Component Resolved Diagnosis Future Concept in Diagnosis Allergic Disease.

Component Resolved Diagnosis Future Concept in Diagnosis Allergic Disease.

The diagnosis of food allergy, as assessed by skin tests or in vitro tests with allergen extracts, has insufficient diagnostic performance and needs to be confirmed by food challenges. However, the availability of molecular allergens (recombinant or highly purified) for laboratory methods has profoundly changed the diagnostic approach to food allergy. In fact, the allergy diagnosis conducted at the molecular level, which is defined internationally as component resolved diagnosis (CRD), allows to characterize more precisely the sensitization profile of the individual patient, distinguishing the sensitizations to allergens that are strongly associated with a given source (genuine sensitizers) from those to molecules that are common to many sources (panallergens) or cross-react with other components from the same family or from other families.

Traditionally, diagnosis of pediatric allergic disease is based on a careful and thorough history, skin prick testing, and assessment of specific IgE antibodies to allergens in the blood, and on provocation or elimination-provocation-elimination tests. Skin prick testing (SPT) and serum food-specific IgE (sIgE) levels are extremely sensitive testing options, but positive test results to tolerated foods are not uncommon. By means of molecular methods over the last few years, it has become possible to measure IgE antibodies to specific components of allergens. The methods are designated as component-resolved diagnosis. The molecular structures of many allergens have been characterized and are commercially available as recombinant products. This has focused attention on the need for assessment of the clinical application of the methods in pediatric populations; however, guidelines or consensus on their use have not been defined.

The vast information provided by molecular allergy needs a structured approach in order to be adequately interpreted. There is a need to evaluate single positivities and negativities, but also to appraise “the big picture” with perspective. When making decisions on this information, one has to bear in mind what is included in the tests and what is missing. It is needed that we understand that not all allergenic sources are present in the available arrays, but that the most important allergenic protein families are. This is relevant both when searching for a culprit allergen as when ruling out possible causes of certain reactions.

The concept of component resolved diagnosis, to identify conditions in which the new diagnostic tool may be helpful in pediatric allergic disease, and to discuss conditions in which more evidence should be provided before large-scale use of the methods may be warranted. Allergen component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) have the potential to provide a more accurate assessment in diagnosing food allergies. Recently, a number of studies have demonstrated that CRD may improve the specificity of allergy testing to a variety of foods including peanut, milk, and egg. While it may be a helpful adjunct to current diagnostic testing, CRD is not ready to replace existing methods of allergy testing, as it not as sensitive, is not widely available, and evaluations of component testing for a number of major food allergens are lacking.

Component resolved diagnosis is a new concept in the investigation of pediatric allergic disease. Component resolved diagnosis with respect to implications for investigation of children with allergic disease. In most conditions head-to-head comparisons of component resolved diagnosis with traditional IgE testing have not been performed. Rather than alternatives the molecular methods should be seen as adjuncts to the cheaper traditional specific IgE tests. It may be appropriate to determine IgE antibodies to components as part of the diagnostic work-up in selected cases of peanut and birch pollen allergy and in hymenoptera allergy. However, cost benefit analyses of component resolved diagnosis compared with traditional work-up of allergy are needed. Prospectively planned protocols for assessment of the extent to which component resolved diagnosis may be able to improve the selection of children to immunotherapy and, thus, the efficacy of immunotherapy, are needed. Finally, studies of component resolved diagnosis with microarray technology in screening panels with hundreds of components should be undertaken before it can be determined to which extent such panel screening, if at all, may be helpful in children.

Component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) utilize purified native or recombinant allergens to detect IgE sensitivity to individual allergen molecules and have become of growing importance in clinical investigation of IgE-mediated allergies. This overview updates current developments of CRD, including multiarray test systems. Cross-reactions between allergens of known allergen families (i.e. to Bet v 1 homologues) are emphasised. In pollinosis as well as in allergy to hymenoptera venoms or to food, CRD allows to some extent discrimination between clinically significant and irrelevant sIgE results and the establishing of sensitisation patterns with particular prognostic outcomes (i.e. sensitisations to storage proteins which correlate with clinically severe reactions in peanut allergy). Further promising improvements in diagnostics are expected from additional, not yet commercially available, recombinant allergen diagnostics identifying particular molecules of risk. Overall, CRD may decrease the need for provocation testing and may also improve the specificity of allergen-specific immunotherapy.

