Journal List > Asia Pac Allergy > v.10(1) > 1142166

Thongkhom, Oncham, Sompornrattanaphan, and Laisuan: Banana anaphylaxis in Thailand: case series

Abstract

Background

Banana fruit has been recognized as an important food allergen source. Nowadays banana hypersensitivity had been reported more frequently with various presentations from oral allergy syndrome to anaphylaxis.

Objective

This study aims to describe the pattern of banana hypersensitivity and the sensitivity of diagnostic test.

Methods

Six patients who experienced banana hypersensitivity were recruited from adult allergy clinic, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University between 2015–2018. Demographic data, pattern of banana allergy consisted of the onset of reaction, symptoms, severity, cross-reactivity to kiwi, avocado, latex including type and amount of banana were collected. Skin test, serum specific IgE to banana and open-label food challenge test had been applied.

Results

All patients experienced multiple episodes of banana anaphylaxis. Regarding the diagnostic investigation, prick-to-prick skin test had higher sensitivity (sensitivity, 100%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 54.07%–100%) than the commercial banana extract (sensitivity, 83.33%; 95% CI, 35.88%–99.58%) and serum specific IgE to banana (sensitivity, 50%; 95% CI, 11.81%–88.19%). The discordance between skin prick test using commercial banana extract and skin test was reported. The cross-reactivity between the species of banana, kiwi, the avocado was documented in all patients. Latex skin prick test and application test were applied with negative results. From the oral food challenge test, a case of banana anaphylaxis patient can tolerate heated banana.

Conclusion

The various phenotypes of banana hypersensitivity were identified. The prick-to-prick test showed the highest sensitivity for diagnosis of banana allergy. However, component resolved diagnostics might be needed for conclusive diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION

Food allergy is an adverse reaction to food mediated by the immunological mechanisms including IgE-mediated, cell-mediated mechanism or both [1]. IgE-mediated food allergy present in 2 different forms: the primary form is due to a sensitization process caused by the ingestion of food allergen. The secondary form results from the sensitization to cross-reactive structure by nonfood allergens which contain homologous part of molecules in the food; i.e., oral allergy syndrome or latex-fruit syndrome [23]. The prevalence of food allergy is increasing in both the pediatric and adult populations [45] resulted in the significant effect on the patient's quality of life. During 2004–2015, the food-related anaphylaxis occupied the second most common cause of the anaphylaxis as 27% in the Emergency Department visit [6]
Fruit and vegetable allergy become more common in the adult. One of the earliest report association between fruit and vegetable allergy with pollen allergy in 1942 [7]. Since then, several fruits are more reported source of allergen by their own properties independently and also their cross-reactivity pattern. Food allergy to fruit is uncertain rate but increase overtime. A systematic review in 2008, 0.4%–6.6% of adults reported adverse reactions to fruits [8].
Bananas are a healthy source of vitamin, mineral and fiber. These fruits being often introduced in the early infant diet. In tropical regions, banana is widely used for numerous purposes, not only for consumption but also added to processed foods as flavourant or ingredient of cosmetics. Banana (Musa acuminata), which belongs to the Musaceae family has been recognized as one of the common fruit allergy for over 50 years [9]. The major and minor allergens in banana have been identified and characterized. Until now, there has been increase number of case report of hypersensitivity reaction to banana average age form infant to elderly and the symptom extended spectrum from mild, local symptom (oral allergy syndrome) to severe systemic reaction [10111213].
Allergic reaction to banana is uncommon. Recent study has been shown prevalence rate 0.04% to 1.2% in general population across the world [14]. Japanese study 2003, allergens related to self-reported anaphylaxis in 319 patients, 2.8% are from bananas [15].
This study aims to determine the clinical characteristics of banana allergy in Thailand and role of allergologic investigations to diagnosis by skin prick test (SPT), prick-to-prick test (PTP), serum specific IgE to banana and food challenge test.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Approval for the study was obtained from the of Ethics Committee of Mahidol University, Thailand: MURA2018/1038. All patients provided written informed consent.
Six patients who experienced banana hypersensitivity were recruited from adult allergy clinic, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University between 2015–2018. Demographic data, pattern of banana allergy consisted of the onset of reaction, symptoms, severity, cross-reactivity to kiwi, avocado, latex including type and amount of banana were collected. Atopic history had been explored. The severity of anaphylaxis was classified as Ring and Messmer classification.
SPT with the commercial extract of banana (ALK-Abello Phamaceutical, Inc., Mississauga, ON, Canada) were applied in all patients similar to PTP with the various of banana cultivars (Pisang awake, Cavendish, Silver Bluggoe, Leb-muer-nang, and Khai) and serum specific IgE to banana (ImmunoCAP, Phadia AB, Uppsala, Sweden). Opened-label-banana challenge test with raw and cooked banana was established in all patients except whom experienced ≥ 2 reproducible anaphylactic reaction grade 3 or unconsented patients. The cross-reactivity to kiwi, avocado (using PTP) and latex (using SPT, serum specific IgE to latex (ImmunoCAP) and application test) was evaluated. SPT to common allergen as Dermatophagoides pteronissinus (Der p), Dermatophagoides farina (Der f), Cockroach, Burmuda, Timothy, Johnson grass, Careless weed, and Acacia had been applied.
Regards to SPT, antihistamine was discontinued 10 days before procedure. 0.9% normal saline solution and histamine (ALK-Abello Phamaceutical, Inc.) had been applied as negative and positive control, respectively. Allergens were placed on the volar aspect of the forearm then pricked with 25-G needles. Wheal and flare diameter were evaluated after 15 minutes which positive reaction defined as the mean wheal diameter of 3 mm or greater.
Opened-label banana challenge test (Pisang awak) was established with total 100 g both raw and cooked banana (heating with 200°C for 40 minutes). The protocol started with directed oral contact at inner lip then titrated dose for 5, 15, 30, 50 g, given in 30-minute interval. Positive challenge test was documented when patients developed the reproducible signs and symptoms as the previous history. Standard treatment was prescribed after declared the positive challenge.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics include median, percentage, sensitivity test and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) had been applied.

