非医护人员天然橡胶乳胶特异性IgE抗体:两种fda清除体外试剂盒的比较

R. Biagini, B. Mackenzie, T. Bledsoe, D. Lewis, L. Pinkerton
{"title":"非医护人员天然橡胶乳胶特异性IgE抗体:两种fda清除体外试剂盒的比较","authors":"R. Biagini, B. Mackenzie, T. Bledsoe, D. Lewis, L. Pinkerton","doi":"10.1002/1099-1301(199907/09)1:3<147::AID-JEM25>3.0.CO;2-Z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Latex-specific IgE antibody immunoassays are heavily relied upon in the diagnosis of latex allergy in the United States. The goal of this study is to compare anti-latex IgE levels measured by two U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared kits (CAP® System and AlaSTAT® Microplate) in sera obtained from employees in non-healthcare industries. Sera were obtained from 381 workers employed in several, non-healthcare industries over the past 10 years, and stored frozen. All 381 coded sera were analysed for latex-specific IgE using the Diagnostic Products Corporation microplate AlaSTAT® and the Pharmacia-UpJohn CAP® System. Concordance between methods and intra- and inter-assay reproducibility were evaluated. Twenty-six sera gave positive results using the AlaSTAT® assay (26/381, 6.82%), while 24 yielded CAP® positive results (6.30%). There were no significant differences (p = NS) between the assays' measurements of latex-specific IgE antibody levels for all 381 sera, yielding 0.28 ± 0.19 kU L−1 and 0.34 ± 0.59 kUA L−1, respectively. AlaSTAT® and CAP® assays agreed on the positive status of 9 (9/381, 2.4%) sera, and the negative status of 340 sera (340/381, 89.2%). The assays yielded discordant results on some individual sera. CAP® discordant results occurred in 17/26 sera (65.4%) of AlaSTAT® positive sera, while AlaSTAT® discordant results were found in 15/24 (57.7%) of the CAP® positive sera. The CAP® System, for instance, detected 0.39–2.3 kUA l−1 (1.03 ± 0.59, [mean ± SD]) of latex-specific IgE in the serum from 15 individuals that were all AlaSTAT® negative. In contrast, the AlaSTAT® detected 0.36–1.6 kU l−1 (0.62 ± 0.31, [mean ± SD]) of IgE anti-latex in the serum from 17 subjects that were all CAP® negative. These data indicate that the a priori seroprevalence of latex-specific sera IgE is about 6%–7% in non-healthcare workers and that the CAP® and AlaSTAT® assays agree on the positive or negative status of the majority of sera (91.6%). However, caution should be exercised when applying FDA-cleared in vitro assays for latex-specific sera IgE in populations known to have potentially low concentrations of latex-specific IgE antibodies, as there appears to be a finite possibility for these assays to misclassify sera as being positive or negative for latex-specific IgE antibodies. Published in 1999 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.","PeriodicalId":100780,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Medicine","volume":"07 1","pages":"147-151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Natural rubber latex-specific IgE antibodies in non-healthcare workers: comparison of two FDA-clearedin vitro kits\",\"authors\":\"R. Biagini, B. Mackenzie, T. Bledsoe, D. Lewis, L. Pinkerton\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/1099-1301(199907/09)1:3<147::AID-JEM25>3.0.CO;2-Z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Latex-specific IgE antibody immunoassays are heavily relied upon in the diagnosis of latex allergy in the United States. The goal of this study is to compare anti-latex IgE levels measured by two U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared kits (CAP® System and AlaSTAT® Microplate) in sera obtained from employees in non-healthcare industries. Sera were obtained from 381 workers employed in several, non-healthcare industries over the past 10 years, and stored frozen. All 381 coded sera were analysed for latex-specific IgE using the Diagnostic Products Corporation microplate AlaSTAT® and the Pharmacia-UpJohn CAP® System. Concordance between methods and intra- and inter-assay reproducibility were evaluated. Twenty-six sera gave positive results using the AlaSTAT® assay (26/381, 6.82%), while 24 yielded CAP® positive results (6.30%). There were no significant differences (p = NS) between the assays' measurements of latex-specific IgE antibody levels for all 381 sera, yielding 0.28 ± 0.19 kU L−1 and 0.34 ± 0.59 kUA L−1, respectively. AlaSTAT® and CAP® assays agreed on the positive status of 9 (9/381, 2.4%) sera, and the negative status of 340 sera (340/381, 89.2%). The assays yielded discordant results on some individual sera. CAP® discordant results occurred in 17/26 sera (65.4%) of AlaSTAT® positive sera, while AlaSTAT® discordant results were found in 15/24 (57.7%) of the CAP® positive sera. The CAP® System, for instance, detected 0.39–2.3 kUA l−1 (1.03 ± 0.59, [mean ± SD]) of latex-specific IgE in the serum from 15 individuals