花生过敏原嗜碱性粒细胞CD63检测能准确诊断皮肤点刺试验阴性、特异性IgE极低患者的花生过敏。

Tom Marrs, Helen A Brough, Matthew Kwok, Gideon Lack, Alexandra F Santos
{"title":"花生过敏原嗜碱性粒细胞CD63检测能准确诊断皮肤点刺试验阴性、特异性IgE极低患者的花生过敏。","authors":"Tom Marrs, Helen A Brough, Matthew Kwok, Gideon Lack, Alexandra F Santos","doi":"10.1111/pai.13739","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To the Editor, Fatal food anaphylaxis commonly occurs amongst patients who had previously only reported mild symptoms.1 An accurate diagnosis of food allergy is crucial. Current diagnostic practice relies on evaluating the strength of clinical history and seeking objective validation from the level of IgE sensitisation, investigated by skin prick test (SPT) or serumspecific IgE (sIgE). However, single timepoint sensitisation assays are usually sensitive but not specific— in particular, black ethnicity has been associated with raised levels of sIgE to peanut that are often clinically irrelevant.2 Oral food challenges (OFCs) are routine in clinical practice, exposing large numbers of patients to further food allergic reactions.3 Functional assays such as the basophil activation test (BAT) can discriminate between sensitisedtolerant and sensitisedallergic patients because it more closely resembles the pathological reaction of effector cells towards the culprit allergen.4,5 We have shown that the BAT is the single most accurate test to diagnose peanut allergy (PA) with enhanced specificity and retained sensitivity when compared to sensitisation tests.6 BAT investigation alongside serum and skin sensitisation testing can reduce the number of children who would be required to undergo OFC testing by two thirds.6 Other clinical presentations may prove of particular relevance. Herein, we report a case with negative SPT and very low allergen sIgE who nevertheless reacted on OFC to roasted peanuts and demonstrated activation of basophils on stimulation with peanut extract, Ara h 1, Ara h 2 and Ara h 6. A 12yearold girl of AfroCaribbean descent presented to our clinic to ascertain whether she needed to avoid nuts. At 4 years of age, she had drunk a freshly made fruit drink containing peanut and developed facial angioedema afterwards, although the exact time course was not remembered. On a second occasion, she developed conjunctivitis when a friend ate peanuts whilst being sat next to her. She had no history of allergic rhinitis. Investigations revealed a negative SPT to peanut (0 mm) and very low sIgE to peanut (0.15 kUA/L) and to Ara h 2 (0.11 kUA/L). SIgE to Ara h 1, Ara h 3, Ara h 8 and Ara h 9 was undetectable. Her baseline tryptase was 3.0 μg/L, and there was no wheal to any of the other eight tree nuts skin tested in clinic. An open incremental OFC was scheduled with the aim to rule out PA. The patient tolerated the first four doses. However, after eating the last open dose totalling a cumulative portion of 32 grams of dry roasted peanuts (8 g of peanut protein), she developed nasal congestion and prominent swelling of her eyelids, brow and lips. She reported subjective difficulty in breathing; however, her voice was clear, her oxygen saturations remained over 98% and there was no increase in her respiratory rate or blood pressure. She was treated with 10 mg of cetirizine followed by 120 mg of fexofenadine and her reaction subsided. She was advised to avoid peanut. Basophil activation test performed after the OFC demonstrated a significant response to peanut extract, Ara h 1, Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 but no response to Ara h 3 or Ara h 8 (Figure 1). The result of BAT to peanut was above the diagnostic cutoff previously defined in our patient population.6 A dosedependent increase in CD63 and CD203c expression with increasing concentrations of peanut extract, Ara h 2 and Ara h 6, was observed (Figure 2). On the same day as the BAT, she did not show sIgE to any of the 112 allergens tested on ImmunoCAP ISAC other than Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 (rAra h 2=0.3 ISU; rAra h 6=0.6 ISU). The results of Ara h 2specific IgE were low before and after the OFC. This clinical case shows that BAT was more sensitive than SPT (which showed no wheal for this patient), sIgE and even component testing and can be useful when there is discrepancy between the clinical history and IgE sensitisation tests. Although the patients' ethnicity could have suggested that the sIgE results were not clinically relevant, the history of possible peanut reactions led us to decide for an OFC, which should be considered gold standard care for patients with discrepant history and sensitisation results. This case also highlights the need for further investigation amongst patients who report reactions to the allergen with negligible sensitisation. Before BAT can replace OFC in this setting, a larger case series with sufficient power to confirm this would be valuable. However, in previous studies, we have already observed that although peanut allergic with low level of sensitisation is a minority (e.g. 9% in the overall population studied by Santos et al6), BAT is positive in a significant proportion of these cases (e.g. 73%), allowing to confirm the diagnosis of peanut allergy and deferring an OFC that would otherwise have been positive. Without using BAT or OFC, this patient would have had no confirmation of PA and be at risk of further allergic reactions in the community.","PeriodicalId":520742,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology","volume":" ","pages":"e13739"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Basophil CD63 assay to peanut allergens accurately diagnoses peanut allergy in patient with negative skin prick test and very low specific IgE.