Clinical utility of microarray B‐cell epitope mapping in food allergies: A systematic review. Issue 2 (21st November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sánchez‐Ruano, Laura; de la Hoz, Belén; Martínez‐Botas, Javier
• Editors: Santos, Alexandra
• Is Part Of: Pediatric allergy and immunology. Volume 31:Issue 2(2020)
• Page Start: 175
• Page End: 185
• Publication Date: 2019-11-21
• Subjects: clinical utility -- epitope mapping -- food allergy -- peptide microarray -- precision medicine; Allergy in children -- Periodicals; Immunologic diseases in children -- Periodicals; 617
• DOI: 10.1111/pai.13141
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-6157

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Peptide microarray technology has been proposed as a useful tool for diagnosing food allergy. However, there is considerable heterogeneity in the clinical methods and analytical procedures used to assess its diagnostic and prognostic performance. We performed a systematic review of studies that have used B‐cell epitopes by peptide microarray in food allergies to identify the clinical utility of this immunologic technique. Methods: Studies were screened in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase according to an established keyword algorithm. Data extraction was performed, and information was collected in an Excel database. Descriptive analysis was carried out using Stata software. Results: Thirty relevant studies were identified. Most articles were cross‐sectional (n = 24), included epitope mapping (n = 9), and assessed diagnostic utility (n = 11). All studies recruited allergic patients, and some included additional patients (sensitized, persistent, and tolerant). The primary microarray variables studied were IgE intensity (n = 29), IgG4 intensity (n = 15), and number of peptides (n = 17). Statistical approaches differed significantly between studies, with the Wilcoxon test being the most frequently used (n = 10). Conclusions: Sensitization to particular epitopes of milk, peanut, and shrimp allergens can be used to determine clinical reactivity, persistence, severity, or response to oral immunotherapy; however, important methodological questions need to be addressed before drawing definitive conclusions. More research is needed to address the accuracy and clinical benefits of microarray‐based technology. Standards are required to improve consistency and reproducibility, and to allow for better understanding of research findings.