Basophil activation test: food challenge in a test tube or specialist research tool?

Basophil activation test in the food allergy clinic: its current use and future applications

INTRODUCTION

The basophil activation test (BAT) has shown evidence of high sensitivity and high specificity to support the diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergy. It is a functional test that uses live cells analyzed by flow cytometry and thus needs to be performed within 24h of blood collection. BAT has shown to be reproducible and reliable when tested in a clinical diagnostic laboratory with standardized protocols and flow cytometry settings.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we summarize the evidence to support clinical use of BAT and the next steps required for clinical implementation for an improve clinical care for patients with suspected IgE-mediated food allergy.

EXPERT OPINION

BAT has recently been included in Clinical Guidelines of Food Allergy Diagnosis and its implementation in clinical practice depends largely on availability. Proposed clinical applications of the BAT include: distinction between food allergy and asymptomatic IgE sensitization; determination of food allergic status to peanut, tree nuts and seeds in polysensitized children; evaluation of tolerance to baked egg and baked milk in egg and milk allergic children; identification of patients at high-risk of severe allergic reactions; monitoring for spontaneous resolution of food allergy; confirmation of eligibility for specific treatments of food allergy; prediction and monitoring of response to immunomodulatory treatments.

Possible alternative strategies to implement basophil activation testing in multicentric studies

The Basophil Activation Test (BAT) enables flow cytometry characterization of basophil reactivity against specific allergenic molecules. The focus now revolves around democratizing this tool, but, as blood sample stability could be challenging, after having developed a simplified approach, herein, we aimed to characterize two strategies for implementing BAT in multicentric studies: store and ship blood before or after sample processing. Fresh heparin- and EDTA-anticoagulated whole blood samples followed both BAT workflows: "collect, store, process & analyze" or "collect, process, store & analyze". Storage temperatures of 18-25 °C or 2-8 °C and preservation times from 0 to 7 days were considered. Interleukin-3 was also evaluated. With the "collect, store, process & analyze" workflow, heparin-anticoagulated blood and 18-25 °C storage were better than other conditions. While remaining possible, basophil activation exhibited a possible reactivity decay after 24 h. Under the conditions tested, interleukin-3 had no role in enhancing basophil reactivity after storage. Conversely, the "collect, process, store & analyze" workflow demonstrated that either heparin- or EDTA-anticoagulated blood can be processed and kept up to 7 days at 18-25 °C or 2-8 °C before being analyzed. Various strategies can be implemented to integrate BAT in multicentric studies. The "collect, store, process & analyze" workflow remains a simplified logistical approach, but depending on time required to ship from the clinical centers to the reference laboratories, it might not be applicable, or should be used with caution. The "collect, process, store & analyze" workflow may constitute a workflow improvement to provide significant flexibility without impact on basophil reactivity.

Shared decision-making in food allergy: Navigating an exciting era

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) is increasingly used in food allergy. We review its use in the areas of prevention, diagnosis, and management.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and online SDM resources.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Studies and reviews relevant to SDM and areas in food allergy that decision-making may be applied were selected for discussion.

RESULTS

Food allergy represents an area with multiple opportunities for SDM. Patients, on one hand, need to obtain the necessary information and understanding of existing options from the allergist. The allergist, on the other hand, needs to understand "where the patient is coming from," their needs, preferences, and values, so that jointly they can reach a decision that is responsive to these. Benefits of SDM include a better understanding of disease by patients, improved compliance with medication, better health outcomes, decreased health care costs, and improved ability of patients to manage their disease and make informed choices.

CONCLUSION

In food allergy prevention, diagnosis, and management, multiple preference-sensitive options exist for patients where SDM may be used during allergy consultations, alongside decision aids. Decision aids are tools that assist and support patients during the SDM process, by supplementing the patient-physician interaction.

Promises and Remaining Challenges for Further Integration of Basophil Activation Test in Allergy-Related Research and Clinical Practice

More than 20 years after having been initially proposed, the relevance and usefulness of basophil activation test (BAT) for the field of allergy research and testing were demonstrated on many occasions. Leveraging the fully open format of a flexible, whole blood-based functional assay, BAT has been shown to be equally important for fundamental research, clinical research, and diagnosis. Regardless of whether the focus of a study is on the characterization of the allergenic moiety, on the patient side, or on the study of the fundamental processes involved in the allergic disease or its treatment, BAT enables the gathering of very important insights. In spite of this, its full capabilities have yet to be leveraged. Various bottlenecks, including but not limited to assay logistics, robustness, flow cytometry access, and/or expertise, have indeed been limiting its development beyond experts and long-term users. Now, various initiatives, aiming at resolving these bottlenecks, have been launched. If successful, a broader use of BAT could then be contemplated. In such a situation, its more thorough integration in clinical practice has the potential to significantly change the allergic patient's journey.

The role of basophil activation test and component-resolved diagnostics in the workup of egg allergy in children at low risk for severe allergic reactions: A real-life study

BACKGROUND

The gold standard for diagnosing egg allergy in children is the oral food challenge (OFC). However, OFCs are time-consuming and risky procedures. Our study aimed to evaluate the utility of the basophil activation test (BAT) and component-resolved diagnostic in the diagnostic workup of children with egg allergy.

METHODS

Overall, 86 children aged 6 months to 17 years, suspected of egg allergy, underwent OFC with boiled egg according to international standardized protocols. BAT and specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) testing to component egg proteins (Gal d 1-4) were also performed.

RESULTS

Of the 22 children who reacted to boiled egg, only one experienced anaphylaxis during the challenge. BAT was performed in samples obtained by 75 of the 86 patients of our cohort. Egg white and yolk protein extracts induced CD63 upregulation in the egg-allergic (EA) children compared with sensitized children that tolerated boiled egg (we registered an overall mean of CD63 expression in the EA population of 44.4% [SD 34.1] for egg white and 34.7% [SD 31.3] for egg yolk vs. 12.5% [SD 19.1] and 10.0% [SD 16.0] in sensitized children). BAT could discriminate between true egg allergy and egg sensitization in our population. As a second-line diagnostic step, the positivity of BAT for egg white or Gal d 1-sIgE resulted in a 40.9% OFC reduction, especially for those with a positive outcome.