\",\"authors\":\"Tom Marrs, Helen A Brough, Matthew Kwok, Gideon Lack, Alexandra F Santos\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/pai.13739\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To the Editor, Fatal food anaphylaxis commonly occurs amongst patients who had previously only reported mild symptoms.1 An accurate diagnosis of food allergy is crucial. Current diagnostic practice relies on evaluating the strength of clinical history and seeking objective validation from the level of IgE sensitisation, investigated by skin prick test (SPT) or serumspecific IgE (sIgE). However, single timepoint sensitisation assays are usually sensitive but not specific— in particular, black ethnicity has been associated with raised levels of sIgE to peanut that are often clinically irrelevant.2 Oral food challenges (OFCs) are routine in clinical practice, exposing large numbers of patients to further food allergic reactions.3 Functional assays such as the basophil activation test (BAT) can discriminate between sensitisedtolerant and sensitisedallergic patients because it more closely resembles the pathological reaction of effector cells towards the culprit allergen.4,5 We have shown that the BAT is the single most accurate test to diagnose peanut allergy (PA) with enhanced specificity and retained sensitivity when compared to sensitisation tests.6 BAT investigation alongside serum and skin sensitisation testing can reduce the number of children who would be required to undergo OFC testing by two thirds.6 Other clinical presentations may prove of particular relevance. Herein, we report a case with negative SPT and very low allergen sIgE who nevertheless reacted on OFC to roasted peanuts and demonstrated activation of basophils on stimulation with peanut extract, Ara h 1, Ara h 2 and Ara h 6. A 12yearold girl of AfroCaribbean descent presented to our clinic to ascertain whether she needed to avoid nuts. At 4 years of age, she had drunk a freshly made fruit drink containing peanut and developed facial angioedema afterwards, although the exact time course was not remembered. On a second occasion, she developed conjunctivitis when a friend ate peanuts whilst being sat next to her. She had no history of allergic rhinitis. Investigations revealed a negative SPT to peanut (0 mm) and very low sIgE to peanut (0.15 kUA/L) and to Ara h 2 (0.11 kUA/L). SIgE to Ara h 1, Ara h 3, Ara h 8 and Ara h 9 was undetectable. Her baseline tryptase was 3.0 μg/L, and there was no wheal to any of the other eight tree nuts skin tested in clinic. An open incremental OFC was scheduled with the aim to rule out PA. The patient tolerated the first four doses. However, after eating the last open dose totalling a cumulative portion of 32 grams of dry roasted peanuts (8 g of peanut protein), she developed nasal congestion and prominent swelling of her eyelids, brow and lips. She reported subjective difficulty in breathing; however, her voice was clear, her oxygen saturations remained over 98% and there was no increase in her respiratory rate or blood pressure. She was treated with 10 mg of cetirizine followed by 120 mg of fexofenadine and her reaction subsided. She was advised to avoid peanut. Basophil activation test performed after the OFC demonstrated a significant response to peanut extract, Ara h 1, Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 but no response to Ara h 3 or Ara h 8 (Figure 1). The result of BAT to peanut was above the diagnostic cutoff previously defined in our patient population.6 A dosedependent increase in CD63 and CD203c expression with increasing concentrations of peanut extract, Ara h 2 and Ara h 6, was observed (Figure 2). On the same day as the BAT, she did not show sIgE to any of the 112 allergens tested on ImmunoCAP ISAC other than Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 (rAra h 2=0.3 ISU; rAra h 6=0.6 ISU). The results of Ara h 2specific IgE were low before and after the OFC. This clinical case shows that BAT was more sensitive than SPT (which showed no wheal for this patient), sIgE and even component testing and can be useful when there is discrepancy between the clinical history and IgE sensitisation tests. Although the patients' ethnicity could have suggested that the sIgE results were not clinically relevant, the history of possible peanut reactions led us to decide for an OFC, which should be considered gold standard care for patients with discrepant history and sensitisation results. This case also highlights the need for further investigation amongst patients who report reactions to the allergen with negligible sensitisation. Before BAT can replace OFC in this setting, a larger case series with sufficient power to confirm this would be valuable. However, in previous studies, we have already observed that although peanut allergic with low level of sensitisation is a minority (e.g. 9% in the overall population studied by Santos et al6), BAT is positive in a significant proportion of these cases (e.g. 73%), allowing to confirm the diagnosis of peanut allergy and deferring an OFC that would otherwise have been positive. Without using BAT or OFC, this patient would have had no confirmation of PA and be at risk of further allergic reactions in the community.\",\"PeriodicalId\":520742,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e13739\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/pai.13739\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pai.13739","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Basophil CD63 assay to peanut allergens accurately diagnoses peanut allergy in patient with negative skin prick test and very low specific IgE.
