Article

In vitro diagnosis of allergy: how to interpret IgE antibody results in clinical practice

National Institute of Environmental Medicine, Centre for Allergy Research, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Primary Care Respiratory Journal (Impact Factor: 2.91). 09/2006; 15(4):228-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.pcrj.2006.05.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The basis of any diagnosis of allergy requires a good history and examination, which should then provide a certain degree of confidence as to whether or not allergy is present. However, the diagnosis cannot be confirmed on the basis of symptoms alone, because both allergic and non-allergic conditions can present with similar symptoms. Based on prevalence figures, about half of the patients presenting with allergic symptoms in primary care may be non-allergic. Therefore, allergy testing in the form of specific IgE (sIgE) measurement and/or skin prick testing is an invaluable aid in demonstrating both the presence and severity of such an allergy. The usefulness of such tests extends beyond just the positive or negative result. Often, more information can be gleaned by using the test results in a form of a continuous variable in order to determine the likelihood that allergy can be attributed as an explanation for patients' symptoms and disease. In this review, we describe the rationale for utilising specific IgE antibody tests in diagnosing allergy. Furthermore, to optimize the information gained from allergy testing, we describe how to employ one particular well-validated IgE testing system for determining the likelihood that an individual patient's disease can be attributed to allergy.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Clare Murray, Jul 02, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
125 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT The overall objective of this thesis is to extend the knowledge and deepen the understanding of care-givers management of child allergy, especially of suspected food allergy. This is done by describing and exploring how parents with children who have exclusion diets at school discover and responds to their children’s allergy-related problems. The first study focuses on the whole group of children (n 230) with special diets at school from the viewpoint of parents’ knowledge and management of the children’s problems. It addresses questions regarding (1) whether or not the children have had contact with health care, (2) whether or not they were diagnosed with food allergy, (3) to what extent they had other allergies, (4) what characterized their food-related symptoms, (5) if these symptoms were consistent with the clinical experience of food allergy (6) and any differences in parents’ reports of the extent of children’s food-related problems in regard to whether they had sought health care or not. The results showed that the majority of parents had consulted doctors for their children’s problems, and most children had been diagnosed by a doctor. Most children also had other allergies or asthma in addition to their food-related problems. The children’s food-related problems were consistent with the clinical experience of food allergy. Parents who had sought medical aid for their children’s problems,described more,extensive and,potentially life-threatening (e.g. anaphylactic) symptoms than did the parents who had not sought professional help. Overall, the characteristics of children’s symptoms,were similar in both groups and were considerable enough to explain why they avoided certain foods and had exclusion diets at school. The second study addresses the question of how parents discovered developing bodily symptoms
  • Primary Care Respiratory Journal 09/2006; 15(4):219-21. DOI:10.1016/j.pcrj.2006.05.008
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Studies have demonstrated that the magnitude of sensitization as evidenced by specific IgE (sIgE) levels provides significant information as to whether a sensitized individual is likely to be truly reactive. However, it is not clear that quantitative sIgE results provided by different laboratories using different technologies are comparable. To investigate whether similar results were obtained from Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act-certified laboratories that used 3 common systems for sIgE antibody determination with serum samples and mouse-human IgE chimeric antibodies with known specificity and quantity. Sixty samples for peanut and 20 for soy were submitted for sIgE determination on 3 different systems: ImmunoCAP, Immulite, and Turbo radioallergosorbent test (RAST). Mouse-human chimeric IgE antibodies specific for the major birch allergen Bet v 1 and for the dust mite allergen Der p 2 were also included. A qualitative evaluation using a cutoff of 0.35 kUA/L showed some differences in the ability to detect sIgE sensitization, with the Turbo RAST being most variable. However, considerable differences were found with quantitative evaluation, with Immulite overestimating and Turbo RAST underestimating sIgE compared with ImmunoCAP. Similar discrepancies were seen with the mouse-human chimeric IgE antibody samples. These findings have potentially serious clinical implications, since each of these systems is widely used. It is therefore important that all laboratories clarify which system they are using. Just because 2 systems present their results in the same units does not mean that the results are necessarily correct or interchangeable.
    Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology: official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology 08/2007; 99(1):34-41. DOI:10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60618-7