CONCLUSION

The BAT may be implemented in the diagnostic workup of egg allergy in children and, in a stepwise approach, separately or combined with Gal d 1-sIgE, may predict the allergic status and reduce the number of positive OFCs in children with egg allergy at low risk for severe reactions.

Sesame allergy in children: New insights into diagnosis and management

Sesame is a potentially potent allergen that can trigger skin, gastrointestinal, and respiratory tract symptoms, and anaphylaxis. Only 20% to 30% of sesame-allergic children develop tolerance. The prevalence of sesame allergy depends on local diets and ranges from 0.1% to 0.9%. A high risk of accidental exposure to sesame has resulted in mandatory food labeling in many countries. More than half of patients with sesame allergy are also allergic to peanut/tree nuts. Serum-specific IgE testing with a quantitative Ses i 1 component can be performed safely and has higher clinical specificity and better positive predictive value for oral food challenge (OFC) than whole sesame extract or skin prick testing (SPT). Compared with SPT or OFC, in vitro Ses i 1 testing requires no special techniques and carries no risk of reactions. Diagnosis of suspected sesame allergy begins with a thorough history and physical examination. A positive sesame extract test (≥0.1 kUA /L) should prompt further testing. In patients with a high probability of reacting, results of component testing may facilitate a decision about performing an OFC. In a Japanese study of OFC and Ses i 1, there was a 5% probability of a positive OFC with Ses i 1 sIgE levels <0.13 kUA /L, and a 50% probability of a positive OFC with levels >32.0 kUA /L. Most patients could safely consume sesame if sIgE levels were <0.13 kUA /L. Ses i 1 testing can be used to guide appropriate management (avoidance, emergency medication, and oral immunotherapy).

The combination of Ara h 2-sIgE and basophil activation test could be an alternative to oral food challenge in cases of suspected peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Most children with peanut sensitisation do not have a clinical peanut allergy (PA). Oral food challenge (OFC) is then necessary to diagnose PA and assess the reactive dose of the allergen. However, OFC is laborious to perform, expensive and stressful. We evaluated whether in vitro tests, such as basophil activation test (BAT), allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) and their combination, could be used to replace OFC for the diagnosis of PA in children.

METHODS

Ninety-one patients aged 6 months to 18 years with suspected PA were prospectively recruited. These patients then underwent an OFC to assess PA. Whole peanut-sIgE, Ara h 2-sIgE, Ara h 8-sIgE and %CD63+ basophils (CCR3+ /SCClow ) to peanut measured by BAT were investigated for PA diagnosis.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients had a positive peanut OFC, and the remaining 50 were only sensitised. All patients with Ara h 2-sIgE >7 kUA /L were allergic to peanut. A threshold of 6% for activated basophils yielded a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 54%. All patients with Ara h 2-sIgE ≤7 kUA /L and BAT ≤6% (n = 22) had a negative OFC except for one who presented an oral syndrome due to PR-10 sensitisation.

CONCLUSIONS

We have shown that Ara h 2-sIgE >7 kUA/L is a discriminating threshold for the diagnosis of PA. Furthermore, when Ara h 2-sIgE ≤7 kUA/L and BAT ≤6%, patients do not need to adjust their diet and, thus, do not need an OFC.

The future of food allergy: Challenging existing paradigms of clinical practice

The field of food allergy has seen tremendous change over the past 5-10 years with seminal studies redefining our approach to prevention and management and novel testing modalities in the horizon. Early introduction of allergenic foods is now recommended, challenging the previous paradigm of restrictive avoidance. The management of food allergy has shifted from a passive avoidance approach to active interventions that aim to provide protection from accidental exposures, decrease allergic reaction severity and improve the quality of life of food-allergic patients and their families. Additionally, novel diagnostic tools are making their way into clinical practice with the goal to reduce the need for food challenges and assist physicians in the-often complex-diagnostic process. With all the new developments and available choices for diagnosis, prevention and therapy, shared decision-making has become a key part of medical consultation, enabling patients to make the right choice for them, based on their values and preferences. Communication with patients has also become more complex over time, as patients are seeking advice online and through social media, but the information found online may be outdated, incorrect, or lacking in context. The role of the allergist has evolved to embrace all the above exciting developments and provide patients with the optimal care that fits their needs. In this review, we discuss recent developments as well as the evolution of the field of food allergy in the next decade.

Application of KU812 cells for assessing complement activation related effects by nano(bio)materials

Immunocompatibility issues related to nano(bio)materials, particularly liposomal formulations, involving activation of the complement system have been relatively well described however, they highlight the importance of preclinical evaluation of such interactions. These complement-mediated hypersensitivity reactions, in which basophils are implicated, are associated with complement activation-related pseudoallergy (CARPA). Ex vivo investigation of such events using primary basophils is technically challenging due to the relatively limited number of circulating basophils in peripheral blood. In the current work, the KU812 cell line has been applied as an in vitro model for basophil activation to investigate CARPA-related responses following exposure to test materials obtained from the REFINE consortium. To that end, we developed a standard operating procedure measuring a panel of cell-surface markers indicative of basophilic activation. Two laboratories performed the assays, demonstrating a clear difference in responses between liposomal and polymeric nano(bio)materials, while interlaboratory comparison of the standard operating procedure demonstrated reproducibility in results, between the two facilities. These results suggest the potential to use this protocol as a screening method for such responses however, validation using primary basophils is now warranted.

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.

Progenitor cell-derived basophils: A novel barcoded passive degranulation assay in allergic diseases

BACKGROUND

Effector cells assays provide an overall measure of responsiveness to allergen, but the lack of reliable and high-throughput assays limits the clinical utility. We aimed to develop a high-throughput basophil activation test based on human progenitor cell-derived basophils (PCB) and investigate the role of PCB activation test (PCBAT) in allergic diseases.

