Comparison of mRAST and CAP with skin end point titration for Alternaria tenuis and dermatophagoides pteronyssinus

Fungal rhinosinusitis: what every allergist should know

The interaction between fungi and the sinonasal tract results in a diverse range of diseases with an equally broad spectrum of clinical severity. The classification of these interactions has become complex, and this review seeks to rationalize and simplify the approach to fungal diseases of the nose and paranasal sinuses. These conditions may be discussed under two major headings: non-invasive disease (localized fungal colonization, fungal ball and allergic fungal rhinosinusitis) and invasive disease (acute invasive rhinosinusitis, chronic invasive rhinosinusitis and granulomatous invasive rhinosinusitis). A diagnosis of fungal rhinosinusitis is established by combining findings on history, clinical examination, laboratory testing, imaging and histopathology. The immunocompetence of the patient is of great importance, as invasive fungal rhinosinusitis is uncommon in immunocompetent patients. With the exception of localized fungal colonization, treatment of all forms of fungal rhinosinusitis relies heavily on surgery. Systemic antifungal agents are a fundamental component in the treatment of invasive forms, but are not indicated for the treatment of the non-invasive forms. Antifungal drugs may have a role as adjuvant therapy in allergic fungal rhinosinusitis, but evidence is poor to support recommendations. Randomized controlled trials need to be performed to confirm the benefit of immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic fungal rhinosinusitis. In this article, we will summarize the current literature, addressing the controversies regarding the diagnosis and management of fungal rhinosinusitis, and focussing on those aspects which are important for clinical immunologists and allergists.

Comparison of the skin test and ImmunoCAP system in the evaluation of mold allergy

BACKGROUND

Mold is ubiquitous in our environment and is a common allergen in allergic diseases. The skin test and the Pharmacia ImmunoCAP system (CAP) for assay-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies are both widely used. The goal of this study was to compare the performance of the skin test and CAP in the evaluation of mold allergy.

METHODS

Patients with allergic rhinitis were enrolled at our outpatient department. The diagnosis of allergic rhinitis was based on typical symptoms for more than 2 years. All patients were tested by both intradermal skin test and serum assay for specific IgE antibodies. The skin test included house dust, cotton, ragweed, and 5 fungal antigens (Candida, Alternaria, Aspergillus, Cladosporium, and Penicillium). The serum-specific IgE antibodies were quantified using the radioimmunoassay version of CAP.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients (44 males and 31 females) with allergic rhinitis were enrolled in this study. Their ages ranged from 12 to 76 years old, with a mean of 31.9 years. The positive rates of skin test and CAP were 56.0% versus 9.3% for Candida, 22.7% versus 1.3% for Alternaria, 16% versus 9.3% for Aspergillus, 14.7% versus 1.3% for Cladosporium, and 32% versus 8% for Penicillium. There were statistically significant differences between the positive rates for Candida, Alternaria, Cladosporium, and Penicillium when analyzed by the McNemar test.

CONCLUSION

The positive rate of the skin test is higher than CAP when evaluating mold allergy. Clinicians should note that a discrepancy may exist between the results of in vitro and in vivo tests when evaluating mold allergy.