Screening asthmatics for atopic status using the ALergy EXplorer (ALEX2) macroarray

BACKGROUND

Screening asthma patients for atopy facilitates management. Since 2010, the core biomarker for screening asthma subjects for atopic status has been the qualitative Phadiatop. multi-aeroallergen screen. A more quantitative macroarray, the Allergy Explorer (ALEX2), shows promise as an alternative.

OBJECTIVE

The study's goal was to examine the pros and cons of the use of ALEX2 in the screening of asthma patients for atopic status.

METHODS

We evaluated the atopic (IgE-sensitization) status in asthmatic Amish and Hutterite farm children using the ImmunoCAP and ALEX2 assays in Phadiatop equivocal and positive subjects.

RESULTS

All 42 asthmatic children were analyzed by Phadiatop and total serum IgE. Of these, 22 had a negative Phadiatop (<0.1 kUa/L) and total IgE <100 kU/L which defined them as non-atopic and they were excluded from ALEX2 testing. Of six children with equivocal Phadiatops (0.1-0.2 kUa/L-Group 1) and three children with a negative Phadiatop but total IgE >100 kUa/L (group 3), 44% (n = 4) had detectable IgE antibody by ALEX2 to mite, tree pollen, and other allergens not detected by Phadiatop, but confirmed by allergen-specific ImmunoCAP testing. In 11 Phadiatop positive subjects (>0.2 kUa/L-group 2), all but one were positive by ALEX2. IgE antibody specific for mold and rabbit aeroallergens matched their agricultural and pet exposure history. Three children were positive for IgE antibody to allergens in the profilin, nsLTP, or PR-10 cross-reactive protein families.

CONCLUSION

Judicious use of ALEX2's enhanced specificity data not provided by the Phadiatop can aid in the interpretation of sensitization patterns and planning management of atopic asthmatics, but sensitization relevance must be confirmed by the patient's clinical history.

Extended IgE profile of shrimp-sensitized patients based on Multiplex Examination ALEX2 - Allergy Explorer

Introduction

The key to the correct diagnosis of shrimp allergy is a qualification to the most efficient diagnostic method and later interpretation of the result. To achieve this, it is necessary to apply a diagnostic strategy relevant to each patient's clinical situation and approach every case individually.

Aim

In this study the allergen profile of shrimp-sensitized patients was analysed using ALEX2 Allergy Explorer.

Material and methods

This study includes 50 adult patients with positive prick-by-prick tests with tiger shrimp bought from the local eco-market and an elevated concentration of IgE specific to the shrimp allergen extract (ImmunoCap). A total of 35 patients with negative skin prick tests with shrimp and not detectable sIgE shrimp in ImmunoCap were included in the control group. All patients had ALEX2 Allergy Explorer microarray test.

Results

In the shrimp-sensitized group, 22 patients were sensitized to at least one allergen component of Penaeus monodon, 20 patients were sensitized to crab, and 20 were sensitized to lobster. Only 15 (30%) patients were sensitized to the Northern prawn (Pandalus borealis) allergen extract in ALEX2 and only 12 (24%) to Shrimp mix (Litopenaeus setiferus, Farfantepenaeus aztecus, Farfantepenaeus dourarum).

Conclusions

Sensitization to shrimp tropomyosin in the research group was present only in 34% of cases. There may be other shrimp allergen components, not available in ALEX2, which are responsible for shrimp sensitization.

Would the choice of multiplex platform impact the management of the allergic patient? A first approach focusing on LTPs

BACKGROUND

In the Mediterranean area, patients with LTP syndrome who are sensitized to multiple allergens are often tested for sIgE using multiplex platforms. The results obtained from different commercial platforms are not interchangeable, so it is important to compare and validate the platform selected for use. The objective of this study is to compare and validate the performance of the ImmunoCAP ISAC E112i and the macroarray ALEX2 in our daily practice.

METHODS

From August 2021 to March 2022, we tested 20 random serum samples from polysensitized patients using the ALEX2 test (MADx) and ImmunoCAP tIgE and ISAC E112i (Thermo Fisher Scientific). We compared the total IgE (tIgE) and sIgE levels for shared allergens.

RESULTS

The heatmap generally showed more intense results for ISAC. The overall correlation was good, but some exceptions were noted. The main discrepancies were found for Ole e 7, which was positive for 11 patients in ISAC but negative for all patients in ALEX2, and for nut LTPs, for which ISAC showed a threefold higher detection rate for Ara h 9 and a fivefold higher detection rate for Cor a 8 and Jug r 3 compared to ALEX2. The regression model showed no interchangeability of tIgE results.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite our small sample size and the complexity of comparing a quantitative and a semi-quantitative platform, our results suggest that patient diagnosis and management can be influenced by the platform used. Therefore, our findings must be taken into consideration when choosing a platform to use for some profiles of LTP-polysensitized patients, even though more data is needed.

A comprehensive comparison between ISAC and ALEX2 multiplex test systems

OBJECTIVES

Diagnosis of type I hypersensitivity is based on anamnesis, provocation as well as blood- and skin testing. Multiplex specific IgE (sIgE) testing enables determination of sIgE antibodies against multiple recombinant or purified natural allergen components. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the novel ALEX^2® (Allergy Explorer, ALEX² test introduced on the market November 2019) multiplex platform and to compare it with the ImmunoCAP ISAC^® test system.

METHODS

Serum samples of 49 patients, routinely determined with ISAC, were selected based on positive results covering in total most of the 112 ISAC components. Cohen's kappa, negative percent agreement (NPA), and positive percent agreement (PPA) of ALEX² data compared to ISAC data (as a non-reference standard) were computed for those allergen components present on both platforms (n=103). Furthermore, in some samples sIgE results against allergen extracts and/or -components tested with either ImmunoCAP^® (ThermoFisher) or IMMULITE^® (Siemens) were available and compared to ALEX² results.

RESULTS

The overall agreement between ISAC and ALEX² common allergen components was 94%. NPA and PPA were respectively 95 and 90%. Kappa values differed for specific allergen groups and varied between 0.60 and 0.92 showing moderate to almost perfect agreement. Of the qualitative discrepancies between ALEX² and ISAC, 59% were related to weak positive results i.e. results under 1 kUA/L or 1 ISU, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The method comparison between ISAC and ALEX² multiplex tests showed a high concordance for those allergen components present on both platforms.