Top

Clinical and Translational Allergy

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

Measurement and interpretation of skin prick test results

Authors: J. P. M. van der Valk, R. Gerth van Wijk, E. Hoorn, L. Groenendijk, I. M. Groenendijk, N. W. de Jong

Published in: Clinical and Translational Allergy | Issue 1/2016

Abstract

Background

There are several methods to read skin prick test results in type-I allergy testing. A commonly used method is to characterize the wheal size by its ‘average diameter’. A more accurate method is to scan the area of the wheal to calculate the actual size. In both methods, skin prick test (SPT) results can be corrected for histamine-sensitivity of the skin by dividing the results of the allergic reaction by the histamine control. The objectives of this study are to compare different techniques of quantifying SPT results, to determine a cut-off value for a positive SPT for histamine equivalent prick -index (HEP) area, and to study the accuracy of predicting cashew nut reactions in double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) tests with the different SPT methods.

Methods

Data of 172 children with cashew nut sensitisation were used for the analysis. All patients underwent a DBPCFC with cashew nut. Per patient, the average diameter and scanned area of the wheal size were recorded. In addition, the same data for the histamine-induced wheal were collected for each patient. The accuracy in predicting the outcome of the DBPCFC using four different SPT readings (i.e. average diameter, area, HEP-index diameter, HEP-index area) were compared in a Receiver-Operating Characteristic (ROC) plot.

Results

Characterizing the wheal size by the average diameter method is inaccurate compared to scanning method. A wheal average diameter of 3 mm is generally considered as a positive SPT cut-off value and an equivalent HEP-index area cut-off value of 0.4 was calculated. The four SPT methods yielded a comparable area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84, 0.85, 0.83 and 0.83, respectively. The four methods showed comparable accuracy in predicting cashew nut reactions in a DBPCFC.

Conclusions

The ‘scanned area method’ is theoretically more accurate in determining the wheal area than the ‘average diameter method’ and is recommended in academic research. A HEP-index area of 0.4 is determined as cut-off value for a positive SPT. However, in clinical practice, the ‘average diameter method’ is also useful, because this method provides similar accuracy in predicting cashew nut allergic reactions in the DBPCFC.

Trial registration: Trial number NTR3572

Muraro A, Werfel T, Hoffmann-Sommergruber K, Roberts G, Beyer K, Bindslev-Jensen C, et al. EAACI food allergy and anaphylaxis guidelines: diagnosis and management of food allergy. Allergy. 2014;69(8):1008–25. doi:10.1111/all.12429.CrossRefPubMed

Wohrl S, Vigl K, Binder M, Stingl G, Prinz M. Automated measurement of skin prick tests: an advance towards exact calculation of wheal size. Exp Dermatol. 2006;15(2):119–24. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0625.2006.00388.x.CrossRefPubMed

Prinz M, Vigl K, Wohrl S. Automatic measurement of skin wheals provoked by skin prick tests. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2005;116:441–6.PubMed

Dreborg S. Allergen skin prick test should be adjusted by the histamine reactivity. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2015;166(1):77–80. doi:10.1159/000371848.CrossRefPubMed

Niemeijer NR, Fluks AF, de Monchy JG. Optimization of skin testing. II. Evaluation of concentration and cutoff values, as compared with RAST and clinical history, in a multicenter study. Allergy. 1993;48(7):498–503.

de Jong NW, van Maaren MS, Vlieg-Boersta BJ, Dubois AE, de Groot H, Gerth van Wijk R. Sensitization to lupine flour: is it clinically relevant? Clin Exp Allergy. 2010;40(10):1571–7. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2010.03496.x.

van der Valk JP. Gerth van Wijk R, Vergouwe Y, de Jong NW. Failure of introduction of food allergens after negative oral food challenge tests in children. Eur J Pediatr. 2015;174(8):1093–9. doi:10.1007/s00431-015-2504-x.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Vlieg-Boerstra BJ, Herpertz I, Pasker L, van der Heide S, Kukler J, Jansink C, et al. Validation of novel recipes for double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges in children and adults. Allergy. 2011;66(7):948–54. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02539.x.CrossRefPubMed

Niggemann B, Beyer K. Diagnosis of food allergy in children: toward a standardization of food challenge. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2007;45(4):399–404. doi:10.1097/MPG.0b013e318054b0c3.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr. 2007;96(5):644–7. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00178.x.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Sampson HA, Albergo R. Comparison of results of skin tests, RAST, and double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges in children with atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1984;74(1):26–33.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Pijnenborg H, Nilsson L, Dreborg S. Estimation of skin prick test reactions with a scanning program. Allergy. 1996;51(11):782–8.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Poulsen LK, Liisberg C, Bindslev-Jensen C, Malling HJ. Precise area determination of skin-prick tests: validation of a scanning device and software for a personal computer. Clin Exp Allergy. 1993;23(1):61–8.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Kidon MI, See Y, Bun CY, Goh A, Chay OM, Balakrishnan A. Bimodal skin reactivity to histamine in atopic children in Singapore: influence of specific sensitizations. Pediatric Allergy Immunol. 2004;15(6):545–50. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3038.2004.00190.x.CrossRef

15.

Lee-Wong M, Chou V, Silverberg JI. A study of IgE sensitization and skin response to histamine in Asian-Pacific American adults. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2012;33(4):341–7. doi:10.2500/aap.2012.33.3575.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Measurement and interpretation of skin prick test results
Authors: J. P. M. van der Valk
R. Gerth van Wijk
E. Hoorn
L. Groenendijk
I. M. Groenendijk
N. W. de Jong
Publication date: 01-12-2015
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Clinical and Translational Allergy / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 2045-7022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13601-016-0092-0

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Measurement and interpretation of skin prick test results

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Triclosan promotes epicutaneous sensitization to peanut in mice

Incidence and risk factors for food hypersensitivity in UK infants: results from a birth cohort study

A qualitative study of the allergy testing experiences, views and preferences of adult patients

Allergy immunotherapy across the life cycle to promote active and healthy ageing: from research to policies

Different risk factor patterns for adult asthma, rhinitis and eczema: results from West Sweden Asthma Study

A mutually beneficial collaboration between the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Junior Members and Clinical and Translational Allergy