4.5 Review

Salivary IgA as a Potential Biomarker in the Evaluation of Respiratory Tract Infection Risk in Athletes

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.07.049

关键词

Athlete; Infection; Respiratory; Biomarker; Illness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While some studies show an association between respiratory illness and salivary IgA, overall evidence is insufficient to support its value in health monitoring of athletes, lacks clear guidance, and exhibits deficiencies in key metrics for endorsing a valid biomarker.
In recent years, there has been attention focused on the value of salivary IgA (sIgA) as a potential biomarker for the identification of athletes who may be at increased risk of developing respiratory tract infection (RTI). The utility of sIgA, in this context, is based on biological plausibility and several observational studies revealing an apparent association between sIgA and RTI susceptibility. The overall published evidence evaluating the value of sIgA in this context is however conflicting, and there is currently a lack of clear guidance as to whether this marker has a place in the health surveillance and care of athletes. In this review, we critically appraise the literature assessing the potential for sIgA to be used in this context, evaluating it against 4 key biomarker characteristics, including its (1) practicality, (2) reproducibility, (3) specificity/ sensitivity, and (4) potential clinical impact and relevance. This process reveals that although there is an apparent association between respiratory illness and sIgA in many studies, with some promising results, overall there remains a paucity of evidence supporting its overall value in this context. Key deficiencies in the metrics employed to endorse a valid biomarker are apparent, including a lack of reproducibility and low specificity and sensitivity in the detection of RTI susceptibility. The review outlines these issues and makes future recommendations. (C) 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据