TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison and clinical utility evaluation of four multiple allergen simultaneous tests including two newly introduced fully automated analyzers
AU - Rim, John Hoon
AU - Park, Borae G.
AU - Kim, Jeong Ho
AU - Kim, Hyon Suk
PY - 2016/4/1
Y1 - 2016/4/1
N2 - Background: We compared the diagnostic performances of two newly introduced fully automated multiple allergen simultaneous tests (MAST) analyzers with two conventional MAST assays. Methods: The serum samples from a total of 53 and 104 patients were tested for food panels and inhalant panels, respectively, in four analyzers including AdvanSure AlloScreen (LG Life Science, Korea), AdvanSure Allostation Smart II (LG Life Science), PROTIA Allergy-(ProteomeTech, Korea), and RIDA Allergy Screen (R-Biopharm, Germany). We compared not only the total agreement percentages but also positive propensities among four analyzers. Results: Evaluation of AdvanSure Allostation Smart II as upgraded version of AdvanSure AlloScreen revealed good concordance with total agreement percentages of 93.0% and 92.2% in food and inhalant panel, respectively. Comparisons of AdvanSure Allostation Smart II or PROTIA Allergy-with RIDA Allergy Screen also showed good concordance performance with positive propensities of two new analyzers for common allergens (Dermatophagoides farina and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus). The changes of cut-off level resulted in various total agreement percentage fluctuations among allergens by different analyzers, although current cut-off level of class 2 appeared to be generally suitable. Conclusions: AdvanSure Allostation Smart II and PROTIA Allergy-presented favorable agreement performances with RIDA Allergy Screen, although positive propensities were noticed in common allergens.
AB - Background: We compared the diagnostic performances of two newly introduced fully automated multiple allergen simultaneous tests (MAST) analyzers with two conventional MAST assays. Methods: The serum samples from a total of 53 and 104 patients were tested for food panels and inhalant panels, respectively, in four analyzers including AdvanSure AlloScreen (LG Life Science, Korea), AdvanSure Allostation Smart II (LG Life Science), PROTIA Allergy-(ProteomeTech, Korea), and RIDA Allergy Screen (R-Biopharm, Germany). We compared not only the total agreement percentages but also positive propensities among four analyzers. Results: Evaluation of AdvanSure Allostation Smart II as upgraded version of AdvanSure AlloScreen revealed good concordance with total agreement percentages of 93.0% and 92.2% in food and inhalant panel, respectively. Comparisons of AdvanSure Allostation Smart II or PROTIA Allergy-with RIDA Allergy Screen also showed good concordance performance with positive propensities of two new analyzers for common allergens (Dermatophagoides farina and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus). The changes of cut-off level resulted in various total agreement percentage fluctuations among allergens by different analyzers, although current cut-off level of class 2 appeared to be generally suitable. Conclusions: AdvanSure Allostation Smart II and PROTIA Allergy-presented favorable agreement performances with RIDA Allergy Screen, although positive propensities were noticed in common allergens.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84957921516&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84957921516&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.plabm.2016.01.002
DO - 10.1016/j.plabm.2016.01.002
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84957921516
VL - 4
SP - 50
EP - 61
JO - Practical Laboratory Medicine
JF - Practical Laboratory Medicine
SN - 2352-5517
ER -