Skip to main content

Researchers Tie Tick Bites to Serious Red Meat Allergy


July 27, 2012 — A bite from the lone star tick can cause a person to develop a delayed, life-threatening allergic reaction to eating beef or other mammalian meat, according to an article published online July 20 in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
Susan E. Wolver, MD, from the Department of General Internal Medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues advise that clinicians be aware of the new syndrome, which can produce pruritic hives and other symptoms 3 to 6 hours after eating, rather than the usual 1 hour. The syndrome has been confined, at least initially, to the southeastern United States, where the lone star tick is endemic. The tick bite is thought to produce immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to the carbohydrate galactose-alpha-1.3-galactose (alpha-gal), a carbohydrate moiety in mammalian meat glycoproteins or glycolipids.
In their description of the new syndrome, the researchers analyzed case studies of 3 patients, 2 of whom had to visit emergency departments for care after eating beef and 1 who experienced the reaction while at work in an emergency department. Their treatments included combinations of diphenhydramine, epinephrine, steroids, albuterol, and/or intravenous fluid.
The first patient, an 82-year-old man, ate beef tenderloin for dinner at 6 pm and woke up around 11 pm with pruritic hives and the urge to urinate. He self-administered diphenhydramine but collapsed, losing consciousness en route to the bathroom. His wife, who had removed a tick from his back a few days earlier, called 911. "The allergy/immunology workup revealed IgE alpha gal >100 kU/L (Viracor-IBT, reference range <0.35 kU/L), specific IgE to beef 45 kU/L and to pork 53 kU/L (ImmunoCAP, Phadia, reference range <0.35 kU/L)," the authors write.
The second patient, a 54-year-old man, had prime rib for dinner and awoke about 2 am with hives on his thighs that progressed to generalized hives along with swelling of his lips and tongue despite self-administered diphenhydramine. With his second dose of diphenhydramine he became dizzy and felt his throat closing; he gave himself an epinephrine injection (which he had because of a history of anaphylaxis to insect stings) and called 911. His subsequent skin prick test was negative to beef and pork. However, "[h]is IgE alpha-gal was 3.94 IU/mL (University of Virginia, reference range <0.35 IU/mL), specific IgE to beef 1.5 kU/L and to pork 0.7 kU/L," the authors write.
The third patient, a 29-year-old woman who recalled being bitten by ticks years ago and had a history of allergic reactions, developed abdominal cramps and pruritic hives on her arms about 5 hours after eating a cheeseburger. Her coworkers warned her that her face and upper chest turned "beet red." "Laboratory tests showed IgE alpha-gal was 10.40 kU/L, and specific IgE to beef and pork were 5.50 kU/L and 5.10 kU/L, respectively," the authors write.
All 3 patients have abstained from beef, pork, and/or lamb since their episodes and have remained free of allergic symptoms. The authors note tolerance to chicken, turkey, and fish for these patients.
Cetuximab and Red Meat Share the Alpha-Gal Carbohydrate Moiety
Previous research has shown an association between anaphylaxis and treatment of patients with the cancer drug cetuximab, a chimeric mouse-human monoclonal antibody that contains alpha-gal. Those patients developed allergic symptoms within minutes of receiving cetuximab. However, the geographic distribution of the patients matched the geographic distribution of the lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum) in the southeast.
"Alpha-gal is unique, as it is a carbohydrate recognized by IgE antibodies," the current researchers write.
"The alpha-gal story is truly a paradigm-shifting phenomenon for three distinct reasons. First, anaphylaxis occurred with the primary exposure to the glycoprotein cetuximab. Second, with regard to meat ingestion, anaphylaxis is delayed several hours rather than immediate. And third, meat-induced anaphylaxis is the first food-induced anaphylaxis due to a carbohydrate rather than a protein," the authors conclude. "Avoidance of all mammalian meat (including beef, pork, lamb, and venison) is the current recommendation for alpha-gal sensitized patients."
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...

Contact Precautions May Have Unintended Consequences

Contact precautions, including gloves, gowns, and isolated rooms, have helped stem the transmission of hospital pathogens but have also had some negative consequences, according to findings from a new study. Healthcare worker (HCWs) visited patients on contact precautions less frequently than other patients and spent less time with those patients when they did visit, report Daniel J. Morgan, MD, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, and colleagues. Moreover, patients on contact precautions also received fewer outside visitors. "Less contact with HCWs suggests that other unintended consequences of contact precautions still exist," Dr. Morgan and coauthors write. "The resulting decrease in HCW contact may lead to increased adverse events and a lower quality of patient care due to less consistent patient monitoring and poorer adherence to standard adverse event prevention methods (such...