Chi-Hun Lee, Min-Seung Park, Jee Ah Kim, Suhyeon Moon, Eun Hye Cho, Min-Jung Kwon, Hyosoon Park, Hee-Yeon Woo
{"title":"多过敏原同时检测的比较：Advansure AlloScreen Max 108和Protia Allergy-Q 128M。","authors":"Chi-Hun Lee, Min-Seung Park, Jee Ah Kim, Suhyeon Moon, Eun Hye Cho, Min-Jung Kwon, Hyosoon Park, Hee-Yeon Woo","doi":"10.7754/Clin.Lab.2024.241127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multiple allergen simultaneous test (MAST) is a convenient, cost-effective, semi-quantitative immunoassay widely used for allergy screening. However, cross-reactions, such as those caused by IgE against Bet v 1 or cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants, should be considered when interpreting MAST results. This study aimed to compare two MASTs, Advansure AlloScreen Max108 (AlloScreen assay; LG Chem Ltd., Seoul, Korea) and PROTIA Allergy-Q 128M (Allergy-Q assay; ProteomeTech Inc., Seoul, Korea).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 89 serum samples (56 positive and 33 negative) were analyzed through AlloScreen and Allergy-Q assays for 104 common allergens. Discrepant results were confirmed using the ImmunoCAP assay (Phadia AB, Uppsala, Sweden). In addition, concomitant sIgE reactivity to plant-derived food allergens related to Bet v 1 was assessed in birch pollen-positive samples.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total agreement between the two MASTs was 94.4% (kappa = 0.661), and class consistency was 0.878 (p < 0.001). Among the 78 discrepancies assessable by ImmunoCAP, Allergy-Q showed an agreement of 51.3%, while AlloScreen showed 48.7%. In birch pollen-positive samples, Allergy-Q demonstrated a higher positivity for concomitant sIgE reactions to plant-derived food allergens (46.9%) compared to AlloScreen (23.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The AlloScreen and Allergy-Q assays showed good overall agreement and class consistency. However, differences were observed in their detection of concomitant sIgE reactivity to plant-derived food allergens in birch pollen-positive samples. Further studies, incorporating clinical symptom evaluation, are needed to establish the clinical utility and reliability of these assays.</p>","PeriodicalId":10384,"journal":{"name":"Clinical laboratory","volume":"71 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Multiple Allergen Simultaneous Tests: Advansure AlloScreen Max 108 and Protia Allergy-Q 128M.\",\"authors\":\"Chi-Hun Lee, Min-Seung Park, Jee Ah Kim, Suhyeon Moon, Eun Hye Cho, Min-Jung Kwon, Hyosoon Park, Hee-Yeon Woo\",\"doi\":\"10.7754/Clin.Lab.2024.241127\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multiple allergen simultaneous test (MAST) is a convenient, cost-effective, semi-quantitative immunoassay widely used for allergy screening. However, cross-reactions, such as those caused by IgE against Bet v 1 or cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants, should be considered when interpreting MAST results. This study aimed to compare two MASTs, Advansure AlloScreen Max108 (AlloScreen assay; LG Chem Ltd., Seoul, Korea) and PROTIA Allergy-Q 128M (Allergy-Q assay; ProteomeTech Inc., Seoul, Korea).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 89 serum samples (56 positive and 33 negative) were analyzed through AlloScreen and Allergy-Q assays for 104 common allergens. Discrepant results were confirmed using the ImmunoCAP assay (Phadia AB, Uppsala, Sweden). In addition, concomitant sIgE reactivity to plant-derived food allergens related to Bet v 1 was assessed in birch pollen-positive samples.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total agreement between the two MASTs was 94.4% (kappa = 0.661), and class consistency was 0.878 (p < 0.001). Among the 78 discrepancies assessable by ImmunoCAP, Allergy-Q showed an agreement of 51.3%, while AlloScreen showed 48.7%. In birch pollen-positive samples, Allergy-Q demonstrated a higher positivity for concomitant sIgE reactions to plant-derived food allergens (46.9%) compared to AlloScreen (23.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The AlloScreen and Allergy-Q assays showed good overall agreement and class consistency. However, differences were observed in their detection of concomitant sIgE reactivity to plant-derived food allergens in birch pollen-positive samples. Further studies, incorporating clinical symptom evaluation, are needed to establish the clinical utility and reliability of these assays.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical laboratory\",\"volume\":\"71 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical laboratory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7754/Clin.Lab.2024.241127\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical laboratory","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7754/Clin.Lab.2024.241127","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Multiple Allergen Simultaneous Tests: Advansure AlloScreen Max 108 and Protia Allergy-Q 128M.
Background: Multiple allergen simultaneous test (MAST) is a convenient, cost-effective, semi-quantitative immunoassay widely used for allergy screening. However, cross-reactions, such as those caused by IgE against Bet v 1 or cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants, should be considered when interpreting MAST results. This study aimed to compare two MASTs, Advansure AlloScreen Max108 (AlloScreen assay; LG Chem Ltd., Seoul, Korea) and PROTIA Allergy-Q 128M (Allergy-Q assay; ProteomeTech Inc., Seoul, Korea).
Methods: A total of 89 serum samples (56 positive and 33 negative) were analyzed through AlloScreen and Allergy-Q assays for 104 common allergens. Discrepant results were confirmed using the ImmunoCAP assay (Phadia AB, Uppsala, Sweden). In addition, concomitant sIgE reactivity to plant-derived food allergens related to Bet v 1 was assessed in birch pollen-positive samples.
Results: The total agreement between the two MASTs was 94.4% (kappa = 0.661), and class consistency was 0.878 (p < 0.001). Among the 78 discrepancies assessable by ImmunoCAP, Allergy-Q showed an agreement of 51.3%, while AlloScreen showed 48.7%. In birch pollen-positive samples, Allergy-Q demonstrated a higher positivity for concomitant sIgE reactions to plant-derived food allergens (46.9%) compared to AlloScreen (23.4%).
Conclusions: The AlloScreen and Allergy-Q assays showed good overall agreement and class consistency. However, differences were observed in their detection of concomitant sIgE reactivity to plant-derived food allergens in birch pollen-positive samples. Further studies, incorporating clinical symptom evaluation, are needed to establish the clinical utility and reliability of these assays.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Laboratory is an international fully peer-reviewed journal covering all aspects of laboratory medicine and transfusion medicine. In addition to transfusion medicine topics Clinical Laboratory represents submissions concerning tissue transplantation and hematopoietic, cellular and gene therapies. The journal publishes original articles, review articles, posters, short reports, case studies and letters to the editor dealing with 1) the scientific background, implementation and diagnostic significance of laboratory methods employed in hospitals, blood banks and physicians'' offices and with 2) scientific, administrative and clinical aspects of transfusion medicine and 3) in addition to transfusion medicine topics Clinical Laboratory represents submissions concerning tissue transplantation and hematopoietic, cellular and gene therapies.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
