Changes in the stress markers cortisol and glucose before and during intradermal testing in cats after single administration of pre-appointment gabapentin.

OBJECTIVES: Intradermal allergy testing can be difficult to interpret in cats. Studies have shown that intradermal testing leads to elevations in blood cortisol, which may be an explanation for weak wheal reactions in cats. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether utilizing pre-appointment gabapentin will alter stress before and during intradermal testing, as determined by cortisol/glucose concentrations. METHODS: This was a randomized, single-blinded, crossover clinical trial of 16 privately owned healthy cats. Cats were scheduled two veterinary visits and randomly assigned to receive either gabapentin (25.0-30.5 mg/kg) or no treatment prior to the first visit and the opposite treatment prior to the second visit. Blood samples were obtained to measure cortisol/glucose concentrations at three time points: directly after physical examination; directly after sedation; and 10 mins after the second blood sample. A limited intradermal test was performed after the second blood sample. The primary author also recorded which visit they believed gabapentin was administered with low/high confidence. A non-blinded owner assessment survey documenting stress levels in their cats was also obtained. RESULTS: Mean cortisol concentrations were calculated to be 0.30 µg/dl lower in the gabapentin group but this reduction was not significant. Mean glucose concentrations were calculated to be 18 mg/dl higher in the gabapentin group. Gabapentin had no negative effect on intradermal histamine readings. The author was able to correctly identify when 14/16 cats received gabapentin. Non-blinded owners (n = 14/16) believed their cats were less stressed when gabapentin was administered. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Gabapentin did not significantly decrease cortisol/glucose concentrations. A sedative effect, rather than suppression of the pituitary-adrenocortical axis, may have led to the lower stress assessment. It is unlikely that pre-appointment gabapentin will alter intradermal testing in a majority of cats. This study supports recent clinical trials demonstrating that administration of gabapentin can lower veterinarian/owner assessment of stress in cats.

Evaluation of the McLintock syringe as a cause of non-specific reactions in the intradermal tuberculin test used for the diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis.

The objective of this study was to elucidate whether the use of the McLintock syringe, used to inject tuberculin in cattle in several countries and based on an intradermal inoculation by needle, may, in itself, cause skin reactions that can be interpreted as positive reactions regardless of the real tuberculosis (TB) infection status of the animals. Forty-four cattle from an officially TB-free (OTF) herd were selected for the experiment. Each animal received four inoculations [one with sterile phosphate buffer saline (PBS) with 10% of glycerol and three with bovine purified protein derivative (PPD), as performed during the single intradermal tuberculin (SIT) test], two on each side of the neck (n = 176 inoculations). Three different McLintock syringes (n = 132 inoculations, PBS and bovine PPD) and one Dermojet syringe (n = 44 inoculations, PBS) were used to carry out the inoculations. No positive reactions (increase in skin-fold thickness > 3 mm) in response to the bovine PPD or PBS inoculations were observed regardless of the syringe used. No significant differences (p > 0.05) in the skin fold thickness increase (in mm) were observed between inoculation sites. Significant differences (p < 0.05) in the skin fold thickness were observed when PPD was injected in comparison to the PBS but no differences between McLintock and Dermojet were detected when PBS was injected. The McLintock syringe did not cause reactions per se that could be misunderstood as positive in TB-free cattle demonstrating that it is not a significant factor associated with the previously reported imperfect specificity of the SIT test.

Severe anaphylaxis with cardiac arrest caused by prick test with cefuroxime

No disponible

Simplification of intradermal skin testing in Hymenoptera venom allergic children.

BACKGROUND: The direct comparison between children and adults with Hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis (HVA) has never been extensively reported. Severe HVA with IgE-documented mechanism is the recommendation for venom immunotherapy, regardless of age. OBJECTIVE: To determine the differences in the basic diagnostic profile between children and adults with severe HVA and its practical implications. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 91 children and 121 adults. RESULTS: Bee venom allergy was exposure dependent, regardless of age (P < .001). Atopy was more common in children (P = .01), whereas cardiovascular comorbidities were present almost exclusively in adults (P = .001). In the bee venom allergic group, specific IgE levels were significantly higher in children (29.5 kUA/L; interquartile range, 11.30-66.30 kUA/L) compared with adults (5.10 kUA/L; interquartile range, 2.03-8.30 kUA/L) (P < .001). Specific IgE levels for culprit insect venom were higher in bee venom allergic children compared with the wasp venom allergic children (P < .001). In adults, intradermal tests revealed higher sensitivity, accompanied by larger area of skin reactions, regardless of type of venom. At concentrations lower than 0.1 µg/mL, 16% of wasp venom allergic children and 39% of bee venom allergic children had positive intradermal test results. The median tryptase level was significantly higher in adults than in children for the entire study group (P = .002), as well as in bee (P = .002) and wasp venom allergic groups (P = .049). CONCLUSION: The basic diagnostic profile in severe HVA reactors is age dependent. Lower skin test reactivity to culprit venom in children may have practical application in starting the intradermal test procedure with higher venom concentrations.

