1
|
Cabrera CM, Horrillo ML, Brito FF, Palacios‐Cañas A. Would the choice of multiplex platform impact the management of the allergic patient? A first approach focusing on LTPs. J Clin Lab Anal 2023; 37:e24960. [PMID: 37638561 PMCID: PMC10561593 DOI: 10.1002/jcla.24960] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2023] [Revised: 07/06/2023] [Accepted: 08/21/2023] [Indexed: 08/29/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the Mediterranean area, patients with LTP syndrome who are sensitized to multiple allergens are often tested for sIgE using multiplex platforms. The results obtained from different commercial platforms are not interchangeable, so it is important to compare and validate the platform selected for use. The objective of this study is to compare and validate the performance of the ImmunoCAP ISAC E112i and the macroarray ALEX2 in our daily practice. METHODS From August 2021 to March 2022, we tested 20 random serum samples from polysensitized patients using the ALEX2 test (MADx) and ImmunoCAP tIgE and ISAC E112i (Thermo Fisher Scientific). We compared the total IgE (tIgE) and sIgE levels for shared allergens. RESULTS The heatmap generally showed more intense results for ISAC. The overall correlation was good, but some exceptions were noted. The main discrepancies were found for Ole e 7, which was positive for 11 patients in ISAC but negative for all patients in ALEX2, and for nut LTPs, for which ISAC showed a threefold higher detection rate for Ara h 9 and a fivefold higher detection rate for Cor a 8 and Jug r 3 compared to ALEX2. The regression model showed no interchangeability of tIgE results. CONCLUSIONS Despite our small sample size and the complexity of comparing a quantitative and a semi-quantitative platform, our results suggest that patient diagnosis and management can be influenced by the platform used. Therefore, our findings must be taken into consideration when choosing a platform to use for some profiles of LTP-polysensitized patients, even though more data is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carmen Maria Cabrera
- Allergy and Immunology SectionCiudad Real University General HospitalCiudad RealSpain
- Faculty of Medicine of Ciudad RealUniversity of Castilla‐La ManchaCiudad RealSpain
| | - Moisés Labrador Horrillo
- Allergy SectionVall d'Hebron University HospitalBarcelonaSpain
- Autonomous University of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Balsells-Vives S, San Bartolomé C, Casas-Saucedo R, Ruano-Zaragoza M, Rius J, Torradeflot M, Bartra J, Munoz-Cano R, Pascal M. Low Levels Matter: Clinical Relevance of Low Pru p 3 sIgE in Patients With Peach Allergy. FRONTIERS IN ALLERGY 2022; 3:868267. [PMID: 35769570 PMCID: PMC9234939 DOI: 10.3389/falgy.2022.868267] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2022] [Accepted: 02/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Many clinical lab settings still use 0.35 KUA/L as the cut-off for serum specific-IgE (sIgE) immunoassays, while the detection limit is 0.1 KUA/L. The clinical relevance of -low-level sIgE (0.1-0.35 KUA/L) remains controversial. Pru p 3 sIgE is considered to be the main routine tool for assessing lipid transfer protein (LTP) sensitization. We aimed to evaluate the clinical relevance of Pru p 3 sIgE low levels in a population diagnosed with LTP allergy. Adults diagnosed with LTP allergy and Pru p 3 sIgE ≥ 0.1 KUA/L between 2012 and 2019 were included. Clinical data were reviewed. nPru p 3 basophil activation test (BAT) was performed and basophil reactivity (BR) and sensitivity (BS) correlated with the peach allergy symptoms. Pru p 3 sIgE from 496 subjects was recorded, 114 (23.0%) between 0.1 and 0.34 KUA/L (grLOW), the rest ≥ 0.35 KUA/L (grB). A total of 44.7% in grLOW and 59.9% in grB were allergic. Urticaria was more frequent in grLOW. In grLOW, Pru p 3 sIgE was higher in patients with local compared with systemic symptoms. In grB, Pru p 3 sIgE was higher in allergic patients. Pru p 3/Total IgE ratios were higher in allergic vs. tolerant in both groups. In BAT, BR was similar in both groups. In grLOW, it was higher on allergic compared with tolerant (p = 0.0286), and on those having systemic vs. local symptoms (p = 0.0286). BS showed no significant difference between groups. Patients with low levels represent a non-negligible fraction and around 45% are peach allergic. BAT showed functional sIgE in them. Pru p 3 sensitizations should be carefully evaluated even when sIgE levels are low.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Balsells-Vives
- Clinical and Experimental Respiratory Immunoallergy (IRCE), Institut D'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Clara San Bartolomé
- Clinical and Experimental Respiratory Immunoallergy (IRCE), Institut D'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain
- Department of Immunology, Centre de Diagnòstic Biomedic (CDB), Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Rocío Casas-Saucedo
- Clinical and Experimental Respiratory Immunoallergy (IRCE), Institut D'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain
- Allergy Section, Department of Pneumology, Institut Clínic Respiratori (ICR), Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
- Spanish Research Network on Allergy (ARADyAL, Red Nacional de Alergia–Asma, Reacciones Adversas y Alérgicas-), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
| | - María Ruano-Zaragoza
- Clinical and Experimental Respiratory Immunoallergy (IRCE), Institut D'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain
- Allergy Section, Department of Pneumology, Institut Clínic Respiratori (ICR), Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
- Spanish Research Network on Allergy (ARADyAL, Red Nacional de Alergia–Asma, Reacciones Adversas y Alérgicas-), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
| | - Josefina Rius
- Department of Immunology, Centre de Diagnòstic Biomedic (CDB), Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Maria Torradeflot
- Department of Immunology, Centre de Diagnòstic Biomedic (CDB), Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Joan Bartra
- Clinical and Experimental Respiratory Immunoallergy (IRCE), Institut D'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain
- Allergy Section, Department of Pneumology, Institut Clínic Respiratori (ICR), Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
- Spanish Research Network on Allergy (ARADyAL, Red Nacional de Alergia–Asma, Reacciones Adversas y Alérgicas-), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
| | - Rosa Munoz-Cano
- Clinical and Experimental Respiratory Immunoallergy (IRCE), Institut D'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain
- Allergy Section, Department of Pneumology, Institut Clínic Respiratori (ICR), Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
- Spanish Research Network on Allergy (ARADyAL, Red Nacional de Alergia–Asma, Reacciones Adversas y Alérgicas-), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
| | - Mariona Pascal
- Clinical and Experimental Respiratory Immunoallergy (IRCE), Institut D'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain
- Department of Immunology, Centre de Diagnòstic Biomedic (CDB), Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
- Spanish Research Network on Allergy (ARADyAL, Red Nacional de Alergia–Asma, Reacciones Adversas y Alérgicas-), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|