S'abonner

Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-challenge evaluation of reported reactions to monosodium glutamate - 04/09/11

Doi : 10.1067/mai.2000.110794 
Raif S. Geha, MDa, Alexa Beiser, PhDb, Clement Ren, MDa, Roy Patterson, MDc, Paul A. Greenberger, MDc, Leslie C. Grammer, MDc, Anne M. Ditto, MDc, Kathleen E. Harris, BSc, Martha A. Shaughnessy, BSc, Paul R. Yarnold, PhDc, Jonathan Corren, MDd, Andrew Saxon, MDd
Boston, Mass, Chicago, Ill, and Los Angeles, Calif 
From athe Division of Immunology, Children Hospital and Department of Pediatrics, Harvard University, Boston; bthe Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston; cthe Division of Allergy and Division of General Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago; and dthe Division of Clinical Immunology and Allergy, University of California, Los Angeles 

Abstract

Background: The frequency of reactions reported to occur after the consumption of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is the subject of controversy. Objective: We conducted a multicenter, multiphase, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with a crossover design to evaluate reactions reportedly caused by MSG. Methods: In 3 of 4 protocols (A, B, and C), MSG was administered without food. A positive response was scored if the subject reported 2 or more symptoms from a list of 10 symptoms reported to occur after ingestion of MSG-containing foods within 2 hours. In protocol A 130 self-selected reportedly MSG-reactive volunteers were challenged with 5 g of MSG and with placebo on separate days (days 1 and 2). Of the 86 subjects who reacted to MSG, placebo, or both in protocol A, 69 completed protocol B to determine whether the response was consistent and dose dependent. To further examine the consistency and reproducibility of reactions to MSG, 12 of the 19 subjects who responded to 5 g of MSG but not to placebo in both protocols A and B were given, in protocol C, 2 challenges, each consisting of 5 g of MSG versus placebo. Results: Of 130 subjects in protocol A, 50 (38.5%) responded to MSG only, 17 (13.1%) responded to placebo only (P < .05), and 19 (14.6%) responded to both. Challenge with increasing doses of MSG in protocol B was associated with increased response rates. Only half (n = 19) of 37 subjects who reacted to 5 g of MSG but not placebo in protocol A reacted similarly in protocol B, suggesting inconsistency in the response. Two of the 19 subjects responded in both challenges to MSG but not placebo in protocol C; however, their symptoms were not reproducible in protocols A through C. These 2 subjects were challenged in protocol D 3 times with placebo and 3 times with 5 g of MSG in the presence of food. Both responded to only one of the MSG challenges in protocol D. Conclusion: The results suggest that large doses of MSG given without food may elicit more symptoms than a placebo in individuals who believe that they react adversely to MSG. However, neither persistent nor serious effects from MSG ingestion are observed, and the responses were not consistent on retesting. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2000;106:973-80.)

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Monosodium glutamate, monosodium glutamate symptom complex, sensitivity to food additives

Abbreviations : FASEB:, MSG:, RR:


Plan


 Supported by the International Technical Glutamate Committee.
 Reprint requests: Raif S. Geha, MD, Division of Immunology, Children Hospital, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02178.


© 2000  Mosby, Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 106 - N° 5

P. 973-980 - novembre 2000 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Randomized, double-blind, crossover challenge study in 53 subjects reporting adverse reactions to melon (Cucumis melo)
  • Julia Rodriguez, Jesus F. Crespo, Wesley Burks, Cesar Rivas-Plata, Silvia Fernandez-Anaya, Ramon Vives, Pilar Daroca
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Additive immunosuppressive effects of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 and corticosteroids on TH1, but not TH2, responses
  • Orathai Jirapongsananuruk, Isaac Melamed, Donald Y.M. Leung

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.