International Archives of Allergy and Immunology
Original Paper
Concordance of Lateral Flow and Skin Prick Tests in the Assessment of Allergen Sensitisation in the Epidemiological Field in ChildrenSanchez-Bahillo M.a, c · Garcia-Marcos L.b–d · Martinez-Torres A.E.c · Perez-Fernandez V.b · Sanchez-Solis M.b, caHealth Education and Research Foundation, Murcia Region (FFIS), bDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Murcia, cPaediatric Pulmonology and Allergy Units, Arrixaca University Children’s Hospital Murcia, and dCIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Murcia, Spain
|
|
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Article / Publication Details
Received: April 21, 2009
Accepted: August 04, 2009
Published online: March 03, 2010
Issue release date: July 2010
Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 2
ISSN: 1018-2438 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0097 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/IAA
Abstract
Background: A new lateral flow test (LFT) for office use provides information about sensitisation to common allergens. Concordance between LFT and skin-prick test (SPT) has not been assessed in epidemiological studies. The aim of this study is to determine LFT-SPT concordance in this field. Methods: Plasma samples (n = 270) from children aged 9–12 years previously SPT tested were used for the analysis. We selected 180 samples from children SPT positive to any of the 6 allergens which were common to SPT and LFT (cat, birch, timothy-grass, olive, pellitoryand Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus), and 90 samples from children SPT negative. The intensity of the LFT colour line which indicates a positive reaction was rated from 0 to 4. Results: Only results on cat, olive and D. pteronyssinus were analysed, as only these had an acceptable number of individuals. When atopy was defined as at least 1 wheal with a mean diameter ≧3 mm, agreement was excellent (Cohen’s ĸ = 0.81) when a lightly visible line was considered positive in the LFT, and dropped substantially (Cohen’s ĸ = 0.68) when this value of LFT was considered negative. The correlation between the SPT wheal diameter and the intensity of the LFT line was 0.71 for cat, 0.81 for olive and 0.78 for D. pteronyssinus.Conclusions: As compared to SPT, LFT is a reliable method to screen for sensitisation to cat dander, olive pollen and D. pteronyssinus in the epidemiological field among schoolchildren. There is a good correlation between the SPT wheal diameter and the intensity of the LFT line.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
Related Articles:
References
- Weiland SK, Bjorksten B, Brunekreef B, Cookson WO, von Mutius E, Strachan DP: Phase II of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC II): rationale and methods. Eur Respir J 2004;24:406–412.
- Diaz-Vazquez C, Torregrosa-Bertet MJ, Carvajal-Uruena I, Cano-Garcinuno A, Fos-Escriva E, Garcia-Gallego A, Lopez-Cacho F, Monzon-Fueyo MC, Perez-Porcuna XM, Ridao-Redondo ML: Accuracy of ImmunoCAP® Rapid in the diagnosis of allergic sensitization in children between 1 and 14 years with recurrent wheezing: the IReNE study. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2009;20:601–609.
- Garcia-Marcos L, Castro-Rodriguez JA, Suarez-Varela MM, Garrido JB, Hernandez GG, Gimeno AM, Gonzalez AL, Ruiz TR, Torres AM: A different pattern of risk factors for atopic and non-atopic wheezing in 9–12-year-old children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2005;16:471–477.
- Garcia-Marcos L, Sanchez-Solis M, Martinez-Torres AE, Lucas Moreno JM, Hernando Sastre V: Phadiatop™ compared to skin-prick test as a tool for diagnosing atopy in epidemiological studies in schoolchildren. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2007;18:240–244.
- Nepper-Christensen S, Backer V, DuBuske LM, Nolte H: In vitro diagnostic evaluation of patients with inhalant allergies: summary of probability outcomes comparing results of CLA- and CAP-specific immunoglobulin E test systems. Allergy Asthma Proc 2003;24:253–258.
- Wohrl S, Vigl K, Zehetmayer S, Hiller R, Jarisch R, Prinz M, Stingl G, Kopp T: The performance of a component-based allergen-microarray in clinical practice. Allergy 2006;61:633–639.
- Ewan PW, Coote D: Evaluation of a capsulated hydrophilic carrier polymer (the ImmunoCAP) for measurement of specific IgE antibodies. Allergy 1990;45:22–29.
- Alonso R, Botey J, Pena JM, Eseverri JL, Marin A, Ras RM: Specific IgE determination using the CAP system: comparative evaluation with RAST. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 1995;5:156–160.
- Kam KL, Hsieh KH: Comparison of three in vitro assays for serum IgE with skin testing in asthmatic children. Ann Allergy 1994;73:329–336.
- Kleine-Tebbe J, Eickholt M, Gatjen M, Brunnee T, O’Connor A, Kunkel G: Comparison between MAGIC. Clin Exp Allergy 1992;22:475–484.
- Nolte H, DuBuske LM: Performance characteristics of a new automated enzyme immunoassay for the measurement of allergen-specific IgE: summary of the probability outcomes comparing results of allergen skin testing to results obtained with the HYTEC system and CAP system. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1997;79:27–34.
- Gleeson M, Cripps AW, Hensley MJ, Wlodarczyk JH, Henry RL, Clancy RL: A clinical evaluation in children of the Pharmacia ImmunoCAP system for inhalant allergens. Clin Exp Allergy 1996;26:697–702.
- Tsay A, Williams L, Mitchell EB, Chapman MD: A rapid test for detection of mite allergens in homes. Clin Exp Allergy 2002;32:1596–1601.
- Polzius R, Wuske T, Mahn J: Wipe test for the detection of indoor allergens. Allergy 2002;57:143–145.
Article / Publication Details
Received: April 21, 2009
Accepted: August 04, 2009
Published online: March 03, 2010
Issue release date: July 2010
Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 2
ISSN: 1018-2438 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0097 (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/IAA
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
Get Permission
PubMed ID
