Detection of Wheat Lipid Transfer Protein (Tri a 14) Sensitization: Comparison between Currently Available Diagnostic Tools.

BACKGROUND: Wheat lipid transfer protein (LTP; Tri a 14) and ω5-gliadin have been described as major allergens in wheat allergy (WA) and relevant in wheat-induced anaphylaxis, frequently associated with cofactors. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare tools currently available in routine diagnosis to detect Tri a 14 sensitization, its clinical relevance, and cosensitization to ω5-gliadin and other LTPs. METHODS: One hundred eighteen adults sensitized to rTri a 14 by ImmunoCAP® (cutoff ≥0.1 kUA/L) identified among 210 LTP allergic patients were included. We evaluated (1) wheat skin prick test (SPT), (2) specific IgE (sIgE) to wheat, rTri a 14, rTri a 19, peach, apple, walnut, hazelnut, and peanut LTPs using ImmunoCAP® and microarray ImmunoCAP®ISAC (cutoff ≥0.3I SU), and (3) wheat-related symptoms. RESULTS: Wheat SPT and sIgE were positive in 31% and 85% of subjects, respectively. rTri a 14 by microarray was detected in 25%. Eight percent showed cosensitization to ω5-gliadin. Thirty percent referred symptoms (gastrointestinal [13%], urticaria [11%], and anaphylaxis [8%]). Cofactors (45%) were significantly associated with systemic reactions. CONCLUSION: WA due to Tri a 14 is frequently related with systemic reactions and because are frequently related to cofactors, the culprit may not be suspected. Together with the poor performance to identify Tri a 14 sensitization of the current routine diagnostic tools based on the analysis of whole wheat extract, such as wheat SPT or sIgE, there is a high risk that WA may be overlooked. Thus, when WA is suspected, sIgE Tri a 14 assessment is recommended, together with wheat and ω5-gliadin, preferably in the singleplex format, and carefully evaluated considering ≥0.1 kUA/L as a cutoff.

Alternative to In Vivo Tests During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Multiple Allergen Simultaneous Tests as a Useful First Screening.

BACKGROUND: In allergy diagnosis we sometimes find some clinical or logistic limitations to be able to carry out in vivo tests, so the detection of serum allergic-specific IgE could be an alternative as a first screening step. Here, we compare the results from the routine diagnostic tools and multiple allergen simultaneous tests to detect inhalant allergen sensitization. METHODS: Thirty-two subjects with a positive ImmunoCAP Phadiatop screening were included, evaluating the accuracy of their diagnosis using (1) specific IgE determination by ImmunoCAP and (2) MAST EUROLINE Immunoblot. RESULTS: The MAST method showed a high agreement and correlation with the ImmunoCAP system for Derma-tophagoides pteronyssinus, cat dander, orchard grass and Alternaria alternata. Of the subjects, 94% were sensitized to at least one of the allergens using MAST EUROLINE immunoblot, whereas 79% of individuals with a positive Phadiatop went undetected when we analyzed only the 4 allergens mentioned before. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed the usefulness of MAST EUROLINE immunoblot for screening detection of specific IgE antibodies directed against a broad spectrum of inhalant allergens as a first screening tool. Furthermore, its performance is not affected by the possible in vivo test limitations and avoids the arbitrary selection of allergenic sources for evaluation, which may lead to incorrect patients' diagnosis and management.

Performance of basophil activation test and specific IgG4 as diagnostic tools in nonspecific lipid transfer protein allergy: Antwerp-Barcelona comparison.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies show that nsLTP sensitization is not limited to the Mediterranean basin and can present diverse clinical phenotypes. It remains challenging to predict clinical outcome when specific IgE antibodies (sIgE) to nsLTPs are present. This study compares both clinical and in vitro allergy characteristics but also diagnostic performance of a basophil activation test (BAT) and sIgG4 in nsLTP-sensitized patients from Antwerp (ANT, Belgium) and Barcelona (BCN, Spain). METHODS: Adult subjects with positive sIgE rPru p 3 and/or rMal d 3 ≥ 0.10 kUA /L (n = 182) and healthy controls (n = 37) were included. NsLTP-sensitized individuals were stratified according to clinical symptoms with peach/apple, respectively. BAT rPru p 3 and rMal d 3 were performed and sIgG4 antibodies to both components quantified. RESULTS: In BCN, only ratios of sIgG4/sIgE rMal d 3 and BAT rMal d 3 (0.001 µg/mL) can identify clinically relevant Mal d 3 sensitization (sensitivity of 60%-63% and a specificity of 75%-67%, respectively). In ANT, only the sIgE/total IgE rPru p 3 ratio shows added value (sensitivity 60% and specificity 83%). Finally, it appears that symptomatic patients in BCN are more sensitive to lower allergen concentrations compared to ANT. In addition, it was shown that ANT patients were more often sensitized to pollen and that specific pollen sources differed between regions. CONCLUSIONS: NsLTP-related allergy profiles and diagnostic performance differ significantly between regions and are component-specific, which makes extrapolation of data difficult to do. In addition, it seems that basophil sensitivity might show geographical differences. Additional research is needed to confirm these findings.

Low Levels Matter: Clinical Relevance of Low Pru p 3 sIgE in Patients With Peach Allergy.

Many clinical lab settings still use 0.35 KUA/L as the cut-off for serum specific-IgE (sIgE) immunoassays, while the detection limit is 0.1 KUA/L. The clinical relevance of -low-level sIgE (0.1-0.35 KUA/L) remains controversial. Pru p 3 sIgE is considered to be the main routine tool for assessing lipid transfer protein (LTP) sensitization. We aimed to evaluate the clinical relevance of Pru p 3 sIgE low levels in a population diagnosed with LTP allergy. Adults diagnosed with LTP allergy and Pru p 3 sIgE ≥ 0.1 KUA/L between 2012 and 2019 were included. Clinical data were reviewed. nPru p 3 basophil activation test (BAT) was performed and basophil reactivity (BR) and sensitivity (BS) correlated with the peach allergy symptoms. Pru p 3 sIgE from 496 subjects was recorded, 114 (23.0%) between 0.1 and 0.34 KUA/L (grLOW), the rest ≥ 0.35 KUA/L (grB). A total of 44.7% in grLOW and 59.9% in grB were allergic. Urticaria was more frequent in grLOW. In grLOW, Pru p 3 sIgE was higher in patients with local compared with systemic symptoms. In grB, Pru p 3 sIgE was higher in allergic patients. Pru p 3/Total IgE ratios were higher in allergic vs. tolerant in both groups. In BAT, BR was similar in both groups. In grLOW, it was higher on allergic compared with tolerant (p = 0.0286), and on those having systemic vs. local symptoms (p = 0.0286). BS showed no significant difference between groups. Patients with low levels represent a non-negligible fraction and around 45% are peach allergic. BAT showed functional sIgE in them. Pru p 3 sensitizations should be carefully evaluated even when sIgE levels are low.