Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Component-resolved in vitro diagnosis in peach-allergic patients.
J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2009; 19(1):13-20.JI

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The in vitro diagnosis of pollen-related food allergy presents low specificity and reproducibility with many conventional extracts. This can be improved using natural purified allergens, recombinant purified allergens, or both.

OBJECTIVE

We compared specific immunoglobulin (Ig) E determination (slgE), the basophil activation test (BAT), the histamine release test (HRT), and the cellular allergen stimulation test (CAST) using natural and recombinant allergens in the diagnosis of peach allergy.

METHODS

Thirty-two peach allergic patients were studied. Skin prick tests were performed with commercial peach and extract with Mal d 1, nPru p 3, and profilin (nPho d 2). slgE, BAT, CAST, and HRT were determined using rPru p 3, rMal d 3, rBet v 1, rMal d 1, and rMal d 4.

RESULTS

Agreement between the techniques was good with all the allergens, except HRT with rMal d 1 and rMal d 4. With rPru p 3, slgE, CAST, BAT, and HRT showed sensitivity values of 88%, 81%, 72%, and 69% and specificity values of 100%, 93%, 97%, and 83%, respectively. In patients with systemic symptoms or contact urticaria, the values were 100%, 85%, 81%, and 81%. In patients with oral allergy syndrome, sensitivity to profilins or homologues of Bet v 1 was detected in 100% of the cases by all the techniques, except by HRT with rMal d 1, which detected 66% of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of single allergens in the in vitro diagnosis of peach allergy by specific IgE determination, BAT, and CAST offers high specificity and sensitivity, with better results than the HRT.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Allergy Service, Basurto Hospital, Bilbao, Spain. 2 Department of Allergology and Clinical Immunology, University Clinic, University of Navarra, Pamplona, SpainNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

19274924

Citation

Gamboa, P M., et al. "Component-resolved in Vitro Diagnosis in Peach-allergic Patients." Journal of Investigational Allergology & Clinical Immunology, vol. 19, no. 1, 2009, pp. 13-20.
Gamboa PM, Sanz ML, Lombardero M, et al. Component-resolved in vitro diagnosis in peach-allergic patients. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2009;19(1):13-20.
Gamboa, P. M., Sanz, M. L., Lombardero, M., Barber, D., Sánchez-Monje, R., Goikoetxea, M. J., Antépara, I., Ferrer, M., & Salcedo, G. (2009). Component-resolved in vitro diagnosis in peach-allergic patients. Journal of Investigational Allergology & Clinical Immunology, 19(1), 13-20.
Gamboa PM, et al. Component-resolved in Vitro Diagnosis in Peach-allergic Patients. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2009;19(1):13-20. PubMed PMID: 19274924.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Component-resolved in vitro diagnosis in peach-allergic patients. AU - Gamboa,P M, AU - Sanz,M L, AU - Lombardero,M, AU - Barber,D, AU - Sánchez-Monje,R, AU - Goikoetxea,M J, AU - Antépara,I, AU - Ferrer,M, AU - Salcedo,G, PY - 2009/3/12/entrez PY - 2009/3/12/pubmed PY - 2009/5/6/medline SP - 13 EP - 20 JF - Journal of investigational allergology & clinical immunology JO - J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol VL - 19 IS - 1 N2 - BACKGROUND: The in vitro diagnosis of pollen-related food allergy presents low specificity and reproducibility with many conventional extracts. This can be improved using natural purified allergens, recombinant purified allergens, or both. OBJECTIVE: We compared specific immunoglobulin (Ig) E determination (slgE), the basophil activation test (BAT), the histamine release test (HRT), and the cellular allergen stimulation test (CAST) using natural and recombinant allergens in the diagnosis of peach allergy. METHODS: Thirty-two peach allergic patients were studied. Skin prick tests were performed with commercial peach and extract with Mal d 1, nPru p 3, and profilin (nPho d 2). slgE, BAT, CAST, and HRT were determined using rPru p 3, rMal d 3, rBet v 1, rMal d 1, and rMal d 4. RESULTS: Agreement between the techniques was good with all the allergens, except HRT with rMal d 1 and rMal d 4. With rPru p 3, slgE, CAST, BAT, and HRT showed sensitivity values of 88%, 81%, 72%, and 69% and specificity values of 100%, 93%, 97%, and 83%, respectively. In patients with systemic symptoms or contact urticaria, the values were 100%, 85%, 81%, and 81%. In patients with oral allergy syndrome, sensitivity to profilins or homologues of Bet v 1 was detected in 100% of the cases by all the techniques, except by HRT with rMal d 1, which detected 66% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: The use of single allergens in the in vitro diagnosis of peach allergy by specific IgE determination, BAT, and CAST offers high specificity and sensitivity, with better results than the HRT. SN - 1018-9068 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/19274924/Component_resolved_in_vitro_diagnosis_in_peach_allergic_patients_ L2 - http://www.jiaci.org/issues/vol19issue1/vol19issue01-3.htm DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -