Posted by admin on April 20, 2009 under Allergies | 
An emollient is a substance that soothes the skin and restores water to it, thus damping down the symptoms of eczema. White soft paraffin, glycerin and lanolin are commonly used. Most emollients and similar preparations contain several different ingredients. Urea is sometimes added to the cream or ointment because it helps the skin to bind water, but it may sting slightly and has a urine-like smell. Emollients may be applied directly to the skin or added to the bath, and some can be used instead of soap.
Crepe bandages soaked in calamine lotion, or bandages soaked in saline, are also used in eczema, to relieve the itching and prevent scratching.
Drugs which reduce itching (antipruritics) such as crotamiton (Eurax) or antazoline (R.B.C.) may also be used. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (see Section 7) such as bufexamac (Parfenac) are sometimes helpful.
Soothing treatments of this type are generally tried as a first step, where the eczema is not severe. They are free of side-effects, although a small minority of patients may become sensitized to lanolin, so that lanolin-containing creams cannot be used thereafter.
Trade names of emollients and other soothing treatments used for eczema
Alcoderm
Alpha Ken
Aquadrate
Aveeno
Balneum
Calmurid
Diprobase
Eczederm
Emulsiderm
Epogam
Eurax
Humiderm
Hydromol
Keri
Lacticare Lipobase Locobase Miol
Nutraplus
Oilatum Emollient
Parfenac
R.B.C.
Siopel
Sprilon
Sudocrem
Thovaline
Uitrabase
Unguentum
*433\180\8*
Posted by admin on under Allergies |
Foods that may release sulphur dioxide
Sulphur (or sulfur) dioxide is a gas that can irritate the airways of asthmatics and provoke an asthma attack. Some preservatives give off this gas in small amounts, and it is inhaled during eating. There is no need to avoid these preservatives unless you are sure tfiey trigger off attacks.
Most dried fruits are treated with sulphur dioxide and give off the gas when chewed. This treatment does not have to be declared on the label. Dried fruit that has not been treated will usually be labelled ‘unsulphured’.
The following preservatives give off sulphur dioxide:
Sodium sulphite;
sodium hydrogen sulphite;
sodium metabisulphite;
potassium metabisulphite;
calcium sulphite.
These preservatives are widely used in wine, beer and cider, and, like other additives used in alcoholic drinks, do not have to be declared on the label. Homemade wine is no exception: Campden tablets, sold to wine-makers, contain potassium metabisulphite.
Fresh sausages may also contain these additives. Cod can be treated with sodium hydrogen sulphite to bleach and preserve it. Although sulphites are not allowed on meat, unscrupulous butchers occasionally add them to old meat to give it a ‘fresh’ red colour. In all these cases, the greater part of the sulphur dioxide will be driven off by the high temperatures used in cooking.
A fourth ‘hidden source’ of sulphur dioxide is restaurant, take-away and cafeteria food. French fries used in the catering trade have usually been dipped in a metabisulphite solution and give off significant amounts of sulphur dioxide. Prepared salads, avocado dip, shrimps, prawns and lobster are also likely to have been treated with these preservatives, and sometimes cause problems.
Fruit salad, glace cherries, fruit juices, fruit pie fillings, dried vegetables and soup, fruit squash, pickled onions, jam, fruit jellies and custard are other possible sources of sulphur dioxide in the catering trade. It is not worthwhile avoiding these foods unless you know they trigger off your asthma attacks.
Packaged foods often contain sulphites and metabisulphites, but these are easier to avoid as they are declared on the label. Look for the names given above, or for the appropriate ‘E numbers’. These are E220-E227.
*386\180\8*
Posted by admin on under Allergies |
The first, and most essential step, is to see your doctor, describe your symptoms fully, and ask for a medical check-up. As explained in Chapter Seven, many of the symptoms of food intolerance can be due to other causes, and some of these may be serious – your doctor can examine you for such problems. Should there be nothing obviously wrong, then the next logical step is to try an elimination diet. Explain to the doctor you want to do, and ask for advice. He or she may well have reservations about elimination diets, and you will be better prepared if you have read all or most of the book, and understand what is involved. If the doctor feels that you should not alter your diet for medical reasons, you must take this advice.
