Most patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) to vespid venoms present double sensitization by specific IgE (sIgE)-mediated cross-reactivity. Thus, it is mandatory could discriminate between a true double and primary sensitization to implement an accurate venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT). To date, CAP-inhibition is the reference method in the diagnosis of cross-reactivity in double sensitized patients to vespid venoms, being the results obtained with the component resolved diagnostics (CRD) conflicting. For this, we have studied in a cohort of double sensitized patients to Vespula vulgaris (VV) and Polistes dominulus (PD) venoms (n = 40) the diagnostic accuracy of CRD using the CAP-inhibition as reference method, as well as to investigate whether basophil activation test (BAT) is an alternative method for inconclusive results obtained by CAP-inhibition. CAP-inhibition showed a sensitivity of 59.46 % in view of the indeterminate results; most patients had true double sensitization (54.5 %), followed by single sensitization to PD (27.27 %) and VV (18.18 %) venoms. CRD based on rVes v 5/rPol d 5 (or vice versa) ratio as well as whole extracts I3/I77 (or vice versa) ratio (specific IgE-I3 to VV/specific IgE-I77 to PD) showed a low diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.504, p = 0.974; AUC = 0.35, p = 0.235; respectively). BAT was determined in parallel with CAP-inhibition in 12 patients, presented higher sensitivity than CAP-inhibition (p = 0.021) and a positive agreement of 71.43 %. Likewise it was able to identify 100% of inconclusive results, showing a specificity of 83.3 %. Therefore, CRD is not a suitable method to distinguish monosensitization and BAT appears to be an appropriate method resolving indeterminate results from the gold standard method.
Keywords: Basophil activation test; CAP-inhibition; Component resolved; Diagnosis; Hymenoptera venom allergy; Polistes dominulus; Vespula vulgaris.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.