METHODS

Progenitor cell-derived basophils were differentiated from CD34+ progenitor cells and sensitized with sera from subjects sensitized to cat, peanut or atopic controls. Sensitized PCBs were stimulated with increasing concentrations of the corresponding allergens in vitro. Degranulation was assessed by measuring CD63 expression using flow cytometry. The correlations between PCBAT and clinical allergy were assessed.

RESULTS

Following passive sensitization of the mature PCBs with serum and allergen stimulation, an allergen specific dose-dependent increase in CD63 expression was observed. Sera from subjects sensitized to cat (n = 35, of which 17 subjects had clinical reactivity quantified using inhaled allergen challenge), peanut allergic (n = 30, of which 15 subjects had clinical reactivity validated using double blind, placebo controlled food challenges [DBPCFC]), peanut-sensitized but tolerant subjects (n = 5) were used to sensitize PCBs. PCBAT area under the curve (AUC) correlated with sIgE (r2  = .49, p = .001) in subjects sensitized to cat (sIgE ≥ 0.35KU/L). The provocation concentration of inhaled cat allergen (PC20 ) correlated with PCBAT AUC (r2  = .33, p = .016). In subjects sensitized to peanut, PCBAT AUC was highly correlated with sIgE to Ara h 2 (r2  = .59, p < .0001). Peanut threshold cumulative dose during DBPCFC was negatively correlated with PCBAT AUC (r2  = .57, p = .001) and IgE to Ara h1 (r2  = .55, p = .007), but not with sIgE to whole peanut or Ara h2. All peanut-sensitized but tolerant subjects showed no reaction to peanut on PCBAT.

CONCLUSION

Progenitor cell-derived basophils activation test is a high-throughput assay, which correlates with clinical allergy and may confer a powerful alternative tool in allergy testing.

TreEAT trial: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of early introduction of tree nuts for the prevention of tree nut allergy in infants with peanut allergy

INTRODUCTION

Children with peanut allergy are at increased risk of developing tree nut allergies, which can be severe and for most lifelong. Introduction of peanut in the first year of life can reduce the risk of peanut allergy; however, prevention strategies for tree nut allergies have not been established. We aimed to test the efficacy and safety of a novel strategy, a supervised multi-nut oral food challenge (OFC) compared with standard care for tree nut allergy prevention in infants at high risk of developing tree nut allergy, TreEAT.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

TreEAT is a 2-armed, open-label, randomized, controlled trial (RCT). Infants (n = 212) aged 4-11 months with peanut allergy will be randomized 1:1 at peanut allergy diagnosis to either a hospital-based multi-tree nut (almond, cashew, hazelnut, and walnut) OFC using multi-nut butter or standard care (home introduction of individual tree nuts). All infants will be assessed at age 18 months, with questionnaires and SPT to peanut and tree nuts. Peanut and tree nut OFCs will be performed as required to determine the allergy status for each nut. The primary outcome is tree nut allergy at age 18 months. Secondary outcomes include peanut allergy resolution, proportion, and severity of adverse events related to tree nut ingestion, number and frequency of tree nuts ingested, quality of life and parental anxiety, and allergy-related healthcare visits from randomization to 18 months of age. Analyses will be performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

TreEAT was approved by the Royal Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (#70489). Outcomes will be presented at scientific conferences and disseminated through publication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04801823.

EAACI Molecular Allergology User's Guide 2.0

Since the discovery of immunoglobulin E (IgE) as a mediator of allergic diseases in 1967, our knowledge about the immunological mechanisms of IgE-mediated allergies has remarkably increased. In addition to understanding the immune response and clinical symptoms, allergy diagnosis and management depend strongly on the precise identification of the elicitors of the IgE-mediated allergic reaction. In the past four decades, innovations in bioscience and technology have facilitated the identification and production of well-defined, highly pure molecules for component-resolved diagnosis (CRD), allowing a personalized diagnosis and management of the allergic disease for individual patients. The first edition of the "EAACI Molecular Allergology User's Guide" (MAUG) in 2016 rapidly became a key reference for clinicians, scientists, and interested readers with a background in allergology, immunology, biology, and medicine. Nevertheless, the field of molecular allergology is moving fast, and after 6 years, a new EAACI Taskforce was established to provide an updated document. The Molecular Allergology User's Guide 2.0 summarizes state-of-the-art information on allergen molecules, their clinical relevance, and their application in diagnostic algorithms for clinical practice. It is designed for both, clinicians and scientists, guiding health care professionals through the overwhelming list of different allergen molecules available for testing. Further, it provides diagnostic algorithms on the clinical relevance of allergenic molecules and gives an overview of their biology, the basic mechanisms of test formats, and the application of tests to measure allergen exposure.

Biomarkers in oral immunotherapy

Food allergy (FA) is a global health problem that affects a large population, and thus effective treatment is highly desirable. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been showing reasonable efficacy and favorable safety in most FA subjects. Dependable biomarkers are needed for treatment assessment and outcome prediction during OIT. Several immunological indicators have been used as biomarkers in OIT, such as skin prick tests, basophil and mast cell reactivity, T cell and B cell responses, allergen-specific antibody levels, and cytokines. Other novel indicators also could be potential biomarkers. In this review, we discuss and assess the application of various immunological indicators as biomarkers for OIT.

Current and Future Strategies for the Diagnosis and Treatment of the Alpha-Gal Syndrome (AGS)

The α-Gal syndrome (AGS) is a pathognomonic immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated delayed anaphylaxis in foods containing the oligosaccharide galactose-α-1,3-galactose (α-Gal) such as mammalian meat or dairy products. Clinical presentation of AGS can also comprise immediate hypersensitivity due to anticancer therapy, gelatin-containing vaccines or mammalian serum-based antivenom. The IgE initial sensitization is caused by hard-bodied tick bites and symptomatic individuals typically develop delayed pruritus, urticaria, angioedema, anaphylaxis, malaise or gut-related symptoms. Due to inapparent presentation, delayed reactions and a wide variety of patients´ clinical history, the AGS diagnosis and treatment remain challenging. This review covers not only current diagnostic methods used for AGS such as the skin prick test (SPT), the oral food challenge (OFC), anti-α-Gal IgE levels measurement and the basophil activation test (BAT), but also potentially relevant next-generation diagnostic tools like the mast cell activation test (MAT), the histamine-release (HR) assay, omics technologies and model-based reasoning (MBR). Moreover, it focuses on the therapeutical medical and non-medical methods available and current research methods that are being applied in order to elucidate the molecular, physiological and immune mechanisms underlying this allergic disorder. Lastly, future treatment and preventive tools are also discussed, being of utmost importance for the identification of tick salivary molecules, with or without α-Gal modifications, that trigger IgE sensitivity as they could be the key for further vaccine development. Bearing in mind climate change, the tick-host paradigm will shift towards an increasing number of AGS cases in new regions worldwide, which will pose new challenges for clinicians in the future.

