Combinatorial advantage of Ses i 1‐specific IgE and basophil activation for diagnosis of sesame food allergy. Issue 7 (27th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Goldberg, Michael R.; Appel, Michael Y.; Nachshon, Liat; Holmqvist, Marie; Epstein‐Rigbi, Naama; Levy, Michael B.; Lidholm, Jonas; Elizur, Arnon
• Editors: Santos, Alexandra
• Is Part Of: Pediatric allergy and immunology. Volume 32:Issue 7(2021)
• Page Start: 1482
• Page End: 1489
• Publication Date: 2021-05-27
• Subjects: basophil activation test -- Ses i 1 component IgE -- sesame allergy; Allergy in children -- Periodicals; Immunologic diseases in children -- Periodicals; 617
• DOI: 10.1111/pai.13533
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-6157

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The prevalence of sesame food allergy (SFA) is increasing worldwide with the potential of anaphylactic reactions upon exposure. Utility of specific component IgE testing as an alternative to the oral food challenge (OFC), the diagnostic standard, is being investigated. Methods: Patients ( n = 42) with suspected SFA completed an open OFC to sesame. Diagnostic testing included serum levels of Ses i 1‐specific IgE, skin prick test with high‐protein extract, and basophil reactivity (% induced CD63 expression) for each patient. The diagnostic utility of these tests was evaluated at a 95% sensitivity, with the outcome measure being the number of OFCs required. Results: Twenty‐seven patients (64%) were diagnosed with SFA. Ses i 1 IgE differed significantly between allergic and tolerant patients ( p = .0001). ROC curve analysis for Ses i 1 IgE yielded an AUC of 0.88 ± 0.05. Levels of Ses i 1 IgE correlated to induced CD63+ expression on basophils ( p = .0001). Ses i 1 IgE was not sufficiently robust as a single step for diagnosis. Used concurrently, BAT and Ses i 1 IgE yielded correct positive classifications for 25 of 27 sesame‐allergic patients with two false positives (93% PPV). Both tests were negative in 5 non‐allergic patients. Patients with divergent Ses i 1 IgE and BAT results required OFC ( n = 10, 24% of patients). Alternatively, sequential use of BAT, ruling in SFA followed by Ses i 1 IgE diagnosing non‐allergic patients, yielded a 89% PPV, with 19% requiring OFC. Conclusion: Ses i 1 IgE and BAT used together can decrease the need for OFC in most SFA patients. A prospective cohort trial is necessary to validate these results.