In several IgE-mediated conditions in children, the use of component resolved diagnosis in the hands of trained clinicians will offer improved diagnosis and therapy. There is evidence for investigating selected cases of suspected peanut allergy, birch pollen allergy, and associated cross-reactivity by means of component analyses. More than 95% of patients with IgE antibodies to Ara h 2 in combination with Ara h 1 or Ara h 3 have symptoms when ingesting peanuts. Whether there may be a threshold level of IgE to Ara h 2, however, above which peanut allergy may be diagnosed with a sufficient clinically sensitivity and specificity which may abandon the need for oral provocation remains to be evaluated. If it is important to know the degree of severity of the allergic reaction to peanut, oral provocation should still be considered.

The allergen molecules from foods, including plant foods and animal foods, and on the techniques to detect them, by means of a single reagent (singleplex) or an array of molecules tested at the same time (multiplex). Such testing offers detailed information on the sensitization profile of patients and enables the physician to suitably manage their allergy. Moreover, identifying the real causative allergens will be crucial when allergen immunotherapy for food allergy will be introduced in the near future.

Component resolved diagnosis has a place in the investigation of children with insect allergy. For the frequent cases of an unclear history and increased IgE to both bee and wasp assessment of IgE to Api m 1 and Ves v 5 is helpful for the decision of whether immunotherapy to both allergens should be recommended or not. Component resolved diagnosis may also be indicated in the investigation of rare, anaphylactic reactions in patients with suspected wheat or soy allergy. Prospectively planned protocols for clarification of the extent to which component resolved diagnosis will be able to improve selection of patients to immunotherapy and, thus, the efficacy of immunotherapy, are needed.

Risk Assessment Food Allergy

Since the first study on CRD in apple allergy across Europe, where it was demonstrated that sensitization to apple nsLTP (Mal d 3) was associated with a 7 fold risk of anaphylaxis compared to sensitization apple Bet v 1 homologue (Mal d 1), nsLTP have been considered markers of severe allergic reactions. However, studies on patterns of nsLTP sensitization in Mediterranean patients have shown that the clinical expression is variable, ranging from asymptomatic sensitization to severe anaphylaxis, possibly modulated by pollen allergen co-sensitization and the presence of cofactors . A predictive pattern of clinical expression in nsLTP-sensitized patients has not yet been elucidated.

Bet v 1 homologues are considered markers of mild allergic reactions to fruits and vegetables due to cross-reactivity with birch pollen. However, although not frequent, some anaphylactic reactions to apple in patients sensitized to PR10-proteins have been reported. In the particular case of soya allergy, Gly m 4 (the Bet v 1 related allergen in soya) has been related to severe, generalized symptoms.

Seed storage proteins from nuts and soya have been associated with higher risk of severe allergic reactions. In the case of peanut, Ara h 2 seems to be the best predictor of peanut allergy, reducing the need for peanut challenges by at least 50%. Altogether, Ara h 1, Ara h 2 and Ara h 3 have been associated with severe symptoms, although anaphylactic reactions have been described in patients negative for these allergens.

Sensitization to Cor a 9 and Cor a 14 have been reported to be highly specific for hazelnut allergic patients with objective symptoms in DBPCFCs and proposed as markers for a more severe hazelnut allergic phenotype. Similarly, in patients with soybean allergy, Gly m 5 and Gly m 6 have been proposed as potential markers for severe allergic reactions. Altogether, CRD may be a useful tool for stratifying patient’s risk for severe reactions but it is important to bear in mind that the risk of developing anaphylaxis depends not only on the allergen sensitization pattern, but also on the avidity and affinity of immunoglobulins to bind the allergen, the route of application, characteristics of the allergen and the presence of cofactors depicts those allergens that have been associated to higher versus lower risk of anaphylaxis.

