IgE multiplex testing in house dust mite allergy is utile, and sensitivity is comparable to extract-based singleplex testing

Identification of cross-reactive allergens between the Dermatophagoides farinae house dust mite and the Toxocara canis nematode in dogs with suspected allergies

BACKGROUND

Immunoglobulin (Ig)E cross-reactivity has been shown between Dermatophagoides farinae (Df; house dust mite) and the nematode Toxocara canis (Tc), yet its allergen basis is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the Df allergens IgE-cross-reactive with those of Tc.

ANIMALS

Archived sera from 73 dogs with suspected allergy sensitised to Df.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a combination of Pet Allergy Xplorer (PAX) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) inhibitions with excretory-secretory and somatic (i.e. nematode body) extracts of Tc or recombinant Tc tropomyosin on coats of Df, Der f 15 and Zen-1 (ELISA) or PAX allergens.

RESULTS

The ELISA and PAX inhibitions established that there is mutual yet variable cross-reactivity between the Tc excretory-secretory extract, purified Der f 15 and purified Zen-1. This cross-reactivity is likely to involve cross-reactive glycans, as there is no inhibition between the Tc excretory-secretory extract and recombinant Der f 15 without its predicted natural O-glycans. We also confirmed a heterogeneous cross-reactivity between the somatic Tc extract and Der p 11 (paramyosin), as well as between the recombinant Toxo c 3 and Der p 10 tropomyosins. The cross-reactivity among tropomyosins and paramyosins is likely to involve peptidic epitopes, as these recombinant allergens are not glycosylated.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In dogs with suspected allergies, the cross-reactivity between Tc and Df for dogs is complex and heterogeneous. Some of the cross-reactive IgE recognises shared glycans on Der f 15 and Zen-1, while some targets peptidic epitopes on shared paramyosins and tropomyosins. We do not exclude that additional cross-reactive allergens between Df and Tc also might exist.

Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus proteins and their role in the diagnostics and management of house dust mite allergy: exploring allergenic components

Component-resolved diagnostics enables the detection of allergen-specific immunoglobulins E (asIgE) to house dust mite (HDM) proteins, which may help clinicians to face the difficulties in diagnostics of HDM allergy. Currently, almost 40 proteins of Dermatophagoides species, that are able to bind asIgE, have been identified, and this number will certainly increase. The association between sensitisation to particular molecules and allergy symptoms is extensively studied. This investigation enables us to identify HDM molecules that promote respiratory, skin, or food allergies, and it could help us predict the possible course of allergic diseases. The individual repertoire of asIgE improves our understanding of immunological response, which underlies allergy symptoms, and helps to form individual therapeutic regimens. This review provides clinicians with information on Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus proteins available in commercial arrays, and their role in the diagnostics and management of HDM allergy.

Sensitization profiles to house dust mite Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus molecular allergens in the Lithuanian population: Understanding allergic sensitization patterns

BACKGROUND

House dust mite (HDM) allergy is a prevalent global health concern, with varying sensitization profiles observed across populations. We aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment of molecular allergen sensitization patterns in the Lithuanian population, with a focus on Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (Der p), and investigate patterns of concomitant reactivity among different allergens to enhance the accuracy of HDM allergy diagnostics.

METHODS

A comprehensive analysis of 1520 patient test results in Lithuania from 2020 to 2022 was performed. Sensitization patterns to major (Der p 1, Der p 2, and Der p 23) and minor (Der p 5, Der p 7, and Der p 21) Der p allergen components were described using molecular-based diagnostics. Additionally, we investigated sensitization to allergen components from other allergen sources, including tropomyosins (Der p 10, Per a 7, Pen m 1, Ani s 3, Blo t 10) and arginine kinases (Pen m 2, Bla g 9, Der p 20).

RESULTS

This study reveals a high prevalence of HDM sensitization in Lithuania - 481 individuals (45.38% of the sensitized group) exhibited sensitization to at least one Der p allergen component. Importantly, within the sensitized group, 37.21% of patients were sensitized to Der p 5, Der p 7, or Der p 21 in addition to major allergenic components. Distinct sensitization patterns were observed across different age groups, indicating the influence of age-related factors. Furthermore, we confirmed cross-reactivity between Der p 5 and Blo t 5 as well as between Der p 21 and Blo t 21, emphasizing the clinical relevance of these associations. We also highlighted the complexity of sensitization patterns among tropomyosins and arginine kinases.

CONCLUSION

This study provides valuable insights into HDM allergy sensitization profiles in Lithuania, emphasizing the importance of considering major and minor HDM allergen components for accurate diagnosis and management of HDM-related allergic diseases. Differences between populations and age-related factors impact sensitization patterns. Understanding concomitant reactivity among allergens, such as Der p 5 and Blo t 5, Der p 21 and Blo t 21, tropomyosins, and arginine kinases, is crucial for improving diagnostic strategies and developing targeted interventions for allergic individuals.

