Cargando…

How reliable is anamnestic data in predicting the clinical relevance of house dust mite sensitization?

PURPOSE: For perennial inhalant allergens such as house dust mite (HDM), the German guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy explicitly recommends provocation testing. This procedure is time-consuming, expensive, and potentially dangerous for the patient. Recently it has been discussed whether p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Englhard, Anna S., Holzer, Martin, Eder, Katharina, Gellrich, Donata, Gröger, Moritz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8794942/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34019148
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06862-x
_version_ 1784640937581871104
author Englhard, Anna S.
Holzer, Martin
Eder, Katharina
Gellrich, Donata
Gröger, Moritz
author_facet Englhard, Anna S.
Holzer, Martin
Eder, Katharina
Gellrich, Donata
Gröger, Moritz
author_sort Englhard, Anna S.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: For perennial inhalant allergens such as house dust mite (HDM), the German guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy explicitly recommends provocation testing. This procedure is time-consuming, expensive, and potentially dangerous for the patient. Recently it has been discussed whether provocation tests are really necessary for diagnosing allergy to Dermatophagoides species. Thus, our study aimed to analyze the concordance between nasal provocation tests with Dermatophagoides species and anamnestic data. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the concordance between patients’ histories including self-reported symptom scores and the results of provocation testing in 471 individuals with proven sensitization to Dermatophagoides species. RESULTS: 248 patients had a positive nasal provocation test (NPT) result to Dermatophagoides species and 223 individuals a negative NPT result. Patients allergic to HSM suffered significantly more often from atopic dermatitis (14% vs. 7%, p = 0.046) and more from asthma (20% vs. 19%, p = 0.851). Moreover, individuals with clinically silent sensitization complained less about nasal secretion (37% vs. 45%, p = 0.244) but significantly more about nasal dryness (46% vs. 34%, p = 0.046) whereas rates of nasal airway obstruction, ocular complaints and sleep quality were comparable in both groups. Allergic patients reported more often perennial (34% vs. 30%, p = 0.374) and location-dependent (39% vs. 31%, p = 0.090) symptoms. However, the discrepant prevalence of atopic dermatitis was the only statistically significant difference between both groups. CONCLUSION: Despite slight differences between both patient groups, clinical data are not sufficient to distinguish between silent sensitization and clinically relevant allergic rhinitis to HDM. Therefore, nasal provocation testing remains the gold standard for assessing clinical relevance in patients sensitized to Dermatophagoides species.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8794942
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87949422022-02-02 How reliable is anamnestic data in predicting the clinical relevance of house dust mite sensitization? Englhard, Anna S. Holzer, Martin Eder, Katharina Gellrich, Donata Gröger, Moritz Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Rhinology PURPOSE: For perennial inhalant allergens such as house dust mite (HDM), the German guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy explicitly recommends provocation testing. This procedure is time-consuming, expensive, and potentially dangerous for the patient. Recently it has been discussed whether provocation tests are really necessary for diagnosing allergy to Dermatophagoides species. Thus, our study aimed to analyze the concordance between nasal provocation tests with Dermatophagoides species and anamnestic data. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the concordance between patients’ histories including self-reported symptom scores and the results of provocation testing in 471 individuals with proven sensitization to Dermatophagoides species. RESULTS: 248 patients had a positive nasal provocation test (NPT) result to Dermatophagoides species and 223 individuals a negative NPT result. Patients allergic to HSM suffered significantly more often from atopic dermatitis (14% vs. 7%, p = 0.046) and more from asthma (20% vs. 19%, p = 0.851). Moreover, individuals with clinically silent sensitization complained less about nasal secretion (37% vs. 45%, p = 0.244) but significantly more about nasal dryness (46% vs. 34%, p = 0.046) whereas rates of nasal airway obstruction, ocular complaints and sleep quality were comparable in both groups. Allergic patients reported more often perennial (34% vs. 30%, p = 0.374) and location-dependent (39% vs. 31%, p = 0.090) symptoms. However, the discrepant prevalence of atopic dermatitis was the only statistically significant difference between both groups. CONCLUSION: Despite slight differences between both patient groups, clinical data are not sufficient to distinguish between silent sensitization and clinically relevant allergic rhinitis to HDM. Therefore, nasal provocation testing remains the gold standard for assessing clinical relevance in patients sensitized to Dermatophagoides species. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-05-21 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8794942/ /pubmed/34019148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06862-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Rhinology
Englhard, Anna S.
Holzer, Martin
Eder, Katharina
Gellrich, Donata
Gröger, Moritz
How reliable is anamnestic data in predicting the clinical relevance of house dust mite sensitization?
title How reliable is anamnestic data in predicting the clinical relevance of house dust mite sensitization?
title_full How reliable is anamnestic data in predicting the clinical relevance of house dust mite sensitization?
title_fullStr How reliable is anamnestic data in predicting the clinical relevance of house dust mite sensitization?
title_full_unstemmed How reliable is anamnestic data in predicting the clinical relevance of house dust mite sensitization?
title_short How reliable is anamnestic data in predicting the clinical relevance of house dust mite sensitization?
title_sort how reliable is anamnestic data in predicting the clinical relevance of house dust mite sensitization?
topic Rhinology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8794942/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34019148
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06862-x
work_keys_str_mv AT englhardannas howreliableisanamnesticdatainpredictingtheclinicalrelevanceofhousedustmitesensitization
AT holzermartin howreliableisanamnesticdatainpredictingtheclinicalrelevanceofhousedustmitesensitization
AT ederkatharina howreliableisanamnesticdatainpredictingtheclinicalrelevanceofhousedustmitesensitization
AT gellrichdonata howreliableisanamnesticdatainpredictingtheclinicalrelevanceofhousedustmitesensitization
AT grogermoritz howreliableisanamnesticdatainpredictingtheclinicalrelevanceofhousedustmitesensitization