Literature DB >> 1296467

Skin prick testing with standardized extracts from 3 different manufacturers. A comparative randomized study.

N H Nielsen1, A Dirksen, H Mosbech, J Launbjerg, I Biering, M Søborg.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare skin reactivity to routine allergen prick test with panels of allergens, supplied by three different manufacturers. The allergens comprised ten aero-allergens commonly used for skin prick test in Northern Europe, and included pollen, dander, house dust mites, and moulds. Two hundred consecutive patients were tested. The methods for standardization of allergen extracts, declaration of allergenic potency, and recommended lancets differed. The equipment were Soluprick SQ (Allergologisk Laboratorium A/S, Denmark) (ALK), Alphatest (Dome/Hollister-Stier, U.K.) (DHS), and Phazet (Pharmacia, Sweden) (PHA). The coefficient of variation for the allergen coated PHA (same lancet was applied twice) was 0.31, and for ALK and DHS allergen extracts 0.13 and 0.18, respectively. The frequencies of patients with positive reactions to the various allergens were generally similar, although DHS appeared to elicit less positive reactions to Timothy, dog, and Dermatophagoides pteronnyssinus. For the individual physician, it may be important to know the allergenic activity of the different allergens in his routine panel compared to the activity in other similar panels.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1296467

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Allergol Immunopathol (Madr)        ISSN: 0301-0546            Impact factor:   1.667


  6 in total

1.  Evaluation of The Safety and Efficacy of Newly Developed Domestic Allergenic Extracts for Skin Prick Testing.

Authors:  Mohammad Fereidouni; Roya Mahdavi; Sarah Mahmoudzade; Hadis Rezapoor; Alireza Fereidouni; Afsane Bahrami
Journal:  Rep Biochem Mol Biol       Date:  2021-07

2.  Varying allergen composition and content affects the in vivo allergenic activity of commercial Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus extracts.

Authors:  Anne Casset; Adriano Mari; Ashok Purohit; Yvonne Resch; Margit Weghofer; Rosetta Ferrara; Wayne R Thomas; Claudia Alessandri; Kuan-Wei Chen; Frédéric de Blay; Rudolf Valenta; Susanne Vrtala
Journal:  Int Arch Allergy Immunol       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 2.749

3.  Are allergen batch differences and the use of double skin prick test important?

Authors:  Gert F Thomsen; Vivi Schlünssen; Lars R Skadhauge; Tine Halsen Malling; David L Sherson; Øyvind Omland; Torben Sigsgaard
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2015-04-09       Impact factor: 3.317

4.  Comparison between Newly Developed and Commercial Inhalant Skin Prick Test Reagents Using In Vivo and In Vitro Methods.

Authors:  Sang Chul Lee; Da Woon Sim; Jongsun Lee; Kyoung Yong Jeong; Kyung Hee Park; Jae Hyun Lee; Jung Dong Kim; Jung Won Park
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 2.153

5.  Evaluation of major mite allergens from European standardized commercial extracts for in vivo diagnosis: addressing the need for precision medicine.

Authors:  Ruperto González-Pérez; Paloma Poza-Guedes; Yvelise Barrios Del Pino; Víctor Matheu; Inmaculada Sánchez-Machín
Journal:  Clin Transl Allergy       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 5.871

6.  The skin prick test - European standards.

Authors:  Lucie Heinzerling; Adriano Mari; Karl-Christian Bergmann; Megon Bresciani; Guido Burbach; Ulf Darsow; Stephen Durham; Wytske Fokkens; Mark Gjomarkaj; Tari Haahtela; Ana Todo Bom; Stefan Wöhrl; Howard Maibach; Richard Lockey
Journal:  Clin Transl Allergy       Date:  2013-02-01       Impact factor: 5.871

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.