The Value of Current Laboratory Tests in Diagnosing Food, Venom, and Drug Allergies

Venom Component Allergen IgE Measurement in the Diagnosis and Management of Insect Sting Allergy

Accurate identification of allergy-eliciting stinging insect(s) is essential to ensuring effective management of Hymenoptera venom-allergic individuals with venom-specific immunotherapy. Diagnostic testing using whole-venom extracts with skin tests and serologic-based analyses remains the first level of discrimination for honeybee versus vespid venom sensitization in patients with a positive clinical history. As a second-level evaluation, serologic testing using molecular venom allergens can further discriminate genuine sensitization (honeybee venom: Api m 1, 3, 4, and 10 vs yellow jacket venom/Polistes dominula venom Ves v 1/Pol d 1 and Ves v 5/Pol d 5) from interspecies cross-reactivity (hyaluronidases [Api m 2, Ves v 2, and Pol d 2] and dipeptidyl peptidases IV [Api m 5, Ves v 3, and Pol d 3]). Clinical laboratories use a number of singleplex, oligoplex, and multiplex immunoassays that employ both extracted whole-venom and molecular venom allergens (highlighted earlier) for confirmation of allergic venom sensitization. Established quantitative singleplex autoanalyzers have general governmental regulatory clearance worldwide for venom-allergic patient testing with maximally achievable analytical sensitivity (0.1 kUA/L) and confirmed reproducibility (interassay coefficient of variation <10%). Emerging oligoplex and multiplex (fixed-panel) assays conserve on serum and are more cost-effective, but they need regulatory clearance in some countries and are prone to higher rates of detecting asymptomatic sensitization. Ultimately, the patient's clinical history, combined with proof of sensitization, is the final arbiter in the diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy.

Bee/Vespula Venom-Specific IgE Ratio Greater Than 5:1 Indicates Culprit Insect in Double-Sensitized Patients

BACKGROUND

Venom-allergic patients are frequently double-sensitized to honeybee venom (BV) and Vespula venom (VV). Genuine double allergy is uncommon.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether a quantitative comparison of BV- and VV-specific IgE levels permits an identification of the culprit venom in double-sensitized patients, and to evaluate whether independent sensitization to BV- and VV-specific components corresponds to an indication for double immunotherapy.

METHODS

This single-center observational study evaluated 1,069 consecutive patients; 490 nonallergic controls were available for statistical comparison. The diagnosis (BV allergy, VV allergy, or double allergy) was based on a comprehensive allergological workup including patient history, IgE serology, intradermal skin test, and, when required, basophil activation testing. Quantitative allergen-specific IgE to BV, VV, rApi m 1, and rVes v 5 was retrospectively compared with the final diagnosis. The ratio of BV/VV-specific IgE levels was considered in double-sensitized venom-allergic patients.

RESULTS

Sensitization to whole-venom preparations and components was frequent in patients and asymptomatic controls, with higher specific IgE levels in the patient group. At least 5:1 dominance of the specific IgE to either BV or VV was documented in 239 of 459 double-sensitized venom-allergic patients (52.1%). Of these patients 232 (97.1%) received a diagnosis of monoallergy to only the venom to which they were dominantly sensitized.

CONCLUSIONS

Dominant specific IgE at a ratio of 5:1 indicates the culprit venom in double-sensitized allergic patients. Additional component-resolved diagnostic testing can be restricted to cases with double sensitization to whole venom at a ratio of less than 5:1. Double sensitization to rApi m 1 and rVes v 5 per se does not justify double venom immunotherapy.

Molecular allergology: a clinical laboratory tool for precision diagnosis, stratification and follow-up of allergic patients

Identification of the molecular culprits of allergic reactions leveraged molecular allergology applications in clinical laboratory medicine. Molecular allergology shifted the focus from complex, heterogeneous allergenic extracts, e.g. pollen, food, or insect venom, towards genetically and immunologically defined proteins available for in vitro diagnosis. Molecular allergology is a precision medicine approach for the diagnosis, stratification, therapeutic management, follow-up and prognostic evaluation of patients within a large range of allergic diseases. Exclusively available for in vitro diagnosis, molecular allergology is nonredundant with any of the current clinical tools for allergy investigation. As an example of a major application, discrimination of genuine sensitization from allergen cross-reactivity at the molecular level allows the proper targeting of the culprit allergen and thus dramatically improves patient management. This review aims at introducing clinical laboratory specialists to molecular allergology, from the biochemical and genetic bases, through immunological concepts, to daily use in the diagnosis and management of allergic diseases.

Health Promotion of Early and Sustained Allergenic Food Introduction for the Prevention of Food Allergy

Observational studies and landmark randomized control trials support early and sustained allergenic food introduction in infancy as an effective preventive strategy against food allergy development. Despite a consensus regarding the intended goals of early and sustained allergenic food introduction, there have been myriad policy recommendations among health authorities in how to achieve both individual and population-level health outcomes for food allergy prevention. This clinical management review provides an overview on the data that informs early and sustained allergenic food introduction strategies, suggestions on how to advise allergenic food introduction, principles of prevention programs as they relate to food allergy prevention, and health promotion and systems-level challenges that impede achievement of food allergy prevention goals.

