Ownby D R
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Pediatr Clin North Am. 1988 Oct;35(5):995-1009. doi: 10.1016/s0031-3955(16)36544-0.
Table 4 briefly summarizes the relative advantages and disadvantages of skin tests versus in vitro tests for detecting allergen-specific IgE. The skin test remains unexcelled as a sensitive and cost efficient test for specific IgE. The high degree of skin test sensitivity is very important when a patient must be evaluated for potentially life-threatening allergies such as to penicillin or stinging insects. The results of both skin tests and in vitro assays depend very much on the quality of the allergen extracts used for the tests. Although the quality of extracts is improving, there is still little standardization. Both skin tests and in vitro assays are difficult to quality control. Practicing allergists rely on experience, and the correlation between patient histories and skin tests results for quality control of the results. Although this system suffices for common allergens, the results for uncommon allergens may be misleading. Quality control is also difficult for in vitro tests. Participation in quality control programs, such as that being offered by the College of American Pathologists, will increase and lead to better quality and standardization of in vitro test results. At the present time, properly performed skin tests are the best available method for detecting the presence of allergen specific IgE. They are rapid, sensitive, and inexpensive on a per test basis. In vitro tests are acceptable substitutes for skin tests in some circumstances. If the patient does not have normal skin, cannot discontinue interfering medications, or is so sensitive by history that anaphylaxis seems possible, in vitro tests are preferred. In vitro tests are better when it is necessary to test a difficult patient such as a combative, mentally retarded adult. In vitro tests also have been invaluable in many allergy research studies. Physicians must remember that positive tests for allergen-specific IgE do not diagnose allergy. They only indicate the presence of IgE molecules with a particular immunologic specificity. A decision whether the specific IgE molecules are responsible for clinically apparent disease must be made by a well-trained physician. The ultimate standard for the diagnosis of allergic disease remains the combination of: (1) positive double-blind challenge, (2) the presence of specific IgE, and (3) demonstration that the symptoms are the result of IgE-mediated inflammation.
表4简要总结了皮肤试验与体外试验在检测变应原特异性IgE方面的相对优缺点。皮肤试验作为一种检测特异性IgE的灵敏且经济高效的试验,仍然无与伦比。当必须评估患者是否对诸如青霉素或叮蛰昆虫等潜在危及生命的变应原过敏时,皮肤试验的高灵敏度非常重要。皮肤试验和体外检测的结果在很大程度上取决于用于试验的变应原提取物的质量。尽管提取物的质量在不断提高,但标准化程度仍然很低。皮肤试验和体外检测都难以进行质量控制。执业过敏症专科医生依靠经验,并通过患者病史与皮肤试验结果之间的相关性来对结果进行质量控制。虽然这个系统对常见变应原足够了,但对于不常见变应原的结果可能会产生误导。体外检测的质量控制也很困难。参与质量控制项目,如美国病理学家学会提供的项目,将提高并导致体外检测结果有更好的质量和标准化。目前,正确进行的皮肤试验是检测变应原特异性IgE存在的最佳可用方法。它们快速、灵敏,且每次检测成本低廉一。在某些情况下,体外检测是皮肤试验的可接受替代方法。如果患者皮肤不正常、不能停用干扰药物,或者根据病史非常敏感以至于可能发生过敏反应,体外检测则更为可取。当需要检测难对付的患者,如好斗的智障成年人时,体外检测更好。体外检测在许多过敏研究中也具有重要价值。医生必须记住,变应原特异性IgE的阳性检测结果并不能诊断过敏。它们仅表明存在具有特定免疫特异性的IgE分子。必须由训练有素的医生来决定特定的IgE分子是否导致临床明显疾病。过敏性疾病诊断的最终标准仍然是以下三者的结合:(1)阳性双盲激发试验,(2)特异性IgE的存在,以及(3)证明症状是IgE介导的炎症的结果。