Using Component-Resolved Diagnostics in the Management of Peanut-Allergic Patients

Is Component-Specific Antibody Testing Sufficient to Replace the Oral Food Challenge in the Diagnostics of Peanut-Sensitized Children? A Proof-of-Concept Study

(1) Peanut allergy is associated with high risk of anaphylaxis which could be prevented by oral immunotherapy. Patients eligible for immunotherapy are selected on the basis of a food challenge, although currently the assessment of antibodies against main peanut molecules (Ara h 1, 2, 3 and 6) is thought to be another option. (2) The current study assessed the relationship between the mentioned antibodies, challenge outcomes, skin tests and some other parameters in peanut-sensitized children. It involved 74 children, divided into two groups, based on their response to a food challenge. (3) Both groups differed in results of skin tests, levels of component-specific antibodies and peanut exposure history. The antibody levels were then used to calculate thresholds for prediction of challenge results or symptom severity. While the antibody-based challenge prediction revealed statistical significance, it failed in cases of severe symptoms. Furthermore, no significant correlation was observed between antibody levels, symptom-eliciting doses and the risk of severe anaphylaxis. Although in some patients it could result from interference with IgG4, the latter would not be a universal explanation of this phenomenon. (4) Despite some limitations, antibody-based screening may be an alternative to the food challenge, although its clinical relevance still requires further studies.

BSACI guideline for the diagnosis and management of pollen food syndrome in the UK

Pollen food syndrome (PFS) is a highly prevalent food allergy affecting pollen-sensitized children and adults. Sufferers experience allergic symptoms when consuming raw plant foods, due to the homology between the pollen allergens and unstable proteins in these foods. The triggers involved can vary depending on the pollen sensitization, which in turn is affected by geographical location. The British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) Standards of Care Committee (SOCC) identified a need to develop a guideline for the diagnosis and management of PFS in the United Kingdom (UK). Guidelines produced by the BSACI use either the GRADE or SIGN methodology; due to a lack of high-quality evidence these recommendations were formulated using the SIGN guidelines, which is acknowledged to be less robust than the GRADE approach. The correct diagnosis of PFS ensures the avoidance of a misdiagnosis of a primary peanut or tree nut allergy or confusion with another plant food allergy to non-specific lipid transfer proteins. The characteristic foods involved, and rapid-onset oropharyngeal symptoms, mean PFS can often be diagnosed from the clinical history alone. However, reactions involving tree nuts, peanuts and soya milk or severe/atypical reactions to fruits and vegetables may require additional diagnostic tests. Management is through the exclusion of known trigger foods, which may appear to be simple, but is highly problematic if coupled with a pre-existing food allergy or for individuals following a vegetarian/vegan diet. Immunotherapy to pollens is not an effective treatment for PFS, and although oral or sublingual immunotherapy to foods seems more promising, large, controlled studies are needed. The typically mild symptoms of PFS can lead to an erroneous perception that this condition is always easily managed, but severe reactions can occur, and anxiety about the onset of symptoms to new foods can have a profound effect on quality of life.

Peanut components measured by ISAC: comparison with ImmunoCap and clinical relevance in peanut allergic children

Background

Specific IgE (sIgE) against the peanut component Arachis hypogaea (Ara h) 2 has been shown to be the most important allergen to discriminate between peanut allergy and peanut tolerance. Several studies determined sIgE cut off values for Ara h 2, determined by singleplex measurements. However, cut off values for Ara h 2 from multiplex arrays are less well defined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between Ara h 2 sIgE determined by singleplex versus multiplex measurements and to assess the diagnostic value of the different peanut components included in Immuno Solid-phase Allergen Chip (ISAC) multiplex analysis in children with a suspected peanut allergy.

Methods

In this retrospective study we analyzed Ara h 2 sIgE values with singleplex Fluorescence Enzyme Immunoassay (FEIA, ImmunoCap) and multiplex microarray (ISAC) measurements in 117 children with a suspected peanut allergy. Also, other peanut components measured by ISAC were analyzed. Double blinded placebo controlled oral food challenges were used as golden standard.

