BACKGROUND: Few data on the diagnostic accuracy in pollinosis of the microarray ISAC of allergens are available. OBJECTIVE: We aim to comparatively analyse ISAC CRD103 with the whole-extract ImmunoCAP in grass and cypress pollen allergy, evaluating the suitability of the manufacturer's recommended cut-off points for both techniques. METHODS: We studied 120 atopic patients grouped into grass and cypress pollen-allergic patients and controls based on clinical history and skin prick tests. Specific IgE against Phleum pratense and Cupressus arizonica by ImmunoCAP and ISAC CRD103 were performed on all subjects. RESULTS: In the grass pollen group (43 allergic/26 controls), both microarray and CAP showed high sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) values (ISAC: Se 97.7, Sp 92.3; CAP: Se 95.3, Sp 96.1) for recommended cut-off points. Comparing the optimal (ISAC: 0.4 ISU; CAP: 0.33 kU/L) with the recommended cut-off points within the same technique, diagnostic agreement was observed in both techniques. Thus, CAP and ISAC showed similar diagnostic performance in grass pollen allergy when using recommended cut-off points. In cypress pollen group (12 allergic/92 controls), the microarray (Se: 91.7, Sp 91.3) showed similar Se but significantly higher Sp (P=0.034) than CAP (Se: 91.7, Sp: 80.4) using recommended cut-off points. However, although diagnostic performance of the microarray did not change when comparing the optimal (0.82 ISU) with the recommended cut-off point, CAP improved diagnosis of cypress pollen allergy, when applying the optimal (0.66 kU/L)(CAP Se: 91.7, Sp: 89.1) instead of the manufacturer's recommended cut-off point. Thus, when the most suitable cut-off point for both techniques (ISAC: 0.3 ISU; CAP: 0.66 kU/L) is selected, microarray and CAP provide equivalent diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Component-based microarray ISAC CRD103 and whole-allergen CAP showed high Se and Sp diagnosing equally grass and cypress pollen allergy. The cut-off point for each allergen should be properly applied for both techniques.
BACKGROUND: Few data on the diagnostic accuracy in pollinosis of the microarray ISAC of allergens are available. OBJECTIVE: We aim to comparatively analyse ISAC CRD103 with the whole-extract ImmunoCAP in grass and cypress pollen allergy, evaluating the suitability of the manufacturer's recommended cut-off points for both techniques. METHODS: We studied 120 atopic patients grouped into grass and cypress pollen-allergic patients and controls based on clinical history and skin prick tests. Specific IgE against Phleum pratense and Cupressus arizonica by ImmunoCAP and ISAC CRD103 were performed on all subjects. RESULTS: In the grass pollen group (43 allergic/26 controls), both microarray and CAP showed high sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) values (ISAC: Se 97.7, Sp 92.3; CAP: Se 95.3, Sp 96.1) for recommended cut-off points. Comparing the optimal (ISAC: 0.4 ISU; CAP: 0.33 kU/L) with the recommended cut-off points within the same technique, diagnostic agreement was observed in both techniques. Thus, CAP and ISAC showed similar diagnostic performance in grass pollen allergy when using recommended cut-off points. In cypress pollen group (12 allergic/92 controls), the microarray (Se: 91.7, Sp 91.3) showed similar Se but significantly higher Sp (P=0.034) than CAP (Se: 91.7, Sp: 80.4) using recommended cut-off points. However, although diagnostic performance of the microarray did not change when comparing the optimal (0.82 ISU) with the recommended cut-off point, CAP improved diagnosis of cypress pollen allergy, when applying the optimal (0.66 kU/L)(CAP Se: 91.7, Sp: 89.1) instead of the manufacturer's recommended cut-off point. Thus, when the most suitable cut-off point for both techniques (ISAC: 0.3 ISU; CAP: 0.66 kU/L) is selected, microarray and CAP provide equivalent diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Component-based microarray ISAC CRD103 and whole-allergen CAP showed high Se and Sp diagnosing equally grass and cypress pollen allergy. The cut-off point for each allergen should be properly applied for both techniques.
Authors: Christian Lupinek; Eva Wollmann; Alexandra Baar; Srinita Banerjee; Heimo Breiteneder; Barbara M Broecker; Merima Bublin; Mirela Curin; Sabine Flicker; Tetiana Garmatiuk; Heidrun Hochwallner; Irene Mittermann; Sandra Pahr; Yvonne Resch; Kenneth H Roux; Bharani Srinivasan; Sebastian Stentzel; Susanne Vrtala; Leanna N Willison; Magnus Wickman; Karin C Lødrup-Carlsen; Josep Maria Antó; Jean Bousquet; Claus Bachert; Daniel Ebner; Thomas Schlederer; Christian Harwanegg; Rudolf Valenta Journal: Methods Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 3.608
Authors: Johannes Huss-Marp; Jan Gutermuth; Ina Schäffner; Ulf Darsow; Florian Pfab; Knut Brockow; Johannes Ring; Heidrun Behrendt; Thilo Jakob; Christoph Ahlgrim Journal: Allergo J Int Date: 2015-03-14
Authors: Giorgio Walter Canonica; Ignacio J Ansotegui; Ruby Pawankar; Peter Schmid-Grendelmeier; Marianne van Hage; Carlos E Baena-Cagnani; Giovanni Melioli; Carlos Nunes; Giovanni Passalacqua; Lanny Rosenwasser; Hugh Sampson; Joaquin Sastre; Jean Bousquet; Torsten Zuberbier Journal: World Allergy Organ J Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 4.084
Authors: Rubén Martínez-Aranguren; María T Lizaso; María J Goikoetxea; Blanca E García; Paula Cabrera-Freitag; Oswaldo Trellez; María L Sanz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 3.240