Diagnostic Validity of Specific Immunoglobulin E Levels to alpha-gal in Alpha-gal Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3049704/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Diagnostic Validity of Specific Immunoglobulin E Levels to alpha-gal in Alpha-gal Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3049704/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 30 Nov, 2023

Read the published version in Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: The diagnosis of Alpha-gal Syndrome (AGS) is based on the presence of symptoms after being exposed to potential sources of alpha-gal together with values of specific IgE (sIgE) to alpha-gal ≥ 0.1 kUA/L or ≥0.35 kUA/L. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic validity of sIgE levels to alpha-gal ≥ 0.1 kUA/L for identifying AGS.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional analysis of adult patients with available data on sIgE levels to alpha-gal, classified into two groups according to the presence (Group 1) or absence (Group 2) of symptoms after being exposed to potential sources of alpha-gal. Values of sIgE to alpha-gal ≥ 0.1 kUA/l were considered a positive result. A descriptive analysis of internal and external validity parameters was performed in the entire population and adjusted by sex.

Results: The study included 33 individuals in Group 1 and 65 in Group 2, with a mean age of around 47 years. The analysis of internal validity parameters revealed a high sensitivity, specificity, and positive probability ratio, with higher sensitivity in men and higher specificity in women. The analysis of external validity parameters showed a high negative predictive value and global value in all populations and both sexes. However, the positive predictive value was relatively high in men, but low in women.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that sIgE levels ≥ 0.1 kUA/L may be a useful tool for the diagnosis of AGS, although other factors and diagnostic techniques should also be considered.

Diagnostic validity

specific immunoglobulin E

Alpha-gal Syndrome

food allergy.

Alpha-gal Syndrome (AGS) is an allergy related to tick bites. Ticks induce sensitization to the oligosaccharide galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (alpha-gal), a glycan of nonprimate mammals that is homologous to the B-group blood antigen [1]. Different tick species have been associated with AGS worldwide, such as Amblyoma americanum, Ixodes ricinus, Ixodes holocyclus, or Haemaphysalis longicornis [2]. Once a patient is sensitized to alpha-gal, the ingestion of mammalian meat or viscera (e.g., kidney, liver) triggers the development of delayed allergic reactions that manifest with gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, or abdominal pain), urticaria, angioedema, or life-threatening anaphylaxis. These reactions are often difficult to avoid because alpha-gal is also present in a large number of products, such as dairy, medicines (e.g., cetuximab), food additives (e.g., gelatin), or other products from mammalian sources [3].

The diagnosis of AGS is based on the presence of symptoms after exposure to a source of alpha-gal, together with values of specific IgE (sIgE) to alpha-gal ≥ 0.1 kU/L [4] or ≥ 0.35 kU/L [5]. The data published worldwide do not show significant differences between sexes in the sIgE response to alpha-gal or in the presentation of signs and symptoms during the reaction, although they have been related to the practice of outdoor activities [6]. Other studies have associated AGS with alpha-gal sIgE levels > 2IU/mL or > 2% with respect to total IgE levels, although one case has been described in which total IgE levels were 6.0 IU/mL and sIgE to alpha-gal was 0.8 IU/mL [7]. In addition, a systematic review evaluating the diagnostic performance of sIgE to alpha-gal in 135 patients with red meat allergy and 37 controls reported a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 92.3%, with a high positive predictive value (PPV) and a negative predictive value (NPV) ≤ 50% if the pretest probability of red meat allergy was less than approximately 90% [8].

The validity of a measure is calculated by evaluating the presence or absence of a result from a reference criterion using internal and external parameters. It represents the degree to which the results of a study are valid for the population that has been studied; and the degree to which these results can be extrapolated to other populations [9]. Despite the above data on sIgE levels to alpha-gal as a diagnostic tool, its validity has not been evaluated yet. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic validity of the levels of sIgE to alpha-gal as a diagnostic tool for AGS, in a series of patients from Bilbao, Spain.

