Stefan Wöhrl

The skin prick test – European standards

Skin prick testing is an essential test procedure to confirm sensitization in IgE-mediated allergic disease in subjects with rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma, urticaria, anapylaxis, atopic eczema and food and drug allergy. This manuscript reviews the available evidence including Medline and Embase searches, abstracts of international allergy meetings and position papers from the world allergy literature. The recommended method of prick testing includes the appropriate use of specific allergen extracts, positive and negative controls, interpretation of the tests after 15 – 20 minutes of application, with a positive result defined as a wheal ≥3 mm diameter. A standard prick test panel for Europe for inhalants is proposed and includes hazel (Corylus avellana), alder (Alnus incana), birch (Betula alba), plane (Platanus vulgaris), cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), grass mix (Poa pratensis, Dactilis glomerata, Lolium perenne, Phleum pratense, Festuca pratensis, Helictotrichon pretense), Olive (Olea europaea), mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Alternaria alternata (tenuis), Cladosporium herbarum, Aspergillus fumigatus, Parietaria, cat, dog, Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, Dermatophagoides farinae, and cockroach (Blatella germanica). Standardization of the skin test procedures and standard panels for different geographic locations are encouraged worldwide to permit better comparisons for diagnostic, clinical and research purposes.

Standard skin prick testing and sensitization to inhalant allergens across Europe--a survey from the GALEN network

Skin prick testing (SPT) is the standard method for diagnosing allergic sensitization but is to some extent performed differently in clinical centres across Europe. There would be advantages in harmonizing the standard panels of allergens used in different European countries, both for clinical purposes and for research, especially with increasing mobility within Europe and current trends in botany and agriculture. As well as improving diagnostic accuracy, this would allow better comparison of research findings in European allergy centres. We have compared the different SPT procedures operating in 29 allergy centres within the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN). Standard SPT is performed similarly in all centres, e.g. using commercial extracts, evaluation after 15–20 min exposure with positive results defined as a wheal >3 mm diameter. The perennial allergens included in the standard SPT panel of inhalant allergens are largely similar (e.g. cat: pricked in all centres; dog: 26 of 29 centres and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus: 28 of 29 centres) but the choice of pollen allergens vary considerably, reflecting different exposure and sensitization rates for regional inhalant allergens. This overview may serve as reference for the practising doctor and suggests a GA2LEN Pan‐European core SPT panel.

Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases

SummaryThe present guideline (S2k) on allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) was established by the German, Austrian and Swiss professional associations for allergy in consensus with the scientific specialist societies and professional associations in the fields of otolaryngology, dermatology and venereology, pediatric and adolescent medicine, pneumology as well as a German patient organization (German Allergy and Asthma Association; Deutscher Allergie- und Asthmabund, DAAB) according to the criteria of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, AWMF).AIT is a therapy with disease-modifying effects. By administering allergen extracts, specific blocking antibodies, toler-ance-inducing cells and mediators are activated. These prevent further exacerbation of the allergen-triggered immune response, block the specific immune response and attenuate the inflammatory response in tissue.Products for SCIT or SLIT cannot be compared at present due to their heterogeneous composition, nor can allergen concentrations given by different manufacturers be compared meaningfully due to the varying methods used to measure their active ingredients. Non-modified allergens are used for SCIT in the form of aqueous or physically adsorbed (depot) extracts, as well as chemically modified allergens (allergoids) as depot extracts. Allergen extracts for SLIT are used in the form of aqueous solutions or tablets.The clinical efficacy of AIT is measured using various scores as primary and secondary study endpoints. The EMA stipulates combined symptom and medication scores as primary endpoint. A harmonization of clinical endpoints, e. g., by using the combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS) recommended by the EAACI, is desirable in the future in order to permit the comparison of results from different studies. The current CONSORT recommendations from the ARIA/GA2LEN group specify standards for the evaluation, presentation and publication of study results.According to the Therapy allergen ordinance (TAV), preparations containing common allergen sources (pollen from grasses, birch, alder, hazel, house dust mites, as well as bee and wasp venom) need a marketing authorization in Germany. During the marketing authorization process, these preparations are examined regarding quality, safety and efficacy. In the opinion of the authors, authorized allergen preparations with documented efficacy and safety, or preparations tradeable under the TAV for which efficacy and safety have already been documented in clinical trials meeting WAO or EMA standards, should be preferentially used. Individual formulations (NPP) enable the prescription of rare allergen sources (e.g., pollen from ash, mugwort or ambrosia, mold Alternaria, animal allergens) for specific immunotherapy. Mixing these allergens with TAV allergens is not permitted.Allergic rhinitis and its associated co-morbidities (e. g., bronchial asthma) generate substantial direct and indirect costs. Treatment options, in particular AIT, are therefore evaluated using cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. From a long-term perspective, AIT is considered to be significantly more cost effective in allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma than pharmacotherapy, but is heavily dependent on patient compliance.Meta-analyses provide unequivocal evidence of the efficacy of SCIT and SLIT for certain allergen sources and age groups. Data from controlled studies differ in terms of scope, quality and dosing regimens and require product-specific evaluation. Therefore, evaluating individual preparations according to clearly defined criteria is recommended. A broad transfer of the efficacy of certain preparations to all preparations administered in the same way is not endorsed. The website of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (www.dgaki.de/leitlinien/s2k-leitlinie-sit; DGAKI: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie) provides tables with specific information on available products for AIT in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The tables contain the number of clinical studies per product in adults and children, the year of market authorization, underlying scoring systems, number of randomized and analyzed subjects and the method of evaluation (ITT, FAS, PP), separately given for grass pollen, birch pollen and house dust mite allergens, and the status of approval for the conduct of clinical studies with these products.Strong evidence of the efficacy of SCIT in pollen allergy-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in adulthood is well-documented in numerous trials and, in childhood and adolescence, in a few trials. Efficacy in house dust mite allergy is documented by a number of controlled trials in adults and few controlled trials in children. Only a few controlled trials, independent of age, are available for mold allergy (in particular Alternaria). With regard to animal dander allergies (primarily to cat allergens), only small studies, some with methodological deficiencies are available. Only a moderate and inconsistent therapeutic effect in atopic dermatitis has been observed in the quite heterogeneous studies conducted to date. SCIT has been well investigated for individual preparations in controlled bronchial asthma as defined by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2007 and intermittent and mild persistent asthma (GINA 2005) and it is recommended as a treatment option, in addition to allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy, provided there is a clear causal link between respiratory symptoms and the relevant allergen.The efficacy of SLIT in grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is extensively documented in adults and children, whilst its efficacy in tree pollen allergy has only been shown in adults. New controlled trials (some with high patient numbers) on house dust mite allergy provide evidence of efficacy of SLIT in adults.Compared with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, there are only few studies on the efficacy of SLIT in allergic asthma. In this context, newer studies show an efficacy for SLIT on asthma symptoms in the subgroup of grass pollen allergic children, adolescents and adults with asthma and efficacy in primary house dust mite allergy-induced asthma in adolescents aged from 14 years and in adults.Aspects of secondary prevention, in particular the reduction of new sensitizations and reduced asthma risk, are important rationales for choosing to initiate treatment early in childhood and adolescence. In this context, those products for which the appropriate effects have been demonstrated should be considered.SCIT or SLIT with pollen or mite allergens can be performed in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis using allergen extracts that have been proven to be effective in at least one double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPC) study. At present, clinical trials are underway for the indication in asthma due to house dust mite allergy, some of the results of which have already been published, whilst others are still awaited (see the DGAKI table “Approved/potentially completed studies” via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit (according to www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu)). When establishing the indication for AIT, factors that favour clinical efficacy should be taken into consideration. Differences between SCIT and SLIT are to be considered primarily in terms of contraindications. In individual cases, AIT may be justifiably indicated despite the presence of contraindications.SCIT injections and the initiation of SLIT are performed by a physician experienced in this type of treatment and who is able to administer emergency treatment in the case of an allergic reaction. Patients must be fully informed about the procedure and risks of possible adverse events, and the details of this process must be documented (see “Treatment information sheet”; available as a handout via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit). Treatment should be performed according to the manufacturer‘s product information leaflet. In cases where AIT is to be performed or continued by a different physician to the one who established the indication, close cooperation is required in order to ensure that treatment is implemented consistently and at low risk. In general, it is recommended that SCIT and SLIT should only be performed using preparations for which adequate proof of efficacy is available from clinical trials.Treatment adherence among AIT patients is lower than assumed by physicians, irrespective of the form of administration. Clearly, adherence is of vital importance for treatment success. Improving AIT adherence is one of the most important future goals, in order to ensure efficacy of the therapy.Severe, potentially life-threatening systemic reactions during SCIT are possible, but – providing all safety measures are adhered to – these events are very rare. Most adverse events are mild to moderate and can be treated well.Dose-dependent adverse local reactions occur frequently in the mouth and throat in SLIT. Systemic reactions have been described in SLIT, but are seen far less often than with SCIT. In terms of anaphylaxis and other severe systemic reactions, SLIT has a better safety profile than SCIT.The risk and effects of adverse systemic reactions in the setting of AIT can be effectively reduced by training of personnel, adhering to safety standards and prompt use of emergency measures, including early administration of i. m. epinephrine. Details on the acute management of anaphylactic reactions can be found in the current S2 guideline on anaphylaxis issued by the AWMF (S2-AWMF-LL Registry Number 061-025).AIT is undergoing some innovative developments in many areas (e. g., allergen characterization, new administration routes, adjuvants, faster and safer dose escalation protocols), some of which are already being investigated in clinical trials.Cite this as Pfaar O, Bacher

GA2LEN skin test study II: clinical relevance of inhalant allergen sensitizations in Europe.

