Mai Elzieny , Gabriel N. Maine , Robin A. Carey-Ballough , Qian Sun
{"title":"健康成年人两种总 IgE 检测方法之间的差异和参考区间的不同。","authors":"Mai Elzieny , Gabriel N. Maine , Robin A. Carey-Ballough , Qian Sun","doi":"10.1016/j.jim.2024.113711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare total immunoglobulin (Ig) E assay performance characteristics between Abbott Architect and Siemens Immulite test systems. Reference intervals were also determined for both platforms in an American population of healthy adults.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Agreement of the two total IgE assays was evaluated in a cohort of 331 subjects with normal complete blood count (CBC) and comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP) results. Reference intervals were established in 302 subjects after exclusion of atopic individuals on the Abbott Architect and Siemens Immulite test systems.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We demonstrated a 32% positive bias for total IgE quantitation on the Siemens Immulite platform compared to the Abbott Architect, despite both methods calibrated against the same WHO international reference material (75/502), Furthermore, the upper limit of the reference interval (95th percentile) was determined to be higher for the Siemens Immulite assay compared to the Abbott Architect (132 and 102 IU/mL, respectively).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Despite the use of a common WHO reference material for total IgE assay calibration, significant differences in quantitation was observed between two FDA-cleared test systems. Given that, it is warranted for clinical laboratories to verify vendor established reference intervals and adjust accordingly based on internal assessment of the normal range.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16000,"journal":{"name":"Journal of immunological methods","volume":"531 ","pages":"Article 113711"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discrepancies between two total IgE assays and difference in reference intervals in healthy adults\",\"authors\":\"Mai Elzieny , Gabriel N. Maine , Robin A. Carey-Ballough , Qian Sun\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jim.2024.113711\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare total immunoglobulin (Ig) E assay performance characteristics between Abbott Architect and Siemens Immulite test systems. Reference intervals were also determined for both platforms in an American population of healthy adults.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Agreement of the two total IgE assays was evaluated in a cohort of 331 subjects with normal complete blood count (CBC) and comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP) results. Reference intervals were established in 302 subjects after exclusion of atopic individuals on the Abbott Architect and Siemens Immulite test systems.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We demonstrated a 32% positive bias for total IgE quantitation on the Siemens Immulite platform compared to the Abbott Architect, despite both methods calibrated against the same WHO international reference material (75/502), Furthermore, the upper limit of the reference interval (95th percentile) was determined to be higher for the Siemens Immulite assay compared to the Abbott Architect (132 and 102 IU/mL, respectively).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Despite the use of a common WHO reference material for total IgE assay calibration, significant differences in quantitation was observed between two FDA-cleared test systems. Given that, it is warranted for clinical laboratories to verify vendor established reference intervals and adjust accordingly based on internal assessment of the normal range.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of immunological methods\",\"volume\":\"531 \",\"pages\":\"Article 113711\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of immunological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022175924000966\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of immunological methods","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022175924000966","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Discrepancies between two total IgE assays and difference in reference intervals in healthy adults
Objective
To compare total immunoglobulin (Ig) E assay performance characteristics between Abbott Architect and Siemens Immulite test systems. Reference intervals were also determined for both platforms in an American population of healthy adults.
Methods
Agreement of the two total IgE assays was evaluated in a cohort of 331 subjects with normal complete blood count (CBC) and comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP) results. Reference intervals were established in 302 subjects after exclusion of atopic individuals on the Abbott Architect and Siemens Immulite test systems.
Results
We demonstrated a 32% positive bias for total IgE quantitation on the Siemens Immulite platform compared to the Abbott Architect, despite both methods calibrated against the same WHO international reference material (75/502), Furthermore, the upper limit of the reference interval (95th percentile) was determined to be higher for the Siemens Immulite assay compared to the Abbott Architect (132 and 102 IU/mL, respectively).
Conclusion
Despite the use of a common WHO reference material for total IgE assay calibration, significant differences in quantitation was observed between two FDA-cleared test systems. Given that, it is warranted for clinical laboratories to verify vendor established reference intervals and adjust accordingly based on internal assessment of the normal range.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Immunological Methods is devoted to covering techniques for: (1) Quantitating and detecting antibodies and/or antigens. (2) Purifying immunoglobulins, lymphokines and other molecules of the immune system. (3) Isolating antigens and other substances important in immunological processes. (4) Labelling antigens and antibodies. (5) Localizing antigens and/or antibodies in tissues and cells. (6) Detecting, and fractionating immunocompetent cells. (7) Assaying for cellular immunity. (8) Documenting cell-cell interactions. (9) Initiating immunity and unresponsiveness. (10) Transplanting tissues. (11) Studying items closely related to immunity such as complement, reticuloendothelial system and others. (12) Molecular techniques for studying immune cells and their receptors. (13) Imaging of the immune system. (14) Methods for production or their fragments in eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells.
In addition the journal will publish articles on novel methods for analysing the organization, structure and expression of genes for immunologically important molecules such as immunoglobulins, T cell receptors and accessory molecules involved in antigen recognition, processing and presentation. Submitted full length manuscripts should describe new methods of broad applicability to immunology and not simply the application of an established method to a particular substance - although papers describing such applications may be considered for publication as a short Technical Note. Review articles will also be published by the Journal of Immunological Methods. In general these manuscripts are by solicitation however anyone interested in submitting a review can contact the Reviews Editor and provide an outline of the proposed review.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
