Clinical management of plant food allergy in patients sensitized to lipid transfer proteins is heterogeneous: identifying the gaps.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patients sensitized to lipid transfer protein (LTP) present a wide clinical variability. The lack of practical diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines complicate their management. The aim of the study was to describe the clinical approach of Spanish allergists to this pathology using a survey designed by PICO method and subsequent Delphi approach validation. METHODS: Designed survey was answered by 224 allergists (75% women; 57.1% with >20 years of professional experience). Homogeneity regarding clinical practice on the main points of LTP allergy diagnosis was observed, except for patients with suspected NSAID hypersensitivity (44.6% frequently include LTP skin testing). Oral food challenges were not frequently performed (63.6% occasionally to never), and they were generally (75.5%) used to confirm tolerance. It was common to recommend fruit skins avoidance (77.2%) and maintaining consumption of foods to which patients are sensitised but tolerant (99.1%). RESULTS: There was heterogeneity on other dietary indications, modifications due to co-factors, or traces avoidance. Peach sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was considered very/quite effective by 55.9% of allergists. The majority (79.5%) consider SLIT indicated in <25% of LTP allergic patients, based on severity (95.2%), frequency of reactions (99.4%), allergy to multiple food families (97.4%), and the quality of life/nutrition impairment (91.5%). There was different practice on SLIT prescription based on co-factor involvement. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that there is a need to increase evidence to reduce the clinical practice heterogeneity in the management of LTP allergy.

Unraveling the Diagnosis of Kiwifruit Allergy: Usefulness of Current Diagnostic Tests.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the usefulness of the in vitro and in vivo methods used in the diagnosis of kiwifruit allergy and to specifically assess the impact of seed proteins on sensitivity. METHODS: We performed skin prick tests (SPTs) using various commercial extracts, homemade pulp, and seed extracts and prick-prick tests with kiwifruit on 36 allergic patients. The presence of specific IgE (sIgE) was assessed using the ImmunoCAP (kiwifruit extract), ELISA (Act d 1, Act d 2), ISAC, and FABER assays. Immunoblotting of seed extract was carried out, and a single-blind oral food challenge was performed with whole seeds in seed-sensitized individuals. RESULTS: The prick prick test with kiwifruit demonstrated the highest diagnostic capacity (81.8% sensitivity and 94.1% specificity) among the in vivo tests. The sIgE levels measured using ImmunoCAP (kiwifruit extract) showed a similar sensitivity to that of global ISAC and FABER (63.9%, 59.5%, and 58.3%, respectively). Act d 1 was the major allergen. Sensitization to Act d 1 was associated with positive sIgE results to whole kiwifruit extract detected by ImmunoCAP (P<.000). A positive SPT result to kiwifruit seeds was associated with severe symptoms induced by kiwifruit (P=.019) as a marker of advanced disease, but not with clinically relevant sensitization. Challenge testing with kiwifruit seeds performed on 8 seed-sensitized patients yielded negative results. CONCLUSION: Sensitization to Act d 1 is associated with a positive result in conventional diagnostic techniques, whereas kiwifruit seed sensitization does not increase the sensitivity of the diagnostic techniques evaluated.

Early skin testing is effective for diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions occurring during anesthesia.

Allergic skin tests have to be performed 4-6 weeks after an allergic anesthetic reaction. Patients with allergic reactions during anesthesia were prospectively included (n = 44). Skin tests were performed in two stages: (i) Stage 1 (S1), 0-4 days after the reaction; and (ii) Stage 2 (S2), 4-8 weeks after. Five (11.5%) surgical procedures were suspended due to the reaction. Positive skin tests were obtained in 25/44 patients (57%). Allergic diagnosis was carried out at S1 in 15/25 (60%) and at S2 in 10/25 (40%). Three patients resulted positive only in S1. Overall agreement among S1 and S2 skin tests was 70.45%. The kappa statistic was 0.41 (P-value = 0.002). Odds ratio of obtaining a false negative in S1 (compared with S2) was 3.33. Early allergological study is useful, could minimize false negatives, but should be considered as a complement to late skin tests.

Unraveling the Diagnosis of Kiwifruit Allergy: Usefulness of Current Diagnostic Tests

Objectives: To determine the usefulness of the in vitro and in vivo methods used in the diagnosis of kiwifruit allergy and to specificallyassess the impact of seed proteins on sensitivity.Methods: We performed skin prick tests (SPTs) using various commercial extracts, homemade pulp, and seed extracts and prick-prick testswith kiwifruit on 36 allergic patients. The presence of specific IgE (sIgE) was assessed using the ImmunoCAP (kiwifruit extract), ELISA(Act d 1, Act d 2), ISAC, and FABER assays. Immunoblotting of seed extract was carried out, and a single-blind oral food challenge wasperformed with whole seeds in seed-sensitized individuals.Results: The prick prick test with kiwifruit demonstrated the highest diagnostic capacity (81.8% sensitivity and 94.1% specificity) amongthe in vivo tests. The sIgE levels measured using ImmunoCAP (kiwifruit extract) showed a similar sensitivity to that of global ISAC andFABER (63.9%, 59.5%, and 58.3%, respectively). Act d 1 was the major allergen. Sensitization to Act d 1 was associated with positivesIgE results to whole kiwifruit extract detected by ImmunoCAP (P<.000). A positive SPT result to kiwifruit seeds was associated withsevere symptoms induced by kiwifruit (P=.019) as a marker of advanced disease, but not with clinically relevant sensitization. Challengetesting with kiwifruit seeds performed on 8 seed-sensitized patients yielded negative results.Conclusions: Sensitization to Act d 1 is associated with a positive result in conventional diagnostic techniques, whereas kiwifruit seedsensitization does not increase the sensitivity of the diagnostic techniques evaluated (AU)

Objetivos: Determinar la rentabilidad diagnóstica de las técnicas in vitro e in vivo utilizadas en el diagnóstico de alergia al kiwi y estudiarla influencia de las proteínas alergénicas de las semillas en su sensibilidad.Métodos: Se seleccionaron 36 pacientes alérgicos a kiwi. Se les realizó prick test con cuatro extractos comerciales diferentes y prick-prickcon kiwi. Se determinó IgE específica mediante ImmunoCAP (extracto de kiwi), ELISA (Act d 1, Act d 2), las micromatrices ISAC y FABER eImmunoblotting de extracto de semilla de kiwi. Se realizó exposición oral simple ciego frente a semilla de kiwi en pacientes sensibilizadosa la semilla.Resultados: El prick-prick de kiwi fue la prueba in vivo con mayor rendimiento (sensibilidad 81,8%, especificidad 94,1%). El ImmunoCAPde extracto de kiwi mostró una sensibilidad similar a la global del ISAC y del FABER (63,9%, 59,5% y 58,3%, respectivamente). Act d 1fue el alérgeno mayoritario. Se encontró asociación entre los niveles de IgE específica frente a Act d 1 (ISAC) y el extracto de kiwi medianteImmunoCAP (p <0,000). La prueba cutánea positiva con semilla se asoció con mayor gravedad de síntomas frente a kiwi (p = 0,019),como marcador de enfermedad avanzada, pero no como sensibilización clínicamente relevante. La prueba de provocación con semillasfue negativa en los ocho pacientes provocados.Conclusiones: La sensibilización a Act d 1 se asocia con resultados positivos con las técnicas diagnósticas convencionales. La sensibilizaciónfrente a semillas no mejora el rendimiento de las técnicas evaluadas (AU)

Clinical performance of commercial ISAC 112 allergen microarray versus noncommercial RIRAAF platform for the diagnosis of plant food and olive pollen allergies

No disponible