Background:  Skin prick testing is the standard for diagnosing IgE‐mediated allergies. A positive skin prick reaction, however, does not always correlate with clinical symptoms. A large database from a Global Asthma and Allergy European Network (GA2LEN) study with data on clinical relevance was used to determine the clinical relevance of sensitizations against the 18 most frequent inhalant allergens in Europe. The study population consisted of patients referred to one of the 17 allergy centres in 14 European countries (n = 3034, median age = 33 years). The aim of the study was to assess the clinical relevance of positive skin prick test reactions against inhalant allergens considering the predominating type of symptoms in a pan‐European population of patients presenting with suspected allergic disease.

Patch testing in children, adults, and the elderly: Influence of age and sex on sensitization patterns

Abstract: Patch testing was done on 2776 consecutive patients (76.5% female) with a locally revised standard series of 34 contact allergens and the results analyzed for age‐ and gender‐specific differences. At least one positive epicutaneous test reaction occurred in 48.9% of patients. Nickel (20.9%), ethylmercuric chloride (13.2%), thimerosal (11.8%), fragrance mix (9.3%), metallic mercury (8.9%), palladium (5.8%), balsam of Peru (3.8%), copper (3.7%), cobalt (3.3%), and chromium (2.3%) were the 10 most important sensitizers. The following tested allergens with sensitization rates of more than 1% were not part of the usual standard series: ethylmercuric chloride, metallic mercury, copper, propolis (1.3%), propylene glycol (1.0%). Reactions to nickel, cobalt, and palladium, but not to chromium, were significantly more abundant in females (p < 0.002, chi‐squared test). The overall sensitization rate was highest in children less than 10 years old (62%) and decreased steadily, to be lowest among patients more than 70 years old (34.9%). The rate of positive reactions to nickel and thimerosal decreased with age, while fragrance mix and metallic mercury stayed at the same level through all age groups.

The performance of a component-based allergen-microarray in clinical practice

Background:  Currently, the diagnosis of IgE‐mediated allergy is based on allergen‐specific history and diagnostic procedures using natural allergen extracts for in vivo and in vitro tests.

GA2LEN skin test study III: Minimum battery of test inhalent allergens needed in epidemiological studies in patients

Background:  The number of allergens to be tested in order to identify sensitized patients is important in order to have the most cost‐effective approach in epidemiological studies.

Premedication with Montelukast Reduces Local Reactions of Allergen Immunotherapy

Background: Local reactions (LRs) are a very frequent side effect of specific immunotherapy with allergens and can impair patients’ adherence. Antihistamine pretreatment – originally introduced as a safety measure to reduce anaphylactic side effects – has been the only treatment option for LRs so far, although these swellings usually do not appear immediately but after hours. We were interested whether pretreatment with the leukotriene antagonist montelukast would be better suited for preventing those reactions than pretreatment with the antihistamine desloratadine. Methods: Fifteen patients with a history of severe anaphylactic reactions to hymenoptera stings were enrolled into a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study. We selected a rush immunotherapy protocol consisting of 19 injections of hymenoptera venom administered over 5 consecutive days, where the majority is developing LRs, and counted the number of injections until an LR of >3 cm occurred. The patients were randomized to 3 treatment groups: premedication with placebo, 10 mg montelukast and 5 mg of the antihistamine desloratadine. Results: Compared with placebo, the occurrence of LRs (>3 cm) was significantly delayed by montelukast (p < 0.01, analysis of variance) but not by desloratadine (p = 0.19). The difference between montelukast and desloratadine was close to significant (p = 0.054). Itching, recorded on a scale from 0 to 5, did not differ between the 3 groups. Conclusion: Montelukast can be useful in the prevention of LRs after specific immunotherapy.

Patients with drug reactions - is it worth testing?

Background:  Unevaluated drug reactions that lead to the prescription of expensive alternative medication is the reason why the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines recommend verification. We evaluated whether a structured test procedure in patients with drug reactions is worth the potential risk.

Clinical relevance is associated with allergen-specific wheal size in skin prick testing.

Within a large prospective study, the Global Asthma and Allergy European Network (GA2LEN) has collected skin prick test (SPT) data throughout Europe to make recommendations for SPT in clinical settings.