THE FIRST FULLY AUTOMATED ALLERGY ANALYZER UNICAP - COMPARISON WITH IMMULITE FOR ALLERGY PANEL TESTING

Citation
Gmpj. Costongs et Bm. Bas, THE FIRST FULLY AUTOMATED ALLERGY ANALYZER UNICAP - COMPARISON WITH IMMULITE FOR ALLERGY PANEL TESTING, European journal of clinical chemistry and clinical biochemistry, 35(11), 1997, pp. 885-888
Citations number
6
ISSN journal
09394974
Volume
35
Issue
11
Year of publication
1997
Pages
885 - 888
Database
ISI
SICI code
0939-4974(1997)35:11<885:TFFAAA>2.0.ZU;2-K
Abstract
Automated immunoassay systems should be convenient to handle, flexible and give reliable results. To investigate the extent to which the Uni CAP System met the above requirements, compared with the IMMULITE Syst em, we compared the Phadiatop (UniCAP) and AlaTOP (IMMULITE) results o f 110 patients with positive clinical diagnoses for inhalant allergy. In addition, we compared food screening test results of 103 patients w ith a clinical positive diagnosis for food, and 110 test results of co ntrols with negative diagnosis for allergy. Phadiatop had a sensitivit y of 96% and a specificity of 92%. AlaTOP had a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 94%. For food screening the results were: 75% sensit ivity and 82% specificity for fx5 (UniCAP) and 63% sensitivity and 71% specificity for fp5 (IMMULITE). Furthermore, those samples for which the test results which were not in concordance with the clinical diagn osis were rested with the follow-up panel of the different screening t ests. For the AlaTOP follow-up we had to use the DPC microplate System (Milenia), because single allergen testing is not yet possible on the IMMULITE System. With regard to sensitivity, the UniCAP specific inha lant allergen tests and the original Phadiatop results showed closer a greement with each other than did the Milenia specific allergen result s with the AlaTOP. The specificity of the single inhalant allergen tes ts was the same for both systems. For food allergy testing the UniCAP System shows closer agreement between the screening and the follow-up results than does the IMMULITE. The hands on time for loading 44 sampl es was practically the same for both systems, but for the follow-up te sts the Milenia System is used next to the IMMULITE. Therefore from a logistical point of view the UniCAP System is more convenient. From th ese results we conclude that both logistically and clinically UniCAP s eems to meet our requirements better than the IMMULITE.