Experience in patch testing: A 6-year retrospective review from a single academic allergy practice.

BACKGROUND: Patch testing is the "gold standard" to identify culprit allergen(s) causing allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), but there are limited studies of patch testing from allergy practice settings. OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore patch test findings in a large academic allergy practice, including patch testing results, history of atopy, location of dermatitis, and referral source. We also wanted to determine whether patch testing using an extended panel, such as the North American screening series, compared with a limited series, such as the Thin-Layer Rapid-Use Epicutaneous (T.R.U.E.) Test, increased the sensitivity. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients referred for patch testing over a 6-year period. RESULTS: A total of 585 patients (mean age 48.7 years, 71.6 % female) underwent patch testing over the 6-year period, of which 369 (63%) had a positive test. Of those who tested positive, 202 (55%) reported a history of atopy. The extremities were the most commonly involved site, followed by the head/neck and trunk. The 5 most common positive allergens were nickel sulfate, gold sodium thiosulfate, methylchloroisothiazolinone, thimerosal, and bacitracin. Three hundred fourteen (53.6%) patients were positive to at least 1 allergen on TRUE testing. Extended screening series identified an additional 10.8% of patients with positive tests who were negative to T.R.U.E. test allergens. CONCLUSION: Patch testing is a valuable diagnostic tool for the practicing allergist and provides early identification of culprit allergens in ACD. Performing an extended screening series such as the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) or supplemental panel of allergens increased sensitivity when compared with a limited series.

Anaphylaxis risk factors for hospitalization and intensive care: A comparison between adults and children in an upstate New York emergency department.

Background: Anaphylaxis is an acute, systemic allergic reaction that can be life threatening, and with an increasing incidence and costs associated with hospitalization and intensive care. Objective: To assess the risk factors for hospitalization by comparing pediatric and adult patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review for patients with anaphylactic reactions who presented to the Albany Medical Center emergency department between 2005 and 2012. Results: We identified 267 anaphylactic reactions in 258 patients (143 adults). Of those, 128 (48%) were not coded as anaphylaxis despite fulfilling diagnostic criteria. Foods were the most common trigger both in adults and children. Factors associated with increased odds of hospitalization (intensive care unit [ICU] and hospital floor combined) included a severity score of 3 in both children (odds ratio [OR] 41.86 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.9-602.48], p = 0.006) and adults (OR 32.52 [95% CI, 6.28-168.35], p < 0.001), and those who received multiple doses of epinephrine in children (OR 15.36 [95% CI, 1.9-121.4], p = 0.009) and adults (OR 11.49 [95% CI, 3.08-44.13], p < 0.001). Patient characteristics associated with ICU admission in children and adults combined included Medicare and/or Medicaid insurance (OR 4.96 [95% CI, 1.14-21.67], p = 0.023), cutaneous symptoms (OR 0.19 [95% CI, 0.04-0.79], p = 0.23), and cardiovascular symptoms (OR 5.8 [95% CI, 1.16-28.87], p = 0.032). Conclusion: Anaphylaxis remains underrecognized and improperly treated in the emergency department. Severity of symptoms and receiving multiple doses of epinephrine were associated with hospitalization in both children and adults. Medicare and/or Medicaid insurance, and cardiovascular or cutaneous symptoms were characteristics associated with ICU admission in our cohort.

Pulmonary Nodules in an Adolescent Female Presented With Abdominal Pain, Fatigue, and Weight Loss.

CASE PRESENTATION: A 14-year-old girl initially presented to a pediatric gastroenterology office with a 1-month history of right upper quadrant abdominal pain, which radiated to the right shoulder and back. Her pain was worse after heavy meals and with deep breaths. She reported anorexia, fatigue, dyspnea while playing soccer, and a 5-pound weight loss. She denied any fevers, cough, or changes in her bowel habits.

Proactive penicillin allergy testing in primary care patients labeled as allergic: outcomes and barriers.

OBJECTIVES: To promote penicillin allergy testing in an outpatient setting in patients labeled as penicillin allergic, to determine the number of those who are truly allergic, evaluate patient satisfaction with the testing, and educate both patients and clinicians about testing. METHODS: Patients with a history of penicillin allergy listed in their EHR were screened and recruited by their primary care office and referred for penicillin allergy testing. The results of allergy testing and patient satisfaction after testing were the main outcomes. We also surveyed the primary care physicians about perceived barriers to recruitment. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were recruited, although only 37 actually underwent testing. None of these 37 had a positive skin test, and none of 36 had a positive oral challenge (1 refused it). Following testing, 2 patients (5%) had subjective reactions within 24 h. Thirty-one patients (84%) responded to a post-testing follow-up questionnaire; 3 (10%) were subsequently treated with a beta-lactam, and all reported that testing provided important information to their medical history. Providers identified time constraints, either their or their patients lack of time, as the major barrier to recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: Penicillin allergy testing safely evaluates patients labeled as penicillin allergic. It is well tolerated, and embraced by the patients who undergo testing. In our study, none of the patients tested had an allergic reaction, but we identified multiple barriers to developing a protocol for testing patients from the primary care setting.