ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Basophil activation tests (BATs) have been demonstrated to be useful in detecting IgE-mediated sensitization by measuring basophil activation surface markers (CD63 and CD203c). Hymenoptera venom is one of the best known mediators-release trigger in patients with systemic mastocytosis (SM). The aim of this study was to investigate the use of BATs as an additional diagnostic tool in patients with mastocytosis suffering from hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis (HVA). METHODS: A total of 22 patients with history of HVA and SM, together with a group of 11 patients with HVA in whom SM was ruled out after a complete bone marrow study, were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 11 SM patients who had specific serum IgE (sIgE) against hymenoptera venom and an evaluable BAT, a positive BAT was found in nine. Additionally, a positive BAT was detected in three of seven patients who had no sIgE. These three patients had low levels of total IgE compared with control population (mean of 20 vs. 78 IU/mL); one had discontinued immunotherapy after 5 years, when sIgE levels had turned negative, and, in the other two patients, BAT identified the culprit insect. CONCLUSIONS: BAT is a useful complementary diagnostic tool to sIgE in mastocytosis patients with HVA, and it may contribute to predict or confirm these nearly fatal reactions, especially before discontinuing venom immunotherapy in patients who are negative for skin tests or sIgE or display low total IgE levels; in such cases, it also provides evidence on the culprit insect prompting HVA.
Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis/immunology , Arthropod Venoms/immunology , Basophil Degranulation Test , Basophils/cytology , Basophils/immunology , Hymenoptera , Mastocytosis, Systemic/diagnosis , Adult , Aged , Anaphylaxis/diagnosis , Animals , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin E/immunology , Male , Mastocytosis, Systemic/immunology , Middle Aged , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Peach allergy is highly prevalent in the Mediterranean area; it is persistent and potentially severe, and therefore a prime target for immunotherapy. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with a peach extract quantified in mass units for Pru p 3, the peach lipid transfer protein. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) clinical trial. The main efficacy outcome was the change in the response to a DBPC food challenge (DBPCFC) with peach. Secondary efficacy outcomes were the changes in skin prick test (SPT), and in specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) and IgG(4) to Pru p 3. Tolerance was assessed with a careful recording of adverse events. RESULTS: After 6 months of SLIT, the active group tolerated a significantly higher amount of peach (three- to ninefold), presented a significant decrease (5.3 times) in SPT, and a significant increase in IgE and IgG(4) to Pru p 3. No significant changes were observed within the placebo group. Statistically significant inter-group differences were only observed in the SPT and IgG(4) responses. No serious adverse events were reported. Systemic reactions were mild, and observed with a similar frequency in both groups. Local reactions were significantly more frequent in the active group (three times) and 95% of them restricted to the oral cavity. CONCLUSION: In this first exploratory clinical trial, SLIT for peach allergy seems to be a promising therapeutic option that could modify the clinical reactivity of the patients to peach intake and the underlying immunological response with a good tolerance.
