1. |
|
|
2. |
- Thorpe, Michael, et al.
(author)
-
History and Utility of Specific IgE Cutoff Levels : What is the Relevance for Allergy Diagnosis?
- 2023
-
In: Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. - : Elsevier. - 2213-2198 .- 2213-2201. ; 11:10, s. 3021-3029
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Allergy is defined clinically, by symptoms on allergen exposure. A patient is considered sensitized when allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) antibody can be detected in serum or plasma or a skin test result is positive, even if no clinical reaction has been experienced. Sensitization should be regarded as a requisite and risk factor for allergy but is not synonymous with an allergy diagnosis. To provide a correct allergy diagnosis, test results regarding allergen-sIgE must always be considered in view of the patient's case history and clinical observations. Correct assessment of a patient's sensitization to specific allergens relies on the use of accurate and quantitative methods for detection of sIgE antibodies. The evolution of sIgE immunoassays toward higher analytical performance and the use of different cutoff levels in the interpretation of test results sometimes cause confusion. Earlier versions of sIgE assays offered a limit of quantitation of 0.35 kilounits of sIgE per liter (kUA/L), which also became an established cutoff level for a positive test result in the clinical use of the assays. Current sIgE assays are capable of reliably measuring sIgE levels as low as 0.1 kUA/L and can thereby demonstrate sensitization in cases in which previous assays could not. When the outcome of sIgE test results is evaluated, it is critically important to distinguish between the analytical data as such and their clinical interpretation. Even though sIgE may be present in the absence of symptoms of allergy, available information suggests that sIgE concentrations between 0.1 kUA/L and 0.35 kUA/L may be clinically relevant in some individuals, not least among children, although this should be further evaluated for various allergies. Moreover, it is becoming widely adopted that nondichotomous interpretation of sIgE levels may offer a diagnostic benefit compared with using a predefined cutoff level.
|
|
3. |
- Glaumann, S., et al.
(author)
-
Basophil allergen threshold sensitivity, CD-sens, IgE-sensitization and DBPCFC in peanut-sensitized children
- 2012
-
In: Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. - : Wiley. - 0105-4538 .- 1398-9995. ; 67:2, s. 242-247
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-sensitization to peanut is common and can indicate an allergy. A positive test needs to be confirmed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), which is regarded as 'the gold standard'. The aim of the study was to evaluate the basophil allergen threshold sensitivity (CD-sens) and antibodies to peanut allergen components in relation to DBPCFC in the diagnoses of peanut allergy in children. Methods: Thirty-eight children with suspected peanut allergy underwent a DBPCFC. CD-sens to peanut and Ara h 2 were analysed as well as IgE-antibody to peanut and some of its allergen components (Ara h 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9). Results: Twenty-five children had a positive DBPCFC, and 92% of these were positive in CD-sens to peanut and Ara h 2. Two children with a positive DBPCFC were classified as 'low-responders' and were not further evaluated. Children positive in DBPCFC had higher CD-sens values to peanut (median 1.3; range 0.4-29, n = 21) compared with children negative in DBPCFC (median 0; range 0-0.5, n = 13) (P < 0.0001). A positive DBPCFC correspond with increased levels of IgE-antibody to Ara h 1, 2 and 3 compared with those with a negative challenge (P < 0.0001 for all). All children with a negative CD-sens were negative in DBPCFC. Conclusion: In this study, a negative CD-sens to peanut excluded peanut allergy. Both tests, CD-sens to peanut and immunoassay for IgE-antibody to the peanut components, appear to be safe, time saving and cost-effective complements to DBPCFC. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
|
|