Skin Testing for Allergic Rhinitis: A Health Technology Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis is the most common type of allergy worldwide. The accuracy of skin testing for allergic rhinitis is still debated. This health technology assessment had two objectives: to determine the diagnostic accuracy of skin-prick and intradermal testing in patients with suspected allergic rhinitis and to estimate the costs to the Ontario health system of skin testing for allergic rhinitis. METHODS: We searched All Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, CRD Health Technology Assessment Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database for studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of skin-prick and intradermal testing for allergic rhinitis using nasal provocation as the reference standard. For the clinical evidence review, data extraction and quality assessment were performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. We used the bivariate random-effects model for meta-analysis. For the economic evidence review, we assessed studies using a modified checklist developed by the (United Kingdom) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. We estimated the annual cost of skin testing for allergic rhinitis in Ontario for 2015 to 2017 using provincial data on testing volumes and costs. RESULTS: We meta-analyzed seven studies with a total of 430 patients that assessed the accuracy of skin-prick testing. The pooled pair of sensitivity and specificity for skin-prick testing was 85% and 77%, respectively. We did not perform a meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of intradermal testing due to the small number of studies (n = 4). Of these, two evaluated the accuracy of intradermal testing in confirming negative skin-prick testing results, with sensitivity ranging from 27% to 50% and specificity ranging from 60% to 100%. The other two studies evaluated the accuracy of intradermal testing as a stand-alone tool for diagnosing allergic rhinitis, with sensitivity ranging from 60% to 79% and specificity ranging from 68% to 69%. We estimated the budget impact of continuing to publicly fund skin testing for allergic rhinitis in Ontario to be between $2.5 million and $3.0 million per year. CONCLUSIONS: Skin-prick testing is moderately accurate in identifying subjects with or without allergic rhinitis. The diagnostic accuracy of intradermal testing could not be well established from this review. Our best estimate is that publicly funding skin testing for allergic rhinitis costs the Ontario government approximately $2.5 million to $3.0 million per year.

Comparison between Siriraj mite allergen vaccine and standardized commercial mite vaccine by skin prick testing in normal Thai adults.

House dust mite is a major cause of allergic asthma and rhinitis in Thai population. Skin prick test (SPT) is a useful tool for the diagnosis of the IgE-mediated reactions. The imported commercial mite vaccine for SPT is available but it is relatively expensive. Aim of this study is to compare Siriraj Mite Allergen Vaccine (SMAV) with standardized commercial mite allergen vaccine by skin prick testing in normal Thai adults. A double blind, self-controlled study between the SMAV and standardized commercial mite allergen vaccine was performed by SPT in 17 normal Thai adult males and non-pregnant or non-lactating females aged 18-60 years. The study showed that 35.29 % of non atopic adults had positive SPT reaction to Dp and Df of both SMAV and standardized commercial mite allergen vaccine. Mean wheal and flare diameters from SPT of Dp and Df of SMAV showed strong correlation with standardized commercial mite allergen vaccine (r= 0.768 and 0.897 in Dp and Df respectively, p <0.001). The intraclass correlation was also excellent (0.893 and 0.775 in Dp and Df respectively). There was no significant difference in wheal and flare diameter between SMAV and standardized commercial mite allergen vaccine. No systemic or large local reaction was found in any of the study cases.

Use of intradermal dilutional testing and skin prick testing: clinical relevance and cost efficiency.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to determine the agreement of the positive results from a multiple skin prick test (SPT) device with the ability to determine a definable endpoint through intradermal dilutional testing (IDT) to compare semiquantitatively the degree of positivity of SPT results with quantitative results from IDT and to analyze the cost of immunotherapy based on SPT compared with IDT guided by SPT. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of clinical data (random accrual). METHODS: One hundred thirty-four patients underwent allergy screening using a multiple SPT device. Antigens testing positive by skin prick device were tested using IDT on a separate day. Antigens testing negative by SPT were not evaluated by IDT. Regional allergy testing practice patterns were determined, and a cost analysis using Medicare rates was performed RESULTS: There was good agreement between an antigen testing positive by SPT and the determination of a definable endpoint (93.33%, n = 1,334 antigens). The degree of positivity from the SPT correlated poorly with the final endpoint concentration (r = 0.40, P < .0001). Blended testing techniques were similar in cost when compared with several commonly used allergy testing protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Antigens which show reactivity to a multiple SPT device usually have a treatable endpoint that is independent of the degree of positivity of the SPT result. IDT is an important step in the determination of the strongest starting dose of immunotherapy that may be safely administered. Initiating immunotherapy in this manner may potentially create significant health care savings by shortening the time required for a patient to reach their individual maximally tolerated dose. The use of a relatively large screening panel is cost effective and does not increase the average number of antigens treated by immunotherapy. Blended allergy testing techniques that include IDT in their protocol are comparable in cost with commonly used allergy testing protocols.

Cost analysis of employing multi-test allergy screening to guide serial endpoint titration (SET) testing versus SET alone.

OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the cost differences between 2 different modalities of allergy testing. Study design and setting Material costs, labor costs, and overhead expenditures were compared for 2 different allergy-testing algorithms. Fifty patients were placed in each group. The first group was tested for 14 allergens and 2 control substances by using multi-test II. These patients were compared with 50 patients tested for similar allergens and control substances by using serial endpoint titration. RESULTS: The initial round of tests with serial endpoint titration was nearly 3 times as costly as the multi-test for the 14 allergens and 2 control substances. Conclusion and significance Multi-testing is a cost-effective initial testing modality that can screen out negative results and enable the identification of positive reactions. These results could then be further investigated by using serial endpoint titration or RAST to quantify the patient's sensitivity and establish a starting dose for immunotherapy.