Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
The Johns University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Md.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2015 Nov-Dec;3(6):888-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2015.07.022.
Allergen skin prick testing remains an essential tool for diagnosing atopic disease and guiding treatment. Sensitivity needs to be defined for newly introduced devices.
Our aim was to compare the performance of 10 current allergy skin prick test devices.
Single- and multiheaded skin test devices (n = 10) were applied by a single operator in a prospective randomized manner. Histamine (1 and 6 mg/mL) and control diluent were introduced at 6 randomized locations onto the upper and lower arms of healthy subjects. Wheal and flare reactions were measured independently by 2 masked technicians.
Twenty-four subjects provided consent, and 768 skin tests were placed. Mean wheal diameter among devices differed from 3.0 mm (ComforTen; Hollister-Stier, Spokane, Wash) to 6.8 mm (UniTest PC; Lincoln Diagnostics, Decatur, Ill) using 1 mg/mL histamine (P < .001) and 4.8 mm (GREER Pick; Greer, Lenoir, NC) to 8.4 mm (Duotip-Test II; Lincoln Diagnostics, Decatur, Ill; and Sharp-Test; Panatrex, Placentia, Calif) using 6 mg/mL histamine (P < .001). The false-negative rates ranged from 0% to 45% with 1 mg/mL histamine. The analytical specificity was 100% for all devices tested. All devices were well tolerated, with average pain score of less than 4 on a 10-point visual analog scale. Pain scores were higher among women, but this did not reach statistical significance. The Multi-Test PC and the UniTest PC had the lowest pain scores compared with the other devices.
All 10 skin prick test devices displayed good analytical sensitivity and specificity; however, 3 mm cannot arbitrarily be used as a positive threshold. The use of histamine at 1 mg/mL is unacceptable for certain devices but may be preferable for the most sensitive devices. On average, there was no pain score difference between multiheaded and single-head devices.
过敏原皮肤点刺测试仍然是诊断特应性疾病和指导治疗的重要工具。需要为新引入的设备定义敏感性。
我们的目的是比较 10 种当前的过敏皮肤点刺测试设备的性能。
单头和多头皮肤测试设备(n=10)由一名操作人员以单头随机方式应用。组胺(1 和 6 mg/mL)和对照稀释液以 6 个随机位置引入健康受试者的上手臂和下手臂。由 2 名蒙面技术人员独立测量风团和红晕反应。
24 名受试者同意,共进行了 768 次皮肤测试。使用 1mg/mL 组胺时,各设备之间的平均风团直径差异从 3.0mm(ComforTen;Hollister-Stier,斯波坎,华盛顿)到 6.8mm(UniTest PC;Lincoln Diagnostics,迪凯特,伊利诺伊州)(P<.001);使用 6mg/mL 组胺时,差异从 4.8mm(GREER Pick;Greer,勒诺尔,北卡罗来纳州)到 8.4mm(Duotip-Test II;Lincoln Diagnostics,迪凯特,伊利诺伊州和 Sharp-Test;Panatrex,普莱森顿,加利福尼亚州)(P<.001)。使用 1mg/mL 组胺时,假阴性率从 0%到 45%不等。所有测试设备的分析特异性均为 100%。所有设备均耐受性良好,平均疼痛评分在 10 分视觉模拟量表上小于 4 分。女性的疼痛评分较高,但无统计学意义。Multi-Test PC 和 UniTest PC 与其他设备相比,疼痛评分最低。
所有 10 种皮肤点刺测试设备均显示出良好的分析敏感性和特异性;然而,3mm 不能任意用作阳性阈值。某些设备不能接受使用 1mg/mL 组胺,但对于最敏感的设备可能更可取。平均而言,多头和单头设备之间的疼痛评分没有差异。