Cargando…

Diagnosing environmental allergies: Comparison of skin-prick, intradermal, and serum specific immunoglobulin E testing

BACKGROUND: Allergists commonly perform intradermal skin testing (IDST) after negative skin-prick testing (SPT) to comprehensively diagnose environmental allergic sensitization. However, with the availability of modern methods to detect serum-specific immunoglobulin E (ssIgE), it is unclear if ssIgE...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ferastraoaru, Denisa, Shtessel, Maria, Lobell, Elizabeth, Hudes, Golda, Rosenstreich, David, de Vos, Gabriele
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: OceanSide Publications, Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5468757/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28583228
http://dx.doi.org/10.2500/ar.2017.8.0194
_version_ 1783243476310163456
author Ferastraoaru, Denisa
Shtessel, Maria
Lobell, Elizabeth
Hudes, Golda
Rosenstreich, David
de Vos, Gabriele
author_facet Ferastraoaru, Denisa
Shtessel, Maria
Lobell, Elizabeth
Hudes, Golda
Rosenstreich, David
de Vos, Gabriele
author_sort Ferastraoaru, Denisa
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Allergists commonly perform intradermal skin testing (IDST) after negative skin-prick testing (SPT) to comprehensively diagnose environmental allergic sensitization. However, with the availability of modern methods to detect serum-specific immunoglobulin E (ssIgE), it is unclear if ssIgE testing could substitute for IDST. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of ssIgE testing and IDST when added to SPT in diagnosing environmental allergic sensitizations. METHODS: SPT, IDST, and ssIgE testing to nine common environmental allergens were analyzed in 75 patients with oculonasal symptoms who presented to our allergy clinics in the Bronx, New York, between January 2014 and May 2015. RESULTS: A total of 651 SPT and 499 ssIgE tests were independently performed and revealed 162 (25%) and 127 (25%) sensitizations, respectively. When SPT results were negative, IDST results revealed 108 of 452 additional sensitizations (24%). In contrast, when SPT results were negative, ssIgE test results only revealed 9% additional sensitizations. When both SPT and IDST results were negative, ssIgE testing only detected 3% of additional sensitizations, and ssIgE levels were typically low in these cases (median, 1.25 kU/L; range, 0.357–4.47 kU/L). When both SPT and ssIgE test results were negative, IDST results detected 15% additional sensitizations. CONCLUSION: IDST detected more additional environmental sensitizations compared with ssIgE testing. IDST, therefore, may be useful when the SPT and/or ssIgE testing results were negative, but the exposure history indicated relevant allergic sensitization. Serology added only a little more information if both SPT and IDST results were negative but may be useful in combination with SPT if IDST cannot be performed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5468757
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher OceanSide Publications, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54687572017-06-16 Diagnosing environmental allergies: Comparison of skin-prick, intradermal, and serum specific immunoglobulin E testing Ferastraoaru, Denisa Shtessel, Maria Lobell, Elizabeth Hudes, Golda Rosenstreich, David de Vos, Gabriele Allergy Rhinol (Providence) Articles BACKGROUND: Allergists commonly perform intradermal skin testing (IDST) after negative skin-prick testing (SPT) to comprehensively diagnose environmental allergic sensitization. However, with the availability of modern methods to detect serum-specific immunoglobulin E (ssIgE), it is unclear if ssIgE testing could substitute for IDST. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of ssIgE testing and IDST when added to SPT in diagnosing environmental allergic sensitizations. METHODS: SPT, IDST, and ssIgE testing to nine common environmental allergens were analyzed in 75 patients with oculonasal symptoms who presented to our allergy clinics in the Bronx, New York, between January 2014 and May 2015. RESULTS: A total of 651 SPT and 499 ssIgE tests were independently performed and revealed 162 (25%) and 127 (25%) sensitizations, respectively. When SPT results were negative, IDST results revealed 108 of 452 additional sensitizations (24%). In contrast, when SPT results were negative, ssIgE test results only revealed 9% additional sensitizations. When both SPT and IDST results were negative, ssIgE testing only detected 3% of additional sensitizations, and ssIgE levels were typically low in these cases (median, 1.25 kU/L; range, 0.357–4.47 kU/L). When both SPT and ssIgE test results were negative, IDST results detected 15% additional sensitizations. CONCLUSION: IDST detected more additional environmental sensitizations compared with ssIgE testing. IDST, therefore, may be useful when the SPT and/or ssIgE testing results were negative, but the exposure history indicated relevant allergic sensitization. Serology added only a little more information if both SPT and IDST results were negative but may be useful in combination with SPT if IDST cannot be performed. OceanSide Publications, Inc. 2017-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5468757/ /pubmed/28583228 http://dx.doi.org/10.2500/ar.2017.8.0194 Text en Copyright © 2017, OceanSide Publications, Inc., U.S.A. This work is published and licensed by OceanSide Publications, Inc. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.allergyandrhinology.com/terms and incorporate the Creative Commons License Deed: (Attribution – Non-Commercial – NoDerivs 4.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). By accessing the work you hereby accept the terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from OceanSide Publications, Inc., provided the work is properly attributed. Any use of the work other then as authorized under this license or copyright law is prohibited.
spellingShingle Articles
Ferastraoaru, Denisa
Shtessel, Maria
Lobell, Elizabeth
Hudes, Golda
Rosenstreich, David
de Vos, Gabriele
Diagnosing environmental allergies: Comparison of skin-prick, intradermal, and serum specific immunoglobulin E testing
title Diagnosing environmental allergies: Comparison of skin-prick, intradermal, and serum specific immunoglobulin E testing
title_full Diagnosing environmental allergies: Comparison of skin-prick, intradermal, and serum specific immunoglobulin E testing
title_fullStr Diagnosing environmental allergies: Comparison of skin-prick, intradermal, and serum specific immunoglobulin E testing
title_full_unstemmed Diagnosing environmental allergies: Comparison of skin-prick, intradermal, and serum specific immunoglobulin E testing
title_short Diagnosing environmental allergies: Comparison of skin-prick, intradermal, and serum specific immunoglobulin E testing
title_sort diagnosing environmental allergies: comparison of skin-prick, intradermal, and serum specific immunoglobulin e testing
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5468757/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28583228
http://dx.doi.org/10.2500/ar.2017.8.0194
work_keys_str_mv AT ferastraoarudenisa diagnosingenvironmentalallergiescomparisonofskinprickintradermalandserumspecificimmunoglobulinetesting
AT shtesselmaria diagnosingenvironmentalallergiescomparisonofskinprickintradermalandserumspecificimmunoglobulinetesting
AT lobellelizabeth diagnosingenvironmentalallergiescomparisonofskinprickintradermalandserumspecificimmunoglobulinetesting
AT hudesgolda diagnosingenvironmentalallergiescomparisonofskinprickintradermalandserumspecificimmunoglobulinetesting
AT rosenstreichdavid diagnosingenvironmentalallergiescomparisonofskinprickintradermalandserumspecificimmunoglobulinetesting
AT devosgabriele diagnosingenvironmentalallergiescomparisonofskinprickintradermalandserumspecificimmunoglobulinetesting