Prevalence of peanut, tree nut, sesame, and seafood allergy in Mexican Adults

Autores: Bedolla Barajas Martín, Bedolla Pulido Tonatiuh Ramses, Macriz Romero Nicole, Morales Romero Jaime, Robles Figueroa Martín

Resumen

Objective: To identify the prevalence of perceived and probable allergic reactions to peanuts, tree nuts, sesame seed, or seafoodand its association with the personal history of allergic disease. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed in four citiesof the metropolitan area of Guadalajara, located in western Mexico. Through sampling by gender and age, 1,126 subjects wereincluded. Using a structured questionnaire, we investigated: (i) history of atopic disease, (ii) perception of allergic reaction afterfood intake, and (iii) probable allergic reaction to peanuts, tree nuts, sesame, or seafood. Prevalence and 95% confidenceintervals were calculated. A multivariate analysis of factors associated to perceived and probable allergicreactions to food wasperformed by logistic regression. Results: Men were 49.8%; mean age was 28.1 years; personal history of atopic diseaseincluded: allergic rhinitis (6.9%), asthma (6.8%), and atopic dermatitis (3.8%). Prevalence of perceived and probable food allergy was, respectively: pecan 0.4 and 0.3%; peanut 0.6 and 0.6%; sesame 0.1 and 0.1%; shellfish 4.2 and 4.0% (mainlyshrimp); mollusk 0.8 and 0.7%; fish 1.4 and 1.2%. Asthma was significantly associated with perceived and probable allergy to pecans, peanuts, fish, or seafood. Atopic dermatitis was associated with perceived and probable allergic reaction to sea snail, seafood, shellfish, or mollusks. Finally, allergic rhinitis was associated with allergy to shrimp and crustaceans. Conclusions: This study shows that the prevalence of peanut, tree nut, sesame seed, and seafood allergy in this Mexican population is similar to that reported in developed countries.

Palabras clave: Nut hypersensitivity peanut hypersensitivity seafood sesame

2016-04-13   |   442 visitas   |   Evalua este artículo 0 valoraciones

Vol. 67 Núm.6. Noviembre-Diciembre 2015 Pags. 379-386 Rev Invest Clin 2015; 67(6-ENGLISH)