BACKGROUND: In an outpatient population, a high frequency of positive skin prick test responses to dog dander was found in the absence of detectable IgE to dog dander in the RAST. The majority of these patients were sensitized to house dust mites (Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus) and had no obvious dog-related allergic symptoms. These findings prompted us to investigate whether dog dander skin test preparations are contaminated with house dust mite allergens in amounts sufficient to cause false-positive skin prick test responses in patients sensitized to house dust mites. METHODS: Antigen detection assays with monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies were used to determine concentrations of the major allergen Can f 1 from dog dander and the major allergens Der p 1 and Der p 2 from house dust mites in five commercially available dog dander skin prick test preparations (A to E). RESULTS: Can f 1 concentrations varied for the different extracts (A: 170 micrograms/ml, B: 11.1 micrograms/ml, C: 13.3 micrograms/ml, D: 3.8 micrograms/ml, and E: 59.4 micrograms/ml). Der p 1 was detectable in all extracts (A: 33.4 ng/ml, B:5.1 ng/ml, C:29.6 ng/ml, D: 0.4 ng/ml, and E: 1.9 ng/ml), and Der p 2 was detectable in some of the commercially available dog dander skin prick test preparations tested (A: 31.3 ng/ml, B: 3.0 ng/ml, and C: 7.5 ng/ml). The median house dust mite threshold in the skin prick test was found to be 5.8 ng/ml, of Der p 1 (range, 3.5 to 20.8 ng/ml) in nine patients tested. CONCLUSION: Contamination of commercially available dog dander skin prick test preparations with the major allergens (Der p 1 and Der p 2) of the house dust mite (D. pteronyssinus) was demonstrated. These contaminations cause false-positive responses to skin prick tests with dog dander in patients sensitized to house dust mite.
BACKGROUND: In an outpatient population, a high frequency of positive skin prick test responses to dog dander was found in the absence of detectable IgE to dog dander in the RAST. The majority of these patients were sensitized to house dust mites (Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus) and had no obvious dog-related allergic symptoms. These findings prompted us to investigate whether dog dander skin test preparations are contaminated with house dust mite allergens in amounts sufficient to cause false-positive skin prick test responses in patients sensitized to house dust mites. METHODS: Antigen detection assays with monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies were used to determine concentrations of the major allergen Can f 1 from dog dander and the major allergens Der p 1 and Der p 2 from house dust mites in five commercially available dog dander skin prick test preparations (A to E). RESULTS: Can f 1 concentrations varied for the different extracts (A: 170 micrograms/ml, B: 11.1 micrograms/ml, C: 13.3 micrograms/ml, D: 3.8 micrograms/ml, and E: 59.4 micrograms/ml). Der p 1 was detectable in all extracts (A: 33.4 ng/ml, B:5.1 ng/ml, C:29.6 ng/ml, D: 0.4 ng/ml, and E: 1.9 ng/ml), and Der p 2 was detectable in some of the commercially available dog dander skin prick test preparations tested (A: 31.3 ng/ml, B: 3.0 ng/ml, and C: 7.5 ng/ml). The median house dust mite threshold in the skin prick test was found to be 5.8 ng/ml, of Der p 1 (range, 3.5 to 20.8 ng/ml) in nine patients tested. CONCLUSION: Contamination of commercially available dog dander skin prick test preparations with the major allergens (Der p 1 and Der p 2) of the house dust mite (D. pteronyssinus) was demonstrated. These contaminations cause false-positive responses to skin prick tests with dog dander in patients sensitized to house dust mite.
Authors: Jay Portnoy; Jeffrey D Miller; P Brock Williams; Ginger L Chew; J David Miller; Fares Zaitoun; Wanda Phipatanakul; Kevin Kennedy; Charles Barnes; Carl Grimes; Désirée Larenas-Linnemann; James Sublett; David Bernstein; Joann Blessing-Moore; David Khan; David Lang; Richard Nicklas; John Oppenheimer; Christopher Randolph; Diane Schuller; Sheldon Spector; Stephen A Tilles; Dana Wallace Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 6.347
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: Katharina Marth; Isabella Breyer; Margarete Focke-Tejkl; Katharina Blatt; Mohamed H Shamji; Janice Layhadi; Anna Gieras; Ines Swoboda; Domen Zafred; Walter Keller; Peter Valent; Stephen R Durham; Rudolf Valenta Journal: J Immunol Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: N Polovic; K Wadén; J Binnmyr; C Hamsten; R Grönneberg; C Palmberg; N Milcic-Matic; T Bergman; H Grönlund; M van Hage Journal: Allergy Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 13.146