Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.

Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Molecules and Cells in Allergy - Original Paper

Editor's Choice - Free Access

Comparison of the Performance of Skin Prick, ImmunoCAP, and ISAC Tests in the Diagnosis of Patients with Allergy

Griffiths R.L.M. · El-Shanawany T. · Jolles S.R.A. · Selwood C. · Heaps A.G. · Carne E.M. · Williams P.E.

Author affiliations

Department of Immunology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK

Corresponding Author

Correspondence to: Dr. Paul E. Williams

Department of Immunology, University Hospital of Wales

Heath Park

Cardiff CF14 4XW (UK)

E-Mail williamspe@cardiff.ac.uk

Related Articles for ""

Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2017;172:215-223

Do you have an account?

Login Information

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.


Background: Allergy is diagnosed from typical symptoms, and tests are performed to incriminate the suspected precipitant. Skin prick tests (SPTs) are commonly performed, inexpensive, and give immediate results. Laboratory tests (ImmunoCAP) for serum allergen-specific IgE antibodies are usually performed more selectively. The immuno-solid phase allergen chip (ISAC) enables testing for specific IgE against multiple allergen components in a multiplex assay. Methods: We retrospectively analysed clinic letters, case notes, and laboratory results of 118 patients attending the National Adult Allergy Service at the University Hospital of Wales who presented diagnostic difficulty, to evaluate which testing strategy (SPT, ImmunoCAP, or ISAC) was the most appropriate to use to confirm the diagnosis in these complex patients, evaluated in a “real-life” clinical service setting. Results: In patients with nut allergy, the detection rates of SPTs (56%) and ISAC (65%) were lower than those of ImmunoCAP (71%). ISAC had a higher detection rate (88%) than ImmunoCAP (69%) or SPT (33%) in the diagnosis of oral allergy syndrome. ImmunoCAP test results identified all 9 patients with anaphylaxis due to wheat allergy (100%), whereas ISAC was positive in only 6 of these 9 (67%). Conclusions: In this difficult diagnostic group, the ImmunoCAP test should be the preferred single test for possible allergy to nuts, wheat, other specific foods, and anaphylaxis of any cause. In these conditions, SPT and ISAC tests give comparable results. The most useful single test for oral allergy syndrome is ISAC, and SPT should be the preferred test for latex allergy.

© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Molecules and Cells in Allergy - Original Paper

Received: January 09, 2017
Accepted: February 21, 2017
Published online: April 29, 2017
Issue release date: June 2017

Number of Print Pages: 9
Number of Figures: 3
Number of Tables: 1

ISSN: 1018-2438 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0097 (Online)

For additional information: http://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.