van der Valk J P M, Gerth van Wijk R, Hoorn E, Groenendijk L, Groenendijk I M, de Jong N W
Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Allergology, Erasmus MC, Burg. St. Jacobsplein 51, 3015CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
ICT Services, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Clin Transl Allergy. 2016 Feb 23;6:8. doi: 10.1186/s13601-016-0092-0. eCollection 2015.
There are several methods to read skin prick test results in type-I allergy testing. A commonly used method is to characterize the wheal size by its 'average diameter'. A more accurate method is to scan the area of the wheal to calculate the actual size. In both methods, skin prick test (SPT) results can be corrected for histamine-sensitivity of the skin by dividing the results of the allergic reaction by the histamine control. The objectives of this study are to compare different techniques of quantifying SPT results, to determine a cut-off value for a positive SPT for histamine equivalent prick -index (HEP) area, and to study the accuracy of predicting cashew nut reactions in double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) tests with the different SPT methods.
Data of 172 children with cashew nut sensitisation were used for the analysis. All patients underwent a DBPCFC with cashew nut. Per patient, the average diameter and scanned area of the wheal size were recorded. In addition, the same data for the histamine-induced wheal were collected for each patient. The accuracy in predicting the outcome of the DBPCFC using four different SPT readings (i.e. average diameter, area, HEP-index diameter, HEP-index area) were compared in a Receiver-Operating Characteristic (ROC) plot.
Characterizing the wheal size by the average diameter method is inaccurate compared to scanning method. A wheal average diameter of 3 mm is generally considered as a positive SPT cut-off value and an equivalent HEP-index area cut-off value of 0.4 was calculated. The four SPT methods yielded a comparable area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84, 0.85, 0.83 and 0.83, respectively. The four methods showed comparable accuracy in predicting cashew nut reactions in a DBPCFC.
The 'scanned area method' is theoretically more accurate in determining the wheal area than the 'average diameter method' and is recommended in academic research. A HEP-index area of 0.4 is determined as cut-off value for a positive SPT. However, in clinical practice, the 'average diameter method' is also useful, because this method provides similar accuracy in predicting cashew nut allergic reactions in the DBPCFC.
Trial number NTR3572.
在I型过敏检测中,有多种读取皮肤点刺试验结果的方法。一种常用的方法是通过“平均直径”来描述风团大小。一种更准确的方法是扫描风团面积以计算实际大小。在这两种方法中,皮肤点刺试验(SPT)结果都可以通过将过敏反应结果除以组胺对照来校正皮肤的组胺敏感性。本研究的目的是比较量化SPT结果的不同技术,确定组胺等效点刺指数(HEP)面积的SPT阳性临界值,并研究用不同SPT方法在双盲安慰剂对照食物激发试验(DBPCFC)中预测腰果反应的准确性。
分析172名对腰果过敏的儿童的数据。所有患者均接受了腰果的DBPCFC。记录每位患者风团大小的平均直径和扫描面积。此外,收集每位患者组胺诱导风团的相同数据。在受试者操作特征(ROC)图中比较使用四种不同SPT读数(即平均直径、面积、HEP指数直径、HEP指数面积)预测DBPCFC结果的准确性。
与扫描法相比,用平均直径法描述风团大小不准确。风团平均直径3mm通常被视为SPT阳性临界值,计算出等效的HEP指数面积临界值为0.4。四种SPT方法的曲线下面积(AUC)分别为0.84、0.85、0.83和0.83,具有可比性。这四种方法在预测DBPCFC中的腰果反应时显示出相当的准确性。
“扫描面积法”在确定风团面积方面理论上比“平均直径法”更准确,推荐用于学术研究。确定HEP指数面积为0.4作为SPT阳性临界值。然而,在临床实践中,“平均直径法”也很有用,因为该方法在预测DBPCFC中的腰果过敏反应时提供了相似的准确性。
试验编号NTR3572。