RESULTS

Six patients, with the ratio of female:male of 5:1, were enrolled. The median age of onset of banana hypersensitivity was 34 years (interquartile range [IQR], 22–58 years). Anaphylaxis was diagnosed in all patients, 50% presented with anaphylaxis grade III according to Ring and Messmer classification. Skin manifestation as generalized urticaria was the most clinical presentation found in 83.33% (5 of 6 patients) followed by rhinorrhea in 50% (3 of 6 patients). Hypotension was documents in 33.33% (2 of 6 patients) similar to oral pruritus. Dyspnea and diarrhea found in 16.67% (1 of 6 patients) each.
Pisang Awak was the most culprit of banana allergy found in 100% of patients in this study. Fifty percent of the reaction resulted from raw banana similar to heated banana. The median time of the onset of reaction after ingestion was 60 minutes (IQR, 5–150 minutes) with variation in the amount of banana from 1/8 piece to one piece of banana. All of patients experienced at least 2 episodes of banana anaphylaxis before visiting allergy clinic (Table 1).
Table 1

Demographic data and clinical characteristics of banana allergic patients

apa-10-e4-i001
Variable Patient No. 1 Patient No. 2 Patient No. 3 Patient No. 4 Patient No. 5 Patient No. 6
Age of onset (yr) 58 48 22 22 31 37
Sex Female Female Male Female Female Female
Banana hypersensitivity
Cultivar Pisang Awak Pisang Awak Pisang Awak Pisang Awak Pisang Awak Pisang Awak
Amount 2 pieces 1 piece 2 pieces 1/4 piece 1/4 piece 1/8 piece
Processed Raw Raw Cooked Cooked Raw Cooked
Reactions Anaphylaxis grade 2 Anaphylaxis grade 3 Anaphylaxis grade 3 Anaphylaxis grade 3 Anaphylaxis grade1 Anaphylaxis grade 2
Clinical presentation Generalized urticaria Hypotension Hypotension Generalized urticaria Generalized urticaria Generalized urticaria
Rhinorrhea Rhinorrhea Generalized urticaria Rhinorrhea Oral pruritus Dyspnea
Diarrhea Oral pruritus
The onset of reaction (min) 60 150 60 10 60 5
No. of episodes 2 3 2 2 2 2
Atopic history Asthma Chronic eczema No Allergic rhinitis Allergic rhinitis Allergic rhinitis
Skin prick test to the common aeroallergen
Burmuda Negative Negative NA Negative 4 Negative
Timothy Negative Negative NA Negative Negative Negative
Johnson grass Negative Negative NA Negative Negative Negative
Careless weed Negative Negative NA 3 Negative Negative
Acacia Negative Negative NA 4 Negative Negative
Der p Negative 12 NA 8 Negative 7
Der f Negative 10 NA 5 Negative 5
Cockroach Negative 40 NA 8 Negative 7
Der p, Dermatophagoides pteronissinus; Der f, Dermatophagoides farina; NA, not available.
Positive skin reactivity using commercial banana extract had been documented in 83.33% (5 of 6 patients) with the median diameter of 4.5 mm (IQR, 0–15 mm), sensitivity 83.33% (95% CI, 35.88%–99.58%) while positive skin reactivity (prick-to-prick) using raw Pisang Awak had been found in 100% (6 of 6 patients) with the median diameter of 13.5 mm (IQR, 7–21 mm), sensitivity 100% (95% CI, 54.07%–100%). SPT with different cultivars of banana revealed 100% of cross-reactivities between cultivars (Fig. 1). However, the positive result of serum specific IgE to banana found in 50% (3 of 6 patients), sensitivity 50% (95% CI, 11.81%–88.19%) (Table 2).
Fig. 1