References

  • J. Lidholm, B. K. Ballmer-Weber, A. Mari, and S. Vieths, “Component-resolved diagnostics in food allergy,” Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 234–240, 2006.
  • A. E. Flinterman, E. van Hoffen, C. F. den Hartog Jager et al., “Children with peanut allergy recognize predominantly Ara h2 and Ara h6, which remains stable over time,” Clinical and Experimental Allergy, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 1221–1228, 2007.
  • Treudler R, Simon JC: Overview of component resolved diagnostics. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2013, 13:110-117
  • Valenta R, Lidholm J, Niederberger V, Hayek B, Kraft D, Grönlund H: The recombinant allergen-based concept of component-resolved diagnostics and immunotherapy (CRD and CRIT).Clin Exp Allergy 1999, 29:896-904.
  • Incorvaia C, Rapetti A, Aliani M, Castagneto C, Corso N, Landi M, Lietti D, Murante N, Muratore L, Russello M, Varin E, Makrì E, Fuiano N, Scala E. Food allergy as defined by component resolved diagnosis. Recent Pat Inflamm Allergy Drug Discov. 2014 Jan;8(1):59-73.
  • Treudler R, Simon JC. Overview of component resolved diagnostics. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2013 Feb;13(1):110-7.
  • R. A. McDermott, H. S. Porterfield, R. E. Mezayen et al., “Contribution of Ara h 2 to peanut-specific, immunoglobulin E-mediated, cell activation,” Clinical and Experimental Allergy, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 752–763, 2007.
  • Basagaña M, Luengo O, Labrador-Horrillo M, Garriga T, Mattsson L, Lidholm J, Cardona V: Component resolved diagnosis of dog allergy. Allergy 2010, 65(Suppl. 92):683A.
  • D. Mittag, J. Akkerdaas, B. K. Ballmer-Weber et al., “Ara h 8, a Bet v 1-homologous allergen from peanut, is a major allergen in patients with combined birch pollen and peanut allergy,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 114, no. 6, pp. 1410–1417, 2004.
  • Ebo DG, Faber M, Sabato V, Leysen J, Bridts CH, De Clerck LS: Component-resolved diagnosis of wasp (yellow jacket) venom allergy. Clin Exp Allergy 2013, 43:255-261
  • N. Nicolaou, C. Murray, D. Belgrave, M. Poorafshar, A. Simpson, and A. Custovic, “Quantification of specific IgE to whole peanut extract and peanut components in prediction of peanut allergy,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 684–685, 2011
  • A. Asarnoj, E. Östblom, S. Ahlstedt et al., “Reported symptoms to peanut between 4 and 8 years among children sensitized to peanut and birch pollen—results from the BAMSE birth cohort,” Allergy, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 213–219, 2010
  • E. A. Pastorello, S. Vieths, V. Pravettoni et al., “Identification of hazelnut major allergens in sensitive patients with positive double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge results,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 563–570, 2002.
  • K. S. Hansen, B. K. Ballmer-Weber, J. Sastre et al., “Component-resolved in vitro diagnosis of hazelnut allergy in Europe,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 123, no. 5, pp. 1134–e3, 2009.
  • T. Komata, L. Söderström, M. P. Borres, H. Tachimoto, and M. Ebisawa, “Usefulness of wheat and soybean specific IgE antibody titers for the diagnosis of food allergy,” Allergology International, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 599–603, 2009.
  • K. Ito, M. Futamura, M. P. Borres et al., “IgE antibodies to ω-5 gliadin associate with immediate symptoms on oral wheat challenge in Japanese children,” Allergy, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 1536–1542, 2008.
  • F. Battais, F. Pineau, Y. Popineau et al., “Food allergy to wheat: identification of immunogloglin E and immunoglobulin G-binding proteins with sequential extracts and purified proteins from wheat flour,” Clinical and Experimental Allergy, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 962–970, 2003.
  • K. Ito, S. Sjölander, S. Sato et al., “IgE to Gly m 5 and Gly m 6 is associated with severe allergic reactions to soybean in Japanese children,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 128, no. 3, pp. 673–675, 2011.
  • T. Holzhauser, O. Wackermann, B. K. Ballmer-Weber et al., “Soybean (Glycine max) allergy in Europe: Gly m 5 (β-conglycinin) and Gly m 6 (glycinin) are potential diagnostic markers for severe allergic reactions to soy,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 452.e4–458.e4, 2009.
  • H. J. Park, J. H. Kim, J. E. Kim, et al., “Diagnostic value of the serum-specific IgE ratio of ?-5 gliadin to wheat in adult patients with wheat-induced anaphylaxis,” International Archives of Allergy and Immunology, vol. 157, no. 2, pp. 147–150, 2011.
  • P. Kosma, S. Sjölander, E. Landgren, M. P. Borres, and G. Hedlin, “Severe reactions after the intake of soy drink in birch pollen-allergic children sensitized to Gly m 4,” Acta Paediatrica, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 305–307, 2011.
  • A. H. Benhamou, J. C. Caubet, P. A. Eigenmann et al., “State of the art and new horizons in the diagnosis and management of egg allergy,” Allergy, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 283–289, 2010.
  • C. Constantin, S. Quirce, M. Poorafshar et al., “Micro-arrayed wheat seed and grass pollen allergens for component-resolved diagnosis,” Allergy, vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 1030–1037, 2009.
  • G. Menz, C. Dolecek, U. Schönheit-Kenn et al., “Serological and skin-test diagnosis of birch pollen allergy with recombinant Bet v I, the major birch pollen allergen,” Clinical and Experimental Allergy, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 50–60, 1996.
  • K. Skamstrup Hansen and L. K. Poulsen, “Component resolved testing for allergic sensitization,” Current Allergy and Asthma Reports, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 340–348, 2010.
  • O. D. Wolthers and M. Staberg, “A comparison of the usefulness of the multiple allergen simultaneous test-chemiluminescent assay as compared to the phadia immunocap IgE test panel system in children and adolescents.,” Recent Patents on Inflammation & Allergy Drug Discovery. In press.
Supported by