To the Editor, Fatal food anaphylaxis commonly occurs amongst patients who had previously only reported mild symptoms.1 An accurate diagnosis of food allergy is crucial. Current diagnostic practice relies on evaluating the strength of clinical history and seeking objective validation from the level of IgE sensitisation, investigated by skin prick test (SPT) or serumspecific IgE (sIgE). However, single timepoint sensitisation assays are usually sensitive but not specific— in particular, black ethnicity has been associated with raised levels of sIgE to peanut that are often clinically irrelevant.2 Oral food challenges (OFCs) are routine in clinical practice, exposing large numbers of patients to further food allergic reactions.3 Functional assays such as the basophil activation test (BAT) can discriminate between sensitisedtolerant and sensitisedallergic patients because it more closely resembles the pathological reaction of effector cells towards the culprit allergen.4,5 We have shown that the BAT is the single most accurate test to diagnose peanut allergy (PA) with enhanced specificity and retained sensitivity when compared to sensitisation tests.6 BAT investigation alongside serum and skin sensitisation testing can reduce the number of children who would be required to undergo OFC testing by two thirds.6 Other clinical presentations may prove of particular relevance. Herein, we report a case with negative SPT and very low allergen sIgE who nevertheless reacted on OFC to roasted peanuts and demonstrated activation of basophils on stimulation with peanut extract, Ara h 1, Ara h 2 and Ara h 6. A 12yearold girl of AfroCaribbean descent presented to our clinic to ascertain whether she needed to avoid nuts. At 4 years of age, she had drunk a freshly made fruit drink containing peanut and developed facial angioedema afterwards, although the exact time course was not remembered. On a second occasion, she developed conjunctivitis when a friend ate peanuts whilst being sat next to her. She had no history of allergic rhinitis. Investigations revealed a negative SPT to peanut (0 mm) and very low sIgE to peanut (0.15 kUA/L) and to Ara h 2 (0.11 kUA/L). SIgE to Ara h 1, Ara h 3, Ara h 8 and Ara h 9 was undetectable. Her baseline tryptase was 3.0 μg/L, and there was no wheal to any of the other eight tree nuts skin tested in clinic. An open incremental OFC was scheduled with the aim to rule out PA. The patient tolerated the first four doses. However, after eating the last open dose totalling a cumulative portion of 32 grams of dry roasted peanuts (8 g of peanut protein), she developed nasal congestion and prominent swelling of her eyelids, brow and lips. She reported subjective difficulty in breathing; however, her voice was clear, her oxygen saturations remained over 98% and there was no increase in her respiratory rate or blood pressure. She was treated with 10 mg of cetirizine followed by 120 mg of fexofenadine and her reaction subsided. She was advised to avoid peanut. Basophil activation test performed after the OFC demonstrated a significant response to peanut extract, Ara h 1, Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 but no response to Ara h 3 or Ara h 8 (Figure 1). The result of BAT to peanut was above the diagnostic cutoff previously defined in our patient population.6 A dosedependent increase in CD63 and CD203c expression with increasing concentrations of peanut extract, Ara h 2 and Ara h 6, was observed (Figure 2). On the same day as the BAT, she did not show sIgE to any of the 112 allergens tested on ImmunoCAP ISAC other than Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 (rAra h 2=0.3 ISU; rAra h 6=0.6 ISU). The results of Ara h 2specific IgE were low before and after the OFC. This clinical case shows that BAT was more sensitive than SPT (which showed no wheal for this patient), sIgE and even component testing and can be useful when there is discrepancy between the clinical history and IgE sensitisation tests. Although the patients' ethnicity could have suggested that the sIgE results were not clinically relevant, the history of possible peanut reactions led us to decide for an OFC, which should be considered gold standard care for patients with discrepant history and sensitisation results. This case also highlights the need for further investigation amongst patients who report reactions to the allergen with negligible sensitisation. Before BAT can replace OFC in this setting, a larger case series with sufficient power to confirm this would be valuable. However, in previous studies, we have already observed that although peanut allergic with low level of sensitisation is a minority (e.g. 9% in the overall population studied by Santos et al6), BAT is positive in a significant proportion of these cases (e.g. 73%), allowing to confirm the diagnosis of peanut allergy and deferring an OFC that would otherwise have been positive. Without using BAT or OFC, this patient would have had no confirmation of PA and be at risk of further allergic reactions in the community.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信