Real-World Sensitization and Tolerance Pattern to Seafood in Fish-Allergic Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Seafood is a common cause of food allergy and anaphylaxis, but there are limited published real-world data describing the clinical presentation of fish and shellfish allergies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the clinical characteristics, immunological profile, and tolerance pattern to fish, crustaceans, and mollusks in fish-allergic individuals. METHODS: Patients presenting with IgE-mediated fish allergy between 2016 and 2021 were recruited. A comprehensive sensitization profile including specific IgE and skin prick test to various fish and shellfish species and a detailed clinical history including individuals' recent seafood consumption were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 249 fish-allergic individuals (aged 4.2 ± 5.8 years) were recruited from 6 allergy clinics in Hong Kong, and they had experienced their fish-allergic reaction 2.2 ± 3.4 years before enrollment. Seventy-five subjects (30%) reacted to either grass carp, salmon, grouper, or cod in oral food challenges. We identified an IgE sensitization gradient that corresponded to the level of ß-parvalbumin in fish. In total, 40% of fish-allergic individuals reported tolerance to 1 or more types of fish, more commonly to fish with a lower ß-parvalbumin level such as tuna and salmon, compared with ß-parvalbumin-rich fish such as catfish and grass carp. Despite fish and shellfish cosensitization, 41% of individuals reported tolerance to crustaceans, mollusks, or both, whereas shellfish avoidance occurred in half of the fish-allergic individuals, of whom 33% lacked shellfish sensitization. CONCLUSIONS: Fish allergy commonly presents in early childhood. A considerable proportion of fish-allergic patients are selectively tolerant to certain fish, typically those with lower levels of ß-parvalbumin. There is an unmet need to promote precision medicine for seafood allergies.

Differential patterns of fish sensitization in Asian populations: Implication for precision diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: The current diagnostics of fish allergy lack sufficient accuracy such that more reliable tests such as component-resolved diagnosis (CRD) are urgently needed. This study aimed at identifying fish allergens of salmon and grass carp and evaluating the sensitization pattern in fish allergic subjects from two distinct populations in Asia. METHODS: One hundred and three fish allergic subjects were recruited from Hong Kong (67 subjects) and Japan (46 subjects). Western blot and mass spectrometry were used to identify allergens from salmon and grass carp. Fish allergens were purified and tested against 96 sera on ELISA to analyze patients' sensitization pattern. The protein profiles of salmon meat prepared under different cooking methods until core temperature reached 80 °C were evaluated by SDS-PAGE and mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Three common allergens between salmon and grass carp, namely enolase, glycerldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) and parvalbumin, and two salmon-specific allergens collagen and aldolase were identified. Parvalbumin was the major allergen for both fishes showing an overall sensitization rate of 74.7%, followed by collagen (38.9%), aldolase (38.5%) and enolase (17.8%). Japanese subjects showed more diverse allergen sensitization pattern and more frequent IgE-binding to heat-labile salmon allergens. Compared with steaming and boiling, cooking by baking and frying retained more fish proteins inclusive of heat-labile allergens. CONCLUSIONS: Fish allergic patients from different Asian populations show varying fish allergen sensitization profiles. The relevant extracts and components for diagnosis are population-dependent but parvalbumin and collagen are important biomarkers. Cooking methods modify allergen composition of salmon and appear to influence patients' allergic manifestations.

Saliva viral load better correlates with clinical and immunological profiles in children with coronavirus disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric COVID-19 studies exploring the relationships between NPS and saliva viral loads, clinical and immunological profiles are lacking. METHODS: Demographics, immunological profiles, nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), and saliva samples collected on admission, and hospital length of stay (LOS) were assessed in children below 18 years with COVID-19. FINDINGS: 91 patients were included between March and August 20 20. NPS and saliva viral loads were correlated (r = 0.315, p = 0.01). Symptomatic patients had significantly higher NPS and saliva viral loads than asymptomatic patients. Serial NPS and saliva viral load measurements showed that the log10 NPS (r = -0.532, p < 0.001) and saliva (r = -0.417, p < 0.001) viral loads for all patients were inversely correlated with the days from symptom onset with statistical significance. Patients with cough, sputum, and headache had significantly higher saliva, but not NPS, viral loads. Higher saliva, but not NPS, viral loads were associated with total lymphopenia, CD3 and CD4 lymphopenia (all p < 0.05), and were inversely correlated with total lymphocyte (r = -0.43), CD3 (r = -0.55), CD4 (r = -0.60), CD8 (r = -0.41), B (r = -0.482), and NK (r = -0.416) lymphocyte counts (all p < 0.05). INTERPRETATION: Saliva viral loads on admission in children correlated better with clinical and immunological profiles than NPS.

Cell-Based Functional IgE Assays Are Superior to Conventional Allergy Tests for Shrimp Allergy Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of shellfish allergy currently relies on patient history, skin prick test (SPT), and serum specific IgE (sIgE) quantification. These methods lack sufficient diagnostic accuracy, whereas the gold standard of oral food challenges is risky and burdensome. Markers of reactivity and severity of allergic reactions to shellfish will improve clinical care of these patients. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the diagnostic performance of SPT, sIgE, basophil activation test (BAT), and IgE crosslinking-induced luciferase expression (EXiLE) test for shrimp allergy. METHODS: Thirty-five subjects with documented history of shrimp allergic reactions were recruited and grouped according to results of double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). In addition to routine diagnostics, BAT (Flow CAST) and EXiLE test with shrimp extract and tropomyosin were performed. RESULTS: Of 35 subjects, 15 were shrimp allergic with pruritus, urticaria, and itchy mouth on DBPCFC, whereas 20 were tolerant to shrimp. Tropomyosin only accounted for 53.3% of sensitization among subjects with challenge-proven shrimp allergy. BAT using shrimp extract as stimulant showed the highest area under curve value (0.88), Youden Index (0.81), likelihood ratio (14.73), odds ratio (104), and variable importance (4.27) when compared with other assays and tropomyosin diagnosis. Results of BAT significantly correlated with those of EXiLE (r = 0.664, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: BAT is a more accurate diagnostic marker for shrimp allergy than SPT and shrimp sIgE, whereas the EXiLE test based on an IgE crosslinking assay is a good alternative to BAT. Tropomyosin may not be the most important shrimp allergen in Chinese, which warrants further investigation to search for other major allergens and diagnostic markers.