Physician’s perspectives on skin prick testing and allergy diagnostics in Germany

被引：0

作者：

Klimek L. ^{[1
]}

Wehrmann W. ^{[2
]}

Brehler R. ^{[3
]}

Becker S. ^{[4
]}

Cuevas M. ^{[5
]}

Gröger M. ^{[6
]}

Hagemann J. ^{[1
]}

Casper I. ^{[1
]}

Sulk M. ^{[3
]}

Gorris S. ^{[7
,8
]}

Seys S.F. ^{[8
]}

机构：

[1] Center for Rhinology and Allergology Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden

[2] Joint Dermatology Practice Wehrmann, Münster

[3] Department of Dermatology, Outpatient Clinic for Allergology, Occupational Dermatology and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Münster

[4] Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen

[5] Department of Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Technical University of Dresden, Faculty of Medicine (and University Hospital) Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden

[6] Clinic and Policlinic of Otorhinolaryngology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich

[7] Department of Otorhinolaryngology, AZ Herentals, Herentals

[8] Hippo Dx, Aarschot

来源：

Allergo Journal International | 2024年 / 33卷 / 5期

关键词：

Automated skin prick test; Immediate hypersensitivity; Immunoglobulin E; Skin prick test; Standardization;

D O I：

10.1007/s40629-024-00297-6

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Purpose: Novel technologies standardising the testing process of immediate hypersensitivities have been developed and validated in recent years. Meanwhile, challenges with regard to availability of testing agents and shortage of trained personnel have increased. Novel technologies could fight these challenges, but their distribution is at present not known. The current survey, conducted by the German Society for Allergology (AeDA), aimed to assess current practices of allergy diagnostics in Germany. Methods: Members of AeDA were invited to complete an online questionnaire to obtain information on their perspectives on allergy testing and diagnostics. Results: A total of 150 allergologists from different disciplines treating patients with allergy completed the questionnaire. This survey revealed that twice as many skin prick tests (SPT; 21.2 tests/week) compared to serum specific immunoglobulin E tests (IgE; 10.4 tests/week) are being performed. Nasal allergen provocation tests are being performed in 56.0% of hospitals and physicians’ offices. An individual standard allergen panel for SPT is applied in 78.0% of testing cases. Methods used to perform a read out of SPT are variable with measurement of the longest wheal diameter being used most frequently (68.0%), followed by a qualitative evaluation (46.6%) or the longest wheal diameter including pseudopods (34.4%). In all, 66% of allergologists indicated that a device that automating the SPT process would be valuable for clinical practice. Conclusion: Skin prick tests and serum IgE tests are still the cornerstones in the diagnostic work-up of immediate-type allergies. Variability in the execution of skin prick tests exists between different hospitals and physicians’ offices in Germany. Inconsistent availability of testing reagents was considered most problematic for maintaining allergy diagnostics in Germany. A majority of allergologists are open to evaluating tools that may contribute to standardize skin prick tests. © The Author(s) 2024.

引用

页码：159 / 164

页数：5

共 15 条

[1]

Bergmann K.C., Heinrich J., Niemann H., Current status of allergy prevalence in Germany: Position paper of the Environmental Medicine Commission of the Robert Koch Institute, Allergo J Int, 25, pp. 6-10, (2016)

[2]

Ansotegui I.J., Melioli G., Canonica G.W., Caraballo L., Villa E., Ebisawa M., Et al., IgE allergy diagnostics and other relevant tests in allergy, a World Allergy Organization position paper, World Allergy Organ J, 13, 2, (2020)

[3]

Heinzerling L., Mari A., Bergmann K.C., Bresciani M., Burbach G., Darsow U., Et al., The skin prick test—European standards. Clin Transl, Allergy, 3, 1, (2013)

[4]

Klimek L., Hoffmann H.J., Kalpaklioglu A.F., Demoly P., Agache I., Popov T.A., Et al., In-vivo diagnostic test allergens in Europe: A call to action and proposal for recovery plan—An EAACI position paper, Allergy, 75, 9, pp. 2161-2169, (2020)

[5]

Gureczny T., Heindl B., Klug L., Wantke F., Hemmer W., Wohrl S., Allergy screening with extract-based skin prick tests demonstrates higher sensitivity over in vitro molecular allergy testing, Clinical & Translational All, 13, 2, (2023)

[6]

Gorris S., Uyttebroek S., Backaert W., Jorissen M., Schrijvers R., Thompson M.J., Et al., Reduced intra-subject variability of an automated skin prick test device compared to a manual test, Allergy, 78, 5, pp. 1366-1368, (2023)

[7]

Seys S.F., Roux K., Claes C., van Cappellen L., Werpin L., Loeckx D., Et al., Skin Prick Automated Test device offers more reliable allergy test results compared to a manual skin prick test, Rhinology, 62, pp. 216-222

[8]

Morales-Palacios M., Nunez-Cordoba J.M., Tejero E., Matellanes O., Quan P.L., Carvallo A., Et al., Reliability of a novel electro-medical device for wheal size measurement in allergy skin testing: An exploratory clinical trial, Allergy, 78, 1, pp. 299-301, (2022)

[9]

Abushal B.A., Bormah A., Alghamdi M., Tubaigi Y.S., Alomari A., Khan S.N., Et al., Allergic Rhinitis: Tailoring Immunotherapy Through Innovative Diagnostics, Cureus, 15, 12, (2023)

[10]

Cardona V., Demoly P., Dreborg S., Kalpaklioglu A.F., Klimek L., Muraro A., Et al., Current practice of allergy diagnosis and the potential impact of regulation in Europe, Allergy, 73, 2, pp. 323-327, (2018)

← 1 2 →