[Anaphylaxis secondary to prick-to-prick tests to foods and its risk factors]. / Anafilaxia secundaria a pruebas cutáneas prick-to-prick para alimentos y sus factores de riesgo.

The diagnosis of food allergy requires a proper anamnesis and diagnostic testing with skin prick tests with fresh foods and/or standardized allergen, or specific IgE tests. The risk of systemic reactions is of 15-23 per 100,000 skin tests performed by prick method, specifically anaphylaxis at 0.02%. This paper reports the case of four patients, who while performing prick to prick test with fresh food presented anaphylactic reaction. Implicated foods were fruits of the Rosaceae, Anacardiaceae and Caricaceae families. The severity of anaphylaxis was: two patients with grade 4, one patient grade 2 and one grade 3, all with appropriate response to drug treatment. The risk factors identified were: female sex, personal history of atopy, previous systemic reaction to Hymenoptera venom, prior anaphylaxis to prick tests to aeroallergens. We found that a history of positive skin test for Betulla v, can be a risk factor for anaphylaxis in patients with oral syndrome. During testing prick to prick with food anaphylaxis can occur, so it should be made with aerial red team on hand. The history of positivity Betulla v is an additional risk factor in these patients.

El diagnóstico de alergia alimentaria requiere una anamnesis adecuada y la realización de pruebas diagnósticas, las pruebas cutáneas con alimentos en fresco, con alergenos estandarizados, o con ambos; las pruebas de IgE específica para alimentos son útiles. El riesgo de reacciones sistémicas por pruebas cutáneas por punción es de 15 a 23 por cada 100,000 y el de anafilaxia es de 0.02%. Comunicamos el caso de cuatro pacientes que sufrieron anafilaxia durante la realización de prueba Prick-to-Prick con alimentos frescos. Los alimentos implicados fueron frutas de las familias Rosaceae, Anacardiaceae y Caricaceae. En dos pacientes la anafilaxia fue de grado 4, en una grado 2 y en otra grado 3, todas con adecuada respuesta al tratamiento farmacológico. Los factores de riesgo fueron: sexo femenino, antecedente personal de atopia, reacción sistémica previa a veneno de himenópteros y anafilaxia previa con pruebas por punción para aeroalergenos. Las cuatro pacientes tuvieron síndrome de alergia oral y 50% tenía antecedente de prueba por punción positiva a betuláceas. Durante la realización de pruebas Prick-to-Prick para alimentos los pacientes pueden presentar anafilaxia, por lo que deben realizarse en un área que cuente con equipo rojo. El antecedente de síndrome de alergia oral se observó en todos los casos y la mitad de las pacientes tuvieron positividad a betuláceas, estos antecedentes pueden ser factores de riesgo adicional de anafilaxia dura te la realización de pruebas Prick-to-Prick para alimentos.

Simultaneous intradermal testing with hymenoptera venoms is safe and more efficient than sequential testing.

BACKGROUND: According to current guidelines, skin testing for hymenoptera venom allergy should be performed in a stepwise manner, maintaining 15- to 20-min intervals between the injections of venom. Given the long-winded procedure of sequential skin testing, we retrospectively explored the safety of simultaneous intradermal testing. METHODS: Four hundred and seventy-eight consecutive patients with a convincing history of an anaphylactic reaction after a hymenoptera sting were tested. All venom concentrations (0.02 ml of 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, and 1.0 µg/ml of honey bee and wasp venom) were administered simultaneously to the skin. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy-two (98.7%) patients tolerated the simultaneous intradermal test without any side-effects. Only three subjects (0.6%) had a presumed allergic reaction during the test; another three reactions were considered vasovagal. CONCLUSION: Our skin test protocol with four simultaneously injected concentrations of two hymenoptera venoms is safe and permits the investigator to draw rapid conclusions about the individual's sensitization pattern.

Safety of intradermal skin tests for inhalants and foods: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Intradermal skin testing is a useful allergy diagnostic tool. Although considered safe when properly performed, systemic reactions have been reported. This is the first large, prospective study to record and evaluate all systemic reactions from intradermal skin testing (IDT) to inhalant or food antigens. METHODS: A 24-month prospective study by 40 physician practices, recording all IDT tests, including reactions, symptoms, severity, time after injection, and reaction treatments. RESULTS: Eighty systemic reactions (22 major) occurred among 20,530 patients (878,583 wheals). Nine had epinephrine treatment, 4 were observed in an emergency department, and there were no hospitalizations or fatalities. The overall systemic reaction risk was 0.009%. The risk of having a major reaction was 0.003%, or 1 reaction per 933 patients. CONCLUSION: Intradermal skin tests for inhalants or foods, when performed with appropriate precautions, have a safety profile comparable to skin prick tests.