Results

Among all studied peanut components FEIA Ara h 2 sIgE showed the highest area under the curve (AUC, 0.922), followed by ISAC Ara h 6 and Ara h 2 sIgE with AUCs of respectively 0.906 and 0.902. Best cut off values to diagnose peanut allergy were 4.40 kU/l for FEIA Ara h 2 sIgE and, 7.43 ISU and 8.13 ISU for respectively Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 sIgE in ISAC microarray. Ara h 2 sIgE determined in FEIA and ISAC showed a good correlation (r = 0.88; p < 0.01).

Conclusion

Ara h 6 and Ara h 2 sIgE in multiplex ISAC are both good predictors of clinical peanut allergy in Dutch children, and their performance is comparable to the use of Ara h 2 in singleplex FEIA. The simultaneous measurement of different peanut components using ISAC is an advantage and clinically useful to detect peanut allergic children that are Ara h 2 negative but sensitized to other peanut proteins such as Ara h 6.

Ranking of 10 legumes according to the prevalence of sensitization as a parameter to characterize allergenic proteins

•

10 different legumes extracts could be ranked based on the variations in the prevalence of sensitization.

•

Variations in the prevalence of sensitization allowed for ranking of 18 different individual legume proteins.

•

Ranking can be used to select reference proteins to develop predictive assays for the assessment of the sensitizing potential of novel proteins.

Predicting the allergenicity of novel proteins is challenging due to the absence of validated predictive methods and a well-defined reference set of proteins. The prevalence of sensitization could be a parameter to select reference proteins to characterize allergenic proteins. This study investigated whether the prevalence of sensitization of legume extracts and proteins can indeed be used for this purpose. A random sample of suspected food-allergic patients (n=106) was therefore selected. 10 extracts (processed and non-processed) and 18 individual proteins (2S albumins, 7S and 11S globulins) from black lentil, blue and white lupine, chickpea, faba bean, green lentil, pea, peanut, soybean, and white bean were isolated and the prevalence of sensitization and the intensity of IgE binding were evaluated. The prevalence of sensitization ranged from 5.7 % (faba bean and green lentil) to 14.2 % (peanut). The prevalence of sensitization for individual legume proteins ranged from 0.0 % for albumin 1 (pea) to 15.1 %–17.9 % for Ara h 1, 2, 3, and 6 (peanut). The prevalence of sensitization correlated strongly with the intensity of IgE binding for individual proteins (p < 0.05, ρ = 0.894), for extracts no correlation was found. The discovered ranking can be used to select reference proteins for the development and validation of predictive in vitro or in vivo assays for the assessment of the sensitizing potential.

Anaphylaxis following prick-by-prick testing with peanut

Anaphylaxis due to prick-by-prick testing is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication. Personnel performing testing should be able to recognize and treat anaphylaxis. Adrenaline must be available. In high-risk patients with a history of anaphylaxis, specific igE with components and a basophile activation test is desirable before skin prick testing.

Accurate Prediction of Peanut Allergy in One-Third of Adults Using a Validated Ara h 2 Cutoff

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic value of peanut components is extensively studied in children, but to a lesser extent in adults with suspected peanut allergy. The use of peanut components in daily practice may reduce the need for double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs); however, validation studies are currently lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic value of (combined) peanut components and validate a previously found Ara h 2 cutoff level with 100% positive predictive value (PPV) in adults with suspected peanut allergy.

METHODS

Adults who underwent a peanut DBPCFC were included: 84 patients from a previous study (2002-2012) and 70 new patients (2012-2019). Specific IgE (sIgE) to peanut extract, Ara h 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 was measured using ImmunoCAP. Diagnostic value was assessed with an area under the curve (AUC) analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 95 (62%) patients were peanut allergic. sIgE to Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 were the best predictors with an AUC (95% confidence interval) of 0.85 (0.79-0.91) and 0.85 (0.79-0.92), respectively. The Ara h 2 cutoff level with 100% PPV (≥1.75 kU_A/L) was validated in the 70 new patients. Thirty percent of all included patients could be classified correctly as peanut allergic using this validated cutoff level.

