Diagnostic tests for human allergic disease

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: The diagnosis of human allergic disease begins with a thorough clinical history and physical examination. Once a temporal relationship has been identified between a patient's history of allergic symptoms and a defined allergen exposure, confirmatory analyses for IgE antibody involving skin or blood testing are performed to verify sensitization. Debate continues over the relative diagnostic utility of the in vivo and in vitro measures of IgE antibody. Objective: This overview examines the strengths and limitations of primary diagnostic confirmatory methods for in vivo detection (skin test, provocation test) and in vitro quantification of IgE antibody. Methods: A literature review was performed to examine diagnostic performance characteristics and variables that influence the accuracy of IgE antibody assays. Discussion: The clinical history and both in vivo and in vitro measures of IgE antibody are subject to variability and potential patient, clinician and technician-related bias. As such, in the absence of an absolute clinical history-based gold standard for defining the presence of allergic disease, the relative diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity) of in vivo versus in vitro assays of IgE antibody cannot be effectively determined. The review examines which allergic disease states and allergen specificities allow both groups of IgE antibody assays to produce comparable qualitative data for assessing the state of allergic sensitization. Skin testing has experienced few recent technological innovations, whereas an explosion has occurred in the improved performance (analytical sensitivity and specificity) of in vitro assays and enhanced quality of reagents for IgE antibody quantification. This review discusses the impact of point of care-testing assays, microarrays, the use of native and recombinant allergen molecules, automation, and disease prediction algorithms and the 2008 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Guideline on IgE antibody methods, on the diagnosis of human allergic disease.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1123-1135
Number of pages13
JournalExpert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics
Volume2
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2008

Fingerprint

Routine Diagnostic Tests
Antibodies
Immunoglobulin E
Assays
Allergens
Skin
Testing
Inventions
Sensitivity and Specificity
Explosions
Automation
Microarrays
Skin Tests
Physical Examination
Blood
Innovation
In Vitro Techniques
Guidelines
Molecules

Keywords

  • Allergic disease
  • Automation
  • Diagnosis
  • IgE
  • Microarrays
  • Provocation testing
  • Serology
  • Skin testing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Medicine(all)
  • Biochemistry, medical
  • Molecular Medicine

Cite this

Diagnostic tests for human allergic disease. / Hamilton, Robert G.

In: Expert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics, Vol. 2, No. 10, 10.2008, p. 1123-1135.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5ce4196a4013483c9c33f20dec620d84,
title = "Diagnostic tests for human allergic disease",
abstract = "Background: The diagnosis of human allergic disease begins with a thorough clinical history and physical examination. Once a temporal relationship has been identified between a patient's history of allergic symptoms and a defined allergen exposure, confirmatory analyses for IgE antibody involving skin or blood testing are performed to verify sensitization. Debate continues over the relative diagnostic utility of the in vivo and in vitro measures of IgE antibody. Objective: This overview examines the strengths and limitations of primary diagnostic confirmatory methods for in vivo detection (skin test, provocation test) and in vitro quantification of IgE antibody. Methods: A literature review was performed to examine diagnostic performance characteristics and variables that influence the accuracy of IgE antibody assays. Discussion: The clinical history and both in vivo and in vitro measures of IgE antibody are subject to variability and potential patient, clinician and technician-related bias. As such, in the absence of an absolute clinical history-based gold standard for defining the presence of allergic disease, the relative diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity) of in vivo versus in vitro assays of IgE antibody cannot be effectively determined. The review examines which allergic disease states and allergen specificities allow both groups of IgE antibody assays to produce comparable qualitative data for assessing the state of allergic sensitization. Skin testing has experienced few recent technological innovations, whereas an explosion has occurred in the improved performance (analytical sensitivity and specificity) of in vitro assays and enhanced quality of reagents for IgE antibody quantification. This review discusses the impact of point of care-testing assays, microarrays, the use of native and recombinant allergen molecules, automation, and disease prediction algorithms and the 2008 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Guideline on IgE antibody methods, on the diagnosis of human allergic disease.",
keywords = "Allergic disease, Automation, Diagnosis, IgE, Microarrays, Provocation testing, Serology, Skin testing",
author = "Hamilton, {Robert G}",
year = "2008",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1517/17530059.2.10.1123",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "1123--1135",
journal = "Expert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics",
issn = "1753-0059",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnostic tests for human allergic disease

