Comparison on the positive detection rate of allergen specific IgE measured with the systems between fluorescence enzyme immunoassay and western blot
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-4408.2021.03.012
- VernacularTitle:荧光酶联免疫法和免疫印迹法检测特异性IgE的阳性检出率比较分析
- Author:
Shiqing YANG
;
Li XIANG
;
Huijie HUANG
;
Yongge LIU
- From:
International Journal of Pediatrics
2021;48(3):195-201
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the difference on the positive detection rate of the main aeroallergens and food allergens specific IgE measured with the systems between fluorescence enzyme immunoassay(FEIA, referred to as ImmunoCAP system)and western blot(referred to as Allergy Screen system), in order to provide a basis for the rational application of methods and interpretation of the test results.Methods:The clinical information and sIgE test results data were collected from a total of 458 cases of allergic diseases from October 2017 to April 2019 in the outpatient clinic of Allergy Department in Beijing Children′s Hospital.All of the 458 cases were detected for a panel of common aeroallergens and food allergens sIgE level in their serum with the Allergy Screen system.Simultaneously, the above 141 cases were detected main aeroallergen and food allergen sIgE with ImmunoCAP system, while 303 cases only for aeroallergens and 14 cases only for food allergens.All of the cases were divided into three different phenotype groups according to the main target organ and diagnosis such as airway allergic disease group( N=293), skin allergic disease group( N=14)and multi-system allergic disease group( N=151). Meanwhile, three different age groups were referred to as <3 years old group( N=97), 3 to 6 years old group(3 years and 6 years included)( N=186)and >6 years old group( N=175). The same kinds of the allergens included in the two systems were house dust mite(HDM), cat dander, dog dander, egg white, milk, crab, shrimp, therefore data of sIgE to those seven allergens were compared. Results:In all the enrolled cases, the positive detection rate of HDM, egg white and milk sIgE detected by ImmunoCAP system were significantly higher than those by Allergy Screen system(30.6%, 36.1% and 43.2% vs 21.2%, 21.3% and 21.3%). Among the disease groups, the positive detection rate of HDM sIgE detected by ImmunoCAP system was significantly higher in the airway allergic disease group and multi-system allergic disease group than those by Allergy Screen system, respectively(33.7% and 24.6% vs 23.4% and 16.2%). The positive detection rate of egg white and milk sIgE detected by ImmunoCAP system in the multi-system allergic disease group was significantly higher than those by Allergy Screen system, respectively(47.6% and 47.6% vs 26.2% and 25.2%). There was no significant difference in the positive detection rate of cat dander, dog dander, crab and shrimp sIgE among the disease groups.The positive detection rate of HDM sIgE detected by ImmunoCAP system in all of the age groups were significantly higher than those by Allergy Screen system, respectively(14.9%, 26.9% and 42.3% vs 5.7%, 17.6% and 32.6%). The positive detection rate of cat dander sIgE detected by ImmunoCAP system in <3 years old group was significantly lower than that by Allergy Screen system(6.9% vs 16.1%). The positive detection rate of egg white sIgE detected by ImmunoCAP system in the <3 years old group and the 3 to 6 years old group were higher than those by Allergy Screen system, respectively(47.1% and 33.3% vs 32.4% and 15.0%). The difference in the positive detection rate of milk sIgE detected by these two methods in the <3 years old group and the 3 to 6 years old group was similar to the egg white.Conclusion:According to the analysis of seven kinds of major aeroallergen and food allergen sIgE results, there are differences between the two methods to detect HDM, cat dander, egg white and milk sIgE.It depends on the type of allergic disease and age.The positive detection rates of dog dander, crab, and shrimp sIgE detected by the two methods are consistent.In clinical application, comprehensive analysis should be made, testing methods should be selected rationally, and the results should be interpreted scientifically.
