哮喘患儿血清IgE体外检测与皮肤试验的比较。

Annals of allergy Pub Date : 1994-10-01
K L Kam, K H Hsieh
{"title":"哮喘患儿血清IgE体外检测与皮肤试验的比较。","authors":"K L Kam,&nbsp;K H Hsieh","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The diagnostic performance of three commercial assay kits [Phadezym RAST (PhRAST), Pharmacia CAP system (CAP), and multiple chemiluminescent assay (CLA-MAST)] for measuring serum-specific IgE was evaluated and compared using intradermal skin testing or skin prick testing as reference standards. Serum samples were obtained from allergic patients who were tested with either intradermal skin tests or skin prick tests (96 and 49 subjects, respectively). Six different allergen extracts were tested: Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, Candida albicans, Aspergillus, short ragweed, Bermuda grass, and cockroach mix. Results showed that when using intradermal skin testing as a reference standard, the CLA-MAST had the lowest sensitivity (75%), specificity (80%), and efficiency (85%) but the Pharmacia CAP system achieved the highest sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency (86%, 94%, and 91%, respectively). When compared with these two relatively new assays, the Phadezym RAST had medium sensitivity (80%), specificity (92%), and efficiency (88%). In contrast, when using skin prick testing as a reference standard, the highest specificity was achieved by Phadezym RAST (95%), followed by Pharmacia CAP system (90%), and MAST (81%). As for the sensitivity of each test, the Phadezym RAST was the lowest (60%) and Pharmacia CAP system reached the highest sensitivity (79%); and for the efficiency test, the score was 87% for CAP, 83% for Phadezym RAST, and 75% for MAST. These results suggest, therefore, that the CAP system is the preferred test and provides a useful guide for prescription of environmental control and immunotherapy in unselected patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":7931,"journal":{"name":"Annals of allergy","volume":"73 4","pages":"329-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of three in vitro assays for serum IgE with skin testing in asthmatic children.\",\"authors\":\"K L Kam,&nbsp;K H Hsieh\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The diagnostic performance of three commercial assay kits [Phadezym RAST (PhRAST), Pharmacia CAP system (CAP), and multiple chemiluminescent assay (CLA-MAST)] for measuring serum-specific IgE was evaluated and compared using intradermal skin testing or skin prick testing as reference standards. Serum samples were obtained from allergic patients who were tested with either intradermal skin tests or skin prick tests (96 and 49 subjects, respectively). Six different allergen extracts were tested: Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, Candida albicans, Aspergillus, short ragweed, Bermuda grass, and cockroach mix. Results showed that when using intradermal skin testing as a reference standard, the CLA-MAST had the lowest sensitivity (75%), specificity (80%), and efficiency (85%) but the Pharmacia CAP system achieved the highest sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency (86%, 94%, and 91%, respectively). When compared with these two relatively new assays, the Phadezym RAST had medium sensitivity (80%), specificity (92%), and efficiency (88%). In contrast, when using skin prick testing as a reference standard, the highest specificity was achieved by Phadezym RAST (95%), followed by Pharmacia CAP system (90%), and MAST (81%). As for the sensitivity of each test, the Phadezym RAST was the lowest (60%) and Pharmacia CAP system reached the highest sensitivity (79%); and for the efficiency test, the score was 87% for CAP, 83% for Phadezym RAST, and 75% for MAST. These results suggest, therefore, that the CAP system is the preferred test and provides a useful guide for prescription of environmental control and immunotherapy in unselected patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7931,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of allergy\",\"volume\":\"73 4\",\"pages\":\"329-36\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1994-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of allergy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of allergy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以皮内皮肤试验或皮肤点刺试验为参比标准,评价和比较3种商用检测试剂盒(Phadezym RAST (PhRAST)、Pharmacia CAP系统(CAP)和多重化学发光法(CLA-MAST))检测血清特异性IgE的诊断性能。采用皮内皮肤试验或皮肤针刺试验(分别为96例和49例)对过敏患者进行血清样本采集。测试了六种不同的过敏原提取物:翼状假丝酵母、白色念珠菌、曲霉菌、短豚草、百慕大草和蟑螂混合物。结果表明,当使用皮内皮肤试验作为参考标准时,CLA-MAST的灵敏度最低(75%),特异性最低(80%),效率最低(85%),而Pharmacia CAP系统的灵敏度,特异性和效率最高(分别为86%,94%和91%)。与这两种相对较新的检测方法相比,Phadezym RAST具有中等灵敏度(80%)、特异性(92%)和效率(88%)。以皮肤点刺试验作为参比标准时,Phadezym RAST特异性最高(95%),其次是Pharmacia CAP系统(90%),MAST系统(81%)。各检测方法的灵敏度均以Phadezym RAST最低(60%),Pharmacia CAP最高(79%);在效率测试中,CAP得分为87%,Phadezym RAST得分为83%,MAST得分为75%。因此,这些结果表明,CAP系统是首选的测试,并为未选择患者的环境控制和免疫治疗处方提供了有用的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of three in vitro assays for serum IgE with skin testing in asthmatic children.

The diagnostic performance of three commercial assay kits [Phadezym RAST (PhRAST), Pharmacia CAP system (CAP), and multiple chemiluminescent assay (CLA-MAST)] for measuring serum-specific IgE was evaluated and compared using intradermal skin testing or skin prick testing as reference standards. Serum samples were obtained from allergic patients who were tested with either intradermal skin tests or skin prick tests (96 and 49 subjects, respectively). Six different allergen extracts were tested: Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, Candida albicans, Aspergillus, short ragweed, Bermuda grass, and cockroach mix. Results showed that when using intradermal skin testing as a reference standard, the CLA-MAST had the lowest sensitivity (75%), specificity (80%), and efficiency (85%) but the Pharmacia CAP system achieved the highest sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency (86%, 94%, and 91%, respectively). When compared with these two relatively new assays, the Phadezym RAST had medium sensitivity (80%), specificity (92%), and efficiency (88%). In contrast, when using skin prick testing as a reference standard, the highest specificity was achieved by Phadezym RAST (95%), followed by Pharmacia CAP system (90%), and MAST (81%). As for the sensitivity of each test, the Phadezym RAST was the lowest (60%) and Pharmacia CAP system reached the highest sensitivity (79%); and for the efficiency test, the score was 87% for CAP, 83% for Phadezym RAST, and 75% for MAST. These results suggest, therefore, that the CAP system is the preferred test and provides a useful guide for prescription of environmental control and immunotherapy in unselected patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Lyme disease. Familial cold urticaria. Allergic arthritis. Use of nasal cytology in the diagnosis of occult chronic sinusitis in asthmatic children. Comparison of budesonide and disodium cromoglycate for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in children.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1