CONCLUSION

sIgE to Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 have equally high discriminative ability. Peanut allergy can be predicted accurately in one-third of adults using a validated cutoff level of sIgE to Ara h 2.

Peanut allergy diagnosis: Moving from basic to more elegant testing

Peanut allergy (PNA) is an IgE-mediated immune disorder, which merits particular attention due to its impact on the health and quality of life of millions of patients worldwide. PNA tends to develop in early life and resolves in only 20% of peanut-allergic children. It accounts for the majority of severe food-related allergic reactions. An accurate diagnosis of PNA is vital. In this review, we present the approach to the diagnosis of peanut allergy, starting from the history and proceeding to measures of overall sensitization and then to component-resolved diagnostics and oral food challenges as indicated. Additional testing in development includes basophil activation testing and determination of epitopes for peanut-allergic responses. Based on the literature, stepwise approaches and predictive models for diagnosing PNA are also presented.

Accuracy of component-resolved diagnostics in peanut allergy: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy diagnosis relies on clinical reactivity to peanut supported by detection of specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies. Extract-based sIgE tests have low specificity, so component-resolved diagnostics may complement whole-extract testing.

METHODS

We systematically collected peanut allergen component data in seven databases and studied the diagnostic accuracy of peanut storage proteins (Arah1, 2, 3) and cross-reactive peanut proteins (Arah8 PR-10 and Arah9 lipid transfer protein) through meta-analyses. The systematic literature review included studies employing peanut components and oral food challenge (OFC) as reference standard in patients suspected of peanut allergy. Data for component sIgE at pre-defined detection thresholds were extracted and combined in random-effects bivariate meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed as recommended by Cochrane, with two additional quality items of importance for this review.

RESULTS

Nineteen eligible studies presented data suitable for meta-analysis. In cross-sectional pediatric studies, the pooled sensitivity of Arah2-sIgE at 0.35 kU_A /L cutoff was 83.3% [95% CI 75.6, 88.9] and specificity in diagnosing objective peanut allergy was 83.6% [95% CI 77.4, 88.4]. Compared with 0.1 and 1.0 kU_A /L, this threshold provided the best diagnostic accuracy. At 0.35 kU_A /L, Arah1 and Arah3 had comparable specificity (86.0% and 88.0%, respectively) but significantly lower sensitivity compared with Arah2 (37.0% and 39.1%, respectively; P < .05).

CONCLUSION

sIgE to Arah2 can enhance the certainty of diagnosis and reduce the number of OFC necessary to rule out clinical peanut allergy in unclear cases.

Allergen components in diagnosing childhood hazelnut allergy: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hazelnut-specific IgE antibodies (sIgEs) in serum support the diagnosis of hazelnut allergy, but extract-based tests have low diagnostic specificity, commonly leading to over-diagnosis. Measuring sensitization to individual allergen components may enhance the diagnosis of hazelnut allergy. We systematically examined data on diagnostic accuracy of sIgE to commercially available hazelnut components to compare their individual contributions in diagnosing hazelnut allergy.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched for diagnostic studies on patients suspected of having hazelnut allergy. Studies employing component-specific IgE testing on patients whose final diagnosis was determined by oral food challenges were included in the meta-analysis. Study quality was assessed as recommended by Cochrane.

RESULTS

Seven cross-sectional studies and one case-control study were identified, seven presenting data on children (N = 635), and one on a mixed age population. Overall, the diagnostic accuracies of sIgE to both Cor a 9 and Cor a 14 were significantly higher than for Cor a 1-sIgE (P < .05). In children, the specificity of Cor a 14-sIgE at 0.35 kU_A /L cutoff was 81.7% (95% CI 77.1, 85.6), and 67.3% (60.3, 73.6) for Cor a 9-sIgE. The specificities for Cor a 1-sIgE and hazelnut-sIgE were 22.5% (7.4, 51.2) and 10.8% (3.4, 29.8), respectively. The sensitivity of Cor a 1-sIgE (60.2% [46.9, 72.2]) was lower than for hazelnut extract-sIgE (95.7% [88.7, 98.5]), while their specificities did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSION

sIgE to Cor a 14 and Cor a 9 hazelnut storage proteins increases diagnostic specificity in assessing hazelnut allergy in children. The combined use of hazelnut extract and hazelnut storage proteins may improve diagnostic value.