Molecular allergy diagnosis is sensitive and avoids misdiagnosis in patients sensitized to seasonal allergens

BACKGROUND

The specificity of extract-based pollen allergy diagnosis is decreased due to cross-reactivity via cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs) or panallergens such as profilins or polcalcins. This study aimed to explore the prevalence of sensitization to seasonal extracts, CCDs, profilin and polcalcin and investigate the sensitivity and specificity of seasonal molecular allergy diagnosis (MAD) using commercially available test methods.

METHODS

2948 patients were screened for specific immunoglobulin E to ash, birch, mugwort, ragweed and timothy grass pollen extracts and grouped according to the number of positive tests (1-5). 100 patients from each group and a control group were randomly selected to calculate the prevalence of CCD and panallergen sensitization. With 742 patients, sensitivity and specificity of MAD (Alt a 1, Fra/Ole e 1, Bet v 1, Phl p 1, Art v 1, and Amb a 1) was determined.

RESULTS

1627 patients (55.2%) were positive to at least one, and 1002 patients (34.0%) were positive to multiple of the five pollen allergens investigated; 18.5% of the pollen-sensitized patients had sensitization to CCDs or panallergens. Specifically, sensitization to CCDs, profilins, and polcalcins was observed in 8.7%, 10.9%, and 2.9% of these patients, respectively. The sensitivity of MAD was high, with sensitivities between 96.2% and 100% using ImmunoCAP and 91.5% and 100% using ALEX2 . Specificity was 100% for both assays.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to cross-reactivity, about one-fifth of pollen-sensitized patients is at risk of misdiagnosis. However, MAD is sensitive, specific and helps to avoid misdiagnosis and select primary allergen sources for immunotherapy.

Allergy screening with extract-based skin prick tests demonstrates higher sensitivity over in vitro molecular allergy testing

BACKGROUND

As extract-based skin testing as well as in vitro tests for major allergens have their own advantages, both procedures are usually performed in routine settings. In times of shortages in medical staff and supplies, we asked ourselves, how many patients would be underdiagnosed, if only one test could be used.

METHODS

In a retrospective analysis, we investigated a cohort of 2646 patients seen by a single physician in a large Austrian outpatient allergy clinic in 2018. Only patients with an allergen source-specific history and pairs of extract-based skin prick (SPT) and in vitro molecular allergy tests to major allergens were included.

RESULTS

For all tested allergen sources, sensitivity was higher for SPT than for sIgE-based molecular allergy testing. Concerning 1006 birch pollen-allergic patients, 791 (78.6%) had positive results with both tests, while 153 (15.2%) only with the SPT and 62 (6.2%) only with the sIgE to Bet v1. The other allergen sources showed similar results: For house dust mite 816/1120 (72.9%), grass pollen 1077/1416 (76.1%) and cat 433/622 (69.6%) remained test-positive with both procedures, whereas in 276 (24.6%), 224 (15.8%) and 173 (27.8%) times only the SPT and 28 (2.5%), 115 (8.1%) and 16 (2.6%) times only the sIgE to Der p1/2/23, Phl p1/5 and Fel d1 showed a positive result. Each comparison was statistically significant (each p < 0.0001, Chi-squared test).

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for allergy with major molecular allergens has lower sensitivity when compared with extract-based skin tests. A combination of both is required for an optimal sensitivity.

Future directions in allergen immunotherapy

Both subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are effective clinically against allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma, and modify the underlying immunologic abnormalities. Despite this, many patients who could benefit from receiving SCIT and SLIT do not because of concerns about safety and the inconvenience in receiving SCIT, and the long duration of treatment with both, 3-4 years being required for lasting benefit. Attempts to improve the efficacy and safety, and to shorten the course of allergen immunotherapy have taken many approaches. Some approaches have generated great enthusiasm, only to fail in larger trials and be discarded. Other approaches show some promise but perhaps not enough to achieve regulatory approval. Those approaches that seem to have the best chance of becoming available in the next few years include the following: intralymphatic and epicutaneous immunotherapy, vitamin D in patients with insufficient serum 25 hydroxy vitamin D, probiotics, and allergoids, but all require further studies before being ready for nonexperimental use or, where necessary, for regulatory approval.

Allergen Immunotherapy: Current and Future Trends

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the sole disease-modifying treatment for allergic rhinitis; it prevents rhinitis from progressing to asthma and lowers medication use. AIT against mites, insect venom, and certain kinds of pollen is effective. The mechanism of action of AIT is based on inducing immunological tolerance characterized by increased IL-10, TGF-β, and IgG4 levels and Treg cell counts. However, AIT requires prolonged schemes of administration and is sometimes associated with adverse reactions. Over the last decade, novel forms of AIT have been developed, focused on better allergen identification, structural modifications to preserve epitopes for B or T cells, post-traductional alteration through chemical processes, and the addition of adjuvants. These modified allergens induce clinical-immunological effects similar to those mentioned above, increasing the tolerance to other related allergens but with fewer side effects. Clinical studies have shown that molecular AIT is efficient in treating grass and birch allergies. This article reviews the possibility of a new AIT to improve the treatment of allergic illness.

