How Accurate and Safe Is the Diagnosis of Hazelnut Allergy by Means of Commercial Skin Prick Test Reagents?Akkerdaas J.H.a · Wensing M.b · Knulst A.C.b · Krebitz M.e · Breiteneder H.e · de Vries S.c · Penninks A.H.d · Aalberse R.C.a · Hefle S.L.f · van Ree R.a
aDepartment of Immunopathology, Sanquin Research at CLB, Amsterdam, bDepartment of Dermatology and Allergology, UMCU, Utrecht, cDepartment of Plant Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, and dTNO Nutrition and Food Research, Zeist, The Netherlands; eDepartment of Pathophysiology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; fFood Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebr., USA
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Background: Allergy to tree nuts, like hazelnuts, ranks among the most frequently observed food allergies. These allergies can start at early childhood and are, in contrast to other food allergies, not always outgrown by the patient. Tree nut allergy is frequently associated with severe reactions. Diagnosis partially relies on in vivo testing by means of a skin prick test (SPT) using commercially available SPT reagents. Methods: Protein and allergen composition of nine commercial SPT solutions was evaluated using standard protein detection methods and specific immunoassays for measurement of five individual allergens. Diagnostic performance was assessed by SPT in 30 hazelnut-allergic subjects, of which 15 were provocation proven. Results: Protein concentrations ranged from 0.2–14 mg/ml. SDS-PAGE/silver staining revealed clear differences in protein composition. The major allergen Cor a 1 was present in all extracts but concentrations differed up to a factor 50. An allergen associated with severe symptoms, Cor a 8 (lipid transfer protein), was not detected on immunoblot in three products, and concentrations varied by more than a factor 100 as was shown by RAST inhibition. Similar observations were made for profilin, thaumatin-like protein and a not fully characterized 38-kD allergen. Ratios of individual allergens were variable among the nine extracts. SPT showed significant difference, and 6/30 patients displayed false-negative results using 3/9 products. Conclusion: Variability in the composition of products for the diagnosis of hazelnut allergy is extreme. Sometimes, allergens implicated in severe anaphylaxis are not detected by immunoblotting. These shortcomings in standardisation and quality control can potentially cause a false-negative diagnosis in subjects at risk of severe reactions to hazelnuts.
© 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.