Novel Nanofluidic IgE Assay versus a Reference Method: A Real-World Comparison.

BACKGROUND

Clinically meaningful specific IgE determination is an important step in the diagnosis of allergic diseases. While patient's history and skin prick tests are available during the medical visit, most IgE immunoassays require hours to several days to be available. Recent developments in the field of nanofluidic technology open new horizons for point-of-care management of this unmet medical need.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare IgE diagnostic agreement between a nanofluidic assay (abioSCOPE®) and a laboratory reference method (Phadia Laboratory System®) in a real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

Sera from 105 patients whose routine allergy diagnostic workup required a blood sampling were used to compare the novel nanofluidic IgE assay to a reference method in a blind manner for a panel of five respiratory allergens. To assess the agreement between methods, patient records were reviewed by four independent experts to establish the final diagnosis. Experts were blinded to the IgE serological method used, but had access to patient history, skin prick tests, and blood test results.

RESULTS

Analytic agreement between the two methods was 81% for the tested panel of allergens (ranging from 77 to 89%). The overall agreement in clinical diagnosis decision taken by the expert panel was 94.6% with the nanofluidic IgE assay when compared to the reference method.

CONCLUSION

The nanofluidic IgE assay, as determined through an evaluation based on clinical history, skin prick tests, and IgE measurement, is a valuable tool for allergy experts to identify patients' sensitization patterns at the point of care, and for routine IgE diagnostic workup.