环境过敏的诊断:皮刺、皮内和血清特异性免疫球蛋白E检测的比较。

IF 2.3 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Denisa Ferastraoaru, Maria Shtessel, Elizabeth Lobell, Golda Hudes, David Rosenstreich, Gabriele de Vos
{"title":"环境过敏的诊断:皮刺、皮内和血清特异性免疫球蛋白E检测的比较。","authors":"Denisa Ferastraoaru,&nbsp;Maria Shtessel,&nbsp;Elizabeth Lobell,&nbsp;Golda Hudes,&nbsp;David Rosenstreich,&nbsp;Gabriele de Vos","doi":"10.2500/ar.2017.8.0194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the efficacy of ssIgE testing and IDST when added to SPT in diagnosing environmental allergic sensitizations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":45192,"journal":{"name":"Allergy & Rhinology","volume":"8 2","pages":"53-62"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2500/ar.2017.8.0194","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnosing environmental allergies: Comparison of skin-prick, intradermal, and serum specific immunoglobulin E testing.\",\"authors\":\"Denisa Ferastraoaru,&nbsp;Maria Shtessel,&nbsp;Elizabeth Lobell,&nbsp;Golda Hudes,&nbsp;David Rosenstreich,&nbsp;Gabriele de Vos\",\"doi\":\"10.2500/ar.2017.8.0194\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the efficacy of ssIgE testing and IDST when added to SPT in diagnosing environmental allergic sensitizations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45192,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Allergy & Rhinology\",\"volume\":\"8 2\",\"pages\":\"53-62\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2500/ar.2017.8.0194\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Allergy & Rhinology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2500/ar.2017.8.0194\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergy & Rhinology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2500/ar.2017.8.0194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

背景:变态反应科医师通常在皮肤点刺试验(SPT)阴性后进行皮内皮肤试验(IDST),以全面诊断环境过敏性致敏。然而,随着检测血清特异性免疫球蛋白E (ssIgE)的现代方法的可用性,尚不清楚ssIgE检测是否可以替代IDST。目的:探讨ssIgE检测和IDST联合SPT诊断环境过敏性反应的疗效。方法:分析2014年1月至2015年5月在纽约布朗克斯过敏诊所就诊的75例有眼鼻症状的患者对9种常见环境过敏原的SPT、IDST和sige检测。结果:共进行了651次SPT和499次sige试验,分别发现162例(25%)和127例(25%)致敏。当SPT结果为阴性时,IDST结果显示452例中有108例(24%)额外增敏。相比之下,当SPT结果为阴性时,sige测试结果仅显示9%的额外致敏。当SPT和IDST结果均为阴性时,ssIgE检测仅检测到3%的额外敏化,并且这些病例的ssIgE水平通常较低(中位数为1.25 kU/L;范围0.357-4.47 kU/L)。当SPT和ssIgE检测结果均为阴性时,IDST结果检测到15%的额外致敏。结论:IDST检测的环境致敏性高于sige检测。因此,当SPT和/或ssIgE检测结果为阴性时,IDST可能是有用的,但暴露史表明相关的过敏致敏性。如果SPT和IDST结果均为阴性,血清学只能提供一点更多的信息,但如果不能进行IDST,则与SPT联合使用可能有用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

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

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

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

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 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Allergy & Rhinology
Allergy & Rhinology OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
4.50%
发文量
11
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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