Diagnosis of food allergy by the radioallergosorbent test

Chua, Yan; Bremner, Karen E.; Llobet, J.L.; Kokubu, Hiraku; Collins-Williams, C

doi:10.1016/0091-6749(76)90191-3

Cited by 40 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[79] and [80] RAST assays with crude allergen extracts allowed, for the first time, estimation of sIgE serum concentrations, [81], [82] and [83] but the accuracy of in vitro sIgE determinations is highly variable. [54], [84] and [85] This is, for example, due to lacking standardization of the test agents, as well as to instability of some of the respective allergenic proteins. [ 86 In general, the universal problem in food allergy testing (ie, relatively high sensitivity with overall low specificity) also applies for quantitative sIgE determinations (see skin testing section).…”

Section: Quantification Of Ige Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential, pitfalls, and prospects of food allergy diagnostics with recombinant allergens or synthetic sequential epitopes

Steckelbroeck¹,

Ballmer‐Weber²,

Vieths³

2008

Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to critically review developments in food allergy diagnostics with regard to the verification of specific IgE antibodies and the identification of the responsible allergens. Results of IgE-binding tests with food extracts are hampered by cross-reactive proteins, low-quality test agents, or both. Specificity can be increased by defining adequate cutoff values, whereas sensitivity can be improved by using high-quality test agents. IgE-binding tests with purified allergens enabled reliable quantification of allergen-specific IgE titers, with higher levels found in individuals with food allergy compared with individuals without food allergy. However, the overlap in individual test reactivity between allergic and nonallergic subjects complicates interpretation. Recombinant allergens and synthetic sequential epitopes enabled detection of sensitization profiles, with IgE specific to several allergens and substructures now being suggested as markers of severity, persistence, or both. However, high-power quantitative studies with larger numbers of patients are required to confirm these markers. This article aims to critically review developments in food allergy diagnostics with regard to the verification of specific IgE antibodies and the identification of the responsible allergens. Results of IgE-binding tests with food extracts are hampered by cross-reactive proteins, low-quality test agents, or both. Specificity can be increased by defining adequate cutoff values, whereas sensitivity can be improved by using high-quality test agents. IgE-binding tests with purified allergens enabled reliable quantification of allergen-specific IgE titers, with higher levels found in individuals with food allergy compared with individuals without food allergy. However, the overlap in individual test reactivity between allergic and nonallergic subjects complicates interpretation. Recombinant allergens and synthetic sequential epitopes enabled detection of sensitization profiles, with IgE specific to several allergens and substructures now being suggested as markers of severity, persistence, or both.However, high-power quantitative studies with larger numbers of patients are required to confirm these markers. IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated syndromes, where IgE-mediated manifestations are responsible for the majority of food-induced, immediate-type, immune-mediated hypersensitivity reactions. 3 The development of an IgE-mediated response to food requires a series of molecular and cellular interactions, which involve antigenpresenting cells, T lymphocytes, and B lymphocytes. [4] and [5] Depending on the route of sensitization, food allergy is the result of either genuine reactivity to comestibles through the gastrointestinal tract (class I food allergens) or secondary sensitization to cross-reactive food allergens as a consequence of the initial reactivity to homologous pollen-related allergens (class II food allergens). [6] and [7] The majority of class I food allergens are heat stable and resistan...

show abstract

Section: Quantification Of Ige Antibodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential, pitfalls, and prospects of food allergy diagnostics with recombinant allergens or synthetic sequential epitopes

Steckelbroeck¹,

Ballmer‐Weber²,

Vieths³

2008

Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Atopic dermatitis (AD), a major health concern in children, is characterized by a multifactorial pathogenesis in which a significant role is played by foods, especially in infants (1). In addition, both diagnosis and treatment are difficult since the much in vogue diagnostic items, SPT and RAST yield varying results in terms of sensitivity, specificity, predicted positive and negative values (2)(3)(4)(5). The diagnosis of FArelated AD relies on controlled challenge test.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Personal experience in the diagnostic procedures in children with atopic dermatitis and food allergy

Meglio¹,

Giampietro²,

Farinella³

et al. 1989

Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Most of the earlier studies were based on CH for diagnosis of food allergy and the concordance found with SPT and/or RAST was variable in relation to the type of CH (unequivocal, convincing, possible, doubtful) and to the type of symptoms (immediate or delayed) (2,9,10,29,32). Most of the earlier studies were based on CH for diagnosis of food allergy and the concordance found with SPT and/or RAST was variable in relation to the type of CH (unequivocal, convincing, possible, doubtful) and to the type of symptoms (immediate or delayed) (2,9,10,29,32).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The predictive value of SPT and RAST depends largely upon the criteria used for the diagnosis of food-induced AD. Most of the earlier studies were based on CH for diagnosis of food allergy and the concordance found with SPT and/or RAST was variable in relation to the type of CH (unequivocal, convincing, possible, doubtful) and to the type of symptoms (immediate or delayed) (2,9,10,29,32).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%