Food Intolerance Test Comparisons

www.allergyus.com is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) . It can be copied and used without restriction.

Index:

1.Alcat

2.Leap MRT

3.Yorktest and Imupro

4.Pinnertest


Food Intolerance test alcat 

Alcat, Cytotoxic Test, www.alcat.com

Scientific Summary

Alcat test which is a Leukocytotoxic Test, was first developed in 1956 by Black, and is the most notorious and unreliable method among others. It is a very old technology which was promoted during the early 1980s by storefront clinics, laboratories, nutrition consultants, chiropractors, and medical doctors. It was claimed by the company that it can determine sensitivity to food accurately however, controlled studies never demonstrated reliability, and some studies found it highly unreliable. [1-4]. For example, one study found that white cells from allergic patients reacted no differently when exposed to substances known to produce symptoms than when exposed to substances to which the patients were not sensitive.[5]. Government regulatory actions [6-9] and unfavorable publicity have almost driven cytotoxic testing from the health marketplace. It was banned in some states like New York, but still few practitioners perform it nationwide.

References:

  1. American Academy of Allergy: Position statements—Controversial techniques. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 67:333-338, 1980. Reaffirmed in 1984.
  2. Chambers VV and others. A study of the reactions of human polymorphonuclear leukocytes to various antigens. Journal of Allergy 29:93-102, 1958.
  3. Lieberman P and others. Controlled study of the cytotoxic food test. JAMA 231:728, 1974.
  4. Benson TE, Arkins JA. Cytotoxic testing for food allergy: Evaluations of reproducibility and correlation. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 58:471-476, 1976.
  5. Hecht A: Lab warns cow: Don’t drink your milk. FDA Consumer 19(6):31-32, 1985.
  6. Lehman CW. The leukocytic food allergy test: A study of its reliability and reproducibility. Effect of diet and sublingual food drops on this test. A double-blind study of sublingual provocative food testing: A study of its efficacy. Annals of Allergy 45:150-158, 1980.
  7. Bartola J: Cytotoxic test for allergies banned in state. Pennsylvania Medicine 88:30, October 1985.
  8. Proposed notice: Medicare program; Exclusion from Medicare coverage of certain food allergy tests and treatments. Federal Register 48(162):37716-37718, 1983.
  9. Cytotoxic testing for allergic diseases. FDA Compliance Policy Guide 7124.27, March 19, 1985, revised March 1995.


ALCAT PROS AND CONS 

Pros

  • Good sales network around USA

Cons

  • Very old technology
  • Very poor reproducibility rate (the result of the test changed even in hours in the same person) Around 19%
  • Needs full blood in tubes. A nurse or doctor is a must to draw blood.
  • Very difficult to transfer blood samples
  • Can not differentiate temporary and permanent intolerances that causes too many foods to avoid unnecessarily
  • Needs fasting
  • Banned in some states
  • Almost impossible to follow the nutrition plan due to incredibly high number of results.
  • Extremely expensive

Editor’s Review

Alcat is a very old tecnology test which was used by some practitioners in early 80s because there was no other alternative at those times.

However the technology is completely primitive.

Although most people have only 2-3 intolerances, the results that you will get from Alcat will be around 50-60 meaning you will get 10s of wrong results. It is obvious that trying to follow such a diet will cause many problems for the client.


Overall Rating …….1 over 5. Definitely Not Advised

Overall satisfaction of clients 1/5
Trust and confidence by medical professionals 1/5
Customer support 2/5
Nutritionist support 1/5
Easiness to perform the test 1/5
Result time 1/5
Price 1/5



leapmrt food intolerance test

Leap MRT, Mediator Release Test, www.nowleap.com

Scientific Summary

The basis of this test is that if the patient’s white blood cells are mixed with the offending allergen, they swell. The test then measures any swelling of the leukocytes and if a certain threshold of swelling is measured, using a Coulter Counter – a Positive result is recorded.

Studies to date have shown poor correlation between this test and clinical allergy. The marketers, who rely on anecdotal evidence of efficacy, do not mention these disappointing clinical studies. A large number of allergens are tested for and patients are usually positive to a number of foods, additives and other agents. Lieberman’s study in USA confirm that preliminary studies on this test found no diagnostic accuracy. Despite claims to the contrary, no large studies have ever shown the test to be accurate despite it being available for many years!
The original protagonists of the MRT test could only site a few non-peer reviewed congress abstracts as evidence that it worked. While the antagonists (personal communication with the leading opinion leaders in the field of food allergy such as Bindslev-Jensen, Potter and Katelaris) have substantial data on record to show a poor diagnostic accuracy.