Basophil Activation Test Utility as a Diagnostic Tool in LTP Allergy

Plant-food allergy is an increasing problem, with nonspecific lipid transfer proteins (nsLTPs) triggering mild/severe reactions. Pru p 3 is the major sensitizer in LTP food allergy (FA). However, in vivo and in vitro diagnosis is hampered by the need for differentiating between asymptomatic sensitization and allergy with clinical relevance. The basophil activation test (BAT) is an ex vivo method able to identify specific IgE related to the allergic response. Thus, we aimed to establish the value of BAT in a precise diagnosis of LTP-allergic patients. Ninety-two individuals with peach allergy sensitized to LTP, Pru p 3, were finally included, and 40.2% of them had symptoms to peanut (n = 37). In addition, 16 healthy subjects were recruited. BAT was performed with Pru p 3 and Ara h 9 (peanut LTP) at seven ten-fold concentrations, and was evaluated by flow cytometry, measuring the percentage of CD63 (%CD63+) and CD203c (%CD203chigh) cells, basophil allergen threshold sensitivity (CD-Sens), and area under the dose−response curve (AUC). Significant changes in BAT parameters (%CD63+ and %CD203chigh) were found between the controls and patients. However, comparisons for %CD63+, %CD203chigh, AUC, and CD-Sens showed similar levels among patients with different symptoms. An optimal cut-off was established from ROC curves, showing a significant positive percentage of BAT in patients compared to controls and great values of sensitivity (>87.5%) and specificity (>85%). In addition, BAT showed differences in LTP-allergic patients tolerant to peanut using its corresponding LTP, Ara h 9. BAT can be used as a potential diagnostic tool for identifying LTP allergy and for differentiating peanut tolerance, although neither reactivity nor sensitivity can distinguish the severity of the clinical symptoms.

The Allergen-Specific IgE Concentration Is Important for Optimal Histamine Release From Passively Sensitized Basophils

Background

The basophil histamine release (HR) assay can be used for allergy diagnosis in addition to the conventional measurement of allergen-specific IgE (sIgE). Passive sensitization of basophils increases the versatility and allows testing the biological relevance of allergen-induced IgE cross-linking in any serum unbiased by the cellular component. However, not all the patient sera perform equally well and we hypothesized that the absolute level and fraction of sIgE affect the performance. Choosing birch pollen allergy as a model, we investigated the concentration of sIgE needed for successful passive sensitization using soluble- or matrix-fixed Bet v 1.

Methods

Twenty-eight sera with Bet v 1 sIgE [7 sera within each allergy class (1: 0.1–0.70 kUA/L, 2: 0.71–3.50 kUA/L, 3: 3.51–17.50 kUA/L, and 4+: >17.50 kUA/L)] and a negative control serum pool were used to passively sensitize donor basophils, obtained from buffy coat blood (n = 3). The cells were incubated (30 min) with a soluble allergen (rBet v 1 from 0.2 to 50 ng/ml), matrix-fixed allergen (ImmunoCAP™ containing recombinant Bet v 1), or phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA)/ionomycin mixture (maximal HR) and released histamine was quantified fluorometrically.

Results

The lowest level of Bet v 1 sIgE generating a detectable HR (HR > 10% of maximal release) in all the 3 runs was found to be 1.25 kUA/L (corresponding to allergy class 2, 0.71–3.50 kUA/L). Furthermore, sera from allergy classes 3 and 4+ ascertained a significant reproducible HR: 42/42 vs. 5/21 in allergy class 1 and 15/21 in allergy class 2. Using ImmunoCAP™s containing Bet v 1 as a matrix-fixed allergen system, similar results were obtained where the lowest sIgE concentration mediating an HR was 1.68 kUA/L and 7/7 for both allergy classes 3 and 4+.

Conclusion

The results demonstrate that the IgE titer is strikingly robust in predicting the ability to sensitize basophils and produce a measurable HR.

Oral desensitization therapy for peanut allergy induces dynamic changes in peanut-specific immune responses

BACKGROUND

The PALISADE study, an international, phase 3 trial of peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) with AR101, resulted in desensitization in children and adolescents who were highly allergic to peanut. An improved understanding of the immune mechanism induced in response to food allergen immunotherapy would enable more informed and effective therapeutic strategies. Our main purpose was to examine the immunological changes in blood samples from a subset of peanut-allergic individuals undergoing oral desensitization immunotherapy with AR101.

METHODS

Blood samples obtained as part of enrollment screening and at multiple time points during PALISADE study were used to assess basophil and CD4+ T-cell reactivity to peanut.

RESULTS

The absence of clinical reactivity to the entry double-blinded placebo-controlled peanut challenge (DBPCFC) was accompanied by a significantly lower basophil sensitivity and T-cell reactivity to peanut compared with DBPCFC reactors. At baseline, peanut-reactive TH2A cells were observed in many but not all peanut-allergic patients and their level in peripheral blood correlates with T-cell reactivity to peanut and with serum peanut-specific IgE and IgG4 levels. POIT reshaped circulating peanut-reactive T-cell responses in a subset-dependent manner. Changes in basophil and T-cell responses to peanut closely paralleled clinical benefits to AR101 therapy and resemble responses in those with lower clinical sensitivity to peanut. However, no difference in peanut-reactive Treg cell frequency was observed between groups.

