Fuchs, Thomas

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","83"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","International Archives of Allergy and Immunology"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","88"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","178"],["dc.contributor.author","Saleh, Mohamed M."],["dc.contributor.author","Forkel, Susann"],["dc.contributor.author","Schön, Michael P."],["dc.contributor.author","Fuchs, Thomas"],["dc.contributor.author","Buhl, Timo"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-12-10T18:37:51Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-12-10T18:37:51Z"],["dc.date.issued","2019"],["dc.description.abstract","Background: Natural rubber latex (NRL) allergy is commonly diagnosed according to medical history, skin allergy tests, and serological analyses. However, skin tests are increasingly being abandoned because of (i) their time-consuming nature, (ii) latex preparations for skin tests being not commercially available, and (iii) the use of in-house prepared test solutions is becoming ever more difficult due to increasing regulatory hurdles. In this light, we have evaluated differences in the profiles of current and former patients with suspected latex allergy. Methods: Sera of skin test-positive patients from a historic cohort (1995–2001, n = 149 patients) and currently (2014–2015, n = 48 patients) were simultaneously analyzed for specific IgE to latex by ImmunoCAP. If the serological screening was positive (≥0.35 kU/L), component-resolved diagnostics including profilins and cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs) were performed. Results: In contrast to 88% (131/149) of the skin test-positive patients from the 1990s, only 51.1% (24/47) of the current cohort were found positive for specific IgE to latex. While 48.3% (72/149) of the patients had a convincing positive history in the 1990s, current skin test-positive patients rarely reported a relevant medical history (8.5%, 4/47). Specific IgE levels to latex were significantly higher in former patients with suspected latex allergy (p \\u0026lt; 0.001) than in former sensitized individuals without allergy. However, this significant difference was lost in current allergic and sensitized patients with positive skin tests. Conclusion: Sensitization profiles in patients with latex allergy have changed significantly over the last 2 decades. Discrimination between NRL sensitization and clinical allergy remains a diagnostic challenge. Our data highlight the need for a combination of all 3 criteria, i.e., patient history, skin test, and analysis of specific IgE, for a correct diagnosis of latex allergy."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1159/000492191"],["dc.identifier.eissn","1423-0097"],["dc.identifier.issn","1018-2438"],["dc.identifier.pmid","30212836"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/77113"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-354"],["dc.publisher","S. Karger AG"],["dc.relation.eissn","1423-0097"],["dc.relation.issn","1018-2438"],["dc.rights","https://www.karger.com/Services/SiteLicenses"],["dc.title","Profile Shift in Latex Sensitization over the Last 20 Years"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","72"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","2"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Allergo Journal International"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","79"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","26"],["dc.contributor.author","Reese, Imke"],["dc.contributor.author","Ballmer-Weber, Barbara"],["dc.contributor.author","Beyer, Kirsten"],["dc.contributor.author","Fuchs, Thomas"],["dc.contributor.author","Kleine-Tebbe, Jörg"],["dc.contributor.author","Klimek, Ludger"],["dc.contributor.author","Lepp, Ute"],["dc.contributor.author","Niggemann, Bodo"],["dc.contributor.author","Saloga, Joachim"],["dc.contributor.author","Schäfer, Christiane"],["dc.contributor.author","Werfel, Thomas"],["dc.contributor.author","Zuberbier, Torsten"],["dc.contributor.author","Worm, Margitta"],["dc.date.accessioned","2019-07-09T11:43:16Z"],["dc.date.available","2019-07-09T11:43:16Z"],["dc.date.issued","2017"],["dc.description.abstract","Adverse food reactions are far more often perceived than objectively verified. In our scientific knowledge on non-allergic adverse reactions including the so called histamine intolerance, there are large deficits. Due to the fact that this disorder is increasingly discussed in the media and the internet, more and more people suspect it to be the trigger of their symptoms. The scientific evidence to support the postulated link between ingestion of histamine and adverse reactions is limited, and a reliable laboratory test for objective diagnosis is lacking. This position paper by the “Food Allergy”Working Group of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in collaboration with the German Association of Allergologists (AeDA), the Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), and the Swiss Society for Allergology and Immunology (SGAI) reviews the data on the clinical picture of adverse reactions to ingested histamine, summarizes important aspects and their consequences, and proposes a practical diagnostic and therapeutic approach."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s40629-017-0011-5"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/14372"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/58848"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.relation.issn","2197-0378"],["dc.rights","CC BY 4.0"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0"],["dc.title","German guideline for the management of adverse reactions to ingested histamine"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","334"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","International Archives of Allergy and Immunology"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","337"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","146"],["dc.contributor.author","Buhl, Timo"],["dc.contributor.author","Kampmann, Hubert"],["dc.contributor.author","Martinez, Jose"],["dc.contributor.author","Fuchs, Thomas"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T11:20:04Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T11:20:04Z"],["dc.date.issued","2008"],["dc.description.abstract","The prevalence of food allergies still continues to rise in western Europe. As the strict avoidance of food allergens represents a major issue in the