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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |