Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

DIAGNOSTIC VALUE OF RADIOALLERGOSORBENT (RAST) TEST IN ALLERGIC DISEASES

Journal Name:

  • İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2004

Key Words:

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The diagnosis of allergic disease relies on compiete clinical history and physical cxaminatİon. In vitro tesîs for ailergen-specific antibodies can be performed as primary confirmatory tcsts to strengthen the diagnosis. RAST is a noncompedtive, hcteregenous, soîid-phase immunoradio-metrİc assay. It is indicated for paticnts who havc severe cutaneous disease, dermatographism, cannot discontinue medications that interfere with skin testing, or have experieııced severe anaphyîaxis. Disadvantages of in vitro testing are inereased cost, deiays in providİng results, and iaboratory reliabilİty. Sclection of a reliable laboratory is fundamentaî. Although conven-tİonal RAST is less sensitive than skin testing, specific IgE measurements correlate well wilh the results of skin testing and the clinical picture. Second generation of RAST- typc assays arc more quantitative, reproducıble and automated than the older ones and thus more diagnosti-cally competitive with their in vivo pnneture skin test counterparts. Specific IgE leveis that are measured with different commercial assays cannot be considered interehangeable or equiva-İent. For food and respiratory allergy, both serum IgE antibody performed by second generation RAST assays and prick skin test results are considered equivalently acceptable. In latex allergy, the diagnostic sensİtivity of latex-specific IgE antibody assays has bcen shown to bc İnadequate and thus can be used as complcmcntary to the prick skin test results. Maximal clinical sensitivity is needed for evaluating patients with suspected venom and drug allergies be-cause of the potential life-lhreatening systemic reactions.In conelusion, IgE antibody scroiogy test should bc reserved as a confirmatory test when intra-dermal skin test cannot be performed or contradictory with the history.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-diagnostic-value-radioallergosorbent-rast-test-allergic-diseases.pdf
  • 1
37-42
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Boyano Martinez T, Garcia-Ara J, Diaz-Pena M, Mıınoz FM, Sanchez Garcia G, Esteban MM: Vaiidity of specific IgE antibodies in children with egg aliergy. Clin Exp Allergy 2001; 31:1464.
2. HamiUon RG, Adkinson NF: Assessmeııt and modula-tion of (he immune response. Clinical laboratory assessment of IgE-depcndcnt hypersensitivity. J Allergy and Clinlmmunol 2003; 111:687.
3. Hamilton RG, Peterson EL, Ownby DR: Clinical and la-boralory-based methods in the diagnosis of nalural rub¬ber Iatcx allergy. J Ailergy Clin Immunol 2002; 110: 547.
4. Hamilton RG: Assesment of human allergic diseases. in: Rich RR, Fleischer TA, Shearer WT, Kotzin BL, Schoeder HW (eds). Clinical Immunology: Principles and praetice,: Mosby, London, 2nd edition 2001; 124.
5. Hamilton RG: Laboratory (in vitro) analyses. İn: Leımg
DYM, Sampson HA, Geha RS, Szefler SJ (eds). Pediat-ric Allergy: Principles and Praetice, Mosby 2003; 233.
6. Jolıansson SGO: Müestones in understanding allergy and its diagnosis, Clin Exp A1İ Rcv 2002; 2:2.
7. Joint Task Force on Praetice Parameters, represenüng the American Academy of Allergy, Asttıma and Immunology, the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, and the Joint Coımcİl of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. Stinging insect hypersensitivity: a praetice parameter. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999; 103: 964.
8. Lasley MV, Shapiro GG: Testing for ailergy. Pediatrics in review 2000; 21:39.
9. Moııti G, Muratore MC, Peltran A, Bonfantc G, Silvestro L, Oggero R, Mussa GC: High incidence of adverse reactions to egg challenge on first known exposure in young atopic dermatitis children: predictive value of skin prick test and radioallergosorbent test to egg proteiııs. Clin Exp Allergy 2002; 32:1515.
S0. Paganelli R, Ansotcguş IJ, Sastre J, Lange CE, Roovers MH, de Groot H, Lindhoim NB, Ewan PW: Specific IgE antibodies in the diagnosis of atopic disease. Clinical evaluation of a new in vitro system, UniCAP, in six Eu-ropean aliergy elinics. Allergy 1998; 53:763.
11. Pastoreilo EA, Incorvia C, Ortolani C, Bonini S, Canoni-ca GW, Romagnani S, Tursi A, Zanussi C: Studies on the relationship betvveen the level of specific IgE antibodies and the clinical expression of allergy: I. Dcfinition of leveis distinguishing patients with symptomatic from patients with asymptomatic ailergy to common aeroallcr-gens. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1995; 96:580.
12. Sampson HA, Ho DG: Relationship between food-spe-cific IgE concentrations and the risk of positive food chailenges in children and adolescents. J Aliergy Clin Immunol 1997; 100:444.
13. Sampson HA: Utilily of food-specific İgE concentrations in predieting symptomatic food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2000; 107:891.
14. Schafer T, Hoelscher B, Adam H, Ring J, Wİchmann H-E, Heinrich J: Hay fever and predictive value of prick test and specific IgE antibodies: A prospeetive study in children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2003; 14:120.
15. Smart BA: Comprchensive care in the aliergy / aslhma office. Allergy testing using in vivo and in vitro teeh-niques. Immunol Allergy Clin of North Am 1999; 19:35.
16. Williams PB, Siegel C, Portnoy J. Efficaey of a single diagnostic test for sensitization to common inhalant allergens. Ann Aliergy Asthma Immunol 2001; 86:196.
17. Wood RA, Phipatanakul W, Hamilton RG, Eggleston PA: A comparison of skin prick test, intradermal skin tests, and RASTs in the diagnosis of cat allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999; 103:773.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com