Cargando…

Usefulness of component resolved analysis of cat allergy in routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND: Cat allergy is of great importance, and its prevalence is increasing worldwide. Cat allergens and house dust mite allergens represent the major indoor allergens; however, they are ubiquitous. Cat sensitization and allergy are known risk factors for rhinitis, bronchial hyperreactivity and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eder, Katharina, Becker, Sven, San Nicoló, Marion, Berghaus, Alexander, Gröger, Moritz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5111222/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27891156
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13223-016-0163-8
_version_ 1782467827109724160
author Eder, Katharina
Becker, Sven
San Nicoló, Marion
Berghaus, Alexander
Gröger, Moritz
author_facet Eder, Katharina
Becker, Sven
San Nicoló, Marion
Berghaus, Alexander
Gröger, Moritz
author_sort Eder, Katharina
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cat allergy is of great importance, and its prevalence is increasing worldwide. Cat allergens and house dust mite allergens represent the major indoor allergens; however, they are ubiquitous. Cat sensitization and allergy are known risk factors for rhinitis, bronchial hyperreactivity and asthma. Thus, the diagnosis of sensitization to cats is important for any allergist. METHODS: 70 patients with positive skin prick tests for cats were retrospectively compared regarding their skin prick test results, as well as their specific immunoglobulin E antibody profiles with regard to their responses to the native cat extract, rFel d 1, nFel d 2 and rFel d 4. 35 patients were allergic to cats, as determined by positive anamnesis and/or nasal provocation with cat allergens, and 35 patients exhibited clinically non-relevant sensitization, as indicated by negative anamnesis and/or a negative nasal allergen challenge. RESULTS: Native cat extract serology testing detected 100% of patients who were allergic to cats but missed eight patients who showed sensitization in the skin prick test and did not have allergic symptoms. The median values of the skin prick test, as well as those of the specific immunoglobulin E antibodies against the native cat extract, were significantly higher for allergic patients than for patients with clinically non-relevant sensitization. Component based diagnostic testing to rFel d 1 was not as reliable. Sensitization to nFel d 2 and rFel d 4 was seen only in individual patients. CONCLUSION: Extract based diagnostic methods for identifying cat allergy and sensitization, such as the skin prick test and native cat extract serology, remain crucial in routine clinical practice. In our study, component based diagnostic testing could not replace these methods with regard to the detection of sensitization to cats and differentiation between allergy and sensitization without clinical relevance. However, component resolved allergy diagnostic tools have individual implications, and future studies may facilitate a better understanding of its use and subsequently may improve the clinical management of allergic patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5111222
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51112222016-11-25 Usefulness of component resolved analysis of cat allergy in routine clinical practice Eder, Katharina Becker, Sven San Nicoló, Marion Berghaus, Alexander Gröger, Moritz Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol Research BACKGROUND: Cat allergy is of great importance, and its prevalence is increasing worldwide. Cat allergens and house dust mite allergens represent the major indoor allergens; however, they are ubiquitous. Cat sensitization and allergy are known risk factors for rhinitis, bronchial hyperreactivity and asthma. Thus, the diagnosis of sensitization to cats is important for any allergist. METHODS: 70 patients with positive skin prick tests for cats were retrospectively compared regarding their skin prick test results, as well as their specific immunoglobulin E antibody profiles with regard to their responses to the native cat extract, rFel d 1, nFel d 2 and rFel d 4. 35 patients were allergic to cats, as determined by positive anamnesis and/or nasal provocation with cat allergens, and 35 patients exhibited clinically non-relevant sensitization, as indicated by negative anamnesis and/or a negative nasal allergen challenge. RESULTS: Native cat extract serology testing detected 100% of patients who were allergic to cats but missed eight patients who showed sensitization in the skin prick test and did not have allergic symptoms. The median values of the skin prick test, as well as those of the specific immunoglobulin E antibodies against the native cat extract, were significantly higher for allergic patients than for patients with clinically non-relevant sensitization. Component based diagnostic testing to rFel d 1 was not as reliable. Sensitization to nFel d 2 and rFel d 4 was seen only in individual patients. CONCLUSION: Extract based diagnostic methods for identifying cat allergy and sensitization, such as the skin prick test and native cat extract serology, remain crucial in routine clinical practice. In our study, component based diagnostic testing could not replace these methods with regard to the detection of sensitization to cats and differentiation between allergy and sensitization without clinical relevance. However, component resolved allergy diagnostic tools have individual implications, and future studies may facilitate a better understanding of its use and subsequently may improve the clinical management of allergic patients. BioMed Central 2016-11-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5111222/ /pubmed/27891156 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13223-016-0163-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Eder, Katharina
Becker, Sven
San Nicoló, Marion
Berghaus, Alexander
Gröger, Moritz
Usefulness of component resolved analysis of cat allergy in routine clinical practice
title Usefulness of component resolved analysis of cat allergy in routine clinical practice
title_full Usefulness of component resolved analysis of cat allergy in routine clinical practice
title_fullStr Usefulness of component resolved analysis of cat allergy in routine clinical practice
title_full_unstemmed Usefulness of component resolved analysis of cat allergy in routine clinical practice
title_short Usefulness of component resolved analysis of cat allergy in routine clinical practice
title_sort usefulness of component resolved analysis of cat allergy in routine clinical practice
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5111222/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27891156
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13223-016-0163-8
work_keys_str_mv AT ederkatharina usefulnessofcomponentresolvedanalysisofcatallergyinroutineclinicalpractice
AT beckersven usefulnessofcomponentresolvedanalysisofcatallergyinroutineclinicalpractice
AT sannicolomarion usefulnessofcomponentresolvedanalysisofcatallergyinroutineclinicalpractice
AT berghausalexander usefulnessofcomponentresolvedanalysisofcatallergyinroutineclinicalpractice
AT grogermoritz usefulnessofcomponentresolvedanalysisofcatallergyinroutineclinicalpractice