The extract, the molecular allergen or both for the in vitro diagnosis of peach and peanut sensitization?

INTRODUCTION

Identifying the target molecule in food allergies, helps to assess the risk of anaphylaxis in a patient. Lipid Transfer Protein is the most frequent cause of food allergies in the Mediterranean area. The diagnosis based on allergenic extracts, suffers from a high variability in the results because some important allergenic molecules are lacking. This study was disegned to assess whether Pru p 3 and Ara h 9 molecules are quantitative and qualitative enough present in their whole allergenic extracts.

METHODS

943 patients with a clinical history of suspected peach and/or peanut food allergies were recruited and underwent measurement of a specific serum IgE (ImmunoCAP system (Thermofisher/Phadia Diagnostics, Uppsala, Sweden) to the following allergens and molecules: peach (f95) and/or peanut (f13), Pru p 3 (f420), Pru p 1 (f419), Pru p 4 (f421), Ara h 1 (f422), Ara h 2 (f423) Ara h 3 (f424) and Ara h 9 (f427).

RESULTS

Out of the 943 patients included in this study, 122 were positive to sIgE to peanut extract. At a cut-off point of 0.35 kIU/L, 62 patients were positive to sIgE to Ara h 9 but negative to peanut extract. Increasing the cut-off point of Ara h 9 at 10 kIU/L, 15 patients were only positive to sIgE to Ara h 9. 244 out of the 943 patients were positive to sIgE to peach extract. At a cut-off point of 0.35 kIU/L, 27 patients were negative to sIgE to Pru p 3 and positive to sIgE to peach extract, whilst 11 patients were peach extract sIgE positive and sIgE negative to Pru p 1, Pru p 3 and Pru p 4. Only 12 patients resulted positive to Pru p1 and/or Pru p 4.

CONCLUSION

Our data strongly suggests to include the measurement of sIgE to Ara h 9 into the diagnostic algorithm of peanut sensitization. 4.5% of the sicilian population suspected of peach sensitization were positive to peach extract and negative to all the available molecules.