Use of a basophil activation test as a complementary diagnostic tool in the diagnosis of severe peanut allergy in adults. Issue 1 (11th June 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rentzos, Georgios; Lundberg, Vanja; Lundqvist, Christina; Rodrigues, Rui; van Odijk, Jenny; Lundell, Anna‐Carin; Pullerits, Teet; Telemo, Esbjörn
• Is Part Of: Clinical and translational allergy. Volume 5:Issue 1(2015)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2015-06-11
• Subjects: Peanut allergy -- Basophil activation test -- Allergen components; Allergy -- Periodicals; Immunology -- Periodicals; Allergy and Immunology -- Periodicals; Hypersensitivity -- Periodicals; Immune System Phenomena -- Periodicals; 616.97005
• DOI: 10.1186/s13601-015-0064-9
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2045-7022

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Diagnosis of severe peanut allergy is difficult and delays in making an accurate diagnosis may place the patient at risk. Adults with a history of anaphylaxis must strictly avoid any contact with peanuts or products that may contain traces of peanuts. For these persons, conventional evaluations with skin prick testing (SPT) and IgE tests may not be sufficient to assess the risk of anaphylaxis. Therefore, we investigated whether the basophil activation test (BAT) could be used for the diagnosis of severe peanut allergy in adults. We compared the non‐invasive BAT with conventional laboratory diagnostic tests, including SPT and specific IgE to allergen extracts and components, for the diagnosis of severe peanut allergy. Methods: Forty‐seven persons with severe allergy to peanuts and a clinical diagnosis of anaphylaxis (PA‐group), 22 subjects with peanut sensitization (PS‐group) and 22 control (C‐group) subjects, all in the age range of 18–60 years, were recruited retrospectively and prospectively into the study. Thirty‐four patients with peanut allergy and 11 peanut‐sensitized patients were sensitized to soy, while 36 patients in the PA‐group and 20 patients in the PS‐group were sensitized to birch pollen. All the patients and control subjects were investigated with BAT and SPT for responses to peanut, soy and birch extracts and their serum samples were assayed for the presence of specific IgE to peanut, soy and birch extracts, as well as IgE to allergen components (ISAC). Results: In a multivariate factor analysis, severe peanut allergy (PA) was positively associated with SPT to peanut, IgE to peanut, BAT to peanut and IgE to rAra h 1, 2, 3 and 6 peanut components, as well as to soy components (nGly m 5 and nGly m 6). In contrast, peanut sensitization was positively associated with increased levels of IgE to rAra h 8, birch and birch‐related components. BAT‐detected reactivity to peanut was significantly higher in patients who had a history of severe allergy to peanuts, as compared with patients who were sensitized to peanuts ( p < 0.001), and the receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis showed that BAT had high sensitivity and specificity for predicting severe peanut allergy, with a ROC area under the curve of 0.862. However, in the PA‐group, the BAT results for peanut correlated only weakly with the levels of IgE to rAra h 1, 2 and 3 and nAra h 6. Study limitations: oral provocation in the patients with a history of severe peanut allergy could not be performed to compare clinical reactivity with the BAT result due to ethical constraints. Neither was it possible to perform BAT with peanut recombinant allergens which were not available at the time the study commenced Conclusions: BAT is useful in determining the severity of peanut allergy and may be used as a complementary diagnostic tool to ensure accurate diagnosis of severe peanut allergy in adults. Thus, it may reduce the need to subject these patients to further tests, including an open challenge with peanuts.