Is the performance of ImmunoCAP ISAC 112 sufficient to diagnose peach and apple allergies?

Validation of a commercial allergen microarray platform for specific immunoglobulin E detection of respiratory and plant food allergens

BACKGROUND

As the use of multiplex-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) detection methods becomes increasingly widespread, proper comparative validation assessments of emerging new platforms are vital.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical and technical performance of a newly introduced microarray platform, Allergy Explorer (ALEX) (MacroArray Diagnostics), in the diagnosis of pollen (cypress, grass, olive), dust mite (Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus), mold (Alternaria alternata), fruit (apple, peach), and nut (walnut, hazelnut and peanut) allergies and to compare it with those of the ImmunoCAP Immuno Solid-phase Allergen Chip (ISAC) 112 microarray and the ImmunoCAP singleplex method (ThermoFisher Scientific).

METHODS

We enrolled 153 patients with allergy and 16 controls without atopy. The sIgE assays were conducted using ISAC112, ALEX version 2 (ALEX2), and ImmunoCAP for whole extracts and major components. Technical validation of ALEX2 was performed by measuring repeatability and interassay, interbatch, and interlaboratory reproducibility.

RESULTS

When measured globally (detection by 1 or more allergen components), ALEX2 had adequate sensitivity and specificity for most of the allergens studied, comparable in general with that of ISAC112 (except for olive pollen and walnut) and similar to that of ImmunoCAP whole extract measurements. Component-by-component analysis revealed comparable results for all techniques, except for Ole e 1 and Jug r 3, in both ISAC112 and ImmunoCAP comparisons, and Alt a 1, when compared with ISAC112. Continuous sIgE levels correlate with sIgE by ImmunoCAP. Good reproducibility and repeatability were observed for ALEX2.

CONCLUSION

ALEX2 has sound technical performance and adequate diagnostic capacity, comparable in general with that of ISAC112 and ImmunoCAP.

Lipid Transfer Protein Sensitization: Risk of Anaphylaxis and Molecular Sensitization Profile in Pru p 3-Sensitized Patients

BACKGROUND

Component-resolved diagnosis reveals the IgE response to many inhaled, food, and other allergens, improving the understanding and diagnosis of allergic diseases.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of the study are to study the recognition of different lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) and other allergen families in a large group of people sensitized to Pru p 3 and to analyze the relationship between the clinical entities and the allergens.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included a large cohort of patients with positive skin tests to peach fruit and Pru p 3 specific IgE antibodies. Respiratory and food allergy symptoms were collected, and we performed prick tests with pollen, plant food, and other allergens plus the ImmunoCAP ISAC assay.

RESULTS

Our sample consisted of 421 people with a mean age of 33.25 years (range 16-68); 54.6% were women. Clinical entities included anaphylaxis (37.1%), urticaria (67.9%), and oral allergy syndrome (59.1%). Rhinitis, rhinoconjunctivitis, and/or asthma were diagnosed in 71.8% of the participants. The most pronounced correlation existed between sensitization to Pru p 3 and to Jug r 3, Pla a 3, Ara h 9, and Cor a 8. We found a higher incidence of anaphylaxis in people with 5 or more recognized LTPs. No association was observed between inhaled and food allergies.

CONCLUSION

Most Pru p 3-sensitized participants were sensitized to additional allergens from the same family and, to a lesser extent, to other allergens, mainly in the profilin and PR-10 protein families. Anaphylaxis occurred in more than a third of the cases evaluated, and almost three-quarters of them had respiratory symptoms. Respiratory and food allergies involving LTPs do not seem to be associated.

A WAO - ARIA - GA2LEN consensus document on molecular-based allergy diagnosis (PAMD@): Update 2020

Precision allergy molecular diagnostic applications (PAMD@) is increasingly entering routine care. Currently, more than 130 allergenic molecules from more than 50 allergy sources are commercially available for in vitro specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) testing. Since the last publication of this consensus document, a great deal of new information has become available regarding this topic, with over 100 publications in the last year alone. It thus seems quite reasonable to publish an update. It is imperative that clinicians and immunologists specifically trained in allergology keep abreast of the new and rapidly evolving evidence available for PAMD@.

PAMD@ may initially appear complex to interpret; however, with increasing experience, the information gained provides relevant information for the allergist. This is especially true for food allergy, Hymenoptera allergy, and for the selection of allergen immunotherapy. Nevertheless, all sIgE tests, including PAMD@, should be evaluated within the framework of a patient's clinical history, because allergen sensitization does not necessarily imply clinical relevant allergies.

IgE allergy diagnostics and other relevant tests in allergy, a World Allergy Organization position paper

Currently, testing for immunoglobulin E (IgE) sensitization is the cornerstone of diagnostic evaluation in suspected allergic conditions. This review provides a thorough and updated critical appraisal of the most frequently used diagnostic tests, both in vivo and in vitro. It discusses skin tests, challenges, and serological and cellular in vitro tests, and provides an overview of indications, advantages and disadvantages of each in conditions such as respiratory, food, venom, drug, and occupational allergy. Skin prick testing remains the first line approach in most instances; the added value of serum specific IgE to whole allergen extracts or components, as well as the role of basophil activation tests, is evaluated. Unproven, non-validated, diagnostic tests are also discussed. Throughout the review, the reader must bear in mind the relevance of differentiating between sensitization and allergy; the latter entails not only allergic sensitization, but also clinically relevant symptoms triggered by the culprit allergen.

Evaluation of serum IgE in peach-allergic patients with systemic reaction by using recombinant Pru p 7 (gibberellin-regulated protein)

BACKGROUND

Lipid transfer protein (LTP) is a major fruit allergen. It has, however, recently been revealed that the systemic reaction in peach-allergic patients is related not only to LTP (Pru p 3) but also to gibberellin-regulated protein (Pru p 7). We investigated recombinant Pru p 7 (rPru p 7) for its potential use in worldwide standardization for the diagnosis of peach allergy.

METHODS

Natural Pru p 7 (nPru p 7) was purified from peach crude extract using a monoclonal antibody affinity column. Complementary DNA for Pru p 7 was cloned and expressed in Escherichia coli and Pichia pastoris. Serum immunoglobulin (Ig) E in peach-allergic patients was examined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) using nPru p 7 and rPru p 7 (E. coli product: erPru p 7 and P. pastoris product: prPru p 7).

RESULTS

Peach-allergic patients (n=27) were diagnosed and categorized into oral reaction (n=10) or systemic reaction (n=17). The nPru p 7 positivity based on serum IgE levels was 52% in the systemic-reaction group and 0% in the oral-reaction group (P<0.05). In the systemic-reaction group, there was no significant difference in reactivity between nPru p 7 and prPru p 7, but the reactivity of erPru p 7 was significantly lower than those of nPru p 7 and prPru p 7 (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that prPru p 7 exhibited reactivity in ELISA comparable to that of nPru p 7 for the diagnosis of peach allergy with systemic reaction.