Savi Eleonora, Peveri Silvia, Makri Elena, Pravettoni Valerio, Incorvaia Cristoforo
Allergy Unit, G. Da Saliceto Hospital, AUSL Piacenza, Piacenza, Italy.
Allergy/Pulmonary Rehabilitation, ICP Hospital, Via Bignami 1, 20100 Milan, Italy.
Clin Mol Allergy. 2016 Feb 8;14:3. doi: 10.1186/s12948-016-0040-5. eCollection 2016.
Cross-reactivity among Hymenoptera venoms is an important issue when prescribing venom immunotherapy (VIT). Using all venoms eliciting a positive response results in treatment excess and unjustified cost increase. The first in vitro method that helped to identify the really causative venom was RAST-inhibition, but in latest years also molecular allergy (MA) diagnostics, that detects specific sIgE to single venom allergens, was introduced. We compared the two methods in patients with double sensitization to Vespula spp. and Polistes spp.
Fifty-four patients with anaphylactic reactions to Hymenoptera stings and positive results to skin tests and sIgE measurement with whole venom from Vespula spp. and Polistes dominula were included in the study. Sera from all patients were analyzed by CAP-inhibition (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden) and MA diagnostics with recombinant Ves v 1, Ves v 5 and Pol d 5.
By the data obtained from MA technique, VIT would have been prescribed to 7 patients for Polistes, to 6 for Vespula, and to 41 for both venoms. With the data from CAP inhibition, it would have been a prescription to 15 patients for Polistes, to 28 for Vespula, and to 11 for both venoms. A good concordance between the results of MA and CAP-inhibition was found only when the value in kU/l of Ves v 5 were about twice those of Pol d 5, and vice versa.
These findings suggest that in the choice of the venom to be used for VIT CAP-inhibition remains a pivotal tool, because the significance of in vitro inhibition is definite and provides a diagnostic importance higher than MA in patients with positive tests to both Vespula and Polistes spp.
在进行毒液免疫疗法(VIT)时,膜翅目毒液之间的交叉反应是一个重要问题。使用所有引发阳性反应的毒液会导致治疗过度和不必要的成本增加。第一种有助于识别真正致病毒液的体外方法是放射性变应原吸附试验抑制法(RAST - inhibition),但近年来也引入了分子过敏(MA)诊断方法,该方法可检测针对单一毒液过敏原的特异性sIgE。我们比较了这两种方法在对胡蜂属和马蜂属双重致敏患者中的应用情况。
本研究纳入了54例对膜翅目昆虫叮咬有过敏反应且对胡蜂属全毒液和意大利马蜂皮肤试验及sIgE测量呈阳性结果的患者。所有患者的血清通过CAP抑制法(赛默飞世尔科技,瑞典乌普萨拉)以及使用重组Ves v 1、Ves v 5和Pol d 5进行MA诊断。
根据MA技术获得的数据,对于马蜂毒液,7例患者适合进行VIT;对于胡蜂毒液,6例患者适合;对于两种毒液,41例患者适合。根据CAP抑制法的数据,对于马蜂毒液,15例患者适合进行VIT;对于胡蜂毒液,28例患者适合;对于两种毒液,11例患者适合。仅当Ves v 5的kU/l值约为Pol d 5的两倍时,MA和CAP抑制法的结果之间才发现良好的一致性,反之亦然。
这些发现表明,在选择用于VIT的毒液时,CAP抑制法仍然是关键工具。因为体外抑制的意义明确,且在对胡蜂属和马蜂属检测均呈阳性的患者中,其诊断重要性高于MA。