This was a cross-sectional analysis of data from a case-control study investigating AGS in patients who attended the Allergy Department of the OSI Bilbao-Basurto hospital (North of Spain) between 2016 and 2019. The study included two groups of patients: Group 1, which consisted of patients with AGS symptoms after being exposed to potential sources of alpha-gal, and Group 2, a control group composed of patients without AGS symptoms after being exposed to these sources. Patients with AGS symptoms presented with urticaria, angioedema, or anaphylaxis after the ingestion of mammalian products, the infusion of cetuximab, or the administration of mammalian gelatins. Patients were included in the study if they were aged ≥ 18 years and had available data on sIgE levels to alpha-gal. All patients signed an informed consent to participate in the study, which was approved by the local ethics committee.

The following variables were collected: sex, age, history of tick bites, participation in outdoor activities, symptoms after exposure to potential sources of alpha-gal, tolerance to potential sources of alpha-gal, total IgE levels, and sIgE levels to alpha-gal determined by ImmunoCAP (Thermofisher). The sIgE test was considered positive if the levels of sIgE to alpha-gal were ≥ 0.1 kUA/L.

Patients were classified according to these criteria in the entire population and adjusted by sex. Quantitative variables were described as the mean and standard deviation (SD), whereas categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages. Due to the small sample size, a descriptive analysis of internal and external validity parameters was performed but a formal statistical analysis was not conducted [10].

Characteristics of Study Patients

As shown in Table 1, the study included 33 patients in Group 1 and 65 controls in Group 2 with a mean age of around 47 years. Most patients in Group 1 were males, while in Group 2 there were more women than men. In Group 1, more than 80% of patients had a history of tick bites and all patients regularly performed outdoor activities. Mean levels of total IgE were higher in Group 1 than in Group 2. Finally, the levels of sIgE to alpha-gal were ≥ 0.1 kUA/L in almost all patients in Group 1, and in less than 11% of the patients in Group 2.

Table 1

Characteristics of study patients according to the presence or absence of AGS symptoms with potential sources of alpha-gal and their sex.
	Group 1 (n = 33)	Group 2 (n = 65)
Sociodemographic Data
Sex, n (%) Women Men	3 (9.1) 30 (90.9)	40 (65.5) 25 (38.5)
Age (years), mean (SD) Women Men	46.91 (13.24) 36.33 (6.60) 47.97 (13.27)	47.65 (14.84) 45.23 (14.36) 51.52 (14.77)
Tick bites, n (%) Women Men	27 (81.8) 2 (66.7) 25 (83.3)	18 (27.7) 11 (27.5) 7 (28.0)
Outdoor activities, n (%) Women Men	33 (100.0) 30 (100.0) 3 (100.0)	49 (75.4) 28 (70.0) 21 (84.0)
Clinical Features
Symptoms with potential sources of alpha-gal, n (%) Women Men	33 (100.0) 3 (9.1) 30 (90.9)	0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Tolerance to potential sources of alpha-gal, n (%) Women Men	0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)	65 (100.0) 40 (65.5) 25 (38.5)
Immunological Data
Total IgE (kUA/L), mean (SD) Women Men	495.99 (747.65) 308.73 (363.37) 514.72 (773.18)	334.10 (601.85) 244.54 (474.37) 477.39 (740.53)
sIgE to alpha-gal (kUA/L), mean (SD) Women Men	31.70 (36.06) 0.81(0.35) 9.29 (44.45)	0.28 (1.41) 0.03 (0.12) 0.67 (2.21)
sIgE to alpha-gal ≥ 0.1 kUA/L, n (%) Women Men	32 (98.0) 2 (6.1) 30 (90.9)	7 (10.8) 2 (3.1) 5 (7.7)

Group 1: Patients with AGS symptoms after being exposed to potential sources of alpha-gal.

Group 2: Patients without AGS symptoms after being exposed to potential sources of alpha-gal.

AGS, Alpha-gal Syndrome; kUA/L, kilounits or antibody per liter; sIgE, specific IgE.

Diagnostic Validity of sIgE Values to Alpha-Gal

Table 2 shows the classification of patients according to their symptoms and the test results for sIgE to alpha-gal as true positives, false positives, false negatives, or true negatives in the entire population and by sex.

