OBJECTIVE: We conducted a phase 1/2 clinical study to examine the safety and diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of nonammoniated latex, ammoniated latex, and rubber glove extracts as skin test extracts to identify the most efficacious source material for future skin test reagent development.
METHODS: Twenty-four adults not allergic to latex, 19 adults with hand dermatitis or pruritus, and 59 adults with a latex allergy were identified by clinical history. All provided blood and then received puncture skin tests and intradermal skin tests with nonammoniated latex, ammoniated latex, and rubber glove extracts from Malaysian H. brasiliensis latex by use of sequential titration. A glove provocation test and IgE anti-latex RAST were used to clarify positive history-negative skin test response and negative history-positive skin test response mismatches.
RESULTS: All three extracts were biologically safe and sterile. After normalization to 1 mg/ml of total protein, all three extracts produced equivalent diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in puncture skin tests and intradermal skin tests at various extract concentrations. Optimal diagnostic accuracy was safely achieved at 100 micrograms/ml for intradermal skin tests (e.g., nonammoniated latex: puncture skin test sensitivity 96%, specificity 100%; intradermal skin test sensitivity 93%, specificity 96%). The presence of IgE antibody in skin was highly correlated with IgE anti-latex in serum (nonammoniated latex: r = 0.98, p < 0.001; ammoniated latex: r = 0.94, p < 0.001; rubber glove extract: r = 0.96, p < 0.001). All five available subjects with a positive history, negative skin test response, and absence of IgE antibody in serum had a negative glove provocation test response, indicating no clinical evidence of latex allergy. No systemic or large local allergic reactions were observed with puncture skin tests or intradermal skin tests.
CONCLUSIONS: Equivalent diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were observed with the nonammoniated latex, ammoniated latex, and rubber glove extract skin test reagents after normalization for total protein; nonammoniated latex may be considered the reagent of choice on the basis of practical quality control and reproducibility considerations.
OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to measure the agreement between BAT and immunoassay in diagnosis of penicillin allergy.
METHOD: BAT was performed using penicillin G (Pen G), penicillin V (Pen V), penicilloyl-polylysine (PPL), minor determinant mix (MDM), amoxicillin (Amx) and ampicillin (Amp) in 25 patients. Immunoassay of total IgE (tIgE) and specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies to Pen G, Pen V, Amx and Amp were quantified. Skin prick test (SPT) using PPL-MDM, Amx, Amp and Clavulanic acid were also performed.
RESULTS: Minimal agreement was observed between BAT and immunoassay (k=0.25). Of two BAT-positive patients, one patient is positive to Amx (59.27%, SI=59) and Amp (82.32%, SI=82) but sIgE-negative to all drug tested. This patient is also SPT-positive to both drugs. Another patient is BAT-positive to Pen G (10.18%, SI=40), Pen V (25.07%, SI=100) and Amp (19.52%, SI=79). In sIgE immunoassay, four patients were sIgE-positive to at least one of the drugs tested. The sIgE level of three patients was between low and moderate and they were BAT-negative. One BAT-positive patient had a high level of sIgE antibodies (3.50-17.5kU/L) along with relatively high specific to total IgE ratio ≥0.002 (0.004-0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: The agreement between BAT and immunoassay is minimal. Performing both tests provides little increase in the sensitivity of allergy diagnosis work-up for immediate reactions to penicillin.
METHODS: A cross-sectional diagnostic study was performed on patients who had undergone nasal endoscopy and allergy testing. Allergy status was determined by positive serology or epicutaneous testing. Endoscopy was reviewed by blinded assessors for middle turbinate head edema. Appearance was graded as either normal, focal, multifocal, diffuse, or polypoid edema. Receiver-operator (ROC) analysis, likelihood ratio (LR), sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) were determined.
RESULTS: One hundred eighty-seven patients representing 304 nasal cavities were assessed (42% female, age 39.74 ± 14.7 years, 57% allergic). Diffuse edema (PPV 91.7%/LR = 8) and polypoid edema (PPV 88.9%/LR = 6.2) demonstrated the strongest association with inhalant allergy. Multifocal edema was used as a cut-off to represent inhalant allergy from ROC analysis, which demonstrated 94.7% specificity and 23.4% sensitivity. The PPV for multifocal was 85.1% and LR = 4.4.
CONCLUSION: Middle turbinate edema is a useful nasal endoscopic feature to predict presence of inhalant allergy and, although not sensitive, has excellent PPV.