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.

Different in Vivo Reactivity Profile in Health Care Workers and Patients with Spina Bifida to Internal and External Latex Glove Surface-Derived Allergen Extracts

BACKGROUND: Allergy to natural rubber latex is a well-recognized health problem, especially among health care workers and patients with spina bifida. Despite latex sensitization being acquired in health institutions in both health care workers and patients with spina bifida, differences in allergen sensitization profiles have been described between these two risk groups. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the in vivo reactivity of health care workers and patients with spina bifida to extracts of internal and external surfaces of latex gloves and also to specific extracts enriched in major allergens for these risk groups. METHODS: Gloves from different manufacturers were used for protein extraction, and salt precipitation and hydrophobic interaction chromatography (HIC) were applied to obtain the enriched latex extracts. The major latex allergens were quantified by an enzyme immunoassay. The extracts obtained were tested in 14 volunteers using skin prick tests (SPT). RESULTS: Latex glove extracts enriched in the hydrophobic allergens that are most often seen in patients with spina bifida were obtained by selective precipitation, whereas HIC produced extracts enriched in the hydrophilic allergens commonly found in health care workers. The health care workers had positive SPTs to glove extracts from internal surfaces and to the hydrophilic allergen-enriched extracts. By contrast, patients with spina bifida had larger skin reactions both to external glove extracts and to the extracts enriched with the hydrophobic major allergens for this risk group. Despite the protein concentration of these extracts being less than half the concentration of the commercial extract, the weal-and-flare reactions were of similar magnitude. CONCLUSION: Using novel latex extracts, our study showed a different in vivo reactivity pattern in health care workers and in patients with spina bifida to extracts of the internal and external surfaces of gloves, which suggests that sensitization may occur by different routes of exposure, and that this influences the allergen reactivity profiles of these risk groups