van Veen Leonieke N, Heron Michiel, Batstra Manou, van Haard Paul M M, de Groot Hans
Department of Paediatric Allergology, Reinier de Graaf Hospital, Delft, PO Box 5011, 2600, GA, The Netherlands.
Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, St. Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
BMC Pediatr. 2016 Jun 2;16:74. doi: 10.1186/s12887-016-0609-7.
To date, diagnosing food allergies in children still presents a diagnostic dilemma, leading to uncertainty concerning the definite diagnosis of peanut allergy, as well as to the need for strict diets and the potential need for adrenalin auto-injectors. This uncertainty in particular is thought to contribute to a lower quality of life. In the diagnostic process double-blind food challenges are considered the gold standard, but they are time-consuming as well as potentially hazardous. Other diagnostic tests have been extensively studied and among these component-resolved diagnostics appeared to present a promising alternative: Ara h2, a peanut storage protein in previous studies showed to have a significant predictive value.
Sixty-two out of 72 children, with suspected peanut allergy were analyzed using serum specific IgE and/or skin prick tests and specific IgE to several components of peanut (Ara h 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9). Subsequently, double-blind food challenges were performed. The correlation between the various diagnostic tests and the overall outcome of the double-blind food challenges were studied, in particular the severity of the reaction and the eliciting dose.
The double-blind provocation with peanut was positive in 33 children (53 %). There was no relationship between the eliciting dose and the severity of the reaction. A statistically significant relationship was found between the skin prick test, specific IgE directed to peanut, Ara h 1, Ara h 2 or Ara h 6, and the outcome of the food challenge test, in terms of positive or negative (P < .001). However, we did not find any relationship between sensitisation to peanut extract or the different allergen components and the severity of the reaction or the eliciting dose. There was no correlation between IgE directed to Ara h 3, Ara h 8, Ara h 9 and the clinical outcome of the food challenge.
This study shows that component-resolved diagnostics is not superior to specific IgE to peanut extract or to skin prick testing. At present, it cannot replace double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges for determination of the eliciting dose or the severity of the peanut allergy in our patient group.
迄今为止,儿童食物过敏的诊断仍存在诊断难题,导致花生过敏的明确诊断存在不确定性,以及需要严格的饮食限制和可能需要肾上腺素自动注射器。这种不确定性尤其被认为会导致生活质量下降。在诊断过程中,双盲食物激发试验被认为是金标准,但它们既耗时又有潜在危险。其他诊断测试已得到广泛研究,其中组分分辨诊断似乎是一个有前景的替代方法:在先前研究中,花生储存蛋白Ara h2显示具有显著的预测价值。
对72名疑似花生过敏儿童中的62名进行血清特异性IgE和/或皮肤点刺试验,以及针对花生几种组分(Ara h 1、2、3、6、8、9)的特异性IgE分析。随后进行双盲食物激发试验。研究了各种诊断测试与双盲食物激发试验总体结果之间的相关性,特别是反应的严重程度和激发剂量。
33名儿童(53%)的花生双盲激发试验呈阳性。激发剂量与反应严重程度之间没有关系。在皮肤点刺试验、针对花生、Ara h 1、Ara h 2或Ara h 6的特异性IgE与食物激发试验结果(阳性或阴性)之间发现了统计学上的显著关系(P < 0.001)。然而,我们没有发现对花生提取物或不同过敏原组分的致敏与反应严重程度或激发剂量之间存在任何关系。针对Ara h 3、Ara h 8、Ara h 9的IgE与食物激发试验的临床结果之间没有相关性。
本研究表明,组分分辨诊断并不优于针对花生提取物的特异性IgE或皮肤点刺试验。目前,在我们的患者群体中,它不能替代双盲安慰剂对照食物激发试验来确定花生过敏的激发剂量或严重程度。