Legume Protein Consumption and the Prevalence of Legume Sensitization

Sensitization and allergy to legumes can be influenced by different factors, such as exposure, geographical background, and food processing. Sensitization and the allergic response to legumes differs considerably, however, the reason behind this is not yet fully understood. The aim of this study is to investigate if there is a correlation between legume protein consumption and the prevalence of legume sensitization. Furthermore, the association between sensitization to specific peanut allergens and their concentration in peanut is investigated. Legume sensitization data (peanut, soybean, lupin, lentil, and pea) from studies were analyzed in relation to consumption data obtained from national food consumption surveys using the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS), and What We Eat in America-Food Commodity Intake Database (WWEIA-FCID) databases. Data were stratified for children <4 years, children 4⁻18 years, and adults. Sufficient data were available for peanut to allow for statistical analysis. Analysis of all age groups together resulted in a low correlation between peanut sensitization and relative peanut consumption (r = 0.407), absolute peanut consumption (r = 0.468), and percentage of peanut consumers (r = 0.243). No correlation was found between relative concentrations of Ara h 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 in peanut and sensitization to these peanut allergens. The results indicate that the amount of consumption only plays a minor role in the prevalence of sensitization to peanut. Other factors, such as the intrinsic properties of the different proteins, processing, matrix, frequency, timing and route of exposure, and patient factors might play a more substantial role in the prevalence of peanut sensitization.

Concordance of skin prick test and serum-specific IgE to locally produced component-resolved diagnostics for cockroach allergy

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of Periplaneta americana (American cockroach, ACR) allergy is commonly performed based on clinical history and skin prick test (SPT) or specific serum IgE (sIgE) measurement. The concordance of the findings with the SPT and sIgE results has never been investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results of SPT with commercial ACR-extract (C-ACE) and sIgE measurement, using commercial kit and in-house enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to the locally produced ACR extract (L-ACE) and native Per a 1, Per a 5, Per a 7, and Per a 9.

METHODS

Sera from 66 individuals clinically diagnosed with chronic allergic rhinitis were included; 46 were positive SPT to C-ACE, and 20 were negative. Specific serum IgE levels were established by using a commercial test kit (ImmunoCap) and an in-house IgE-ELISA RESULTS: The percentage the C-ACE SPT-positive cases that were positive by the ImmunoCap-sIgE was 32.6%, indicating low concordance of the 2 assays. With the in-house ELISA, Per a 9 gave the highest sensitivity (98.00%), positive predictive value (PPV; 95.74%), and negative predictive value (NPV; 94.74%) of the sIgE quantification. The correlation coefficients (R) of the L-ACE-SPT and sIgE to L-ACE, Per a 1, Per a 5, Per a 7, and Per a 9 and ImmunoCap sIgE were 0.133, 0.278, 0.419, 0.280, and 0.432, and 0.256, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Skin prick test and sIgE measurement using commercial reagents have low concordance. Data of this study showed that sIgE to the native Per a 9 should be considered as an adjunct to the clinical history in diagnosis of ACR sensitization/allergy, particularly when the SPT and the nasal challenge, which is the gold standard method, cannot be performed.

Nanotechnologies for In Vitro IgE Testing

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses the recent advances in the development of IgE antibody assays based on nanotechnologies. IgE blood testing is an important part of the diagnostic workup of IgE-mediated hypersentivity. We also address the challenges in moving from an academic proof-of-concept to a product routinely used by allergy experts.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several nanotechnologies have been applied to the field of IgE testing: nanoparticles are used either as a support to capture analytes or as a detection tool to enhance the measurement signal. Nanofluidics allows to reduce assay time by enhancing molecular interaction. Nanotechnologies bring forth new methods for in vitro IgE testing. Substantial advantages such as lower sample volume, shorter assay time, simplified procedures, and lower analytic sensitivity, without affecting test precision and accuracy, can be achieved thanks to nanotechnologies.