, Spitzauer S, et al. Identification of common allergenic structures in mugwort and ragweed pollen[J]. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 1998, 101(2 Pt 1): 196-206
[32] Léonard R, Wopfner N, Pabst M, et al. A new allergen from ragweed(Ambrosia artemisiifolia)with homology to art v 1 from mugwort[J]. J Biol Chem, 2010, 285(35): 27192-27200.
[33] 付婉艺. 中国蒿属花粉过敏原分子生物学分析和组分诊断[D]. 浙江大学, 2018.
[34] Gadermaier G, Wopfner N, Wallner M, et al. Array-based profiling of ragweed and mugwort pollen allergens[J]. Allergy, 2008, 63(11): 1543-1549.
[35] Haidar L, Tamas TP, Stolz F, et al. Symptom patterns and comparison of diagnostic methods in ragweed pollen allergy[J]. Exp Ther Med, 2021, 21(5): 525.
[36] Bonini M, Monti GS, Pelagatti MM, et al. Ragweed pollen concentration predicts seasonal rhino-conjunctivitis and asthma severity in patients allergic to ragweed[J]. Sci Rep, 2022, 12(1): 15921.
[37] Creticos PS, Pfaar O. Ragweed sublingual tablet immunotherapy: part I-evidence-based clinical efficacy and safety[J]. Immunotherapy, 2018, 10(7): 605-616.
[38] Nolte H, Amar N, Bernstein DI, et al. Safety and tolerability of a short ragweed sublingual immunotherapy tablet[J]. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol, 2014, 113(1): 93-100.
[39] Kim H, Waserman S, Hébert J, et al. Effificacy and safety of ragweed sublingual immunotherapy in Canadian patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis[J]. Allergy Asthma Clin. Immunol, 2014, 10(1): 55.
[40] Nolte H, Bernstein DI, Nelson HS, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Ragweed SLIT-Tablet in Children with Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis in a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial[J]. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract, 2020, 8(7): 2322-2331.
[41] Ellis AK, Gagnon R, Bernstein DI, et al. Randomized controlled trial of ragweed sublingual immunotherapy tablet in the subpopulation of Canadian children and adolescents with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis[J]. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol, 2021, 17(1): 127.
-
图(1)
表(4)
计量
- 文章访问数: 1011
- PDF下载数: 299
- 施引文献: 0