CONCLUSION

Oral desensitization therapy with AR101 leads to decreased basophil sensitivity to peanut and reshapes peanut-reactive T effector cell responses supporting its potential as an immunomodulatory therapy.

Soybean allergy: characteristics, mechanisms, detection and its reduction through novel food processing techniques

Human beings have consumed soybean as an excellent food source for thousand years due to its rich protein, fatty acids, minerals, and fibers. However, soybeans were recognized as one of the big eight allergens resulting in allergic symptoms and even could lead to death. With the increasing demand for soybean products, the challenges caused by soybean allergy need to be solved urgently. This review detailly described the pathogenesis and clinical characteristics of soybean allergy, and also the advantages and disadvantages of four different diagnostic methods were summarized. The major soybean allergens and their structures were summarized. Three types of soybean allergy including Type I, III, and IV, which could trigger allergic reactions were reported in this review. Summary in four different diagnostic methods showed that double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge is recognized as a gold standard for diagnosing soybean allergy. Three types of processing techniques in reducing soybean allergy were discussed, and the results concluded that some novel food processing techniques such as ultrasound, cold-plasma treatment, showed potential application in the reduction of soybean allergenicity. Further, some suggestions regarding the management and treatment of food allergies were addressed in this review.

Scientific Opinion on development needs for the allergenicity and protein safety assessment of food and feed products derived from biotechnology

This Scientific Opinion addresses the formulation of specific development needs, including research requirements for allergenicity assessment and protein safety, in general, which is urgently needed in a world that demands more sustainable food systems. Current allergenicity risk assessment strategies are based on the principles and guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius for the safety assessment of foods derived from 'modern' biotechnology initially published in 2003. The core approach for the safety assessment is based on a 'weight-of-evidence' approach because no single piece of information or experimental method provides sufficient evidence to predict allergenicity. Although the Codex Alimentarius and EFSA guidance documents successfully addressed allergenicity assessments of single/stacked event GM applications, experience gained and new developments in the field call for a modernisation of some key elements of the risk assessment. These should include the consideration of clinical relevance, route of exposure and potential threshold values of food allergens, the update of in silico tools used with more targeted databases and better integration and standardisation of test materials and in vitro/in vivo protocols. Furthermore, more complex future products will likely challenge the overall practical implementation of current guidelines, which were mainly targeted to assess a few newly expressed proteins. Therefore, it is timely to review and clarify the main purpose of the allergenicity risk assessment and the vital role it plays in protecting consumers' health. A roadmap to (re)define the allergenicity safety objectives and risk assessment needs will be required to inform a series of key questions for risk assessors and risk managers such as 'what is the purpose of the allergenicity risk assessment?' or 'what level of confidence is necessary for the predictions?'.

Advances, Practical Implementation, and Unmet Needs Regarding Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy

Treatment of food allergy is a rapidly changing landscape, with arguably, the most significant advancement in recent years, the transition of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to clinical practice. As an innovation, OIT is a phase of rapidly increasing demand, particularly for some allergens such as peanut, egg, and milk, which have substantial evidence of efficacy. However, significant questions remain about how to best treat multiple food allergies and less common food allergies and how to optimize long-term safety and efficacy. This review summarizes the currently available resources for integrating food allergy OIT into clinical practice and focuses on the multiple remaining unmet needs such as providing an approach for OIT to food allergens for which there is no or limited evidence; practical issues related to food allergy treatment particularly when it is not going well; long-term outcomes and follow-up after OIT; and strategies to help meet the impending increase in demand.

Optimizing tools for evaluating challenge outcomes in children with cashew nut allergy

BACKGROUND

The incidence of cashew nut anaphylaxis is increasing and there is a need for accurate diagnostic tests. Age-specific cutoffs in children are lacking. Changes in serum tryptase levels are not well documented in pediatric food allergy, except in anaphylaxis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the ability of various tests to diagnose cashew nut allergy and to predict reaction severity. We also investigated changes in tryptase and their correlation to reaction severity.

METHODS

We performed an open cashew nut challenge on 106 children (aged 1-16 years), who were sensitized to cashew nut with either previous allergic reaction to cashew nut or no known exposure. We analyzed the accuracy of Ana o 3 immunoglobulin E (IgE), cashew nut IgE, skin prick test, basophil activation test (BAT), and combinations thereof to diagnose cashew nut allergy and to predict reaction severity. Tryptase level was measured at the baseline and during an allergic reaction.

RESULTS

A total of 72 children had positive challenge outcomes. Ana o 3 IgE seemed to be the best single test to diagnose cashew allergy, with a 0.97 kU/L cutoff exhibiting 94.1% specificity and 61.1% sensitivity. Though BAT values of at least 22.8% best predicted reaction severity, with 91.7% specificity and 60.7% sensitivity, the cutoffs were age-specific. Tryptase levels increased substantially 1 to 2 hours after the first allergic symptoms compared with baseline.

CONCLUSION

Ana o 3 IgE seems to be the best diagnostic test in pediatric cashew nut allergy, and test combinations do not seem to improve the diagnostics. Cutoffs are age-specific. BAT is promising in predicting reaction severity. Tryptase levels should be measured 1 to 2 hours after initiation of an allergic reaction.

Innovative robust basophil activation test using a novel gating strategy reliably diagnosing allergy with full automation

BACKGROUND

Allergy is one of the most common chronic diseases in Europe. Therefore, an increased need for specific and sensitive diagnostic tests that truly detect allergy exists. This study aimed at establishing a highly specific high-throughput and automated basophil activation test (BAT) that proves the existence of an allergy with utmost probability.

METHODS

BAT from 1104 samples was analyzed; a novel gating strategy with three antibodies (FcεRIα, CD203c, CD63) was established and compared with our published protocol (12 antibodies). Based on the novel gating strategy, storage conditions, automated measurement, and analyses using R (1376 samples out of 1389) were optimized to set up a high-throughput BAT.

