Comparison of conventional and component-resolved diagnostics by two different methods (Advia-Centaur/Microarray-ISAC) in pollen allergy.

BACKGROUND

Component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) has recently been introduced into clinical allergology.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the contribution that this new diagnostic technique makes to conventional diagnosis in patients with pollen allergy, comparing CRD with conventional technologies, and to compare 2 CRD methods, Advia-Centaur and Microarray-ISAC.

METHODS

Serum samples from 120 pollen-allergic patients were obtained. Immunoglobulin (Ig) E to total extracts (CAP System) and individual allergens using both CRD methods were determined.

RESULTS

The 3 diagnostic methods were in agreement in 62.5% of cases. In 30%, the CRD modified the conventional diagnosis either by detecting new relevant sensitizations (mainly to Olea) or by ruling out clinically irrelevant sensitizations caused by panallergens. The main differences between the 2 CRD methods were the deficiency in the ISAC version we used (ISAC-CRD-89) to detect sensitizations to Salsola and Plantago and that Advia-Centaur did not detect sensitizations to cypress. For all allergens except for Par j 1, a significant association in the frequency of sensitization was seen with the 2 CRD techniques and good agreement when comparing the results of the 2 methods in all cases. Significant correlation was found in the concentration of specific IgE in the 2 techniques for the most prevalent allergens in our setting. The results of the different profilins analyzed using Microarray-ISAC were superimposable although somewhat lower in the case of Phl p 12.

CONCLUSIONS

Component-resolved diagnostics modified the conventional diagnosis in 30% of cases. The results from the 2 CRD methods showed good agreement and correlation for most allergens.