that were all AlaSTAT® negative. In contrast, the AlaSTAT® detected 0.36–1.6 kU l−1 (0.62 ± 0.31, [mean ± SD]) of IgE anti-latex in the serum from 17 subjects that were all CAP® negative. These data indicate that the a priori seroprevalence of latex-specific sera IgE is about 6%–7% in non-healthcare workers and that the CAP® and AlaSTAT® assays agree on the positive or negative status of the majority of sera (91.6%). However, caution should be exercised when applying FDA-cleared in vitro assays for latex-specific sera IgE in populations known to have potentially low concentrations of latex-specific IgE antibodies, as there appears to be a finite possibility for these assays to misclassify sera as being positive or negative for latex-specific IgE antibodies. Published in 1999 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.\",\"PeriodicalId\":100780,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Environmental Medicine\",\"volume\":\"07 1\",\"pages\":\"147-151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Environmental Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1301(199907/09)1:3<147::AID-JEM25>3.0.CO;2-Z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1301(199907/09)1:3<147::AID-JEM25>3.0.CO;2-Z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在美国,乳胶特异性IgE抗体免疫测定在乳胶过敏的诊断中非常依赖。本研究的目的是比较两种美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)批准的试剂盒(CAP®System和AlaSTAT®Microplate)在非医疗保健行业员工血清中测量的抗乳胶IgE水平。在过去的10年里,从几个非医疗保健行业的381名工人身上获得了血清,并冷冻保存。使用诊断产品公司AlaSTAT®微孔板和Pharmacia-UpJohn CAP®系统分析所有381份编码血清的乳胶特异性IgE。评估了方法间的一致性以及测定内和测定间的重复性。26份AlaSTAT®检测结果为阳性(26/381,6.82%),24份CAP®检测结果为阳性(6.30%)。所有381份血清中乳胶特异性IgE抗体水平的测定结果无显著差异(p = NS),分别为0.28±0.19 kU L−1和0.34±0.59 kUA L−1。AlaSTAT®和CAP®检测结果一致,9份(9/381,2.4%)血清呈阳性,340份(340/381,89.2%)血清呈阴性。这些化验对某些个体血清产生不一致的结果。AlaSTAT阳性血清中有17/26(65.4%)出现了CAP不一致结果,而CAP阳性血清中有15/24(57.7%)出现了AlaSTAT不一致结果。例如,CAP®系统在15例AlaSTAT®阴性患者的血清中检测到0.39-2.3 kUA l−1(1.03±0.59,[mean±SD])的乳胶特异性IgE。相比之下,AlaSTAT®在17例CAP®阴性受试者血清中检测到0.36-1.6 kU l−1(0.62±0.31,[mean±SD])的IgE抗胶乳。这些数据表明,在非卫生保健工作者中,乳胶特异性血清IgE的先验血清阳性率约为6%-7%,并且CAP®和AlaSTAT®检测结果与大多数血清(91.6%)的阳性或阴性状态一致。然而,在已知具有潜在低浓度乳胶特异性IgE抗体的人群中应用fda批准的乳胶特异性血清IgE体外测定法时应谨慎,因为这些测定法似乎有有限的可能性将血清错误地分类为乳胶特异性IgE抗体阳性或阴性。1999年由John Wiley & Sons出版。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Natural rubber latex-specific IgE antibodies in non-healthcare workers: comparison of two FDA-clearedin vitro kits
Latex-specific IgE antibody immunoassays are heavily relied upon in the diagnosis of latex allergy in the United States. The goal of this study is to compare anti-latex IgE levels measured by two U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared kits (CAP® System and AlaSTAT® Microplate) in sera obtained from employees in non-healthcare industries. Sera were obtained from 381 workers employed in several, non-healthcare industries over the past 10 years, and stored frozen. All 381 coded sera were analysed for latex-specific IgE using the Diagnostic Products Corporation microplate AlaSTAT® and the Pharmacia-UpJohn CAP® System. Concordance between methods and intra- and inter-assay reproducibility were evaluated. Twenty-six sera gave positive results using the AlaSTAT® assay (26/381, 6.82%), while 24 yielded CAP® positive results (6.30%). There were no significant differences (p = NS) between the assays' measurements of latex-specific IgE antibody levels for all 381 sera, yielding 0.28 ± 0.19 kU L−1 and 0.34 ± 0.59 kUA L−1, respectively. AlaSTAT® and CAP® assays agreed on the positive status of 9 (9/381, 2.4%) sera, and the negative status of 340 sera (340/381, 89.2%). The assays yielded discordant results on some individual sera. CAP® discordant results occurred in 17/26 sera (65.4%) of AlaSTAT® positive sera, while AlaSTAT® discordant results were found in 15/24 (57.7%) of the CAP® positive sera. The CAP® System, for instance, detected 0.39–2.3 kUA l−1 (1.03 ± 0.59, [mean ± SD]) of latex-specific IgE in the serum from 15 individuals that were all AlaSTAT® negative. In contrast, the AlaSTAT® detected 0.36–1.6 kU l−1 (0.62 ± 0.31, [mean ± SD]) of IgE anti-latex in the serum from 17 subjects that were all CAP® negative. These data indicate that the a priori seroprevalence of latex-specific sera IgE is about 6%–7% in non-healthcare workers and that the CAP® and AlaSTAT® assays agree on the positive or negative status of the majority of sera (91.6%). However, caution should be exercised when applying FDA-cleared in vitro assays for latex-specific sera IgE in populations known to have potentially low concentrations of latex-specific IgE antibodies, as there appears to be a finite possibility for these assays to misclassify sera as being positive or negative for latex-specific IgE antibodies. Published in 1999 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信