www.allergycliniconline.com

ALLERGY ONLINE CLINIC FOR CHILDREN, TEEN AND ADULT Yudhasmara Foundation www.allergycliniconline.com GROW UP CLINIC I JL Taman Bendungan Asahan 5 Jakarta Pusat, Jakarta Indonesia 10210 Phone : (021) 5703646 – 44466102 GROW UP CLINIC II MENTENG SQUARE Jl Matraman 30 Jakarta Pusat 10430 phone 44466103 – 29614252 http://growupclinic.com http://www.facebook.com/GrowUpClinic Creating-hashtag-on-twitter@growupclinic Working together support to health of all by clinical practice, research and educations. Advancing of the future pediatric and future parenting to optimalized physical, mental and social health and well being for fetal, newborn, infant, children, adolescents and young adult
“GRoW UP CLINIC” Jakarta Focus and Interest on: ***Allergy Clinic Online *** Picky Eaters and Growup Clinic For Children, Teen and Adult (Klinik Khusus Gangguan Sulit Makan dan Gangguan Kenaikkan Berat Badan)*** Children Foot Clinic *** Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinic *** Oral Motor Disorders and Speech Clinic *** Children Sleep Clinic *** Pain Management Clinic Jakarta *** Autism Clinic *** Children Behaviour Clinic *** Motoric & Sensory Processing Disorders Clinic *** NICU – Premature Follow up Clinic *** Lactation and Breastfeeding Clinic *** Swimming Spa Baby & Medicine Massage Therapy For Baby, Children and Teen ***
Professional Healthcare Provider “GRoW UP CLINIC” Dr Narulita Dewi SpKFR, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation curriculum vitae HP 085777227790 PIN BB 235CF967 Clinical – Editor in Chief : Dr Widodo Judarwanto, Pediatrician Editor: Audi Yudhasmara email : judarwanto@gmail.com Mobile Phone O8567805533 PIN BBM 76211048 Komunikasi dan Konsultasi online : twitter @widojudarwanto facebook dr Widodo Judarwanto, pediatrician Komunikasi dan Konsultasi Online Alergi Anak : Allergy Clinic Online Komunikasi dan Konsultasi Online Sulit makan dan Gangguan Berat Badan : Picky Eaters Clinic Komunikasi Profesional Pediatric: Indonesia Pediatrician Online
Curriculum Vitae Widodo Judarwanto
Information on this web site is provided for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice. You should not use the information on this web site for diagnosing or treating a medical or health condition. You should carefully read all product packaging. If you have or suspect you have a medical problem, promptly contact your professional healthcare provider

Copyright © 2014, Allergy Clinic Online Information Education Network. All rights reserved

Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:

Logo WordPress.com

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Logout / Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Google+

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Logout / Ubah )

Connecting to %s