Serologic measurements for peanut allergy: Predicting clinical severity is complex

Allergist-immunologists use serologic peanut allergy testing to maximize test sensitivity and specificity while minimizing cost and inconvenience. Recent advances toward this goal include a better understanding of specific IgE (sIgE) and component testing, epitope-sIgE assays, and basophil activation testing. Predicting reaction severity with serologic testing is challenged by a range of co-factors that influence reaction severity, such as the amount and form of any allergen consumed and comorbid disease. In 2020, the Allergy Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters recommended Ara h 2-sIgE as the most cost-effective diagnostic test for peanut allergy because of its superior performance, when compared with skin prick testing and serum IgE. Basophil activation testing, a functional test of allergic response not evaluated in the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters guideline, is a promising option for both allergy diagnosis and prognosis. Similarly, epitope-sIgE testing may improve prediction of reaction thresholds, but further validation is needed. Despite advances in food allergy testing, many of these tools remain limited by cost, accessibility, and feasibility. In addition, there is a need for further research on how atopic dermatitis may be modifying serologic food allergy severity assessments. Given these limitations, allergy test selection requires a shared decision-making approach so that a patient's values and preferences regarding financial impact, inconvenience, and psychological effects are considered in the context of clinician expertise on the timing and use of optimized testing.

Detection of Sensitization Profiles with Cellular In Vitro Tests in Wheat Allergy Dependent on Augmentation Factors (WALDA)

Wheat allergy dependent on augmentation factors (WALDA) is the most common gluten allergy in adults. IgE-mediated sensitizations are directed towards ω5-gliadin but also to other wheat allergens. The value of the different in vitro cellular tests, namely the basophil activation test (BAT) and the active (aBHRA) and passive basophil histamine-release assays (pBHRA), in the detection of sensitization profiles beyond ω5-gliadin has not been compared. Therefore, 13 patients with challenge-confirmed, ω5-gliadin-positive WALDA and 11 healthy controls were enrolled. Specific IgE (sIgE), skin prick tests, BATs, aBHRA, and pBHRA were performed with allergen test solutions derived from wheat and other cereals, and results were analyzed and compared. This study reveals a distinct and highly individual reactivity of ω5-gliadin-positive WALDA patients to a range of wheat allergens beyond ω5-gliadin in cellular in vitro tests and SPT. In the BAT, for all tested allergens (gluten, high-molecular-weight glutenin subunits, α-amylase/trypsin inhibitors (ATIs), alcohol-free wheat beer, hydrolyzed wheat proteins (HWPs), rye gluten and secalins), basophil activation in patients was significantly higher than in controls (p = 0.004-p < 0.001). Similarly, significant histamine release was detected in the aBHRA for all test substances, exceeding the cut-off of 10 ng/mL in all tested allergens in 50% of patients. The dependency of tests on sIgE levels against ω5-gliadin differed; in the pBHRA, histamine release to any test substances could only be detected in patients with sIgE against ω5-gliadin ≥ 7.7 kU/L, whereas aBHRA also showed high reactivity in less sensitized patients. In most patients, reactivity to HWPs, ATIs, and rye allergens was observed. Additionally, alcohol-free wheat beer was first described as a promising test substance in ω5-gliadin-positive WALDA. Thus, BAT and aBHRA are valuable tools for the identification of sensitization profiles in WALDA.

Real-Life Utility of Basophil Activation Test in the Diagnosis of Immediate Hypersensitivity Drug Reactions

INTRODUCTION

The basophil activation test (BAT) is a flow cytometry laboratory technique that assesses the level of activation indicators expressed on the surface of basophils. We conducted a real-life study in a prospective cohort of patients with reported drug hypersensitivity reactions to determine the true relevance of BAT as a diagnostic tool for assessing immediate hypersensitivity reactions to medicines.

METHODS

We prospectively assessed individuals with clinical suspicion of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to drugs over a 2-year period. The allergological evaluation was carried out in accordance with European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) guidance. All patients underwent BAT using the activation marker CD63.

RESULTS

In total 13 patients with 54 reported immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions to medications were included in this study. Twelve were female (92.3%) and one was male (7.70%). The mean ± SD age of the patients was 47.31 ± 19.94 years. Antibiotics were tested in 35.2% (19/54) of patients, corticosteroids in 24.1% (13/54), iodinated contrast medium in 14.8% (8/54), and NSAIDs in 5.6% (3/54). There was no correlation between the BAT results and the age of patients, gender, type of medication, or time interval between the allergic reaction and BAT procedure. The sensitivity of BAT 5% CD63+ basophils to drugs was 97.6%, specificity was 96% for drug allergies, positive predictive value (PPV) was 94.3%, and negative predictive value (NPV) was 95.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity of BAT for drug allergies is limited, but it can nevertheless be very helpful before contemplating provocation testing in cases of life-threatening drug allergies where patients cannot be rechallenged or in cases of medications for which no other tests are available or their results are ambiguous.