Suppr超能文献

诊断环境过敏:皮肤点刺试验、皮内试验和血清特异性免疫球蛋白E检测的比较

Diagnosing environmental allergies: Comparison of skin-prick, intradermal, and serum specific immunoglobulin E testing.

作者信息

Ferastraoaru Denisa, Shtessel Maria, Lobell Elizabeth, Hudes Golda, Rosenstreich David, de Vos Gabriele

出版信息

Allergy Rhinol (Providence). 2017 Jun 1;8(2):53-62. doi: 10.2500/ar.2017.8.0194.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Allergists commonly perform intradermal skin testing (IDST) after negative skin-prick testing (SPT) to comprehensively diagnose environmental allergic sensitization. However, with the availability of modern methods to detect serum-specific immunoglobulin E (ssIgE), it is unclear if ssIgE testing could substitute for IDST.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of ssIgE testing and IDST when added to SPT in diagnosing environmental allergic sensitizations.

METHODS

SPT, IDST, and ssIgE testing to nine common environmental allergens were analyzed in 75 patients with oculonasal symptoms who presented to our allergy clinics in the Bronx, New York, between January 2014 and May 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 651 SPT and 499 ssIgE tests were independently performed and revealed 162 (25%) and 127 (25%) sensitizations, respectively. When SPT results were negative, IDST results revealed 108 of 452 additional sensitizations (24%). In contrast, when SPT results were negative, ssIgE test results only revealed 9% additional sensitizations. When both SPT and IDST results were negative, ssIgE testing only detected 3% of additional sensitizations, and ssIgE levels were typically low in these cases (median, 1.25 kU/L; range, 0.357-4.47 kU/L). When both SPT and ssIgE test results were negative, IDST results detected 15% additional sensitizations.

CONCLUSION

IDST detected more additional environmental sensitizations compared with ssIgE testing. IDST, therefore, may be useful when the SPT and/or ssIgE testing results were negative, but the exposure history indicated relevant allergic sensitization. Serology added only a little more information if both SPT and IDST results were negative but may be useful in combination with SPT if IDST cannot be performed.

摘要

背景

在皮肤点刺试验(SPT)结果为阴性后,过敏症专科医生通常会进行皮内皮肤试验(IDST),以全面诊断环境过敏致敏情况。然而,随着现代检测血清特异性免疫球蛋白E(ssIgE)方法的出现,尚不清楚ssIgE检测是否可以替代IDST。

目的

确定在SPT基础上增加ssIgE检测和IDST在诊断环境过敏致敏中的有效性。

方法

对2014年1月至2015年5月间到纽约布朗克斯区我们的过敏诊所就诊的75例有眼鼻症状的患者进行了针对9种常见环境过敏原的SPT、IDST和ssIgE检测分析。

结果

共独立进行了651次SPT和499次ssIgE检测,分别发现162例(25%)和127例(25%)致敏情况。当SPT结果为阴性时,IDST结果显示在另外452例中有108例(24%)致敏。相比之下,当SPT结果为阴性时,ssIgE检测结果仅显示9%的额外致敏情况。当SPT和IDST结果均为阴性时,ssIgE检测仅检测到3%的额外致敏情况,且这些病例中的ssIgE水平通常较低(中位数为1.25 kU/L;范围为0.357 - 4.47 kU/L)。当SPT和ssIgE检测结果均为阴性时,IDST结果检测到15%的额外致敏情况。

结论

与ssIgE检测相比,IDST检测到更多额外的环境致敏情况。因此,当SPT和/或ssIgE检测结果为阴性,但接触史表明存在相关过敏致敏时,IDST可能会有用。如果SPT和IDST结果均为阴性,血清学检测仅增加了少量信息,但如果无法进行IDST,血清学检测与SPT联合使用可能会有用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/734e/5468757/b05f1568ed6f/arh0011701940001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验