Pollen Sensitization Can Increase the Allergic Reaction to Non-Cross-Reactive Allergens in a Soy-Allergic Patient.

During and after the pollen season, an increase in food-triggered allergic symptoms has been observed in pollen-food syndrome patients, possibly due to seasonal boosting of pollen-IgE levels. It has been suggested that consumption of birch-pollen-related foods plays a role in seasonal allergenic inflammation. However, whether this increased pollen sensitization during the pollen season can also affect the allergenicity of allergens that are non-cross-reactive with birch pollen remains in question. This study presents the case of a patient with soy allergy and pollinosis, who experiences worsening of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms during the birch pollen season even though the eliciting food factor does not cross-react with birch pollen allergens and their homologs (e.g., Bet v 1 and Gly m 4). The results showed a notable increase in sIgE for Gly m 4 (3.3 fold) and Bet v 1 (2.6 fold) during the birch pollen season compared to outside the birch pollen season, while Gly m 5 and Gly m 6 showed only a slight increase (1.5 fold). The basophil activation test (BAT) showed that in this patient Gly m 5 and Gly m 6 are clinically relevant soy allergens, which correlates with the reported clinical symptoms to processed soy. Moreover, the BAT against raw soy shows an increase in basophil activation during the birch pollen season and a negative basophil activation result outside the birch pollen season. Thus, the worsening of GI symptoms could possibly be due to an increase in IgE receptors, an over-reactive immune system, and/or significant intestinal allergic inflammation. This case highlights the importance of including allergens that do not cross-react with birch pollen and using a functional assay such as the BAT to evaluate clinical relevance when assessing birch pollen seasonal influence on soy allergenicity.

Soy Gly m 8 sIgE Has Limited Value in the Diagnosis of Soy Allergy in Peanut Ara h 2-Sensitized Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Recently, specific IgE (sIgE) sensitization against Gly m 8 (soy 2S albumin) has been described as a good diagnostic marker for soy allergy (SA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of Gly m 8 by determining the sensitization profiles based on the homologues soy allergens Bet v 1, Ara h 1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 3. METHODS: Thirty soy-allergic adults were included; sIgE to total soy extract, Gly m 8, Gly m 4, Gly m 5, Gly m 6, Bet v 1, Ara h 1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 3 were determined. Sensitization patterns were analyzed and determined. The clinical relevance of sIgE of Gly m 8 sensitization was measured by assessing its capacity to degranulate basophils in Gly m8-sensitized patients by an indirect basophil activation test (iBAT). RESULTS: Based on the sIgE patterns of sensitization, two groups of SA patients were identified: (i) peanut-associated SA group (all patients were sensitized to one or more of the peanut compounds) and (ii) non-peanut/PR-10-associated SA group (22 patients were sensitized to Gly m 4 and Bet v 1 but not to any of the peanut compounds). A high and significant correlation between total soy extract and Gly m 6 (R2 = 0.97), Gly m 5 (R2 = 0.85), and Gly m 8 (R2 = 0.78) was observed. A nonsignificant correlation was observed between the levels of sIgE of Gly m 8 versus Ara h2. The iBAT results showed that Gly m 8 did not induce basophil degranulation in any of the peanut-associated patients, indicating that the Gly m8 sensitizations were not clinically relevant. CONCLUSIONS: Gly m 8 was not a major allergen in the selected soy-allergic population. The iBAT results indicated that Gly m 8 was not able to induce basophil degranulation in sIgE Gly m 8-sensitized soy-allergic patients. Thus, Gly m 8 would have no added value in the diagnosis of SA in the present study population.

Immunological Characterization of Dutch Sesame Seed-Allergic Patients.

BACKGROUND: Sesame seed is an allergen of growing importance worldwide. However, knowledge of the clinically relevant sesame allergen and its cross-reactivity with homologous allergens is limited. The aim of this study was the immunological characterization of Dutch sesame seed-allergic patients and evaluation of cross-reactivity between sesame seed, tree nut and pollen allergens using different sources of allergen extracts. METHODS: Six patients with a medical history of sesame seed allergy were included, i.e. 5 with an anaphylactic reaction and 1 with an oral allergy syndrome (OAS). The immunological background of the sesame seed and tree nut IgE sensitization was characterized with Western blotting and a basophil activation test (BAT). The major sesame allergen was identified by nanoLC-MS/MS. Cross-reactivity was measured using an immuno-inhibition assay with the Phadia ImmunoCAP system. RESULTS: Oleosin was identified as the major allergen for the 5 patients with an anaphylactic reaction to sesame seed, but no cross-reactivity between sesame and tree nut proteins was observed. For the patient with OAS, IgE specific to oleosin was not detected but cross-reactivity between sesame seed and tree nut proteins was observed. The BAT and ImmunoCAP inhibition test added value to the clinical and immunological characterization of sesame seed-sensitized patients, distinguishing relevant and non-relevant sensitizations. CONCLUSIONS: Our immunological approach enabled us to fully characterize the sensitization pattern of 6 sesame seed-allergic patients. The different protein composition of commercially available allergen extracts influences the outcomes of the immunological assays and thus also the diagnosis to a large extent.

Evaluation of a compliance device in a subgroup of adult patients receiving specific immunotherapy with grass allergen tablets (GRAZAX) in a randomized, open-label, controlled study: an a priori subgroup analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This a priori subgroup analysis was conducted to assess patients' experience with a compliance device for the administration of sublingual specific immunotherapy for grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis. METHODS: The present paper reports the results of a subgroup analysis of a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label European study in which adults with grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis received once-daily treatment with grass allergen tablets with or without a device to aid compliance. Treatment was given approximately 6 to 12 weeks before the grass pollen season, during the season (approximately 8-10 weeks), and for up to 2 weeks after the end of the season. In the subgroup analysis, patients from Germany and the Netherlands who had been randomized to receive the compliance device were asked to complete a brief questionnaire at the final study visit. The questionnaire included 6 items concerning patients' use of the device and whether it helped them remember to take their tablets. RESULTS: Of the 91 patients from Germany and the Netherlands who were randomized to use the compliance device along with grass allergen tablets, 71 returned the questionnaire. Among responders, 58 of 71 (82%) reported using the device sometimes or always, 50 of 63 (79%) found the device easy to use, 32 of 69 (46%) found that the device made it easier to remember to take tablets, and 43 of 71 (61%) indicated that they would consider using the device again. CONCLUSION: Most patients in this subgroup analysis used the compliance device as a medication reminder and rated it easy to use.