Experience with Rast-Based Immunotherapy

Monoplex and multiplex immunoassays: approval, advancements, and alternatives

Immunoassays are a powerful diagnostic tool and are widely used for the quantification of proteins and biomolecules in medical diagnosis and research. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is the most commonly used immunoassay format and allows the detection of biomarkers at a very low concentration. The diagnostic platforms such as enzyme immunoassay (EIA), chemiluminescence (CL) assay, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), flow cytometry (FC), and mass spectrometry (MS) have been used to identify molecular biomarkers. However, these diagnostic tools requiring expensive equipment, long testing time, and qualified personnel that is not always available in small local hospitals with limited resources. The lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) platform was developed for rapidly obtaining laboratory results and to make urgent decisions in emergency medicine, as well as the recently introduced concept of testing at the site of care (point-of-care, POC). The simultaneous measurement of different substances from a single sample called multiplex assays have become increasingly significant for in vitro quantification of multiple analytes in a single sample, thereby minimising cost, time, and volume. In multiplex immunoassays, the ligands are immobilized either in planar format (flat surface) or on microspheres in suspension that binds to target analytes in sample. The multiplex technology has established itself in proteomic networks and pathways, validation of genomic discoveries, and in the development of clinical biomarkers. In the present review article, various types of monoplex/simplex and complex/multiplex immunoassays have been analysed that are increasingly being applied in laboratory medicine. Also, some advantages and disadvantages of these multiplex assays have also been included such as experimental animals, in vitro tests using cell lines and tissue samples, 3-dimensional modelling and bioprinting, in silico tests, organ-on-chip, and computer modelling.

Review: immunoassays in DNA damage and instability detection

The review includes information on the current state of knowledge of immunometric methods with emphasis on the possibility of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage detection. Beginning with basic immunoassay enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), this review describes methods such as tyramide signal amplification (TSA), enhanced polymer one-step staining (EPOS), and time resolved amplified cryptate emission (TRACE) as improvements of ELISA's developed over time to obtain more accurate results. In the second part of the review, surface plasmon resonance (SPR) and quantum dots (QDs) are presented as the newest outlooks in the context of immunoanalysis of biological material and molecular studies. The aim of this review is to briefly present immunoassays with emphasis on DNA damage detection; therefore, the types of methods are listed and described, types of signal indicators, basic definitions such as antigen and antibody are given. Every method is considered with an exemplary application focusing on DNA studies, DNA damage and instability detection.

A Comparison of Skin Endpoint Titration and Skin-Prick Testing in the Diagnosis of Allergic Rhinitis

Among the many methods of allergy diagnosis are intradermal testing (IDT) and skin-prick testing (SPT). The usefulness of IDT has been called into question by some authors, while others believe that studies demonstrating that SPT was superior might have been subject to bias. We conducted a study to compare the validity of SPT and IDT—specifically, the skin endpoint titration (SET) type of IDT—in diagnosing allergic rhinitis. We performed nasal provocation testing on 62 patients to establish an unbiased screening criterion for study entry. Acoustic rhinometric measurements of the nasal responses revealed that 34 patients tested positive and 28 negative. All patients were subsequently tested by SET and SPT. We found that SPT was more sensitive (85.3 vs 79.4%) and more specific (78.6 vs 67.9%) than SET as a screening procedure. The positive predictive value of SPT was greater than that of SET (82.9 vs 75.0%), as was the negative predictive value (81.5 vs 73.0%). None of these differences was statistically significant; because of the relatively small sample size, our study was powered to show only equivalency. The results of our study suggest that the information obtained by the SET method of IDT is comparable to that obtained by SPT in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and overall performance and that both SET and SPT correlate well with nasal provocation testing for ragweed. Therefore, the decision as to which to use can be based on other factors, such as the practitioner's training, the desire for quantitative results, the desire for rapid results, and the type of treatment (i.e., immunotherapy or pharmacotherapy) that is likely to be chosen on the basis of test results.

Fungus-specific IgG and IgE in allergic fungal rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVE

Our study goal was to study fungus-specific immunoglobulins G (sIgG) and E (sIgE) in polypoid rhinosinusitis with and without evidence of allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFS).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A prospective analysis was conducted of fungal sIgG and sIgE using a 9-mold RAST panel in 13 AFS, 11 AFS-like, and 27 non-AFS polypoid rhinosinusitis patients. Nonpolyp controls included 17 volunteers with allergic rhinitis and 11 with no atopic history.

RESULTS

All groups had elevated fungal sIgG levels. Polyps, increasing polyp severity, and AFS were associated with elevated fungal sIgG to a greater number of molds. The AFS group had sIgE elevations (>or=class II) to an average of 5 molds versus only 0.1 in the non-AFS polyp group. Total IgE was 971 U/mL versus 64 U/mL, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple elevations of fungal sIgE are adequate diagnostic evidence of these fungi when fungal cultures and histologic examinations are negative in diagnosing AFS. The significance of increased fungal sIgG remains unclear.

SIGNIFICANCE

Early recognition of AFS may be facilitated by screening polypoid rhinosinusitis patients with total serum IgE and RAST testing.

Computed tomography stage, allergy testing, and quality of life in patients with sinusitis

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis is a common disease associated with significant morbidity. CT has been a poor predictor of the extent of symptoms among these patients. Allergic rhinitis is frequently associated with chronic rhinosinusitis. This study examines CT stage, allergic sensitivity, and sinus-related symptoms.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients with chronic rhinosinusitis underwent CT scanning and skin end-point titration (SET). They also completed the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI), a measure of sinus-related disability.

RESULTS

No association was noted between CT stage and severity of sinus-related symptoms. There was a significant correlation between CT stage and SET mean end point and between SET mean end point and RSDI physical scale score, as well as between significance on the RSDI emotional scale score and overall score.

CONCLUSION

The degree of allergic disease is a better indicator of symptom severity and impairment in quality of life among patients with chronic rhinosinusitis than CT stage. Careful evaluation and treatment of allergic disease is critical in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis.

Safety of home-based and office allergy immunotherapy: A multicenter prospective study

During a 1-year period, 27 otolaryngic allergy practices recorded all systemic reactions to immunotherapy resulting from 635,600 patient visits and 1,144,000 injections. Sixty percent of injections were given at home. Major systemic reactions were observed after 0. 005% of injections. There were no hospitalizations or deaths. Eighty-seven percent of major reactions began within 20 minutes of injection. Frequently observed risk factors for major reactions were buildup phase of immunotherapy, active asthma, and first injection from a treatment vial. Home and office injections had similar rates of total systemic reactions, but home-based immunotherapy had far fewer major reactions. Home-based immunotherapy was found to be safe. The methods and precautions used to treat patients with this degree of safety are specified and discussed.

Immunotherapy basics

Immunotherapy is the use of controlled exposure to allergens to produce durable antiinflammatory effects, thus reducing the severity of allergic disorders. Immunotherapy is useful when other methods of allergy therapy are not fully satisfactory and can be effectively combined with rhinologic surgical treatment. Immunotherapy should always be considered as a treatment option for allergy patients and can often be of benefit, provided that appropriate indications and contraindications are observed. Physicians caring for patients with allergies should therefore become familiar with methods of allergy and diagnosis and with the therapeutic potential of immunotherapy. The history of immunotherapy, possible mechanisms, indications, contraindications, testing methods, and initiation of treatment are reviewed.