Suppr超能文献

诊断工具的结果不一致,妨碍了对蜜蜂和胡蜂毒液过敏的区分。

Inconsistent results of diagnostic tools hamper the differentiation between bee and vespid venom allergy.

机构信息

Division of Environmental Dermatology and Venerology, Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20842. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020842. Epub 2011 Jun 15.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Double sensitization (DS) to bee and vespid venom is frequently observed in the diagnosis of hymenoptera venom allergy, but clinically relevant DS is rare. Therefore it is sophisticated to choose the relevant venom for specific immunotherapy and overtreatment with both venoms may occur. We aimed to compare currently available routine diagnostic tests as well as experimental tests to identify the most accurate diagnostic tool.

METHODS

117 patients with a history of a bee or vespid allergy were included in the study. Initially, IgE determination by the ImmunoCAP, by the Immulite, and by the ADVIA Centaur, as well as the intradermal test (IDT) and the basophil activation test (BAT) were performed. In 72 CAP double positive patients, individual IgE patterns were determined by western blot inhibition and component resolved diagnosis (CRD) with rApi m 1, nVes v 1, and nVes v 5.

RESULTS

Among 117 patients, DS was observed in 63.7% by the Immulite, in 61.5% by the CAP, in 47.9% by the IDT, in 20.5% by the ADVIA, and in 17.1% by the BAT. In CAP double positive patients, western blot inhibition revealed CCD-based DS in 50.8%, and the CRD showed 41.7% of patients with true DS. Generally, agreement between the tests was only fair and inconsistent results were common.

CONCLUSION

BAT, CRD, and ADVIA showed a low rate of DS. However, the rate of DS is higher than expected by personal history, indicating that the matter of clinical relevance is still not solved even by novel tests. Furthermore, the lack of agreement between these tests makes it difficult to distinguish between bee and vespid venom allergy. At present, no routinely employed test can be regarded as gold standard to find the clinically relevant sensitization.

摘要

背景

在诊断膜翅目毒液过敏时,经常观察到对蜜蜂和胡蜂毒液的双重敏感(DS),但临床相关的 DS 很少见。因此,选择相关毒液进行特异性免疫治疗非常复杂,并且可能会出现两种毒液的过度治疗。我们旨在比较目前可用的常规诊断测试和实验测试,以确定最准确的诊断工具。

方法

本研究纳入了 117 例有蜜蜂或胡蜂过敏史的患者。最初,通过 ImmunoCAP、Immulite 和 ADVIA Centaur 进行 IgE 测定,以及皮内试验(IDT)和嗜碱性粒细胞活化试验(BAT)。在 72 例 CAP 双重阳性患者中,通过 Western blot 抑制和基于 rApi m 1、nVes v 1 和 nVes v 5 的成分分辨诊断(CRD)确定个体 IgE 模式。

结果

在 117 例患者中,Immulite 检测到 63.7%的 DS,CAP 检测到 61.5%,IDT 检测到 47.9%,ADVIA 检测到 20.5%,BAT 检测到 17.1%。在 CAP 双重阳性患者中,Western blot 抑制显示基于 CCD 的 DS 占 50.8%,CRD 显示 41.7%的患者存在真正的 DS。一般来说,这些测试之间的一致性仅为中等,并且经常出现不一致的结果。

结论

BAT、CRD 和 ADVIA 显示 DS 发生率较低。然而,DS 的发生率高于预期,这表明即使使用新的测试,临床相关问题仍未得到解决。此外,这些测试之间缺乏一致性使得难以区分蜜蜂和胡蜂毒液过敏。目前,没有一种常规使用的测试可以被视为发现临床相关致敏的金标准。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/458d/3115969/a440bcb976c8/pone.0020842.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验