Table 2

Classification of patients according to the presence of AGS symptoms with potential sources of alpha-gal and their test results for sIgE to alpha-gal, n *(%).*
	Group 1	Group 2	Total
Total population
Positive test	32 (97.1)^a	7 (10.8)^b	39 (39.8)
Negative test	1 (3.0)^c	58 (89.2)^d	59 (60.2)
Total	33 (100.0)	65 (100.0)	98 (100.0)
Women
Positive test	2 (66.7)^a	2 (5.0)^b	4 (9.3)
Negative test	1 (33.3)^c	38 (95.0)^d	39 (90.7)
Total	3 (100.0)	40 (100.0)	43 (100.0)
Men
Positive test	30 (100.0)^a	5 (20.0)^b	35 (63.6)
Negative test	0 (0.0)^c	20 (80.0)^d	20 (36.4)
Total	30 (100.0)	25 (100.0)	55 (100.0)

Group 1: Patients with AGS symptoms after being exposed to potential sources of alpha-gal.

Group 2: Patients without AGS symptoms after being exposed to potential sources of alpha-gal.

^aTrue positive: patients with AGS symptoms after exposure to a source of alpha-gal with values sIgE ≥ 0.1 KUA/L.

^bFalse positive: patients without AGS symptoms after exposure to a source of alpha-gal with values sIgE ≥ 0.1 KUA/L.

^cFalse negative: patients with AGS symptoms after exposure to a source of alpha-gal with values sIgE < 0.1 KUA/L.

^dTrue negative: patients without AGS symptoms after exposure to a source of alpha-gal with values sIgE < 0.1 KUA/L .

AGS, Alpha-gal Syndrome; sIgE, specific IgE.

Subsequently, the analysis of internal validity parameters revealed a high sensitivity, specificity, and positive probability ratio, with higher sensitivity in men and higher specificity in women. In addition, the analysis of external validity parameters showed a high negative predictive value and global value in all populations and both sexes. Nevertheless, the positive predictive value was relatively high in men, but low in women (Table 3).

Table 3

Internal and external validity parameters of sIgE values to alpha-gal.
	Total Population	Women	Men
Internal Validity Parameters
Sensitivity	0.97	0.67	1.00
Specificity	0.89	0.95	0.80
False positive rate	0.11	0.05	0.20
False negative rate	0.03	0.33	0.00
Positive probability ratio	9.00	13.33	5.00
Negative probability ratio	0.03	0.35	0.00
External Validity Parameters
Positive predictive value	0.82	0.50	0.86
Negative predictive value	0.98	0.97	1.00
Global value	0.92	0.93	0.91

Our results emphasize the validity of a diagnostic test that has not been properly evaluated to date. In this assessment, a cut-off value for sIgE to alpha-gal ≥ 0.1 kUA/L was able to diagnose virtually all patients with symptoms after exposure to potential alpha-gal sources, with good internal and external validity. In addition, the characteristics of the patients in this group, suggest a relationship between sensitization to this oligosaccharide and a history of tick bites, as previously described [2].

The most common method to confirm the diagnosis of AGS is the use of serologic testing for alpha-gal sIgE levels ≥ 0.1 kUA/L. Other diagnostic methods are available, but they have lower sensitivity and increased risk of anaphylaxis [11]. In addition,

it should be taken into account that patients with anaphylaxis due to AGS and indolent systemic mastocytosis can present with lower values of sIgE to alpha-gal [12]. However, none of the patients in our study presented mastocytosis and the determination of sIgE levels to alpha-gal allowed us to diagnose AGS with a good validity of the results.

Other researchers have proposed an integrative diagnostic methodology that combines medical history with anti-alpha-gal IgE titers in a machine learning algorithm because it is possible that the cutoff value of sIgE that reveals clinical reactivity might not be well determined since AGS can be highly influenced by the presence of cofactors and the delayed nature of the reaction [13]. Current strategies for diagnosing AGS explained that the relevance of positive testing to alpha-gal sIgE levels with a cut-off value ≥ 0.35 kU/L remains unclear because it is not able to predict the severity of the reactions [14]. Other authors have shown that the cut-off for sIgE to alpha-gal associated with a positive predictive value of > 95% probability of presenting meat allergy was 2.00 kU/L [15]. In our study, the results revealed that a cut-off for sIgE to alpha-gal ≥ 0.1 kUA/L was able to diagnose AGS in virtually all patients with a positive predictive value of 82%, although the performance of a challenge-proven meat allergy test could modify the diagnosis of some patients.

