Comparison of the Performance of Skin Prick, ImmunoCAP, and ISAC Tests in the Diagnosis of Patients with Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Allergy is diagnosed from typical symptoms, and tests are performed to incriminate the suspected precipitant. Skin prick tests (SPTs) are commonly performed, inexpensive, and give immediate results. Laboratory tests (ImmunoCAP) for serum allergen-specific IgE antibodies are usually performed more selectively. The immuno-solid phase allergen chip (ISAC) enables testing for specific IgE against multiple allergen components in a multiplex assay. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed clinic letters, case notes, and laboratory results of 118 patients attending the National Adult Allergy Service at the University Hospital of Wales who presented diagnostic difficulty, to evaluate which testing strategy (SPT, ImmunoCAP, or ISAC) was the most appropriate to use to confirm the diagnosis in these complex patients, evaluated in a "real-life" clinical service setting. RESULTS: In patients with nut allergy, the detection rates of SPTs (56%) and ISAC (65%) were lower than those of ImmunoCAP (71%). ISAC had a higher detection rate (88%) than ImmunoCAP (69%) or SPT (33%) in the diagnosis of oral allergy syndrome. ImmunoCAP test results identified all 9 patients with anaphylaxis due to wheat allergy (100%), whereas ISAC was positive in only 6 of these 9 (67%). CONCLUSIONS: In this difficult diagnostic group, the ImmunoCAP test should be the preferred single test for possible allergy to nuts, wheat, other specific foods, and anaphylaxis of any cause. In these conditions, SPT and ISAC tests give comparable results. The most useful single test for oral allergy syndrome is ISAC, and SPT should be the preferred test for latex allergy.

The utility of the ISAC allergen array in the investigation of idiopathic anaphylaxis.

A diagnosis of idiopathic anaphylaxis following a detailed clinical assessment remains very challenging for patients and clinicians. Risk reduction strategies such as allergen avoidance are not possible. This study investigated whether the (ISAC) allergen array with 103 allergens would add diagnostic value in patients with idiopathic anaphylaxis. We extended the specific immunoglobulin (Ig)E testing in 110 patients with a diagnosis of idiopathic anaphylaxis from five UK specialist centres using ISAC arrays. These were divided into three groups: score I identified no new allergen sensitization beyond those known by previous assessment, score II identified new sensitizations which were not thought likely to explain the anaphylaxis and score III identified new sensitizations felt to have a high likelihood of being responsible for the anaphylaxis. A proportion (50%) of score III patients underwent clinical reassessment to substantiate the link to anaphylaxis in this group. The results show that 20% of the arrays were classified as score III with a high likelihood of identifying the cause of the anaphylaxis. A wide range of major allergens were identified, the most frequent being omega-5-gliadin and shrimp, together accounting for 45% of the previously unrecognized sensitizations. The ISAC array contributed to the diagnosis in 20% of patients with idiopathic anaphylaxis. It may offer additional information where a careful allergy history and follow-on testing have not revealed the cause of the anaphylaxis.