AU - Hamilton, Robert G

PY - 2008/10

Y1 - 2008/10

N2 - Background: The diagnosis of human allergic disease begins with a thorough clinical history and physical examination. Once a temporal relationship has been identified between a patient's history of allergic symptoms and a defined allergen exposure, confirmatory analyses for IgE antibody involving skin or blood testing are performed to verify sensitization. Debate continues over the relative diagnostic utility of the in vivo and in vitro measures of IgE antibody. Objective: This overview examines the strengths and limitations of primary diagnostic confirmatory methods for in vivo detection (skin test, provocation test) and in vitro quantification of IgE antibody. Methods: A literature review was performed to examine diagnostic performance characteristics and variables that influence the accuracy of IgE antibody assays. Discussion: The clinical history and both in vivo and in vitro measures of IgE antibody are subject to variability and potential patient, clinician and technician-related bias. As such, in the absence of an absolute clinical history-based gold standard for defining the presence of allergic disease, the relative diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity) of in vivo versus in vitro assays of IgE antibody cannot be effectively determined. The review examines which allergic disease states and allergen specificities allow both groups of IgE antibody assays to produce comparable qualitative data for assessing the state of allergic sensitization. Skin testing has experienced few recent technological innovations, whereas an explosion has occurred in the improved performance (analytical sensitivity and specificity) of in vitro assays and enhanced quality of reagents for IgE antibody quantification. This review discusses the impact of point of care-testing assays, microarrays, the use of native and recombinant allergen molecules, automation, and disease prediction algorithms and the 2008 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Guideline on IgE antibody methods, on the diagnosis of human allergic disease.

AB - Background: The diagnosis of human allergic disease begins with a thorough clinical history and physical examination. Once a temporal relationship has been identified between a patient's history of allergic symptoms and a defined allergen exposure, confirmatory analyses for IgE antibody involving skin or blood testing are performed to verify sensitization. Debate continues over the relative diagnostic utility of the in vivo and in vitro measures of IgE antibody. Objective: This overview examines the strengths and limitations of primary diagnostic confirmatory methods for in vivo detection (skin test, provocation test) and in vitro quantification of IgE antibody. Methods: A literature review was performed to examine diagnostic performance characteristics and variables that influence the accuracy of IgE antibody assays. Discussion: The clinical history and both in vivo and in vitro measures of IgE antibody are subject to variability and potential patient, clinician and technician-related bias. As such, in the absence of an absolute clinical history-based gold standard for defining the presence of allergic disease, the relative diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity) of in vivo versus in vitro assays of IgE antibody cannot be effectively determined. The review examines which allergic disease states and allergen specificities allow both groups of IgE antibody assays to produce comparable qualitative data for assessing the state of allergic sensitization. Skin testing has experienced few recent technological innovations, whereas an explosion has occurred in the improved performance (analytical sensitivity and specificity) of in vitro assays and enhanced quality of reagents for IgE antibody quantification. This review discusses the impact of point of care-testing assays, microarrays, the use of native and recombinant allergen molecules, automation, and disease prediction algorithms and the 2008 Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute Guideline on IgE antibody methods, on the diagnosis of human allergic disease.

KW - Allergic disease

KW - Automation

KW - Diagnosis

KW - IgE

KW - Microarrays

KW - Provocation testing

KW - Serology

KW - Skin testing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77953377768&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77953377768&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1517/17530059.2.10.1123

DO - 10.1517/17530059.2.10.1123

M3 - Article

VL - 2

SP - 1123

EP - 1135

JO - Expert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics

JF - Expert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics

SN - 1753-0059

IS - 10

ER -