RESUMO
Objective: To assess the reproducibility of symptoms in drug challenge tests. Methods: The study included patients with positive cutaneous or challenge test throughout 2019. For each patient, clinical suspicion according to Karch-Lasagna algorithm was registered. Primary outcome was the reproducibility of symptoms in the provocation tests using a paired analysis of data with McNemar test. Results: Eighty-nine patients were included, 16 of them presented more than one positive test. Thirty were skin tests positive and 75 reacted to provocation tests. Eighty nine percent of patients who reacted in challenge test were probably or possibly reactors according to Karch-Lasagna scale. Symptoms of initial reaction did not differ from those triggered in challenge tests. Conclusions: Karch-Lasagna scale is useful in predicting the response to drug provocation tests. In most of the positive studies, results were suggested by clinical history and no differences were found between symptoms triggered in challenge test and that referred to in the previous reaction.
Objetivo: Evaluar la reproducibilidad de los síntomas en pruebas de exposición con fármacos. Métodos: Estudio retrospectivo, efectuado en pacientes con prueba cutánea o exposición positiva, atendidos en 2019. De cada paciente se registró la sospecha clínica según el algoritmo de Karch-Lasagna. El resultado principal fue la reproducibilidad de síntomas en las pruebas de exposición, mediante el análisis de datos emparejado con prueba de McNemar. Resultados: Se incluyeron 89 pacientes, y de estos 16 reportaron varias pruebas positivas. Se obtuvieron 30 pruebas cutáneas y 75 de exposición positivas. En el 89% de las pruebas de exposición positivas, las reacciones iniciales se clasificaron en probables o posibles, según la escala de Karch-Lasagna. Los síntomas reportados en la reacción inicial no difirieron de los de las pruebas de exposición. Conclusiones: La escala de Karch-Lasagna es un método útil para predecir la respuesta en las pruebas de exposición con fármacos. En la mayor parte de las pruebas positivas, los resultados fueron sugeridos por la historia clínica, sin diferencias entre la manifestación de síntomas en la prueba de exposición versus los referidos en la reacción inicial.
Assuntos
Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Humanos , Testes CutâneosRESUMO
Most patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) to vespid venoms present double sensitization by specific IgE (sIgE)-mediated cross-reactivity. Thus, it is mandatory could discriminate between a true double and primary sensitization to implement an accurate venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT). To date, CAP-inhibition is the reference method in the diagnosis of cross-reactivity in double sensitized patients to vespid venoms, being the results obtained with the component resolved diagnostics (CRD) conflicting. For this, we have studied in a cohort of double sensitized patients to Vespula vulgaris (VV) and Polistes dominulus (PD) venoms (n = 40) the diagnostic accuracy of CRD using the CAP-inhibition as reference method, as well as to investigate whether basophil activation test (BAT) is an alternative method for inconclusive results obtained by CAP-inhibition. CAP-inhibition showed a sensitivity of 59.46 % in view of the indeterminate results; most patients had true double sensitization (54.5 %), followed by single sensitization to PD (27.27 %) and VV (18.18 %) venoms. CRD based on rVes v 5/rPol d 5 (or vice versa) ratio as well as whole extracts I3/I77 (or vice versa) ratio (specific IgE-I3 to VV/specific IgE-I77 to PD) showed a low diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.504, p = 0.974; AUC = 0.35, p = 0.235; respectively). BAT was determined in parallel with CAP-inhibition in 12 patients, presented higher sensitivity than CAP-inhibition (p = 0.021) and a positive agreement of 71.43 %. Likewise it was able to identify 100% of inconclusive results, showing a specificity of 83.3 %. Therefore, CRD is not a suitable method to distinguish monosensitization and BAT appears to be an appropriate method resolving indeterminate results from the gold standard method.
