Ultrafiltered dog allergen skin test compared with acetone precipitated and conventional dog: A retrospective study.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY
Joshua Pollock, Nora Watson, Luke Pittman, David Schwartz
{"title":"Ultrafiltered dog allergen skin test compared with acetone precipitated and conventional dog: A retrospective study.","authors":"Joshua Pollock, Nora Watson, Luke Pittman, David Schwartz","doi":"10.2500/aap.2024.45.240073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Various formulations of dog allergen extracts, including conventional dog (also known as dog epithelium) and acetone precipitated (AP) dog, have been used for skin-prick testing (SPT), with AP dog showing improved antigen content but experiencing stability issues due to precipitant formation. Ultrafiltered (UF) dog extract has been developed to address these concerns by offering comparable allergen content to AP dog. This study retrospectively compared UF dog with conventional dog and AP dog in SPT. <b>Objective:</b> To compare the efficacy of UF dog extract with conventional dog and AP dog extracts in detecting dog sensitization through SPT. <b>Methods:</b> Retrospective analysis of SPT results from a single U.S. allergy clinic was conducted. Tests performed between October 2022 and March 2024 were included. Primary and secondary outcomes were analyzed by using descriptive statistics and statistical tests. <b>Results:</b> UF dog, AP dog, and conventional dog showed positivity rates of 24.2%, 23.5%, and 16.3%, respectively. UF dog demonstrated significantly higher average wheal and erythema sizes compared with conventional dog and AP dog, but UF dog was not statistically different from AP dog in terms of test positivity. <b>Conclusion:</b> UF dog extract showed comparable number of positive tests to AP dog and a greater number of positive tests to conventional dog. Results of the study suggest UF dog as a viable alternative to AP dog, which offered improved stability and similar test responses. Further research with larger sample sizes is recommended to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":7646,"journal":{"name":"Allergy and asthma proceedings","volume":"45 6","pages":"453-455"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11572938/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergy and asthma proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2024.45.240073","RegionNum":3,"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

Background: Various formulations of dog allergen extracts, including conventional dog (also known as dog epithelium) and acetone precipitated (AP) dog, have been used for skin-prick testing (SPT), with AP dog showing improved antigen content but experiencing stability issues due to precipitant formation. Ultrafiltered (UF) dog extract has been developed to address these concerns by offering comparable allergen content to AP dog. This study retrospectively compared UF dog with conventional dog and AP dog in SPT. Objective: To compare the efficacy of UF dog extract with conventional dog and AP dog extracts in detecting dog sensitization through SPT. Methods: Retrospective analysis of SPT results from a single U.S. allergy clinic was conducted. Tests performed between October 2022 and March 2024 were included. Primary and secondary outcomes were analyzed by using descriptive statistics and statistical tests. Results: UF dog, AP dog, and conventional dog showed positivity rates of 24.2%, 23.5%, and 16.3%, respectively. UF dog demonstrated significantly higher average wheal and erythema sizes compared with conventional dog and AP dog, but UF dog was not statistically different from AP dog in terms of test positivity. Conclusion: UF dog extract showed comparable number of positive tests to AP dog and a greater number of positive tests to conventional dog. Results of the study suggest UF dog as a viable alternative to AP dog, which offered improved stability and similar test responses. Further research with larger sample sizes is recommended to confirm these findings.

超滤狗过敏原皮试与丙酮沉淀狗过敏原皮试和传统狗过敏原皮试的比较:回顾性研究
背景:各种狗过敏原提取物配方,包括传统狗(也称为狗上皮细胞)和丙酮沉淀(AP)狗,已被用于皮肤点刺试验(SPT)。为了解决这些问题,人们开发了超滤(UF)狗提取物,其过敏原含量与AP狗相当。本研究回顾性地比较了超滤狗与传统狗和 AP 狗在 SPT 中的表现。目的比较 UF 狗提取物与传统狗提取物和 AP 狗提取物在通过 SPT 检测狗致敏性方面的功效。方法:对 SPT 结果进行回顾性分析:对美国一家过敏诊所的 SPT 结果进行回顾性分析。研究纳入了 2022 年 10 月至 2024 年 3 月期间进行的测试。使用描述性统计和统计检验分析主要和次要结果。结果如下UF 狗、AP 狗和传统狗的阳性率分别为 24.2%、23.5% 和 16.3%。与传统犬和 AP 犬相比,UF 犬的平均疣体和红斑大小明显更高,但在检测阳性率方面,UF 犬与 AP 犬没有统计学差异。结论UF dog 提取物显示的阳性试验数量与 AP dog 相当,而与传统 dog 相比,UF dog 提取物显示的阳性试验数量更多。研究结果表明,UF dog 是 AP dog 的一种可行替代品,其稳定性更好,测试反应相似。建议进一步开展样本量更大的研究,以证实这些发现。
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
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
35.70%
发文量
106
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Allergy & Asthma Proceedings is a peer reviewed publication dedicated to distributing timely scientific research regarding advancements in the knowledge and practice of allergy, asthma and immunology. Its primary readership consists of allergists and pulmonologists. The goal of the Proceedings is to publish articles with a predominantly clinical focus which directly impact quality of care for patients with allergic disease and asthma. Featured topics include asthma, rhinitis, sinusitis, food allergies, allergic skin diseases, diagnostic techniques, allergens, and treatment modalities. Published material includes peer-reviewed original research, clinical trials and review articles.
×
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