Evaluation of basophil allergen threshold sensitivity (CD-sens) to peanut and Ara h 8 in children IgE-sensitized to Ara h 8.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing peanut allergy properly is important and can be achieved by combining clinical history with various diagnostic methods such as IgE-antibody (IgE-ab) measurements, skin-prick test, basophil allergen threshold sensitivity (CD-sens) and food challenge. We aimed to evaluate CD-sens to peanut, Ara h 8 and Gly m 4 in relation to an oral peanut challenge in children IgE-sensitized to birch, peanut and Ara h 8 avoiding peanuts. METHODS: Twenty children IgE-sensitized to birch pollen and Ara h 8, but not to Ara h 1, Ara h 2 or Ara h 3 were challenged orally with roasted peanuts. Blood samples were drawn for IgE-ab and CD-sens analysis. To measure CD-sens, basophils were stimulated in vitro with decreasing doses of allergens until threshold sensitivity was reached. RESULTS: All children passed challenge without objective symptoms, but mild oral allergy syndrome (OAS) symptoms were reported in 6/20 children. Nineteen of twenty children were negative in CD-sens to peanut but 17/20 were positive to rAra h 8. Eleven of twenty children were positive in CD-sens to rGly m 4. CONCLUSION: Positive CD-sens to rAra h 8 show that the Ara h 8 IgE-ab sensitized basophils can be activated by a rAra h 8 allergen and initiate an allergic inflammation despite a negative challenge. Hence, children sensitized to Ara h 8 but not to peanut storage proteins may be at risk for systemic allergic reaction when eating larger amounts of peanuts but most likely don't have to fear smaller amounts.

Peanut component Ara h 8 sensitization and tolerance to peanut.

BACKGROUND: Isolated Ara h 8 sensitization is suggested to be associated with no or mild symptoms among peanut-sensitized subjects. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the occurrence of systemic reactions in children with isolated sensitization to Ara h 8. METHODS: Participants were 144 children sensitized to Ara h 8 (≥ 0.35 kU(A)/L) but not to Ara h 1, Ara h 2, or Ara h 3 (<0.35 kU(A)/L). An open oral challenge with peanut was performed in those subjects who did not consume peanut regularly, and an extended IgE reactivity profile was obtained. If the child had a documented history of systemic reactions up to grade I anaphylaxis, double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges were performed. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine (89.5%) children were either peanut consumers or did not react to peanut challenge. Another 14 (9.7%) children experienced oral cavity symptoms at the first 2 but not subsequent challenge doses. At the time of the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge, 1 boy with a previous mild systemic reaction to peanut experienced lip swelling, stomach cramping, and objective tiredness. Reanalysis of IgE levels showed an increase in peanut IgE levels from 1.5 to 8.8 kU(A)/L, but IgE levels to Ara h 8 remained stable and IgE levels to Ara h 1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 3 were all still less than 0.35 kU(A)/L. The IgE level to Ara h 6 was 0.45 kU(A)/L. CONCLUSION: Isolated Ara h 8 sensitization indicates tolerance to peanuts in almost all cases. However, sensitization against thus far unidentified determinants in peanut might cause symptoms in rare cases.

[New perspectives on the diagnosis and treatment of food allergies in children]. / Nya perspektiv på diagnos och behandling av matallergier hos barn.

Acute allergic reactions to food are often IgE mediated. Symptoms vary in severity; from mild oral itching to anaphylactic reactions. Where birch pollen allergy is endemic, mild allergic reactions from e.g. fresh fruits and nuts are most likely caused by cross reactivity between pollen and plants (cross reactions). These mild symptoms, if caused by cross reactivity, do not progress to more severe symptoms, in contrast to ¼true« food allergy. However, making this distinction is a delicate task, since more severe reactions also often start with mild oral symptoms. Also conventional allergy tests, such as skin-prick test and blood test to detect IgE-antibodies (IgE-ab) to foods, discriminate poorly between cross reactions and true allergy. Component resolved diagnostics, i.e. analysis of IgE-ab to specific proteins in an allergen and CD-sens (Basophil allergen threshold sensitivity), can differentiate pollen-related cross reactions from true allergic reactions that may cause anaphylaxis. There is no widely accepted or evidence based treatment for food allergy, but reports from several studies have been published and many are in progress, where oral immunotherapy probably is the most promising form of treatment.

Oral peanut challenge identifies an allergy but the peanut allergen threshold sensitivity is not reproducible.

BACKGROUND: Double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge, DBPCFC, the gold standard for diagnosing food allergy, is time-consuming and potentially dangerous. A basophil allergen threshold sensitivity test, CD-sens, has shown promising results as a diagnostic tool in food allergy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reproducibility of oral peanut challenge and compare the outcome to CD-sens in peanut-sensitized children. METHODS: Twenty-seven children (4-19 years) underwent a DBPCFC followed by a single-blind oral food-challenge. The peanut challenges (1 mg to 5 g) were evaluated by severity scoring. Blood samples were drawn for CD-sens before the two first challenges. RESULTS: Thirteen children (48%) did not react at any of the challenges. Fourteen reacted at both peanut challenges but not to placebo. Only two of these children reacted at the same threshold dose and with the same severity score. All other children scored differently or reacted at different doses. For children with a positive challenge the geometric mean of the ratio of the doses was 1.834 (p = 0.307) and the arithmetic mean of the difference between the severity scores was 0.143 (p = 0.952). No association was obtained between the two peanut challenges regarding severity score (r(s) = 0.11, p = 0.71) or threshold dose (r(s) = 0.35, p = 0.22). Among the children positive in peanut challenge, 12 were positive in CD-sens. Two were low-responders and could not be evaluated. Geometric mean of the ratio of CD-sens values in children with a positive challenge was 1.035 (p = 0.505) but unlike for the severity score and the threshold dose the association between the two CD-sens values was strong (r(s) = 0.94, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For a positive/negative test the reproducibility is 100% for both peanut challenge and CD-sens. However, a comparison of the degree of allergen threshold sensitivity between the two tests is not possible since the threshold dose and severity scoring is not reproducible.

The utility of peanut components in the diagnosis of IgE-mediated peanut allergy among distinct populations.

BACKGROUND: Increasing data suggest that analysis of IgE to peanut components can be clinically helpful and possibly more accurate than IgE to whole peanut. Not all studies examining this topic, however, have used prospective samples, multiple components, and peanut challenges. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the utility of peanut component testing, using a standardized, commercially available test done before oral peanut challenge in various populations of patients with suspected peanut allergy from 2 different countries. METHODS: IgE to whole peanut and the recombinant allergen components Ara h 1, 2, 3, and 8 were analyzed from serum samples drawn before double-blind peanut challenge from 4 distinct cohorts of patients with suspected peanut allergy from 2 nations (United States and Sweden). RESULTS: Patients (n = 167; median age, 11.7 years; interquartile range, 7.0-15.0 years) had serum analyzed for peanut components and completed an oral food challenge to peanut. Although IgE to peanut was the most sensitive test (0.93), Ara h 2 was the most specific (0.92) and provided the best positive predictive value (0.94) of all the tests. Ara h 2 was also the best overall diagnostic test by receiver operating characteristic analysis (area under the curve, 0.84; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected peanut allergy, IgE to peanut is a sensitive test but is not specific. IgE to Ara h 2 is a more specific and more accurate diagnostic test in this sampling of patients with suspected peanut allergy. Given each tests attributes, a stepwise approach to testing may provide clinicians with a way to minimize the need for peanut challenges.