BACKGROUND: Data are limited about the value of skin tests in the diagnosis of proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-induced hypersensitivity reactions and the cross-reactivity between PPIs. We aimed to assess the role of skin testing in the diagnosis of PPI-related immediate hypersensitivity reactions and the cross-reactivity patterns among PPIs. METHODS: The study was designed in a prospective, national, multicentre nature. Sixty-five patients with a suggestive history of a PPI-induced immediate hypersensitivity reaction and 30 control subjects were included. Standardized skin prick and intradermal tests were carried out with a panel of PPIs. Single-blind, placebo-controlled oral provocation tests (OPTs) with the PPIs other than the culprit PPI that displayed negative results in skin tests (n = 61) and diagnostic OPTs with the suspected PPI (n = 12) were performed. RESULTS: The suspected PPIs were lansoprazole (n = 52), esomeprazole (n = 11), pantoprazole (n = 9), rabeprazole (n = 2), and omeprazole (n = 1). The sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of the skin tests with PPIs were 58.8%, 100%, 70.8%, and 100%, respectively. Fifteen of the 31 patients with a hypersensitivity reaction to lansoprazole had a positive OPT or skin test result with at least one of the alternative PPIs (8/52 pantoprazole, 6/52 omeprazole, 5/52 esomeprazole, 3/52 rabeprazole). CONCLUSION: Considering the high specificity, skin testing seems to be a useful method for the diagnosis of immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions to PPIs and for the evaluation of cross-reactivity among PPIs. However, OPT should be performed in case of negativity on skin tests.
BACKGROUND: Data are limited about the value of skin tests in the diagnosis of proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-induced hypersensitivity reactions and the cross-reactivity between PPIs. We aimed to assess the role of skin testing in the diagnosis of PPI-related immediate hypersensitivity reactions and the cross-reactivity patterns among PPIs. METHODS: The study was designed in a prospective, national, multicentre nature. Sixty-five patients with a suggestive history of a PPI-induced immediate hypersensitivity reaction and 30 control subjects were included. Standardized skin prick and intradermal tests were carried out with a panel of PPIs. Single-blind, placebo-controlled oral provocation tests (OPTs) with the PPIs other than the culprit PPI that displayed negative results in skin tests (n = 61) and diagnostic OPTs with the suspected PPI (n = 12) were performed. RESULTS: The suspected PPIs were lansoprazole (n = 52), esomeprazole (n = 11), pantoprazole (n = 9), rabeprazole (n = 2), and omeprazole (n = 1). The sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values of the skin tests with PPIs were 58.8%, 100%, 70.8%, and 100%, respectively. Fifteen of the 31 patients with a hypersensitivity reaction to lansoprazole had a positive OPT or skin test result with at least one of the alternative PPIs (8/52 pantoprazole, 6/52 omeprazole, 5/52 esomeprazole, 3/52 rabeprazole). CONCLUSION: Considering the high specificity, skin testing seems to be a useful method for the diagnosis of immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions to PPIs and for the evaluation of cross-reactivity among PPIs. However, OPT should be performed in case of negativity on skin tests.