BACKGROUND: Mouse sensitization is assessed by using skin testing and serum levels of mouse allergen-specific IgE (m-IgE). However, it is unknown whether a positive skin test response or m-IgE result accurately identifies those with clinically relevant mouse sensitization. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare skin testing and m-IgE measurement in the diagnosis of mouse allergy. METHODS: Sixty-nine mouse laboratory workers underwent skin prick tests (SPTs), intradermal tests (IDTs), and serum IgE measurements to mouse allergen, followed by nasal challenge to increasing concentrations of mouse allergen. Challenge response was assessed by nasal symptom score. RESULTS: Thirty-eight women and 31 men with a mean age of 30 years were studied. Forty-nine workers reported mouse-related symptoms, of whom 10 had positive m-IgE results and 12 had positive SPT responses. Fifteen had negative SPT responses but positive IDT responses. Positive nasal challenges were observed in 70% of workers with positive m-IgE results, 83% of workers with positive SPT responses, 33% of workers with negative SPT responses/positive IDT responses, and 0% of workers with negative IDT responses. SPTs performed best, having the highest positive and negative predictive values. Among participants with a positive challenge result, those with a positive SPT response or m-IgE result had a significantly lower challenge threshold than those with a positive IDT response (P = .01). Workers with a positive challenge result were more likely to have an increase in nasal eosinophilia after the challenge compared with those with a negative challenge result (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: SPTs perform best in discriminating patients with and without mouse allergy. Mouse-specific IgE and IDTs appear to be less useful than SPTs in the diagnosis of mouse allergy.
BACKGROUND:Mouse sensitization is assessed by using skin testing and serum levels of mouse allergen-specific IgE (m-IgE). However, it is unknown whether a positive skin test response or m-IgE result accurately identifies those with clinically relevant mouse sensitization. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare skin testing and m-IgE measurement in the diagnosis of mouseallergy. METHODS: Sixty-nine mouse laboratory workers underwent skin prick tests (SPTs), intradermal tests (IDTs), and serum IgE measurements to mouse allergen, followed by nasal challenge to increasing concentrations of mouse allergen. Challenge response was assessed by nasal symptom score. RESULTS: Thirty-eight women and 31 men with a mean age of 30 years were studied. Forty-nine workers reported mouse-related symptoms, of whom 10 had positive m-IgE results and 12 had positive SPT responses. Fifteen had negative SPT responses but positive IDT responses. Positive nasal challenges were observed in 70% of workers with positive m-IgE results, 83% of workers with positive SPT responses, 33% of workers with negative SPT responses/positive IDT responses, and 0% of workers with negative IDT responses. SPTs performed best, having the highest positive and negative predictive values. Among participants with a positive challenge result, those with a positive SPT response or m-IgE result had a significantly lower challenge threshold than those with a positive IDT response (P = .01). Workers with a positive challenge result were more likely to have an increase in nasal eosinophilia after the challenge compared with those with a negative challenge result (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: SPTs perform best in discriminating patients with and without mouseallergy. Mouse-specific IgE and IDTs appear to be less useful than SPTs in the diagnosis of mouseallergy.
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: William J Sheehan; Pitud A Rangsithienchai; Robert A Wood; Don Rivard; Sasawan Chinratanapisit; Matthew S Perzanowski; Ginger L Chew; James M Seltzer; Elizabeth C Matsui; Wanda Phipatanakul Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Wanda Phipatanakul; Elizabeth Matsui; Jay Portnoy; P Brock Williams; Charles Barnes; Kevin Kennedy; David Bernstein; Joann Blessing-Moore; Linda Cox; David Khan; David Lang; Richard Nicklas; John Oppenheimer; Christopher Randolph; Diane Schuller; Sheldon Spector; Stephen A Tilles; Dana Wallace; James Sublett; Jonathan Bernstein; Carl Grimes; J David Miller; James Seltzer Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: Denisa Ferastraoaru; Maria Shtessel; Elizabeth Lobell; Golda Hudes; David Rosenstreich; Gabriele de Vos Journal: Allergy Rhinol (Providence) Date: 2017-06-01
Authors: Gennaro Liccardi; Gennaro Baldi; Anna Ciccarelli; Marina Cutajar; Maria D'Amato; Domenico Gargano; Domenico Giannattasio; Gennaro Leone; Mario Lo Schiavo; Francesco Madonna; Giovanni Menna; Carmen Montera; Antonio Pio; Maria Russo; Antonello Salzillo; Anna Stanziola; Gennaro D'Amato Journal: Multidiscip Respir Med Date: 2013-04-16