IF 3.3 Q2 ALLERGY
Frontiers in allergy Pub Date : 2025-01-10 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/falgy.2024.1496882
Katharina K Hahn, Marie C Schuppe, Moritz M Hollstein, Susann Forkel, Timo Buhl
{"title":"Comparison of the new RIDA qLine Allergy multiparameter immunoblot and the ImmunoCAP Specific IgE test for the identification of clinically relevant food and aeroallergen allergies.","authors":"Katharina K Hahn, Marie C Schuppe, Moritz M Hollstein, Susann Forkel, Timo Buhl","doi":"10.3389/falgy.2024.1496882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multiparameter immunoblot testing is increasingly used as an alternative to multiple individual IgE analyses for type 1 allergies. This study investigated the performance of an inexpensive immunoblot method, the RIDA qLine allergy test system (R-Biopharm AG), vs. the current gold standard.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three study-specific panels with 57 individual allergens (food and aeroallergens) were analyzed in serum samples from 200 patients with signs and symptoms of IgE-mediated allergies, using both the RIDA qLine Allergy and the reference method, the ImmunoCAP Specific IgE test (Thermo Fisher Scientific). In case of divergent results, corresponding allergens were remeasured using the secondary reference method, the 3gAllergy Specific IgE Universal Kit (Siemens). The clinical diagnoses of the 200 patients were included. In addition, a cross-reactive carbohydrate determinant (CCD)-inhibitor was used in the testing to decrease the incidence of positive CCD bands.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean overall agreement of all food and aeroallergens with the reference methods was 94.9%. Qualitative evaluation showed an average negative percent agreement of 98.9% and an average positive percent agreement of 75.1% for all individual allergens after testing with both reference methods. The additional treatment of samples with the CCD inhibitor successfully reduced the occurrence of positive CCD reactivity after retesting.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The comparative analysis of RIDA qLine Allergy with the reference methods for specific IgE detection revealed a strong correlation between serum IgE levels measured across these platforms and clinical presentations, while also highlighting the necessity for careful contextual interpretation of results. Standardized allergen extracts would improve independent comparisons of different allergy testing methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":73062,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in allergy","volume":"5 ","pages":"1496882"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11757282/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in allergy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/falgy.2024.1496882","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:多参数免疫印迹检测越来越多地被用来替代1型过敏的多种单个IgE分析。本研究调查了一种廉价的免疫印迹方法--RIDA qLine 过敏试验系统(R-Biopharm AG)与当前黄金标准的性能对比:方法:使用 RIDA qLine 过敏检测系统和参考方法--ImmunoCAP 特异性 IgE 检测仪(赛默飞世尔科技公司),对 200 名有 IgE 媒介过敏症状和体征的患者的血清样本进行了检测。如果结果不一致,则使用二级参考方法--3gAllergy 特异性 IgE 通用试剂盒(西门子)重新测定相应的过敏原。这 200 名患者的临床诊断结果也包括在内。此外,在检测中还使用了交叉反应碳水化合物决定簇(CCD)抑制剂,以降低CCD阳性带的发生率:结果:所有食物过敏原和空气过敏原与参考方法的平均总体一致率为 94.9%。定性评估显示,用两种参考方法检测后,所有单个过敏原的平均阴性一致率为 98.9%,平均阳性一致率为 75.1%。用 CCD 抑制剂对样本进行额外处理成功地减少了重测后 CCD 阳性反应的发生:RIDA qLine Allergy 与特异性 IgE 检测参考方法的对比分析表明,在这些平台上测量的血清 IgE 水平与临床表现之间存在很强的相关性,同时也强调了根据具体情况仔细解释结果的必要性。标准化的过敏原提取物将改进不同过敏检测方法之间的独立比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the new RIDA qLine Allergy multiparameter immunoblot and the ImmunoCAP Specific IgE test for the identification of clinically relevant food and aeroallergen allergies.

Background: Multiparameter immunoblot testing is increasingly used as an alternative to multiple individual IgE analyses for type 1 allergies. This study investigated the performance of an inexpensive immunoblot method, the RIDA qLine allergy test system (R-Biopharm AG), vs. the current gold standard.

Methods: Three study-specific panels with 57 individual allergens (food and aeroallergens) were analyzed in serum samples from 200 patients with signs and symptoms of IgE-mediated allergies, using both the RIDA qLine Allergy and the reference method, the ImmunoCAP Specific IgE test (Thermo Fisher Scientific). In case of divergent results, corresponding allergens were remeasured using the secondary reference method, the 3gAllergy Specific IgE Universal Kit (Siemens). The clinical diagnoses of the 200 patients were included. In addition, a cross-reactive carbohydrate determinant (CCD)-inhibitor was used in the testing to decrease the incidence of positive CCD bands.

Results: The mean overall agreement of all food and aeroallergens with the reference methods was 94.9%. Qualitative evaluation showed an average negative percent agreement of 98.9% and an average positive percent agreement of 75.1% for all individual allergens after testing with both reference methods. The additional treatment of samples with the CCD inhibitor successfully reduced the occurrence of positive CCD reactivity after retesting.

Conclusion: The comparative analysis of RIDA qLine Allergy with the reference methods for specific IgE detection revealed a strong correlation between serum IgE levels measured across these platforms and clinical presentations, while also highlighting the necessity for careful contextual interpretation of results. Standardized allergen extracts would improve independent comparisons of different allergy testing methods.

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
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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