BACKGROUND: The application of a single allergen specific IgE (sIgE) cut point, such as 0.35 kU/L, to determine sensitization for all allergens may be suboptimal. OBJECTIVES: To analyze self-reported symptoms suggestive of dog and cat allergy in relation to the test performance characteristics of low level, but reliably detectable, sIgE and to compare these cut points to the traditional 0.35-kU/L cut point. METHODS: Interviews and blood samples were collected among 564 young adult participants of a general risk birth cohort. Data collected from the participants' parents were analyzed as validation populations. A history of symptoms consistent with allergy on exposure to pets was obtained by standardized questionnaire. Allergen sIgE levels for dog and cat were evaluated with Pharmacia CAP. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed and the performance characteristics of the traditional sIgE cut point of 0.35 kU/L were compared with cut points as low as 0.1 kU/L. RESULTS: Using the Youden J criteria, based on the highest sum of sensitivity and specificity for a diagnostic test, cut points of 0.12 kU/L for cat and 0.2 kU/L for dog were identified as performing optimally among the participant population. In 2 validation populations, consisting of the participants' mothers and fathers, the performance of these alternative cut points were superior or similar to the traditional 0.35-kU/L sIgE level. CONCLUSIONS: Accurately measured sIgE at levels approaching the lower limit of detection of current assays may be useful in confirming sensitization. Optimal clinical application of these tests will continue to require careful integration of the result and the strength of the patient's history.
BACKGROUND: The application of a single allergen specific IgE (sIgE) cut point, such as 0.35 kU/L, to determine sensitization for all allergens may be suboptimal. OBJECTIVES: To analyze self-reported symptoms suggestive of dog and cat allergy in relation to the test performance characteristics of low level, but reliably detectable, sIgE and to compare these cut points to the traditional 0.35-kU/L cut point. METHODS: Interviews and blood samples were collected among 564 young adult participants of a general risk birth cohort. Data collected from the participants' parents were analyzed as validation populations. A history of symptoms consistent with allergy on exposure to pets was obtained by standardized questionnaire. Allergen sIgE levels for dog and cat were evaluated with Pharmacia CAP. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed and the performance characteristics of the traditional sIgE cut point of 0.35 kU/L were compared with cut points as low as 0.1 kU/L. RESULTS: Using the Youden J criteria, based on the highest sum of sensitivity and specificity for a diagnostic test, cut points of 0.12 kU/L for cat and 0.2 kU/L for dog were identified as performing optimally among the participant population. In 2 validation populations, consisting of the participants' mothers and fathers, the performance of these alternative cut points were superior or similar to the traditional 0.35-kU/L sIgE level. CONCLUSIONS: Accurately measured sIgE at levels approaching the lower limit of detection of current assays may be useful in confirming sensitization. Optimal clinical application of these tests will continue to require careful integration of the result and the strength of the patient's history.
Authors: E A Pastorello; C Incorvaia; C Ortolani; S Bonini; G W Canonica; S Romagnani; A Tursi; C Zanussi Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 1995-11 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Jay Portnoy; Kevin Kennedy; James Sublett; Wanda Phipatanakul; Elizabeth Matsui; Charles Barnes; Carl Grimes; J David Miller; James M Seltzer; P Brock Williams; Jonathan A Bernstein; David I Bernstein; Joann Blessing-Moore; Linda Cox; David A Khan; David M Lang; Richard A Nicklas; John Oppenheimer Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: Päivi M Salo; Samuel J Arbes; Renee Jaramillo; Agustin Calatroni; Charles H Weir; Michelle L Sever; Jane A Hoppin; Kathryn M Rose; Andrew H Liu; Peter J Gergen; Herman E Mitchell; Darryl C Zeldin Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2014-02-09 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Yafang Tan; John F Halsey; Tiantian Tang; Scott Vande Wetering; Elaine Taine; Mark Van Cleve; Brian T Cunningham Journal: Biosens Bioelectron Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 10.618
Authors: Howard Hf Tang; Shu Mei Teo; Danielle Cm Belgrave; Michael D Evans; Daniel J Jackson; Marta Brozynska; Merci Mh Kusel; Sebastian L Johnston; James E Gern; Robert F Lemanske; Angela Simpson; Adnan Custovic; Peter D Sly; Patrick G Holt; Kathryn E Holt; Michael Inouye Journal: Elife Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 8.140