RESULTS

No differences in sensitivity and specificity were found between the novel three antibody (FcεRIα, CD203c, CD63) and the 12 antibody gating strategy or between automated and manually analyzed samples (saving up to 90% of labor time). The time frame for basophil activation measurement after blood donation has been extended considerably (whole blood storage ≤7 days (RT) and 17 days (4°C) prior to BAT preparation and measurement). Respective storage conditions were optimized for samples after stimulation, staining, and preparation (≤7 days (RT) and 28 days (4°C)). These achievements were confirmed by a nationwide ring trial showing robustness and applicability of our BAT on a variety of flow cytometers.

CONCLUSION

Our considerable optimizations overcame the hurdles that until now prevented the BAT from being used as high-throughput allergy diagnostic test in routine laboratories and shall allow for collaborative studies between clinics and research centers.

The Basophil Activation Test for Clinical Management of Food Allergies: Recent Advances and Future Directions

The basophil activation test (BAT) is an ex vivo functional assay that measures by flow cytometry the degree of basophil degranulation after stimulation with an allergen. In recent years, there has been an increased interest in the diagnostic value of the BAT as it has the potential to mimic the clinical phenotype of sIgE sensitized patients, in contrast to allergen-specific IgE levels. This diagnostic potential would be of particular interest for food allergies present early in life such as peanut, cow’s milk and eggs, which require an expensive, time-consuming and patient unfriendly oral food challenge (OFC) for diagnosis. However, routine applications of the BAT for clinical use are not yet feasible due to the lack of standardized protocols and large clinical validation studies. This review will summarize the current data regarding the application of the BAT in food allergy (FA) for cow’s milk, egg and peanut, being the most common causes of FA in children. Additionally, it will discuss the hurdles for widespread clinical use of the BAT and possible future directions for this diagnostic procedure.

Bringing the Next Generation of Food Allergy Diagnostics into the Clinic

Food allergy diagnosis has a massive impact on the lives of patients and their families. Despite recent developments with specific IgE to component allergens, a significant proportion of patients assessed for possible food allergy require oral food challenge to ensure an accurate diagnosis. More precise diagnostic methods are required to reduce the need for oral food challenges. Bead-based epitope assays and cellular tests, such as basophil activation and mast cell tests are the most novel and promising tests on the horizon. There is a pathway to pursue to enable their incorporation in clinical practice, including standardization, technical validation, clinical validation, external validation, overcoming practical and logistical issues, and regulatory approval. Valuable clinical application of these tests goes beyond diagnosis and includes risk assessment to identify allergic patients who are most sensitive and at risk for severe allergic reactions, and to define prognosis and assess clinical response to immunomodulatory treatments.

Basophil activation test: Mechanisms and considerations for use in clinical trials and clinical practice

The basophil activation test (BAT) is a functional assay that measures the degree of degranulation following stimulation with allergen or controls by flow cytometry. It correlates directly with histamine release. From the dose-response curve resulting from BAT in allergic patients, basophil reactivity (%CD63⁺ basophils) and basophil sensitivity (EC₅₀ or similar) are the main outcomes of the test. BAT takes into account all characteristics of IgE and allergen and thus can be more specific than sensitization tests in the diagnosis of allergic disease. BAT reduces the need for in vivo procedures, such as intradermal tests and allergen challenges, which can cause allergic reactions of unpredictable severity. As it closely reflects the patients' phenotype in most cases, it may be used to support the diagnosis of food, venom and drug allergies and chronic urticaria, to monitor the natural resolution of food allergies and to predict and monitor clinical the response to immunomodulatory treatments, such as allergen-specific immunotherapy and biologicals. Clinical application of BAT requires analytical validation, clinical validation, standardization of procedures and quality assurance to ensure reproducibility and reliability of results. Currently, efforts are ongoing to establish a platform that could be used by laboratories in Europe and in the USA for quality assurance and certification.

An Updated Overview of Almond Allergens

Tree nuts are considered an important food in healthy diets. However, for part of the world’s population, they are one of the most common sources of food allergens causing acute allergic reactions that can become life-threatening. They are part of the Big Eight food groups which are responsible for more than 90% of food allergy cases in the United States, and within this group, almond allergies are persistent and normally severe and life-threatening. Almond is generally consumed raw, toasted or as an integral part of other foods. Its dietary consumption is generally associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular diseases. Several almond proteins have been recognized as allergens. Six of them, namely Pru du 3, Pru du 4, Pru du 5, Pru du 6, Pru du 8 and Pru du 10, have been included in the WHO-IUIS list of allergens. Nevertheless, further studies are needed in relation to the accurate characterization of the already known almond allergens or putative ones and in relation to the IgE-binding properties of these allergens to avoid misidentifications. In this context, this work aims to critically review the almond allergy problematic and, specifically, to perform an extensive overview regarding known and novel putative almond allergens.

Basophil activation test shows high accuracy in the diagnosis of peanut and tree nut allergy: The Markers of Nut Allergy Study

BACKGROUND

Peanut and tree nut allergies are the most important causes of anaphylaxis. Co-reactivity to more than one nut is frequent, and co-sensitization in the absence of clinical data is often obtained. Confirmatory oral food challenges (OFCs) are inconsistently performed.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the utility of the basophil activation test (BAT) in diagnosing peanut and tree nut allergies.

METHODS

The Markers Of Nut Allergy Study (MONAS) prospectively enrolled patients aged 0.5-17 years with confirmed peanut and/or tree nut (almond, cashew, hazelnut, pistachio, walnut) allergy or sensitization from Canadian (n = 150) and Austrian (n = 50) tertiary pediatric centers. BAT using %CD63⁺ basophils (SSClow/CCR3pos) as outcome was performed with whole blood samples stimulated with allergen extracts of each nut (0.001-1000 ng/mL protein). BAT results were assessed against confirmed allergic status in a blinded fashion to develop a generalizable statistical model for comparison to extract and marker allergen-specific IgE.

RESULTS

A mixed effect model integrating BAT results for 10 and 100 ng/mL of peanut and individual tree nut extracts was optimal. The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was 0.98 for peanut, 0.97 for cashew, 0.92 for hazelnut, 0.95 for pistachio, and 0.97 for walnut. The BAT outperformed sIgE testing for peanut or hazelnut and was comparable for walnut (AUROC 0.95, 0.94, 0.92) in a sub-analysis in sensitized patients undergoing OFC.