*339\180\8*
Posted by admin on under Allergies |
Baron von Munchausen was an eighteenth-century Hanoverian soldier who greatly exaggerated his prowess in war – and his battle-scars. ‘Munchausen’s syndrome’ is the name given to attention-seeking patients who feign illness or deliberately fabricate symptoms. There are instances, fortunately very rare, of mothers simulating illness in their children in order to get medical attention -this is known as ‘Munchausen-by-proxy’ or ‘Meadow’s syndrome’ after Professor Roy Meadows, who first described two cases in 1977. Doctors are far more aware of this possibility in children than they once were, and any parent attempting to fabricate symptoms is likely to be found out very quickly.
The question of Meadow’s syndrome in relation to food sensitivity is a difficult issue. Various doctors have described cases of children whose parents believe them to have food sensitivity, but where no consistent reaction to a food can be shown. If those parents seem over-anxious or over-protective, and have obvious emotional problems of their own, then they have often been labelled as ‘Meadow’s syndrome’.
Eleven such cases were reported in 1984, in an influential article that has coloured the outlook of many doctors, and led to the belief that Meadow’s syndrome is quite common in relation to food sensitivity. However, there were several important differences between the cases described in this article and Meadow’s syndrome proper. For one thing, the children involved all had genuine symptoms, and there was no suggestion that the parents had attempted to fabricate any symptoms. Unlike Meadow’s syndrome mothers, these women did not seem to relish their child’s hospital stay, nor were they willing to subject them to any investigation, however painful and unpleasant. Such differences are important and must raise serious doubts about the conclusions reached – was the label ‘Meadow’s syndrome’ really justified? These parents may have been disturbed or overwrought, but this does not necessarily mean that they were mistaken about their child’s illness. The elusive nature of the reactions seen in food intolerance makes it difficult to rule out this diagnosis without very thorough testing, and there seems to have been undue reliance on skin-prick tests in this study, despite the fact that these are unreliable indicators in most cases of food sensitivity. Despite the doubts over this study, the idea of ‘Meadow’s syndrome’ has become a popular one, especially among those doctors who are sceptical of food intolerance generally. This is unfortunate for parents, especially when such a diagnosis is made without proper testing for food sensitivity, and without any firm evidence of fabrication. There undoubtedly are cases of parents who exaggerate their child’s ills, and who are determined to blame them on some physical cause, when family tensions and emotional problems are actually the true source of the symptoms. But unless there is gross exaggeration or fabrication of symptoms, these should not be described as Meadow’s syndrome.
*290\180\8*
Posted by admin on under Allergies |
An allergen is essentially the same thing as an antigen, except that it happens to cause an allergic reaction in a particular person. The proteins in cow’s milk, for example, are antigens to most of us, but for the child with cow’s-milk allergy they are allergens. The main difference between an antigen and an allergen is not in the molecule itself but in the way the individual’s immune system reacts to it.
Having said that, it does seem that some foods are more ‘allergenic’ – more likely to cause allergies – than others. Certain foods turn up again and again as the culprits in food allergy, while other commonly eaten foods are rarely en-
countered. Why this is so, no-one can say at present, but there are several possible explanations.
Perhaps these apparently more allergenic foods contain compounds with very unusual and distinctive chemical features that are ‘easily recognized’. Such compounds might induce IgE antibodies more readily than others, although it is far from certain that the structure of antigens can exert such an influence over the immune system. The whole question of how the body scrutinizes incoming antigens and regulates its response to them is still very poorly understood. As yet no-one can say what role the chemical make-up of antigens plays.
An alternative explanation is that such foods contain substances which stimulate an immune response, known collectively as adjuvants. Adjuvants are used in the laboratory as a way of inducing immune responses for research purposes. These adjuvants are mostly derived from bacteria, but there are also adjuvants found in some plants. The extent to which these occur in foods, and their potential for stimulating IgE rather than other types of antibody, is unknown.
*40\180\8*
