Suppr超能文献

两种体外检测方法(RAST和CAP)在用于诊断对蜜蜂或黄蜂毒液过敏反应时的比较。与病史及皮肤试验的相关性。

Comparison of two in vitro assays, RAST and CAP, when applied to the diagnosis of anaphylactic reactions to honeybee or yellow jacket venoms. Correlation with history and skin tests.

作者信息

Leimgruber A, Lantin J P, Frei P C

机构信息

Division of Immunology and Allergy, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.

出版信息

Allergy. 1993 Aug;48(6):415-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1993.tb00739.x.

Abstract

We compared the results obtained with a new specific IgE assay (Pharmacia CAP system) to those of RAST and intradermal skin tests (ST) performed in 87 patients with a history of generalized reaction to honeybee or yellow jacket venom. When CAP and RAST were compared with positive ST performed with honeybee venom, CAP sensitivity was not significantly higher (98%) than that of RAST (95%). When yellow jacket venom was tested, CAP sensitivity (93%) was clearly superior to that of RAST (40%). When we compared the specificities of RAST and CAP to bee venom, RAST was positive in 21% of the 24 subjects with negative ST, and CAP in 42%. Among the 29 patients with negative ST to yellow jacket venom, RAST was positive in 17% and CAP in 28%. These results do not reflect a lower specificity of CAP, because CAP positivities could be inhibited in vitro, and because, in three patients with a history of anaphylactic reaction (one to honeybee, two to yellow jacket), CAP was the only positive test confirming the clinical observation. Among the 53 patients who were able to identify the offending insect (honeybee, 31; yellow jacket, 22), the cause of the anaphylactic reaction was usually confirmed by ST and CAP: honeybee venom 97% for both ST and CAP; yellow jacket venom 82% for ST, 86% for CAP. This was not the case for RAST, which confirmed honeybee venom hypersensitivity in 87% and yellow jacket venom hypersensitivity in only 41%. Thus, CAP is both more sensitive and more rapid than RAST, without losing specificity.

摘要

我们将一种新的特异性IgE检测方法(Pharmacia CAP系统)所得结果与87例有蜜蜂或黄蜂毒液全身性反应病史患者的RAST及皮内皮肤试验(ST)结果进行了比较。当将CAP和RAST与用蜜蜂毒液进行的阳性ST相比较时,CAP的敏感性(98%)并不显著高于RAST(95%)。当检测黄蜂毒液时,CAP的敏感性(93%)明显优于RAST(40%)。当我们比较RAST和CAP对蜜蜂毒液的特异性时,在24例ST阴性的受试者中,RAST有21%呈阳性,而CAP为42%。在29例对黄蜂毒液ST阴性的患者中,RAST有17%呈阳性,CAP有28%呈阳性。这些结果并不反映CAP的特异性较低,因为CAP阳性反应可在体外被抑制,而且在3例有过敏反应病史的患者中(1例对蜜蜂,2例对黄蜂),CAP是唯一呈阳性的检测方法,证实了临床观察结果。在53例能够识别肇事昆虫的患者中(蜜蜂,31例;黄蜂,22例),过敏反应的病因通常通过ST和CAP得以证实:对于蜜蜂毒液,ST和CAP均为97%;对于黄蜂毒液,ST为82%,CAP为86%。RAST的情况并非如此,它证实蜜蜂毒液过敏的比例为87%,而证实黄蜂毒液过敏的比例仅为41%。因此,CAP比RAST更敏感、更快速,且不失特异性。

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