CONCLUSIONS

Basophil activation test can predict allergic clinical status to peanut and tree nuts in multi-nut-sensitized children and may reduce the need for high-risk OFCs in patients.

Improving Diagnostic Accuracy in Food Allergy

The diagnosis of food allergy can have a major impact on the lives of patients and families, imposing dietary restrictions and limitations on social activities. On the other hand, misdiagnosis can place the patient at risk of a potentially severe allergic reaction. Therefore, an accurate diagnosis of food allergy is of utmost importance. The diagnosis of food allergy is often established by the combination of the clinical history and allergen-specific IgE; however, without a clear history of an allergic reaction, the interpretation of IgE sensitization tests can be difficult. There are also rare cases of clinical food allergy in the absence of IgE sensitization. For that reason, testing for suspected food allergy ideally requires access to oral food challenges (OFCs), which are currently the gold standard tests to diagnose food allergy. As OFCs are time consuming and involve the risk of acute allergic reactions of unpredictable severity, the question remains: how can we improve the accuracy of diagnosis before referring the patient for an OFC? Herein, we review the predictive value of different tests used to support the diagnosis of food allergy, discuss implications for therapy and prognosis, and propose a diagnostic approach to be applied in clinical practice.

Effect of Processing on Fish Protein Antigenicity and Allergenicity

Fish allergy is a life-long food allergy whose prevalence is affected by many demographic factors. Currently, there is no cure for fish allergy, which can only be managed by strict avoidance of fish in the diet. According to the WHO/IUIS Allergen Nomenclature Sub-Committee, 12 fish proteins are recognized as allergens. Different processing (thermal and non-thermal) techniques are applied to fish and fishery products to reduce microorganisms, extend shelf life, and alter organoleptic/nutritional properties. In this concise review, the development of a consistent terminology for studying food protein immunogenicity, antigenicity, and allergenicity is proposed. It also summarizes that food processing may lead to a decrease, no change, or even increase in fish antigenicity and allergenicity due to the change of protein solubility, protein denaturation, and the modification of linear or conformational epitopes. Recent studies investigated the effect of processing on fish antigenicity/allergenicity and were mainly conducted on commonly consumed fish species and major fish allergens using in vitro methods. Future research areas such as novel fish species/allergens and ex vivo/in vivo evaluation methods would convey a comprehensive view of the relationship between processing and fish allergy.

Biomarkers of diagnosis and resolution of food allergy

Food allergy is increasing in prevalence, affecting up to 10% of children in developed countries. Food allergy can significantly affect the quality of life and well-being of patients and their families; therefore, an accurate diagnosis is of extreme importance. Some food allergies can spontaneously resolve in 50%-60% of cow's milk and egg-allergic, 20% of peanut-allergic and 9% of tree nut-allergic children by school age. For that reason, food-allergic status should be monitored over time to determine when to reintroduce the food back into the child's diet. The gold-standard to confirm the diagnosis and the resolution of food allergy is an oral food challenge; however, this involves the risk of causing an acute-allergic reaction and requires clinical experience and resources to treat allergic reactions of any degree of severity. In the clinical setting, biomarkers have been used and validated to enable an accurate diagnosis when combined with the clinical history, deferring the oral food challenge, whenever possible. In this review, we cover the tools available to support the diagnosis of food allergies and to predict food allergy resolution over time. We review the latest evidence on different testing modalities and how effective they are in guiding clinical decision making in practice. We also evaluate predictive test cut-offs for the more common food allergens to try and provide guidance on when challenges might be most successful in determining oral tolerance in children.

Basophil Activation Test Reduces Oral Food Challenges to Nuts and Sesame

BACKGROUND

Nut allergic patients are often IgE sensitized to other nuts/seeds and need multiple oral food challenges (OFCs) before the safe nuts can be introduced in the diet. However, OFCs are time-consuming and risky procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the utility of the basophil activation test (BAT) to predict the allergic status and reduce the need for an OFC in children with 1 or more nut or seed allergies.

METHODS

Participants in the Pronuts study recruited at the Geneva and the London centers were tested on the BAT to hazelnut, cashew nut, sesame, almond, and peanut, Ara h 1, Ara h 2, Ara h 6, using FlowCAST, a commercially available BAT kit, and flow cytometry.

RESULTS

The BAT to hazelnut, cashew nut, sesame, almond, and peanut discriminated between allergic and nonallergic children, to the respective nut or seed. The optimal allergen concentration and their optimal, positive, and negative cutoffs were identified for the BAT and the other tests, for each nut and seed. Using the BAT as a second step in the diagnostic process, after equivocal skin prick test and IgE to extracts and components, reduced the number of total OFCs by 5% to 15% and positive OFCs by 33% to 75% (except for hazelnut) with 0% false-negatives and a diagnostic accuracy of 96% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

The BAT proved to be a useful diagnostic tool, used in a stepwise approach, to predict the allergic status and reduce the number of OFCs in the Pronuts study participants with at least 1 nut allergy willing to consume selected nuts.

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.

Food allergy severity predictions based on cellular in vitro tests

INTRODUCTION

Food allergy is increasing in prevalence and the severity of allergic reactions is unpredictable. Identifying food-allergic patients at high risk of severe reactions would allow us to offer a personalized and improved management for these patients.

AREAS COVERED

We review the evidence for using the levels of specific IgE, the nature of the allergen, and cellular tests to identify patients at high risk of developing severe allergic reactions to foods.

EXPERT OPINION

The evidence about whether the quantity of allergen-specific IgE reflects the severity of allergic reactions to foods is conflicting, with some positive and some negative studies. For some foods, specific IgE to individual components (e.g. Ara h 2 in peanut) can provide additional information. However, more important than the quantity of IgE is possibly the quality of IgE, which can be captured by individual measurements of affinity/avidity, diversity, and specific activity, but is best measured overall using the basophil and mast cell activation tests, which assess the function of IgE in its ability to induce cell activation, degranulation, and mediator release. Biomarkers look at a single aspect of the allergic response and should be interpreted in the broader clinical context for each individual patient assessed.