Risk of sensitization in healthy adults following repeated administration of rdESAT-6 skin test reagent by the Mantoux injection technique.

Limited specificity of the tuberculin skin test incited the development of the intradermal Mycobacterium tuberculosis-specific rdESAT-6 skin test. Animal studies have shown, however, that there is a possible risk of sensitization when repeated injections of rdESAT-6 are given. The aim of this phase 1 open clinical trial was to assess the sensitization risk and safety of repeated administration of rdESAT-6 reagent in 31 healthy adult volunteers. Three groups of volunteers received two fixed doses of 0.1 microg rdESAT-6 28, 56 or 112 days apart, respectively. After the second injection, the diameter of induration and/or redness at the injection site was measured and taken as a possible sensitization reaction if >5mm. In vitro interferon gamma (IFN-gamma) responses were measured as supportive evidence. Local adverse reactions at the injection site and adverse events were recorded. One out of 31 (3%) volunteers showed a positive skin reaction (sensitization) upon a second injection of rdESAT-6 after 28days and an increased IFN-gamma response to ESAT-6. For 7 (23%) of the volunteers, local adverse reactions related to the product were registered, but all reactions were mild and predictable. In conclusion, repeated injections of the rdESAT-6 skin test reagent are safe, and sensitization occurs at a low rate, especially if the time span between succeeding doses is wide.

The role of intradermal skin testing in inhalant allergy.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the role of intradermal skin testing (IDST) in inhalant allergy. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE to identify peer-reviewed articles related to IDST using the following keywords: skin testing, intradermal, intracutaneous, aeroallergen, and inhalant allergen. In addition, references cited within these articles were also reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were selected based on their relevance to the topic. RESULTS: The use of IDST for inhalant allergy varies widely among allergists. When performed, it is necessary to use a 100- to 1,000-fold dilution from the stock allergen extract. IDST is used routinely in the standardization of extracts in the United States. With a negative skin prick test result, a positive IDST result has low agreement with in vitro and challenge results and generally adds little to the diagnostic evaluation. In contrast, a negative IDST result generally has a high negative predictive value. Only a few inhalant allergens have been evaluated with challenge models for IDST. A summary of the data is also presented in tabular form. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the literature suggests that with a negative skin prick test result, a positive IDST result adds little to the diagnostic evaluation of inhalant allergy. However, additional studies are necessary using challenge models for less potent and nonstandardized inhalant allergens (molds, trees, dog, weeds).

[Immediate and generalized reaction to Montenegro skin test]. / Ocorrência de reação imediata generalizada à intradermorreação de Montenegro.

The authors describe for the first time a case of immediate and generalized reaction to Montenegro skin test with merthiolated antigen. This reaction consisted of generalized cutaneous rash with pruritus, and was treated with oral bromethazine. The pruritus disappeared an hour after medication and the rash 12 hours later.

Determination of the incidence of sensitization after penicillin skin testing.

BACKGROUND: Concerns for sensitization after penicillin skin testing are a factor in limiting the timing and population for whom this testing is offered. The sensitizing potential of the penicillin skin test has never been studied directly. METHODS: A total of 329 volunteers underwent prick and intradermal skin testing with penicillin G, benzylpenicilloyl-polylysine, and a minor determinant mixture. Those with negative skin testing had repeat testing 4 weeks later. Medical history and antibiotic use were determined by interview, questionnaire, and electronic pharmacy records. RESULTS: Seventy-two of the 329 subjects (22%) reported a history of previous beta-lactam reaction, of which 10 (14%) had a positive initial skin test. Overall, the initial skin test was positive in 23 of 329 (7%). Of the subjects with a negative initial skin test, 239 completed the second test 4 weeks later. Of these, 6 subjects (2.5%, 95% confidence interval 0.5% to 4.5%) converted to a positive skin test. None had taken a beta-lactam antibiotic between the two tests, and none had any previous history of beta-lactam reaction. One subject reported having never taken a beta-lactam antibiotic before. In comparison to the 233 subjects who did not convert their skin test, the statistically significant factors favoring sensitization were: female sex (odds ratio [OR] 6.53, P = 0.05), atopy (OR 5.31, P = 0.04), and history of food allergy (OR 6.35, P = 0.02). There was a trend toward more recent penicillin use in the newly sensitized subjects, but this was not statistically significant.. CONCLUSION: Penicillin skin testing may sensitize a small number of individuals to penicillin.