Prick-to-prick skin test with the various of banana cultivars (Pisang awake, Cavendish, Silver Bluggoe, Leb-muer-nang, and Khai). Skin prick test was also done with kiwi, avocado, and latex allergens.

apa-10-e4-g001
Table 2

Allergologic investigations for confirmed the diagnosis

apa-10-e4-i002
No. Anaphylaxis grade Total Serum lgE Serum Banana-specific lgE Skin prick tests (Banana extract) Prick-to-prick test with different cultivars (mm) Food challenge test
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 Baked Raw
1 2 136 0 (0.05) 4/25* 21/40* 3/35* 5/20* 6/40* 7/35* Negative NA
2 3 59 0 (0.05) 5/30* 12/45* 9/32* 15/27* 8/30* 7/45* NA NA
3 3 208 3 (8.41) 0/0* 7/33* 8/37* 9/38* 6/15* 9/31* NA NA
4 3 141 0 (0.10) 10/55* 10/40* 12/45* 8/35* 10/45* 13/38* NA Positive
5 1 200 3 (4.92) 4/10* 16/37* 13/55* 12/31* 9/25* 17/0* Positive NA
6 2 141 1 (0.35) 15/25* 15/40* 15/40* 13/50* 17/40* 24/60* NA Positive
B1, Pisang awak (Nam Wa); B2, Cavendish (Hom); B3, Silver Bluggoe (Huk Muk); B4, Leb-muer-nang; B5, Khai; NA, not available.
*Wheal/flare in millimeters. Ring J, Messmer K. Lancet 1977;1:466-9 [23].
Four of 6 patients had been performed opened-label banana challenge test. Positive banana challenge test revealed in 75% (3 of 4 patients), baked banana in 1 patient and raw banana in 2 patients as shown in Table 2. A case of negative food challenge using baked banana unconsented to test with the raw banana, however she had accidental exposed to raw banana resulted in the anaphylaxis outside the hospital. We did not perform the food challenge test in 2 patients who experienced anaphylactic shock at least 2 episodes.
Cross-reactivity to other fruits and latex was evaluated (Fig. 1). SPT to kiwi and avocado was positive in all patients who applied. According to the clinical history, only 1 patient experienced oral pruritus from kiwi and 1 patient had oral pruritus from kiwi and avocado. However, four of 6 patients ingested these fruits without any reaction. Serum specific IgE for latex found positive result as grades I and II in 66.67% but SPT to latex and application test found negative all (Table 3).
Table 3

Clinical history and Immunologic parameters of cross-reactivities to latex and fruits

apa-10-e4-i003
No. Latex allergic symptoms (from history) Skin prick test (Latex) Serum Latex-specific lgE class (μg/mL) Glove application test Kiwi allergic symptoms Prick-to-prick test fresh kiwi Avocado allergic symptoms Prick-to-prick test fresh avocado
1 No 0/0* 1 (0.62) Negative No 6/27* No 4/30*
2 Urticaria 0/0* 1 (0.47) Negative No 7/20* No 12/25*
3 No 0/0* 1 (0.42) Negative No 5/0* No 6/0*
4 No 0/0* 0 (0.1) Negative No 10/50* No 6/30*
5 No 0/0* 2 (1.54) Negative OAS 11/20* OAS 6/20*
6 Urticaria 0/0* 0 (0.08) Negative No - OAS 10/40*
OSA, oral allergy syndrome.
*Wheal/flare diameter in millimeters.
Other atopic disease had been documented as allergic rhinitis in 50% (3 of 6 patients) followed by asthma and chronic eczema each in 16.67% (1 of 6 patient). Der p, Der f, and cockroach had been sensitized in 50% (3 of 6 patients) and pollen sensitization found in 33.33% (2 of 6 patients) as shown in Table 1.

