皮肤点刺试验和体外技术诊断桃脂转移蛋白和丝氨酸蛋白酶抑制剂致敏在植物源性食物和花粉过敏中是否同样准确？

Do Skin Prick Test and In Vitro Techniques Diagnose Sensitization to Peach Lipid Transfer Protein and Profilin Equally Well in Allergy to Plant Food and Pollen?

出版信息

J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2015;25(4):283-7.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the skin prick test (SPT) with in vitro techniques (single and multiplex fluorescence enzyme-immunoassay [FEIA]) for detecting sensitization to profilin and lipid transfer protein (LTP).

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 181 patients with pollen and/or plant food allergy and 61 controls. SPT was performed with date palm profilin (Pho d 2) and peach LTP (Pru p 3), and specific IgE (sIgE) to Phl p 12 and Pru p 3 was analyzed using single FEIA and microarray.

RESULTS

Fifteen of 201 patients with negative results for LTP in the SPT were sensitized to this allergen in the in vitro tests, and 18 of 41 patients with positive results for LTP in the SPT were not sensitized according to the in vitro tests. Seventeen of 186 patients with negative results for profilin in the SPT were sensitized to Phl p 12 by serum sIgE, and 30 out of 56 patients with positive results for profilin in SPT were not sensitized to Phl p 12 according to the other tests. Moderate agreement was observed between the 3 techniques studied.

CONCLUSIONS

SPT is a sensitive technique for detecting sensitization to LTP and profilin. Its results are similar to those of in vitro techniques, especially in patients with negative SPT results for peach LTP and palm tree profilin.

摘要

目的

比较皮肤点刺试验（SPT）与体外技术（单和多重荧光酶免疫分析 [FEIA]）检测原肌球蛋白和脂转移蛋白（LTP）致敏的情况。

方法

我们回顾性研究了 181 例花粉和/或植物食物过敏患者和 61 例对照者。使用 date palm profilin（Pho d 2）和 peach LTP（Pru p 3）进行 SPT，并用单 FEIA 和微阵列分析 Phl p 12 和 Pru p 3 的特异性 IgE（sIgE）。

结果

201 例 LTP SPT 结果阴性的患者中，有 15 例在体外试验中对该过敏原呈致敏状态，而 41 例 LTP SPT 结果阳性的患者中，有 18 例根据体外试验未呈致敏状态。186 例 SPT 原肌球蛋白结果阴性的患者中有 17 例血清 sIgE 对 Phl p 12 呈致敏状态，而 56 例 SPT 原肌球蛋白结果阳性的患者中有 30 例根据其他试验未对 Phl p 12 呈致敏状态。研究的 3 种技术之间存在中度一致性。