Background: It has been suggested that latex-specific IgE analysis may lead to false-positive results, especially in patients with pollen allergy. In the present study, the reasons underlying clinically irrelevant latex-specific IgE positivity were investigated. Methods: Thirty patients with latex allergy (group 1), 89 patients sensitised to aeroallergens (group 2a), and 98 healthy individuals without allergy (group 2b) were enrolled. Participants from all 3 groups were subjected to skin prick tests with aeroallergens including latex, latex-specific IgE analysis (ImmunoCAP), and nasal provocation test with latex. All cases demonstrating positive latex-specific IgE also underwent specific IgE tests (ImmunoCAP) with latex profilin, birch pollen profilin, peach lipid transfer protein, and pineapple bromelain as cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants. Results: Comparison of the atopic and healthy control groups showed that the rate of positive latex-specific IgE was significantly higher in group 2a. Latex profilin-, birch pollen profilin-, and bromelain-specific IgE were remarkably higher in group 2a. Conclusion: False positivity to latex-specific IgE in ImmunoCAP analysis may be observed in approximately 19% of patients with pollen allergy. Profilins and bromelain are the main contributors to clinically irrelevant positive latex-specific IgE.

1.
Unsel M, Mete N, Ardeniz O, Göksel S, Ersoy R, Sin A, Gulbahar O, Kokuludag A:The importance of nasal provocation test in the diagnosis of natural rubber latex allergy. Allergy 2009; 64: 862–867.
2.
Unsel M, Mete N, Ardeniz O, Sin A, Gülbahar O, Kokuludağ A: Diagnostic value of specific IgE analysis in latex allergy. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2012; 158: 281–287.
3.
Rihs H-P, Raulf-Heimsoth M: Natural rubber latex allergens: characterization and evaluation of their allergenic capacity. New Horizons, Pharmacia Diagnostics AB, 2003, p 3.
4.
Ebo DG, Hagendorens MM, De Knop KJ, Verweij MM, Bridts CH, De Clerck LS, Stevens WJ: Component-resolved diagnosis from latex allergy by microarray. Clin Exp Allergy 2010; 40: 348–358.
5.
Garnier L, Selman L, Rouzaire P, Bouvier M, Roberts O, Bérard F, Bienvenu J, Bienvenu F: Molecular allergens in the diagnosis of latex allergy. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol 2012; 44: 73–79.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: 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.
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.
You do not currently have access to this content.