BACKGROUND: Skin testing, correlated with patient history, is the accepted method of identifying clinically relevant aeroallergen sensitivity. Traditionally, intradermal tests are believed to be more sensitive in identifying aeroallergen sensitivity than the epicutaneous and percutaneous methods. Therefore, many allergy practitioners use the epicutaneous or percutaneous method first and, if the results are negative, follow up with intradermal tests. OBJECTIVES: To compare the epicutaneous, percutaneous, and intradermal methods to determine their sensitivity to patient history and to evaluate the value of intradermal tests when epicutaneous and percutaneous test results are negative. METHODS: Participants were evaluated for rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms and then were skin tested using the prick and Multi-Test II (MTII) methods. Intradermal tests were performed when prick and MTII test results were negative to an aeroallergen. Participants with negative prick and MTII test results and corresponding positive intradermal test results underwent nasal challenges with evaluation by anterior rhinomanometry. RESULTS: Compared with patient history, average sensitivity for MTII was 77% and for the prick method was 62%. When MTII results were negative, 17% of intradermal tests corresponded with probable patient histories of allergy but none with positive nasal challenge results. Nasal challenge results were similar to those of the negative control group and significantly different from those of the positive control group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The MTII tests are more sensitive and equally specific compared with the prick method. When MTII results are negative, positive intradermal test results are unlikely to identify clinically relevant aeroallergen sensitivity. Routine performance of intradermal tests when MTII results are negative is likely to be of low clinical yield.
BACKGROUND: Skin testing, correlated with patient history, is the accepted method of identifying clinically relevant aeroallergen sensitivity. Traditionally, intradermal tests are believed to be more sensitive in identifying aeroallergen sensitivity than the epicutaneous and percutaneous methods. Therefore, many allergy practitioners use the epicutaneous or percutaneous method first and, if the results are negative, follow up with intradermal tests. OBJECTIVES: To compare the epicutaneous, percutaneous, and intradermal methods to determine their sensitivity to patient history and to evaluate the value of intradermal tests when epicutaneous and percutaneous test results are negative. METHODS:Participants were evaluated for rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms and then were skin tested using the prick and Multi-Test II (MTII) methods. Intradermal tests were performed when prick and MTII test results were negative to an aeroallergen. Participants with negative prick and MTII test results and corresponding positive intradermal test results underwent nasal challenges with evaluation by anterior rhinomanometry. RESULTS: Compared with patient history, average sensitivity for MTII was 77% and for the prick method was 62%. When MTII results were negative, 17% of intradermal tests corresponded with probable patient histories of allergy but none with positive nasal challenge results. Nasal challenge results were similar to those of the negative control group and significantly different from those of the positive control group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The MTII tests are more sensitive and equally specific compared with the prick method. When MTII results are negative, positive intradermal test results are unlikely to identify clinically relevant aeroallergen sensitivity. Routine performance of intradermal tests when MTII results are negative is likely to be of low clinical yield.
Authors: Sarah K Wise; Sandra Y Lin; Elina Toskala; Richard R Orlandi; Cezmi A Akdis; Jeremiah A Alt; Antoine Azar; Fuad M Baroody; Claus Bachert; G Walter Canonica; Thomas Chacko; Cemal Cingi; Giorgio Ciprandi; Jacquelynne Corey; Linda S Cox; Peter Socrates Creticos; Adnan Custovic; Cecelia Damask; Adam DeConde; John M DelGaudio; Charles S Ebert; Jean Anderson Eloy; Carrie E Flanagan; Wytske J Fokkens; Christine Franzese; Jan Gosepath; Ashleigh Halderman; Robert G Hamilton; Hans Jürgen Hoffman; Jens M Hohlfeld; Steven M Houser; Peter H Hwang; Cristoforo Incorvaia; Deborah Jarvis; Ayesha N Khalid; Maritta Kilpeläinen; Todd T Kingdom; Helene Krouse; Desiree Larenas-Linnemann; Adrienne M Laury; Stella E Lee; Joshua M Levy; Amber U Luong; Bradley F Marple; Edward D McCoul; K Christopher McMains; Erik Melén; James W Mims; Gianna Moscato; Joaquim Mullol; Harold S Nelson; Monica Patadia; Ruby Pawankar; Oliver Pfaar; Michael P Platt; William Reisacher; Carmen Rondón; Luke Rudmik; Matthew Ryan; Joaquin Sastre; Rodney J Schlosser; Russell A Settipane; Hemant P Sharma; Aziz Sheikh; Timothy L Smith; Pongsakorn Tantilipikorn; Jody R Tversky; Maria C Veling; De Yun Wang; Marit Westman; Magnus Wickman; Mark Zacharek Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Ignacio J Ansotegui; Giovanni Melioli; Giorgio Walter Canonica; Luis Caraballo; Elisa Villa; Motohiro Ebisawa; Giovanni Passalacqua; Eleonora Savi; Didier Ebo; R Maximiliano Gómez; Olga Luengo Sánchez; John J Oppenheimer; Erika Jensen-Jarolim; David A Fischer; Tari Haahtela; Martti Antila; Jean J Bousquet; Victoria Cardona; Wen Chin Chiang; Pascal M Demoly; Lawrence M DuBuske; Marta Ferrer Puga; Roy Gerth van Wijk; Sandra Nora González Díaz; Alexei Gonzalez-Estrada; Edgardo Jares; Ayse Füsun Kalpaklioğlu; Luciana Kase Tanno; Marek L Kowalski; Dennis K Ledford; Olga Patricia Monge Ortega; Mário Morais Almeida; Oliver Pfaar; Lars K Poulsen; Ruby Pawankar; Harald E Renz; Antonino G Romano; Nelson A Rosário Filho; Lanny Rosenwasser; Mario A Sánchez Borges; Enrico Scala; Gian-Enrico Senna; Juan Carlos Sisul; Mimi L K Tang; Bernard Yu-Hor Thong; Rudolf Valenta; Robert A Wood; Torsten Zuberbier Journal: World Allergy Organ J Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 4.084