The predictive test cut-offs in food allergens try to be a guide in determining successful oral tolerance [16]. The validation of sIgE for the diagnosis of egg allergy in children has also been reported, with a good sensitivity and positive predictive value for sIgE levels ≥ 0.35 kUA/L [17]. In our study, a cut-off value of ≥ 0.1 kUA/L also showed high sensitivity and specificity, and a relatively high positive predictive value, with sensitivity being higher in men and specificity being higher in women. In addition, a previous study on sIgE to alpha-gal to diagnose red meat allergy showed a higher sensitivity and specificity than in our population, but lower positive predictive value. Moreover, as in our study, the proportion of men with AGS symptoms was higher than women, although the authors did not perform an analysis adjusted by sex as we did [8].

The analysis of internal validity parameters showed a high positive probability ratio and a low false negative rate in all populations, with a higher positive probability ratio in women than in men. In our population, women were more likely to test positive than men given that most patients in Group 1 were male and most of patients in Group 2 were women. Unlike other studies describing the limited utility of sIgE levels to alpha-gal ≥ 0.35 kUA/L to confirm the diagnosis of mammalian meat allergy in 118 patients showing a high sensitivity (85%) but poor specificity (32%), and including 30 false positives [18], our results illustrate the analysis of internal validity parameters in detail. On the other hand, the analysis of external validity parameters revealed a high negative predictive value and global value, which represented proof of the validity of sIgE levels to alpha-gal for AGS diagnosis.

Some patients in the control group showed a subclinical sensitization to alpha-gal because they tolerated mammalian meat without developing allergic symptoms. The determination of sIgE antibodies can provide essential information on the etiology of the disease because they are produced following exposure of a susceptible individual to an allergen [19], but sensitization is not the same as clinical allergy, and the presence of IgE does not confirm a diagnosis of AGS [20]. The only patient with alpha-gal allergy and sIgE to alpha-gal < 0.1 kUA/L was a woman diagnosed years ago, when she presented with sIgE levels > 0.1 kUA/L, thus being an example of a false negative result. A possible explanation is that sIgE levels alpha-gal tend to decrease over time, except in patients with a history of anaphylaxis, whose levels are maintained [21].

The main limitation of this study was the small sample size, since it made it difficult to carry out comparative statistical analyses between the two groups of patients. Other limiting factors were the heterogeneity of the sample, the presence of cofactors, the severity of the reaction, and the time between the performance of the study and the presentation of the reaction since they could influence the final diagnosis. Nevertheless, to our knowledge, this is the first detailed analysis on sIgE to alpha-gal adjusted by sex as a diagnostic tool in AGS.

In conclusion, we described the diagnostic validity of sIgE levels to alpha-gal in AGS in our population. In accordance with these results, sIgE to alpha-gal is a useful diagnostic tool, although it requires further evaluation to explore its correlation with other factors, other available diagnostic techniques or other potential diagnostic tools.

AGS: Alpha-gal Syndrome; sIgE: specific IgE; SPT: skin prick test; ISM: indolent systemic mastocytosis; BAT: basophil activation; MAT: mast cell activation test; HR: histamine-release; kUA/L: Kilounits or antibody per liter.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The study was approved by the OSI Bilbao Basurto Ethics Committee for Clinical Research. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants included.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Availability of Data and Materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available because they are stored at site file investigator but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Funding

This study did not receive any financial support.

Authors' Contribution

A.G.S., A.A.L., F.G.G., B.M.A., C.S.M.R and I.A.E. contributed to the design and implementation of the research, to the analysis of the results and to the writing of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank i2e3 Biomedical Research Institute for providing medical writing assistance on behalf of Allergy Therapeutics (BEC-AT).

