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.

The Basophil Activation Test reduces the need for a food challenge test in children suspected of IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy.

BACKGROUND: The gold standard for the diagnosis of cow's milk allergy is the Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Food Challenge (DBPCFC) test. However, disadvantages of the DBPCFC are the potential risk of anaphylactic reactions, the time-consuming procedure and high costs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the reliability of the Basophil Activation Test (BAT) both for the initial diagnosis of cow's milk allergy in children and for the determination of tolerance in children with cow's milk allergy. METHODS: Ninety-seven BATs and cow's milk-specific IgE (sIgE) tests were performed in 86 infants/young children, suspected of (persistent) cow's milk allergy, who were qualified for an in-hospital DBPCFC. The BAT was performed with cow's milk extract and the purified major allergens casein, α-lactalbumin, ß-lactoglubulin. Basophil activation was determined by CD63 upregulation measured by flow cytometry. The BAT results were compared to the DBPCFC outcomes. RESULTS: Based on unequivocal DBPCFC and BAT result combinations (80%), the BAT had a sensitivity and specificity of 100% (CI: 86%-100% and 68%-100%, respectively) in IgE-sensitized children (41% of the tested children). All non-IgE-sensitized children (59%) had a negative DBPCFC and BAT, except for five patients. These latter showed delayed and relatively mild symptoms in the DBPCFC with a negative BAT, supporting a non-IgE-mediated allergy in these children. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The BAT seems reliable and cost-effective to diagnose patients with an IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy. In IgE-sensitized patients, a BAT might replace a DBPCFC. For non-IgE-sensitized patients presenting with mild symptoms, we propose to consider a (double-blind) extended (time) challenge test at home.

An alternative inhibition method for determining cross-reactive allergens.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition assays are an useful tool to identify the allergen of primary sensitization of cross-reactive allergens. Classical ELISA-based inhibition assays are limited by both the availability of commercial standardized allergen extracts and the experience and knowledge needed for making home-made extracts. Moreover the direct comparison of the inhibition ELISAs outcomes between different laboratories is difficult because of different sources of used allergen extracts and a number of methodological variations. Therefore, we propose a novel ImmunoCap (Phadia, Thermofisher Scientific) based immunoinhibition method with the use of commercially available Caps as the allergen source. METHODS: The novel ImmunoCap based immunoinhibition method was developed and tested with sera from patients with a well-known cross-reactive sensitization for fig (Ficus carica) and ficus (Ficus benjamina). Results were compared with a classically applied inhibition method, i.e. addition of homemade allergen extract to patient serum. RESULTS: The amount of allergens (fig and ficus extracts) needed to reach a similar degree of inhibition was comparable for both inhibition methods. CONCLUSIONS: The ImmunoCap based inhibition assay, in addition to classical inhibition methods, is a valuable tool as the ImmunoCap analyzer and commercial allergens (Caps) are more widely available which makes the outcomes of inhibition tests comparable between different laboratories. Furthermore, in the ImmunoCap inhibition method the same protein source is used for both the inhibition of sIgE and sIgE measurement, which might be even more relevant when multiple cross-reactive allergens are tested.

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.

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.

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.

[New test to detect food allergy: the basophil activation test]. / Basofielenactivatietest bij IgE-gemedieerde voedselallergie.

Over recent decades the prevalence of food allergies and the allergy-related costs of care have increased considerably. The double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge test is the gold standard for diagnosing food allergy. However, this test is not without risk and it is labour-intensive and expensive. In addition, the food challenge test only has limited availability which has led to (long) waiting lists. Therefore, there is a need for a safe, reliable and patient-friendly test to detect food allergy that is also fast and cheap. The basophil activation test is a potentially good alternative, however, it is only available at a few clinics and laboratories in the Netherlands and it can currently only be used for a limited number of allergens - and therefore only in a limited number of patients. National collaboration between laboratories and allergy centres should lead to more knowledge, the consolidation of which will benefit the validation and national implementation of the test.

