Comparison of skin prick test and prick-to-prick test with fruits and vegetables in the diagnosis of food allergy

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY
Severina Terlouw, Frank E. van Boven, Monika Borsboom-van Zonneveld, Tineke de Graaf-in ’t Veld, Roy Gerth van Wijk, Paul L. A. van Daele, Maurits S. van Maaren, Jac H. S. A. M. Kuijpers, Sharon Veenbergen, Nicolette W. de Jong
{"title":"Comparison of skin prick test and prick-to-prick test with fruits and vegetables in the diagnosis of food allergy","authors":"Severina Terlouw,&nbsp;Frank E. van Boven,&nbsp;Monika Borsboom-van Zonneveld,&nbsp;Tineke de Graaf-in ’t Veld,&nbsp;Roy Gerth van Wijk,&nbsp;Paul L. A. van Daele,&nbsp;Maurits S. van Maaren,&nbsp;Jac H. S. A. M. Kuijpers,&nbsp;Sharon Veenbergen,&nbsp;Nicolette W. de Jong","doi":"10.1002/clt2.12375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Prick-to-prick (PTP) test with fresh food is accepted as a reliable tool for measuring sensitization to fruits and vegetables. Not all fruits and vegetables are available throughout the year. The objective of this study was to investigate whether skin prick test (SPT) performed with frozen juice of fruits and vegetables (FJFV) is a good alternative to PTP tests performed with fresh fruits and vegetables (FFV).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Adult patients suspected of having a food allergy to fruits and/or vegetables were included. A questionnaire was used to score symptoms after consumption of apple, kiwi, peach, tomato, and carrot. SPTs with FJFV, and PTP tests with FFV were performed. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) between the SPT and PTP test results were calculated. The sensitivity and specificity of both diagnostic tests towards food allergen specific symptoms (FASS) were calculated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Thirty-six patients were included. FASS was positive in 75% for apple, 53% for kiwi, 44% for peach, 25% for tomato, and 22% for carrot. ICC between SPT and PTP test results were moderate for apple (0.72) and kiwi (0.71), strong for peach (0.75) and tomato (0.89), and very strong for carrot (0.94). Sensitivity was equal for the SPT and PTP tests for apple (0.93), peach (0.81), and carrot (1.00), and comparable for kiwi (0.50 resp. 0.70), and tomato (0.44 resp. 0.56). Specificity was equal for apple (0.33), peach (0.15), and carrot (0.41), and comparable for kiwi (0.29 resp. 0.21) and tomato (0.80 resp. 0.72).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Results of SPT with FJFV and PTP test with FFV are comparable. SPT with FJFV is a good alternative in the daily practice of the allergists.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10334,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Translational Allergy","volume":"14 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11226404/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Translational Allergy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clt2.12375","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Prick-to-prick (PTP) test with fresh food is accepted as a reliable tool for measuring sensitization to fruits and vegetables. Not all fruits and vegetables are available throughout the year. The objective of this study was to investigate whether skin prick test (SPT) performed with frozen juice of fruits and vegetables (FJFV) is a good alternative to PTP tests performed with fresh fruits and vegetables (FFV).

Methods

Adult patients suspected of having a food allergy to fruits and/or vegetables were included. A questionnaire was used to score symptoms after consumption of apple, kiwi, peach, tomato, and carrot. SPTs with FJFV, and PTP tests with FFV were performed. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) between the SPT and PTP test results were calculated. The sensitivity and specificity of both diagnostic tests towards food allergen specific symptoms (FASS) were calculated.

Results

Thirty-six patients were included. FASS was positive in 75% for apple, 53% for kiwi, 44% for peach, 25% for tomato, and 22% for carrot. ICC between SPT and PTP test results were moderate for apple (0.72) and kiwi (0.71), strong for peach (0.75) and tomato (0.89), and very strong for carrot (0.94). Sensitivity was equal for the SPT and PTP tests for apple (0.93), peach (0.81), and carrot (1.00), and comparable for kiwi (0.50 resp. 0.70), and tomato (0.44 resp. 0.56). Specificity was equal for apple (0.33), peach (0.15), and carrot (0.41), and comparable for kiwi (0.29 resp. 0.21) and tomato (0.80 resp. 0.72).

Conclusions

Results of SPT with FJFV and PTP test with FFV are comparable. SPT with FJFV is a good alternative in the daily practice of the allergists.

Abstract Image

皮肤点刺试验与水果蔬菜点刺试验在诊断食物过敏方面的比较。
导言:使用新鲜食物进行 "点刺 "试验(PTP)是测量对水果和蔬菜过敏性的可靠工具。但并非所有水果和蔬菜都能全年供应。本研究旨在探讨使用冷冻果蔬汁(FJFV)进行皮肤点刺试验(SPT)是否是使用新鲜果蔬(FFV)进行 PTP 试验的良好替代方法:方法:纳入怀疑对水果和/或蔬菜食物过敏的成年患者。方法:纳入怀疑对水果和/或蔬菜食物过敏的成年患者,使用问卷对患者食用苹果、猕猴桃、桃、番茄和胡萝卜后出现的症状进行评分。对 FJFV 进行了 SPT 测试,对 FFV 进行了 PTP 测试。计算了 SPT 和 PTP 测试结果之间的类内相关系数 (ICC)。计算了两种诊断测试对食物过敏原特异性症状(FASS)的敏感性和特异性:结果:共纳入 36 名患者。苹果、猕猴桃、桃子、番茄和胡萝卜的 FASS 阳性率分别为 75%、53%、44%、25% 和 22%。苹果(0.72)和猕猴桃(0.71)的 SPT 和 PTP 检测结果之间的 ICC 值中等,桃子(0.75)和番茄(0.89)的 ICC 值较高,胡萝卜(0.94)的 ICC 值非常高。SPT 和 PTP 检测对苹果(0.93)、桃子(0.81)和胡萝卜(1.00)的灵敏度相同,对猕猴桃(0.50 或 0.70)和番茄(0.44 或 0.56)的灵敏度相当。苹果(0.33)、桃子(0.15)和胡萝卜(0.41)的特异性相同,猕猴桃(0.29 resp. 0.21)和番茄(0.80 resp. 0.72)的特异性相当:使用 FJFV 的 SPT 和使用 FFV 的 PTP 测试结果相当。使用 FJFV 进行 SPT 是过敏症医生日常工作中的一个很好的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical and Translational Allergy
Clinical and Translational Allergy Immunology and Microbiology-Immunology
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
117
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Allergy, one of several journals in the portfolio of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, provides a platform for the dissemination of allergy research and reviews, as well as EAACI position papers, task force reports and guidelines, amongst an international scientific audience. Clinical and Translational Allergy accepts clinical and translational research in the following areas and other related topics: asthma, rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, drug hypersensitivity, allergic conjunctivitis, allergic skin diseases, atopic eczema, urticaria, angioedema, venom hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis, food allergy, immunotherapy, immune modulators and biologics, animal models of allergic disease, immune mechanisms, or any other topic related to allergic disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信