Reliability of skin test results when read at different time points

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

Randomized controlled trial demonstrating the benefits of delta inulin adjuvanted immunotherapy in patients with bee venom allergy

Background

Allergic reactions to Hymenoptera insect stings remain a major global clinical problem. Although effective, parenteral desensitization regimens require use of costly venom extracts and require frequent visits over extended periods of time.

Objective

Adjuvants are commonly used to enhance the efficacy of infectious disease vaccines, and this study asked whether Advax (Vaxine Pty Ltd, Adelaide, Australia), a novel noninflammatory polysaccharide adjuvant, might provide similar benefits for allergy desensitization.

Methods

A randomized, controlled phase 1/2 trial was undertaken in 27 adults with a history of rapid-onset systemic allergic reactions to honeybee stings and positive specific IgE levels to evaluate the safety and efficacy of honeybee venom immunotherapy (HBVIT) combined with Advax adjuvant. Venom immunotherapy (VIT) was administered monthly for 30 months after achievement of maintenance doses.

Results

Advax-adjuvanted HBVIT was well tolerated. Around week 14 of VIT, specific IgG₄ responses peaked in both groups but increased earlier, peaked higher, and were better maintained through the end of the study in the Advax-adjuvanted arm. Several different patterns of serologic response to VIT were seen; some subjects had a dominant IgG₄ response, some had a combined IgG₄ and IgG₁ response, and some had an exclusively IgG₁ response. In some subjects specific IgE levels increased during the induction phase and then decreased, whereas in others specific IgE levels progressively decreased from the start of VIT.

Conclusion

Advax adjuvant favorably enhanced the immunogenicity of HBVIT, with an early and prolonged switch to specific IgG₄ production. The ability of Advax adjuvant to enhance VIT efficacy warrants further study.

Reliability of allergy skin testing

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous allergen skin testing remains an established benchmark for diagnosing atopic disease. The reliability of skin testing depends greatly on the performance of allergen extracts used, methods used, and the presence of antihistamine medications.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the differential effect of cetirizine on 2 different concentrations of histamine control solution and 5 common allergens used for percutaneous skin testing.

METHODS

Twelve individuals underwent skin testing with histamine (1 and 6 mg/mL), control diluent, and 5 common aeroallergens. Wheal and flare measurements were measured in a masked fashion by a single operator. Cetirizine was administered for 4 consecutive days to determine the effect on both histamine and allergen wheal and flare responses.

RESULTS

A total of 384 skin tests were performed on 12 volunteers. Cetirizine began to suppress wheal and flare responses at 1 hour (P < .05), with maximum suppression at day 5 (P < .05). Wheal and flare responses returned to greater than 90% baseline within 4 days of not taking cetirizine. Suppression was more apparent with 1 vs 6 mg/mL of histamine (62% vs 33%). Four of the 12 individuals taking cetirizine had a positive skin test result using 6 mg/mL of histamine control when the 1-mg/mL histamine test result was negative. Importantly, twice as many individuals had false-negative allergen responses using 6 mg/mL of histamine vs the 1 mg/mL as a positive control, although this finding did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The use of a 6-mg/mL histamine control for some percutaneous skin test devices may result in more false-negative allergen responses because of the inability to detect the presence of antihistamines.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.