Wilson JM, Schuyler AJ, Workman L, Gupta M, James HR, Posthumus J, McGowan EC, Commins SP, Platts-Mills TAE. Investigation into the α-Gal Syndrome: Characteristics of 261 Children and Adults Reporting Red Meat Allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019 Sep-Oct;7(7):2348-2358.
Young I, Prematunge C, Pussegoda K, Corrin T, Waddell L. Tick exposures and alpha-gal syndrome: A systematic review of the evidence. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2021 May;12(3):101674.
Commins SP. Diagnosis & management of alpha-gal syndrome: lessons from 2,500 patients. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2020 Jul;16(7):667-677.
Binder AM, Commins SP, Altrich ML, Wachs T, Biggerstaff BJ, Beard CB, et al. Diagnostic testing for galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose, United States, 2010 to 2018. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 126 (2021); 411-416.
Mateo-Borrega MB, García B, Hernando Larramendi C, Azofra J, González-Mancebo E, Alvarado MI, et al. IgE mediated sensitization to galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (α-gal) in urticaria and anaphylaxis in Spain: geographical variations and risk factors. J investing Clin Inmunol 2019; Vol 29 (6).
Levin M, Apostolovic D, Biedermann T, Commins SP, Iweala OI, Platts-Mills TAE, Savi E, van Hage M, Wilson JM. Galactose α-1,3-galactose phenotypes: Lessons from various patient populations. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019 Jun;122(6):598-602.
Platts-Mills TAE, Li R-C, Keshavarz B, Smith AR, Wilson JM. Diagnosis and Management of Patients with the α-Gal Syndrome. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2021; 1-19.
Brestoff JR, Zaydman MA, Scott MG, Gronowski AM. Diagnosis of red meat allergy with antigen-specific IgE tests in serum. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017 Aug;140(2):608-610.e5.
Armingón Pallás JM, Jiménez Villa J. Métodos de investigación clínica y epidemiológica. 4ª edición. Barcelona: Elsevier, 2013.
Hernández-Aguado I, Gil de Miguel A, Delgado Rodríguez M, Bólumar Montrull F, Benavides FG, Porta Serra M. Manual de Epidemiologái y Salud Publica para grados en ciencias de la salud. 2ª edición. Buenos Aires: Editorial Panamericana, 2011.
Patel C, Iweala OI. 'Doc, will I ever eat steak again?': diagnosis and management of alpha-gal syndrome. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2020 Dec;32(6):816-824.
Carter MC, Ruiz-Esteves KN, Workman L, Lieberman P, Platts-Mills TAE, Metcalfe DD. Identification of alpha-gal sensitivity in patients with a diagnosis of idiopathic anaphylaxis. Allergy. 2018 May;73(5):1131-1134.
De la Fuente J, Cabezas-Cruz A, Pacheco I. Alpha-gal syndrome: challenges to understanding sensitization and clinical reactions to alpha-gal. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2020 Sep;20(9):905-911.
Vaz-Rodrigues R, Mazuecos L, de la Fuente J. Current and Future Strategies for the Diagnosis and Treatment of the Alpha-Gal Syndrome (AGS). J Asthma Allergy. 2022 Jul 18;15:957-970.
Mabelane T, Basera W, Botha M, Thomas HF, Ramjith J, Levin ME. Predictive values of alpha-gal IgE levels and alpha-gal IgE: Total IgE ratio and oral food challenge-proven meat allergy in a population with a high prevalence of reported red meat allergy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2018 Dec;29(8):841-849.
Foong RX, Santos AF. Biomarkers of diagnosis and resolution of food allergy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2021 Feb;32(2):223-233.
Boyano Martínez T, García-Ara C, Díaz-Pena JM, Muñoz FM, García Sánchez G, Esteban MM. Validity of specific IgE antibodies in children with egg allergy. Clin Exp Allergy. 2001 Sep;31(9):1464-9.
Li J, Fulton RB, O'Connell R, Jang HS, Fernando SL. Specific-IgE to galactose-α-1,3-galactose (alpha-gal) has limited utility in diagnosing meat allergy in a tick-endemic population. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018 Oct;121(4):509-511.
Ahlstedt S, Murray CS. In vitro diagnosis of allergy: how to interpret IgE antibody results in clinical practice. Prim Care Respir J. 2006 Aug;15(4):228-36.
Berin MC. Pathogenesis of IgE-mediated food allergy. Clin Exp Allergy. 2015 Oct;45(10):1483-96.
Apostolovic D, Grundström J, Perusko M, Kiewiet MBG, Hamsten C, Starkhammar M, van Hage M. Course of IgE to α-Gal in a Swedish population of α-Gal syndrome patients. Clin Transl Allergy. 2021 Dec 15;11(10):e12087.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 30 Nov, 2023

Read the published version in Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology →

Editorial decision: Major revision
05 Sep, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
16 Aug, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
17 Jul, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
13 Jun, 2023
First submitted to journal
11 Jun, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Diagnostic Validity of Specific Immunoglobulin E Levels to alpha-gal in Alpha-gal Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1