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.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms associated with the use of any intervention, in both adults and children, for the treatment of jellyfish stings, as assessed by randomised and quasi-randomised trials.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science up to 27 October 2022. We searched clinical trials registers and the grey literature, and conducted forward-citation searching of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention given to treat stings from any species of jellyfish stings. Interventions were compared to another active intervention, placebo, or no treatment. If co-interventions were used, we included the study only if the co-intervention was used in each group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies (six RCTs and three quasi-RCTs) involving a total of 574 participants. We found one ongoing study. Participants were either stung accidentally, or were healthy volunteers exposed to stings in a laboratory setting. Type of jellyfish could not be confirmed in beach settings and was determined by investigators using participant and local information. We categorised interventions into comparison groups: hot versus cold applications; topical applications. A third comparison of parenteral administration included no relevant outcome data: a single study (39 participants) evaluated intravenous magnesium sulfate after stings from jellyfish that cause Irukandji syndrome (Carukia). No studies assessed a fourth comparison group of pressure immobilisation bandages. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to very serious risk of bias, serious and very serious imprecision, and serious inconsistency in some results. Application of heat versus application of cold Four studies involved accidental stings treated on the beach or in hospital. Jellyfish were described as bluebottles (Physalia; location: Australia), and box jellyfish that do not cause Irukandji syndrome (Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) and major box jellyfish (Chironex fleckeri, location: Australia)). Treatments were applied with hot packs or hot water (showers, baths, buckets, or hoses), or ice packs or cold packs. The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we are unsure whether heat compared to cold leads to at least a clinically significant reduction in pain within six hours of stings from Physalia (risk ratio (RR) 2.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.56; 2 studies, 142 participants) or Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 4.94; 2 studies, 71 participants). We are unsure whether there is a difference in adverse events due to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.19; 2 studies, 142 participants); these were minor adverse events reported for Physalia stings. We are also unsure whether either treatment leads to a clinically significant reduction in pain in the first hour (Physalia: RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.15; 1 study, 88 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.89; 1 study, 42 participants) or cessation of pain at the end of treatment (Physalia: RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.27; 1 study, 54 participants; Carybdea alata and Chironex fleckeri: RR 3.54, 95% CI 0.82 to 15.31; 1 study, 29 participants). Evidence for retreatment with the same intervention was only available for Physalia, with similar uncertain findings (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.90; 1 study, 96 participants), as was the case for retreatment with the alternative hot or cold application after Physalia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.82; 1 study, 54 participants) and Chironex fleckeri stings (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.17; 1 study, 42 participants). Evidence for dermatological signs (itchiness or rash) was available only at 24 hours for Physalia stings (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.65; 2 studies, 98 participants). Topical applications One study (62 participants) included accidental stings from Hawaiian box jellyfish (Carybdea alata) treated on the beach with fresh water, seawater, Sting Aid (a commercial product), or Adolph's (papain) meat tenderiser. In another study, healthy volunteers (97 participants) were stung with an Indonesian sea nettle (Chrysaora chinensis from Malaysia) in a laboratory setting and treated with isopropyl alcohol, ammonia, heated water, acetic acid, or sodium bicarbonate. Two other eligible studies (Carybdea alata and Physalia stings) did not measure the outcomes of this review. The evidence for all outcomes was of very low certainty, thus we could not be certain whether or not topical applications provided at least a clinically significant reduction in pain (1 study, 62 participants with Carybdea alata stings, reported only as cessation of pain). For adverse events due to treatment, one study (Chrysaora chinensis stings) withdrew ammonia as a treatment following a first-degree burn in one participant. No studies evaluated clinically significant reduction in pain, retreatment with the same or the alternative treatment, or dermatological signs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Few studies contributed data to this review, and those that did contribute varied in types of treatment, settings, and range of jellyfish species. We are unsure of the effectiveness of any of the treatments evaluated in this review given the very low certainty of all the evidence. This updated review includes two new studies (with 139 additional participants). The findings are consistent with the previous review.