DISCUSSION

Banana has been recognized as one of common fruits allergen which manifested in various of the clinical entities as oral allergy syndrome, latex-fruit syndrome and anaphylaxis from banana allergen [161718192021]. The cross reaction IgE antibodies specific for the major birch pollen profilin, Bet v 2, have been shown to cross-react with homologous proteins identified in Banana Mus a1 result in oral allergy syndrome which found frequently in northern European countries [20]. While latex-fruit syndrome caused by N-terminal hevein-like domain of class I chitinase panallergen (Mus a 2) protein shares high homology with Hev b 2 from the rubber tree latex is well-known condition that reported in 30%–70% of latex allergic patients [22]. Banana anaphylaxis without latex allergy also documented in 4-month baby to adult [10111317]. This study reported 6 adult-onset patients who experienced banana anaphylaxis without latex allergy which is the most frequently pattern found in Thailand.
Regards to the allergologic investigation for banana allergy diagnosis in this study, prick-to-prick with raw banana showed the highest sensitivity as 100% (95% CI, 54.07%–100%) followed by SPT with banana commercial extract and serum for specific IgE to banana had the sensitivity as 83.33% (95% CI, 35.88%–99.58%) and 50% (95% CI, 11.81%–88.19%), respectively. High cross-reactivity to other banana cultivars (Cavendish, Silver Bluggoe, Leb-muer-nang, and Khai) was documented as 100%. The sensitization to kiwi and avocado also found as in the previous report [17] however 33.33% (2 of 3 patients) had oral allergy syndrome after ingestion. One of patient (No.3) who experience anaphylaxis grade III from banana had nonreactive skin test to commercial extract as the previous report [19] but had positive skin reactivity to fresh fruit and positive serum specific IgE to banana (Class 3). Patient No.1 showed negative result of serum specific IgE to banana and heated banana challenge test while positive result of SPT and also accidentally anaphylaxis to raw banana (Table 2). The combined test including SPT, serum specific IgE, and food challenge test should be applied for definite diagnosis of banana allergy and component resolved diagnostics might be useful for clinical classification and diagnosis.
The retrospective study design and open-label food challenge test are the weak point in our study but the reciprocal history of anaphylaxis to banana and another method for diagnosis could confirm the true banana allergy.

Notes

Conflict of Interest The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

Author Contributions

  • Conceptualization: Wannada Laisuan, Mongkhon Sompornrattanaphan, Ratchataporn Thongkhom.

  • Data curation: Ratchataporn Thongkhom.

  • Formal analysis: Ratchataporn Thongkhom, Wannada Laisuan.

  • Methodology: Ratchataporn Thongkhom, Supa Oncham, Mongkhon Sompornrattanaphan, Wannada Laisuan.

  • Project administration: Supa Oncham.

  • Visualization: Ratchataporn Thongkhom, Wannada Laisuan.

  • Writing - original draft: Ratchataporn Thongkhom.

  • Writing - review & editing: Wannada Laisuan.