Peanut allergy diagnosis: Moving from basic to more elegant testing

Peanut allergy (PNA) is an IgE-mediated immune disorder, which merits particular attention due to its impact on the health and quality of life of millions of patients worldwide. PNA tends to develop in early life and resolves in only 20% of peanut-allergic children. It accounts for the majority of severe food-related allergic reactions. An accurate diagnosis of PNA is vital. In this review, we present the approach to the diagnosis of peanut allergy, starting from the history and proceeding to measures of overall sensitization and then to component-resolved diagnostics and oral food challenges as indicated. Additional testing in development includes basophil activation testing and determination of epitopes for peanut-allergic responses. Based on the literature, stepwise approaches and predictive models for diagnosing PNA are also presented.

Food Allergy Insights: A Changing Landscape

The panorama of food allergies (FA) has changed profoundly in recent years. In light of recent advances in knowledge of pathogenetic mechanisms and a greater attention to the multifaceted range of possible clinical manifestations, there is a need for a critical review of past classifications. Changes in nutrition, environment and lifestyles around the world are modifying the global FA epidemiology and new FA phenotypes are also emerging. Furthermore, both biotechnological advances in this field and recent personalized therapies have improved the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to FA. Consequently, both the prevention and clinical management of FA are rapidly changing and new therapeutic strategies are emerging, even revolutionizing the current medical practice. Given the significant increase in the prevalence of FA in recent years, the objective of this review is to provide an updated and complete overview of current knowledge in its etiopathogenesis, diagnostics and therapy, useful not only for a better understanding of this frequent and complex pathology but also for practical guidance in its clinical management.

Basophil activation testing in occupational respiratory allergy to low molecular weight compounds

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is an unmet need for better immunological tests in cases of suspected occupational asthma to many workplace chemicals; here we consider the basophil activation test (BAT), a potential alternative to the detection of specific IgE antibodies.

RECENT FINDINGS

BAT is fairly widely used in general allergy services; and there is increasing experience of its use in the diagnosis of occupational allergy to low molecular weight agents and chemicals including wood dusts, persulphates, antibiotics and latex.

SUMMARY

There is potential for BAT to become a useful tool in the clinical consideration of occupational asthma and of its mechanisms, and even to take a place in a Bayesian-based diagnostic algorithm. Further development will only occur if specialist centres with appropriate facilities, and preferably in collaboration, contemplate its use.

Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-Mediated Food Allergy in Children: Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, Prevention, and Management

A food allergy is an immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated hypersensitive reaction to food, which consists in the appearance of allergic symptoms; it can vary from common urticaria to even fatal anaphylaxis. The prevalence of food allergies has been increasing in the past twenty years and it represents a major public health problem in industrialized countries. The mechanism that leads to food allergies is the lack of immunologic and clinical tolerance to food allergens. The diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergies is based on the combined use of a detailed medical history, in-vivo, and in-vitro research of specific IgE, the elimination diet, and the double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge. The only currently available treatment for allergies is the strict elimination diet. This type of attitude, which we could define as “passive”, does not overcome the risk of accidental reactions due to involuntary intake of the culprit food. For food allergy management, an “active” approach is urgently needed, such as specific allergen immunotherapy, which is currently under development and only used for research purposes. This article aims to give an updated review of IgE-mediated food allergies in pediatric populations in terms of epidemiology, pathogenesis, prevention, diagnosis, and management.

Sustained successful peanut oral immunotherapy associated with low basophil activation and peanut-specific IgE

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) can successfully desensitize many peanut-allergic subjects, but clinical tolerance diminishes over time on discontinuation, or low-dose maintenance, of peanut. Therefore, to improve the efficacy and sustainability of such therapy, we sought to identify biomarkers and clinical tools that can predict therapeutic outcomes and monitor treatment responses.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated whether basophil activation in whole blood, and plasma levels of peanut-specific immunoglobulins, are useful biomarkers for peanut OIT.

METHODS

We longitudinally measured, before, during, and after OIT, basophil activation in whole blood ex vivo in response to peanut stimulation, and peanut-specific IgE (sIgE) and peanut-specific IgG4 (sIgG4), in a large, single-site, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 peanut OIT study. We compared basophil responsiveness and peanut-specific immunoglobulins between those who were clinically reactive and those who were tolerant to peanut oral challenges.

RESULTS

Peanut OIT significantly decreased basophil activation, peanut sIgE, Ara h 1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 3 IgE levels, and sIgE/total IgE, but increased sIgG4/sIgE. Participants who became reactive to 4 g of peanut 13 weeks off active OIT exhibited higher peanut-induced basophil activation ex vivo and higher peanut sIgE levels and sIgE/total IgE, but lower sIgG4/sIgE. Notably, participants entering the study with low basophil responsiveness were more likely to achieve treatment success. Substantial suppression of basophil activation was required to maintain long-term clinical tolerance after peanut OIT.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessments of peanut-induced basophil activation and peanut-specific immunoglobulins can help to predict treatment outcomes, and to differentiate transient desensitization versus sustained unresponsiveness after OIT.

New Perspectives in Food Allergy

The improvement of the knowledge of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the tolerance and sensitization to food antigens has recently led to a radical change in the clinical approach to food allergies. Epidemiological studies show a global increase in the prevalence of food allergy all over the world and manifestations of food allergy appear increasingly frequent also in elderly subjects. Environmental and nutritional changes have partly changed the epidemiology of allergic reactions to foods and new food allergic syndromes have emerged in recent years. The deepening of the study of the intestinal microbiota has highlighted important mechanisms of immunological adaptation of the mucosal immune system to food antigens, leading to a revolution in the concept of immunological tolerance. As a consequence, new prevention models and innovative therapeutic strategies aimed at a personalized approach to the patient affected by food allergy are emerging. This review focuses on these new perspectives and their practical implications in the management of food allergy, providing an updated view of this complex pathology.