LEAP MRT PROS AND CONS 

Pros

  • Newer then Alcat

Cons

  • Not validated
  • Also very poor reproducibility rate (the same person test result’s can change within hours) around 35%
  • Needs full blood in tubes. A nurse or doctor is require to draw blood.
  • Very difficult to transfer blood samples
  • Can not differentiate temporary and permanent intolerances, which lists too many unnecessary foods to avoid.
  • Needs fasting

Editor’s Review

MRT testing is nothing but  new a “Newly Oackaged” version of Alcat. The owners of this company used to be partners with Alcat but after they seperated from Alcat, they established this new brand.

The technology is again very primitive.

Like the Alcat test, although most people have only 2-3 intolerances, the results that you will get from MRT will be around 30-40, meaning you will get 10s of wrong results and to follow such a diet will be unnecessary, useful and cause many problems for the client.


Overall Rating …….2 over 5. Not Advised

Overall satisfaction of clients 1/5
Trust and confidence by medical professionals 2/5
Customer support 2/5
Nutritionist support 1/5
Easiness to perform the test 1/5
Result time 2/5
Price 2/5


 

 

 

Food İntolerance Test yorktest

 

 

AND

imupro intolerance test

 

 

 

Yorktest, IgG Elisa Test, www.yorktest.com
Imupro , IgG Elisa Test, www.imupro.com

Scientific Summary

ELISA stands for ‘Enzyme Linked Immuno Sorbent Assay’ and is a well-proven process used, for example, detecting HIV positivity. In this case the technology is used to detect IgG positivity and the degree of reaction. The potential allergen has to be very carefully prepared into ‘plates’, and then the patient’s serum is introduced to it. If there’s an lgG reaction to the food, the lgG antibody in the serum combines the allergen on the plate. After incubation of several hours, water plus anenzyme is added, which colors the antibody-allergen complexes. The more antibody-allergen complexes there are, the more colored the sample becomes. This is then analyzed by computer to produce a graded scale of reaction to each food. The greater the reaction, the greater the sensitivity.


YORKTEST AND IMUPRO PROS AND CONS 

Pros

Checks IgG

  • Higher reproducibility rate compared to Alcat and MRT
  • Precise results compared to Alcat and MRT
  • No fasting required
  • Cheaper than Alcat and MRT

Cons

  • Not the highest tech test on the market
  • Can not determine temporary and permanent intolerances


Editor’s Review

Elisa method is a reliable method, with a high reproducibility rate for determining food intolerances. However still requires full blood samples, which are difficult to draw and transport. Although it is much more precise than Alcat and MRT, still does not have a 100% solution for determining the permanent and temporary intolerances. Half of the results that you get will be your temporary intolerances that may have been a result of a temporary overeating and health problem.


Overall Rating …….3 over 5. Poor

Overall satisfaction of clients 3/5
Trust and confidence by medical professionals 3/5
Customer support 3/5
Nutritionist support 3/5
Easiness to perform the test 2/5
Result time 2/5
Price 3/5



Food intolerance test pinnertest editors-choice-logo

 

Pinnertest, Microarray IgG Elisa Test, www.pinnertest.com

Scientific Summary

Although the method of Microarray-Elisa Method tests appears similar to the classic Elisa method, it has many advanced technologies. The most important is the analysis of Antigens to differentiate the temporary and permanent intolerances. The test also differs from classic Elisa, since in this latest technology, mostly computerized systems are used; rather than human power. The microarray chips have the advantage of testing with only a few drops of dry blood. Pinnertest presents blood collection kits that are similar to the collection in blood sugar tests. The client can easily collect blood at home, by themselves, and deliver by post to the Lab.


PINNERTEST PROS AND CONS 

Pros

  • Differentiates the active and passive intolerances
  • Very high reproducibility rate
  • Highly Precise results compared to Cytotoxic tests
  • No fasting required
  • Affordable price
  • No need to draw blood from vein. As simple as a blood sugar test.
  • Very easy to understand result page.

Cons

  • 1 week result time


Editor’s Review

Definitely state of the art technology, which will determine the exact intolerance.


Overall Rating …….5 over 5. Excellent

Overall satisfaction of clients 5/5
Trust and confidence by medical professionals 4/5
Customer support 5/5
Nutritionist support 4/5
Easiness to perform the test 5/5
Result time 4/5
Price 5/5

USA_Flag_Map_PNG_Clipart

Powered By Allergy US Foundation, Calle Real, Goleta, California, 93117
Contact Us: info@allergyus.com