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.