Validation of a commercial allergen microarray platform for specific immunoglobulin E detection of respiratory and plant food allergens

BACKGROUND

As the use of multiplex-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) detection methods becomes increasingly widespread, proper comparative validation assessments of emerging new platforms are vital.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical and technical performance of a newly introduced microarray platform, Allergy Explorer (ALEX) (MacroArray Diagnostics), in the diagnosis of pollen (cypress, grass, olive), dust mite (Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus), mold (Alternaria alternata), fruit (apple, peach), and nut (walnut, hazelnut and peanut) allergies and to compare it with those of the ImmunoCAP Immuno Solid-phase Allergen Chip (ISAC) 112 microarray and the ImmunoCAP singleplex method (ThermoFisher Scientific).

METHODS

We enrolled 153 patients with allergy and 16 controls without atopy. The sIgE assays were conducted using ISAC112, ALEX version 2 (ALEX2), and ImmunoCAP for whole extracts and major components. Technical validation of ALEX2 was performed by measuring repeatability and interassay, interbatch, and interlaboratory reproducibility.

RESULTS

When measured globally (detection by 1 or more allergen components), ALEX2 had adequate sensitivity and specificity for most of the allergens studied, comparable in general with that of ISAC112 (except for olive pollen and walnut) and similar to that of ImmunoCAP whole extract measurements. Component-by-component analysis revealed comparable results for all techniques, except for Ole e 1 and Jug r 3, in both ISAC112 and ImmunoCAP comparisons, and Alt a 1, when compared with ISAC112. Continuous sIgE levels correlate with sIgE by ImmunoCAP. Good reproducibility and repeatability were observed for ALEX2.

CONCLUSION

ALEX2 has sound technical performance and adequate diagnostic capacity, comparable in general with that of ISAC112 and ImmunoCAP.

Modeling the conversion between specific IgE test platforms for nut allergens in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Multiplex tests allow for measurement of allergen-specific IgE responses to multiple extracts and molecular allergens and have several advantages for large cohort studies. Due to significant methodological differences, test systems are difficult to integrate in meta-analyses/systematic reviews since there is a lack of datasets with direct comparison. We aimed to create models for statistical integration of allergen-specific IgE to peanut/tree nut allergens from three IgE test platforms.

METHODS

Plasma from Canadian and Austrian children/adolescents with peanut/tree nut sensitization and a cohort of sensitized, high-risk, pre-school asthmatics (total n = 166) were measured with three R&D multiplex IgE test platforms: Allergy Explorer version 1 (ALEX) (Macro Array Dx), MeDALL-chip (Mechanisms of Development of Allergy) (Thermo Fisher), and EUROLINE (EUROIMMUN). Skin prick test (n = 51) and ImmunoCAP (Thermo Fisher) (n = 62) results for extracts were available in a subset. Regression models (Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines, local polynomial regression) were applied if >30% of samples were positive to the allergen. Intra-test correlations between PR-10 and nsLTP allergens were assessed.

RESULTS

Using two regression methods, we demonstrated the ability to model allergen-specific relationships with acceptable measures of fit (r²  = 94%-56%) for peanut and tree nut sIgE testing at the extract and molecular-level, in order from highest to lowest: Ara h 2, Ara h 6, Jug r 1, Ana o 3, Ara h 1, Jug r 2, and Cor a 9.

CONCLUSION

Our models support the notion that quantitative conversion is possible between sIgE multiplex platforms for extracts and molecular allergens and may provide options to aggregate data for future meta-analysis.

The use of microarray and other multiplex technologies in the diagnosis of allergy

OBJECTIVE

To give an overview and describe the strengths and weaknesses of immunoglobulin E (IgE) microarray and other multiplex assays that have been developed and are being used for allergy diagnostics.

DATA SOURCES

Queries for IgE microarray and multiplex assays were conducted with PubMed and Google Scholar, searching for primary articles and review papers.

STUDY SELECTIONS

We focused on articles written in English on commercially available IgE multiplex assays that were reported in the allergy and immunology literature.

RESULTS

Several commercial IgE assays that use microarray or other multiplex technology have been developed, and some have been implemented into clinical practice in Europe and Asia, with the Immuno Solid-Phase Allergen Chip being the most widely studied. Results of these assays generally correlate with results using "singleplex" IgE assays (eg, ImmunoCAP), though there can be variability among products and among allergens. A strength of the microarray technology is that IgE to a large number of allergens can be detected simultaneously in a single test, and only a small amount of patient serum is required. Cost, inadequate sensitivity under some scenarios, and difficulties with data interpretation, in some cases of 100 or more allergens, can be limitations.

CONCLUSION

IgE microarray assays are already a valuable tool in research applications. These assays, and also other forms of IgE multiplex assays, are likely to play an important role in the clinical practice of allergy in the future. Additional studies focused on clinical outcomes, and the development of more targeted allergen panels could facilitate increased clinical use.