References

1. Muraro A, Werfel T, Hoffmann-Sommergruber K, Roberts G, Beyer K, Bindslev-Jensen C, Cardona V, Dubois A, duToit G, Eigenmann P, Fernandez Rivas M, Halken S, Hickstein L, Høst A, Knol E, Lack G, Marchisotto MJ, Niggemann B, Nwaru BI, Papadopoulos NG, Poulsen LK, Santos AF, Skypala I, Schoepfer A, Van Ree R, Venter C, Worm M, Vlieg-Boerstra B, Panesar S, de Silva D, Soares-Weiser K, Sheikh A, Ballmer-Weber BK, Nilsson C, de Jong NW, Akdis CA. EAACI Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Guidelines Group. EAACI food allergy and anaphylaxis guidelines: diagnosis and management of food allergy. Allergy. 2014; 69:1008–1025.
crossref pmid
2. Ballmer-Weber BK. Food allergy in adolescence and adulthood. In : Ebisawa M, Ballmer-Weber BK, Vieths S, Wood RA, editors. Food allergy: molecular basis and clinical practice. Basel (Switzerland): Karger Publishers;2015. p. 51–58.
3. Macchia D, Melioli G, Pravettoni V, Nucera E, Piantanida M, Caminati M, Campochiaro C, Yacoub MR, Schiavino D, Paganelli R, Di Gioacchino M. Food Allergy Study Group (ATI) of the Italian Society of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (SIAAIC). Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of diagnostic methods in adult food allergy. Clin Mol Allergy. 2015; 13:31.
crossref pmid pmc
4. Sicherer SH, Sampson HA. Food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010; 125:2 Suppl 2. S116–S125.
crossref
5. Möhrenschlager M, Ring J. Food allergy: an increasing problem for the elderly. Gerontology. 2011; 57:33–36.
crossref pmid
6. Motosue MS, Bellolio MF, Van Houten HK, Shah ND, Campbell RL. Increasing Emergency Department visits for anaphylaxis, 2005-2014. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017; 5:171–175.e3.
crossref pmid
7. Fernández-Rivas M, Benito C, González-Mancebo E, de Durana DA. Allergies to fruits and vegetables. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2008; 19:675–681.
crossref pmid
8. Zuidmeer L, Goldhahn K, Rona RJ, Gislason D, Madsen C, Summers C, Sodergren E, Dahlstrom J, Lindner T, Sigurdardottir ST, McBride D, Keil T. The prevalence of plant food allergies: a systematic review. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008; 121:1210–1218.e4.
crossref pmid
9. Anderson LB Jr, Dreyfuss EM, Logan J, Johnstone DE, Glaser J. Melon and banana sensitivity coincident with ragweed pollinosis. J Allergy. 1970; 45:310–319.
crossref pmid
10. O'Keefe AW, Ben-Shoshan M. A 4-month-old baby boy presenting with anaphylaxis to a banana: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2014; 8:62.
pmid pmc
11. Moreno-Ancillo A, Domínguez-Noche C, Gil-Adrados AC, Cosmes PM. Allergy to banana in a 5-month-old infant. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2004; 15:284–285.
crossref pmid
12. Linaweaver WE Jr, Saks GL, Heiner DC. Anaphylactic shock following banana ingestion. Am J Dis Child. 1976; 130:207–209.
crossref pmid
13. Savonius B, Kanerva L. Anaphylaxis caused by banana. Allergy. 1993; 48:215–216.
crossref pmid
14. El-Sayed ZA, El-Ghoneimy DH, El-Shennawy D, Nasser MW. Evaluation of banana hypersensitivity among a group of atopic egyptian children: relation to parental/self reports. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2013; 5:150–154.
crossref pmid pmc
15. Imamura T, Kanagawa Y, Ebisawa M. A survey of patients with self-reported severe food allergies in Japan. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2008; 19:270–274.
crossref pmid
16. Hassan AK, Venkatesh YP. An overview of fruit allergy and the causative allergens. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015; 47:180–187.
pmid
17. Grob M, Reindl J, Vieths S, Wüthrich B, Ballmer-Weber BK. Heterogeneity of banana allergy: characterization of allergens in banana-allergic patients. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2002; 89:513–516.
crossref pmid
18. Hauswirth DW, Burks AW. Banana anaphylaxis with a negative commercial skin test. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005; 115:632–633.
crossref pmid
19. Delbourg MF, Guilloux L, Moneret-Vautrin DA, Ville G. Hypersensitivity to banana in latex-allergic patients. Identification of two major banana allergens of 33 and 37 kD. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1996; 76:321–326.
crossref pmid
20. Reindl J, Rihs HP, Scheurer S, Wangorsch A, Haustein D, Vieths S. IgE reactivity to profilin in pollen-sensitized subjects with adverse reactions to banana and pineapple. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2002; 128:105–114.
crossref pmid
21. Palacin A, Quirce S, Sanchez-Monge R, Bobolea I, Diaz-Perales A, Martin-Muñoz F, Pascual C, Salcedo G. Sensitization profiles to purified plant food allergens among pediatric patients with allergy to banana. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2011; 22:186–195.
crossref pmid
22. Sanchez-Monge R, Blanco C, Díaz-Perales A, Collada C, Carrillo T, Aragoncillo C, Salcedo G. Isolation and characterization of major banana allergens: identification as fruit class I chitinases. Clin Exp Allergy. 1999; 29:673–680.
crossref pmid
23. Ring J, Messmer K. Incidence and severity of anaphylactoid reactions to colloid volume substitutes. Lancet. 1977; 1:466–469. Epub 1977/02/26. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(77)91953-5.
crossref pmid
TOOLS
ORCID iDs

Ratchataporn Thongkhom
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1465-4932

Supa Oncham
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2629-3265

Mongkhon Sompornrattanaphan
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8419-0873

Wannada Laisuan
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6037-8812

Similar articles