Skin Prick Tests and Allergy Diagnosis

Skin testing remains an essential diagnostic tool in modern allergy practice. A signifi cant variability has been reported regarding technical procedures, interpretation of results and documentation. This review has the aim of consolidating methodological recommendations through a critical analysis on past and recent data. This will allow a better understanding on skin prick test (SPT) history; technique; (contra-) indications; interpretation of results; diagnostic pitfalls; adverse reactions; and variability factors.

Drug Provocation Tests to Betalactam Antibiotics: Experience in a Paediatric Setting

Background: Few studies have been performed in children withs uspected betalactam allergy.We aimed to assess the role of the drug provocation test(DPT)with betalactams in a paediatric setting and to study the association between allergy to betalactam antibiotics and other allergic diseases. Methods:We included all the patients under 15 years old who were consecutively referred to the Immunoallergy Department, Dona Estefânia Hospital,Portugal(January 2002 to April 2008)for a compatible history of allergic reaction to betalactam. All were submitted to a DPT.Children were proposed to performs kintests(ST)to betalactam antibiotics followed by DPT. If they decline ST,a DPT with the culprit drug was performed. Results: We studied 161 children,60%were boys,with a median age of 5years old at the time of the DPT.Thirty-three patients(20.5%)had an immediate reaction and 33(20.5%)a non-immediate reaction. These verity of there porte dreactions was low in most cases. Skin tests to betalactams were performed in 47 children and were positive in 8.DPT was positive inonlyone(3.4%)of the patients skin tested and in 11(13.4%)of those not skin tested. These verity of the DPT reaction was low.Asthma and food allergy were associated with a positive DPT in the later group. Conclusions: DPT seems a safe procedure even in the absence of ST in non-severe cases. This could be a practical optionin infants and pre-school children,where ST are painful and difficult to perform.Additional caution should be taken in children with asthma and food allergy.

Methacholine Dose-Response Slopes from Maximal Bronchial Challenge Tests in Asthmatic Children: Methodological Aspects

To determine whether the slope of a maximal bronchial challenge test (in which FEV1 falls by over 50%) could be extrapolated from a standard bronchial challenge test (in which FEV1 falls up to 20%), 14 asthmatic children performed a single maximal bronchial challenge test with methacholin(dose range: 0.097–30.08 umol) by the dosimeter method. Maximal dose-response curves were included according to the following criteria: (1) at least one more dose beyond a FEV1 ù 20%; and (2) a MFEV1 ù 50%. PD20 FEV1 was calculated, and the slopes of the early part of the dose-response curve (standard dose-response slopes) and of the entire curve (maximal dose-response slopes) were calculated by two methods: the two-point slope (DRR) and the least squares method (LSS) in % FEV1 × umol−1. Maximal dose-response slopes were compared with the corresponding standard dose-response slopes by a paired Student’s t test after logarithmic transformation of the data; the goodness of fit of the LSS was also determined. Maximal dose-response slopes were significantly different (p < 0.0001) from those calculated on the early part of the curve: DRR20% (91.2 ± 2.7 FEV1% z umol−1)was 2.88 times higher than DRR50% (31.6 ± 3.4 DFEV1% z umol−1), and the LSS20% (89.1 ± 2.8% FEV1 z umol−1) was 3.10 times higher than LSS 50% (28.8 ± 1.5%FEV1 z umol−1). The goodness of fit of LSS 50% was significant in all cases, whereas LSS 20% failed to be significant in one. These results suggest that maximal dose-response slopes cannot be predicted from the data of standard bronchial challenge tests.

Development Process and Cognitive Testing of CARATkids - Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test for Children

Background: Allergic rhinitis and asthma (ARA) are chronic inflammatory diseases of the airways that often coexist in children. The only tool to assess the ARA control, the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) is to be used by adults. We aimed to develop the Pediatric version of Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARATkids) and to test its comprehensibility in children with 4 to 12 years of age. Methods: The questionnaire development included a literature review of pediatric questionnaires on asthma and/or rhinitis control and two consensus meetings of a multidisciplinary group. Cognitive testing was carried out in a cross-sectional qualitative study using cognitive interviews. Results: Four questionnaires to assess asthma and none to assess rhinitis control in children were identified. The multidisciplinary group produced a questionnaire version for children with 17 questions with illustrations and dichotomous (yes/no) response format. The version for caregivers had 4-points and dichotomous scales. Twenty-nine children, 4 to 12 years old, and their caregivers were interviewed. Only children over 6 years old could adequately answer the questionnaire. A few words/expressions were not fully understood by children of 6 to 8 years old. The drawings illustrating the questions were considered helpful by children and caregivers. Caregivers considered the questionnaire complete and clear and preferred dichotomous over the 4-points scales. The proportion of agreement between children and their caregivers was 61%. The words/expressions that were difficult to understand were amended. Conclusion: CARATkids, the first questionnaire to assess a child’s asthma and rhinitis control was developed and its content validity was assured. Cognitive testing showed that CARATKids is well-understood by children 6 to 12 years old. The questionnaire’s measurement properties can now be assessed in a validation study.