management of this disease, information for consumers on food labels about allergenic ingredients is crucial. The European labelling law for foodstuffs excludes declarations of the ingredients on individually wrapped foodstuffs with outer packages and products whose largest single surface area falls below 10 cm(2). One potentially avoidable case, with fatal consequences due to this law and the current legal situation, is discussed herein. We suggest evaluating the benefits of a mandatory safety warning (symbol) for major allergenic food ingredients on every foodstuff package, without any exceptions based on the size of the product or the presence of secondary packages. Copyright (C) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1159/000121467"],["dc.identifier.isi","000257674400007"],["dc.identifier.pmid","18362476"],["dc.identifier.purl","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gs-1/9355"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/55445"],["dc.notes.intern","Merged from goescholar"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Karger"],["dc.relation.issn","1018-2438"],["dc.rights","Goescholar"],["dc.rights.uri","https://goescholar.uni-goettingen.de/licenses"],["dc.title","The European labelling law for foodstuffs contains life-threatening exemptions for food-allergic consumers"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dc.type.version","published_version"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","37"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","44"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","19"],["dc.contributor.author","Beutner, Caroline"],["dc.contributor.author","Werchan, Barbora"],["dc.contributor.author","Forkel, Susann"],["dc.contributor.author","Gupta, Sidhi"],["dc.contributor.author","Fuchs, Thomas"],["dc.contributor.author","Schön, Michael P."],["dc.contributor.author","Geier, Johannes"],["dc.contributor.author","Buhl, Timo"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-04-14T08:31:31Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-04-14T08:31:31Z"],["dc.date.issued","2020"],["dc.description.abstract","Summary Background: Sensitization rates to aeroallergens are rising worldwide. The prevalence is increasing, especially in Western countries. We aimed to investigate (1) sensitization rates and (2) cross‐sensitization patterns in skin prick tests (SPTs) for the most relevant inhaled allergens in central Germany over 20 years, adjusted for regional pollen counts. Patients and Methods: This monocentric study evaluated SPTs for tree pollen, grass pollen and house dust mites (HDMs) in 4,315 patients (including children) with suspected airway allergies, from 1998–2017. Results: Sensitization rates to almost all aeroallergens have increased significantly over time, without relevant changes in regional pollen counts. Current sensitization rates in all our symptomatic patients were highest for grass (55.3 %) and rye pollen (59.6 %), with most pronounced increases in HDM sensitization over time (from 37.8 % to the current figure of 50.1 %). However, a low but consistent proportion of tree‐sensitized patients (3.6–7.8 %) showed isolated positive SPTs to alder and/or hazel pollen without sensitization to birch pollen. Conclusions We demonstrate a significant rise in the total number of sensitized patients as well as increases in cross‐sensitization between closely related allergens. Individuals with unusual mono‐sensitization profiles to common inhaled allergens should be studied in more detail, since these patients are currently excluded from clinical trials for allergen immunotherapy."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1111/ddg.14312"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/83619"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-399"],["dc.relation.eissn","1610-0387"],["dc.relation.issn","1610-0379"],["dc.rights","This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes."],["dc.title","Sensitization rates to common inhaled allergens in Germany – increase and change patterns over the last 20 years"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Contact Dermatitis"],["dc.contributor.author","Kreipe, Katharina"],["dc.contributor.author","Forkel, Susann"],["dc.contributor.author","Heinemann, Kim‐Elisabeth"],["dc.contributor.author","Amschler, Katharina"],["dc.contributor.author","Fuchs, Thomas"],["dc.contributor.author","Geier, Johannes"],["dc.contributor.author","Buhl, Timo"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-06-01T09:42:01Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-06-01T09:42:01Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.description.abstract","Abstract Background The use of disinfectants is part of the everyday life of people, especially in the medical profession. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, the use of disinfectants continues to increase and is of fundamental importance in infection control. Objectives To determine the frequency of sensitization and the value of patch testing to didecyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC) and the alcohols ethanol, 1‐propanol, and isopropanol. Methods Clinical patch test data of 145 patients with suspected contact allergy to disinfectants were retrospective analysed. Results Among the 145 patients patch tested with the different alcohols, only one nurse was detected with a possible allergy to 1‐propanol. Additional patch testing in 84 patients with DDAC 0.05% resulted in five patients with weakly positive reactions only, without clinical relevance. Patch testing with DDAC 0.03% showed no positive reactions at all on day 3 readings. Conclusions DDAC and alcohols are rarely responsible for allergic contact dermatitis. The accused products of the patients should be checked for other allergens and further additives with skin‐irritating properties. Individual susceptibility and mishandling of the disinfectants should be considered."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1111/cod.13844"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/85112"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-425"],["dc.publisher","Blackwell Publishing Ltd"],["dc.relation.eissn","1600-0536"],["dc.relation.issn","0105-1873"],["dc.rights","This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes."],["dc.title","Contact sensitizations to disinfectants containing alcohols or quaternary ammonium compounds are rarely of clinical relevance"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]