Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation of Bird-Specific IgG AntibodiesLopata A.L.a · Schinkel M.a · Potter P.C.b · Jeebhay M.F.c · Hashemi C.d · Johansson S.G.O.d · van Hage-Hamsten M.d
aDivision of Immunology, Groote Schuur Hospital, National Health Laboratory Services, University of Cape Town and bAllergology Unit, Groote Schuur Hospital and cOccupational and Environmental Health Research Unit, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; dDepartment of Medicine, Unit of Clinical Immunology and Allergy, Karolinska University Hospital and Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Background: Exposure to organic dust produced by birds often gives rise to an immune response, e.g. IgG antibodies, but intense exposure can lead to high concentrations of IgG antibodies and the development of allergic alveolitis, often known as ‘bird fancier’s lung’. The aim of this study was to establish the distribution of bird-specific IgG antibodies in exposed and nonexposed individuals and compare a nonquantitative and quantitative method in evaluating raised levels of IgG antibodies. Methods: Sera were collected in Sweden and South Africa and levels of IgG antibodies specific to pigeon, budgerigar and parrot antigens were quantified using the UniCAP system. Results were compared to the precipitation in gel assay. The IgG antibody values of symptomatic patients without precipitating antibodies (non-PP group; n = 51) and patients with precipitating antibodies (PP group; n = 34) were analyzed and compared to nonexposed asymptomatic blood donors (BD group; n = 73) and environmentally exposed pigeon breeders (n = 11). Results: The IgG antibody response of the analyzed groups in Sweden and South Africa did not vary significantly from each other. IgG antibody responses were the strongest to pigeon antigens with clear increased IgG antibody levels in the PP group [geometric mean (GM) 603 mg/l] compared to the non-PP (GM 6.9 mg/l) and BD group (GM 5.0 mg/l). Threshold values, calculated as the GM value from the BD group plus 3 standard deviations (99% confidence interval), were 9.8, 10.8 and 10.0 mg/l for pigeons, budgerigars and parrots, respectively. Comparison of the two methods resulted in a good concordance with a level of agreement of 94.1% (kappa statistic = 0.83). Conclusions: The UniCAP system for the detection of bird-specific IgG antibodies is a highly reproducible, generally available, quantitative method for routine diagnostic testing and monitoring of exposed subjects with a very high level of agreement to the precipitating gel assay.
© 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: 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.