English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Sensitization to ash pollen is underestimated in various regions. The prevalence in Germany is about 10%. However, allergy to ash pollen is widely overlooked by allergists, since the pollination period of ash and birch in central Europe closely overlap and rhinoconjunctival symptoms during April/May are often assigned to birch pollen. Component resolved analysis of the different ash allergens is not routinely available. Therefore, we would like to question the usefulness of component resolved diagnostic via olive components, as ash and olive are both part of the Oleaceae family.    Methods  113 patients with nasal provocation and skin prick test to ash were retrospectively compared regarding their specific immunoglobulin E antibody profiles with response to native ash extract, rOle e 1, nOle e 7 and rOle e 9.    Results  In nasal provocation testing 58% of 113 patients sensitized to ash were allergic, 42% were only sensitized without showing symptoms. Skin prick testing and serology against native ash extract detected most patients sensitized to ash pollen, whereas rOle e 1 was less sensitive. However, the value of measurements of skin prick test, serology to native ash extract and rOle e 1 did not allow a differentiation between an allergy and clinically silent sensitization. Specific antibodies to nOle e 7 and rOle e 9 were only seen in individual patients and were all positive for native ash extract and rOle e 1.    Conclusion  Skin prick testing and serology to native extract of ash pollen are the most reliable tools to diagnose a sensitization to ash pollen for patients living in Germany. Component resolved diagnostic to the major allergen rOle e 1 as representative of the Oleaceae family is possible but was less sensitive. Diagnostic of nOle e 7 and rOle e 9 did not show any additional benefit. Regarding differentiation between allergy and clinically silent sensitization to ash pollen, provocation is the leading diagnostic tool. Concluding, in routine clinical practice the standard methods—skin prick test, serology to native ash extract and provocation testing—remain crucial in the diagnosis and differentiation of ash sensitization and allergy.

Component resolved analysis of ash pollen allergy in Bavaria