The first fully automated allergy analyser UniCAP: comparison with IMMULITE for allergy panel testing.

G M Costongs, B M Bas
{"title":"The first fully automated allergy analyser UniCAP: comparison with IMMULITE for allergy panel testing.","authors":"G M Costongs,&nbsp;B M Bas","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Automated immunoassay systems should be convenient to handle, flexible and give reliable results. To investigate the extent to which the UniCAP System met the above requirements, compared with the IMMULITE System, we compared the Phadiatop (UniCAP) and AlaTOP (IMMULITE) results of 110 patients with positive clinical diagnoses for inhalant allergy. In addition, we compared food screening test results of 103 patients with a clinical positive diagnosis for food, and 110 test results of controls with negative diagnosis for allergy. Phadiatop had a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 92%. AlaTOP had a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 94%. For food screening the results were: 75% sensitivity and 82% specificity for fx5 (UniCAP) and 63% sensitivity and 71% specificity for fp5 (IMMULITE). Furthermore, those samples for which the test results which were not in concordance with the clinical diagnosis were tested with the follow-up panel of the different screening tests. For the AlaTOP follow-up we had to use the DPC microplate System (Milenia), because single allergen testing is not yet possible on the IMMULITE System. With regard to sensitivity, the UniCAP specific inhalant allergen tests and the original Phadiatop results showed closer agreement with each other than did the Milenia specific allergen results with the AlaTOP. The specificity of the single inhalant allergen tests was the same for both systems. For food allergy testing the UniCAP System shows closer agreement between the screening and the follow-up results than does the IMMULITE. The hands on time for loading 44 samples was practically the same for both systems, but for the follow-up tests the Milenia System is used next to the IMMULITE. Therefore from a logistical point of view the UniCAP System is more convenient. From these results we conclude that both logistically and clinically UniCAP seems to meet our requirements better than the IMMULITE.</p>","PeriodicalId":77119,"journal":{"name":"European journal of clinical chemistry and clinical biochemistry : journal of the Forum of European Clinical Chemistry Societies","volume":"35 11","pages":"885-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of clinical chemistry and clinical biochemistry : journal of the Forum of European Clinical Chemistry Societies","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

Abstract

Automated immunoassay systems should be convenient to handle, flexible and give reliable results. To investigate the extent to which the UniCAP System met the above requirements, compared with the IMMULITE System, we compared the Phadiatop (UniCAP) and AlaTOP (IMMULITE) results of 110 patients with positive clinical diagnoses for inhalant allergy. In addition, we compared food screening test results of 103 patients with a clinical positive diagnosis for food, and 110 test results of controls with negative diagnosis for allergy. Phadiatop had a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 92%. AlaTOP had a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 94%. For food screening the results were: 75% sensitivity and 82% specificity for fx5 (UniCAP) and 63% sensitivity and 71% specificity for fp5 (IMMULITE). Furthermore, those samples for which the test results which were not in concordance with the clinical diagnosis were tested with the follow-up panel of the different screening tests. For the AlaTOP follow-up we had to use the DPC microplate System (Milenia), because single allergen testing is not yet possible on the IMMULITE System. With regard to sensitivity, the UniCAP specific inhalant allergen tests and the original Phadiatop results showed closer agreement with each other than did the Milenia specific allergen results with the AlaTOP. The specificity of the single inhalant allergen tests was the same for both systems. For food allergy testing the UniCAP System shows closer agreement between the screening and the follow-up results than does the IMMULITE. The hands on time for loading 44 samples was practically the same for both systems, but for the follow-up tests the Milenia System is used next to the IMMULITE. Therefore from a logistical point of view the UniCAP System is more convenient. From these results we conclude that both logistically and clinically UniCAP seems to meet our requirements better than the IMMULITE.

第一个全自动过敏分析仪UniCAP:与IMMULITE过敏面板测试的比较。
自动化免疫分析系统应操作方便、灵活并提供可靠的结果。为了探讨UniCAP系统与IMMULITE系统在一定程度上满足上述要求,我们比较了110例临床诊断为吸入性过敏阳性患者的Phadiatop (UniCAP)和AlaTOP (IMMULITE)结果。此外,我们比较了103例临床诊断为食物阳性的患者和110例诊断为过敏阴性的对照组的食物筛选试验结果。Phadiatop的敏感性为96%,特异性为92%。AlaTOP的敏感性为86%,特异性为94%。对于食品筛选结果:fx5 (UniCAP)的敏感性为75%,特异性为82%;fp5 (IMMULITE)的敏感性为63%,特异性为71%。此外,对那些检测结果与临床诊断不一致的样本,采用不同筛查试验的后续小组进行了检测。对于AlaTOP随访,我们不得不使用DPC微孔板系统(Milenia),因为在IMMULITE系统上尚不可能进行单一过敏原测试。在敏感性方面,UniCAP特异性吸入过敏原测试和Phadiatop的原始结果比Milenia特异性过敏原测试和AlaTOP的结果更加吻合。两种系统的单一吸入过敏原测试的特异性是相同的。对于食物过敏测试,UniCAP系统比IMMULITE显示出筛查和随访结果之间更接近的一致性。两种系统加载44个样品的操作时间几乎相同,但对于后续测试,Milenia系统与IMMULITE一起使用。因此,从后勤的角度来看,UniCAP系统更方便。从这些结果中我们得出结论,UniCAP在后勤和临床方面似乎比IMMULITE更符合我们的要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信