No mucosal atrophy and reduced inflammatory cells: active-controlled trial with yearlong fluticasone furoate nasal spray.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) and mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) are well tolerated and more effective than placebo at relieving the symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis. Effects of FFNS on the nasal histology have not been previously reported. This study examines the effects of FFNS and MFNS, administered daily for 1 year, on the nasal mucosa in subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis. METHODS: Subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis were randomized 1:1 to q.d., open-label treatment with FFNS, 110 µg, or MFNS, 200 µg, for 1 year. These groups and a healthy control group that did not receive study medication underwent nasal biopsies at baseline and 12 months. RESULTS: The nasal biopsy population comprised 96 participants (37 using FFNS, 42 using MFNS, and 17 healthy controls). Epithelial thickness did not change appreciably from baseline to week 52 in any of the groups and mean change from baseline did not differ between FFNS and MFNS (least square mean difference, -0.001 mm, 95% confidence interval, -0.007, 0.006). Although not tested for significance, improvements over baseline were observed in epithelial histology in the FFNS group with more epithelium including intact columnar and ciliated epithelial cells. No appreciable change in the percentage of goblet cells was established. FFNS and MFNS were associated with decreases in epithelial and subepithelial nasal mucosal eosinophils and basophils from baseline to week 52. The percentage of subjects with no inflammatory cells at week 52 was 49 and 33% for eosinophils and 46 and 24% for basophils, for FFNS and MFNS, respectively. CONCLUSION: Yearlong therapy with either FFNS or MFNS showed no changes in epithelial thickness or the percentage of goblet cells as well as a reduction in inflammatory cell infiltrate. FFNS was associated with improvements in epithelial histology. These data support the long-term safety of FFNS in subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis.

Effect of heating and glycation on the allergenicity of 2S albumins (Ara h 2/6) from peanut.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy is one of the most common and severe food allergies, and processing is known to influence the allergenicity of peanut proteins. We aimed to establish the effect of heating and glycation on the IgE-binding properties and biological activity of 2S albumins (Ara h 2/6) from peanut. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Native Ara h 2/6 was purified from raw peanuts and heated in solution (15 min, 110°C) in the presence or absence of glucose. Ara h 2 and 6 were also purified from roasted peanut. Using PBMC and sera from peanut-allergic patients, the cellular proliferative potency and IgE reactivity (reverse EAST inhibition) and functionality (basophil degranulation capacity) of allergens were assessed. Heating Ara h 2/6 at 110°C resulted in extensive denaturation, hydrolysis and aggregation of the protein, whilst Ara h 2 and 6 isolated from roasted peanut retained its native conformation. Allergen stimulation of PBMC induced proliferation and Th2 cytokine secretion which was unaffected by thermal processing. Conversely, IgE reactivity and functionality of Ara h 2/6 was decreased by heating. Whilst heating-glycation further reduced the IgE binding capacity of the proteins, it moderated their loss of histamine releasing capacity. Ara h 2 and 6 purified from roasted peanut demonstrated the same IgE reactivity as unheated, native Ara h 2/6. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Although no effect of processing on T-cell reactivity was observed, heat induced denaturation reduced the IgE reactivity and subsequent functionality of Ara h 2/6. Conversely, Ara h 2 and 6 purified from roasted peanut retained the structure and IgE reactivity/functionality of the native protein which may explain the allergenic potency of this protein. Through detailed molecular study and allergenicity assessment approaches, this work then gives new insights into the effect of thermal processing on structure/allergenicity of peanut proteins.

Boiling peanut Ara h 1 results in the formation of aggregates with reduced allergenicity.

SCOPE: Roasting rather than boiling and Maillard modifications may modulate peanut allergenicity. We investigated how these factors affect the allergenic properties of a major peanut allergen, Ara h 1. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ara h 1 was purified from either raw (N-Ara h 1) or roasted (R-Ara h 1) peanuts. Boiling (100°C 15 min; H-Ara h 1) resulted in a partial loss of Ara h 1 secondary structure and formation of rod-like branched aggregates with reduced IgE-binding capacity and impaired ability to induce mediator release. Glycated Ara h 1 (G-Ara h 1) formed by boiling in the presence of glucose behaved similarly. However, H- and G-Ara h1 retained the T-cell reactivity of N-Ara h 1. R-Ara h 1 was denatured, comprised compact, globular aggregates, and showed no evidence of glycation but retained the IgE-binding capacity of the native protein. CONCLUSION: Ara h 1 aggregates formed by boiling were morphologically distinct from those formed by roasting and had lower allergenic activity. Glycation had no additional effect on Ara h 1 allergenicity compared with heating alone. Taken together with published data on the loss of Ara h 2/6 from boiled peanuts, this supports the hypothesis that boiling reduces the allergenicity of peanuts.