Open Access

Debates in allergy medicine: Molecular allergy diagnosis with ISAC will replace screenings by skin prick test in the future

World Allergy Organization Journal201710:33

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40413-017-0162-3

Received: 2 May 2017

Accepted: 7 July 2017

Published: 19 September 2017

Abstract

In today’s clinical practice patients’ skin is used as screening organ for diagnosing type 1 allergy. According to European guidelines skin prick testing with a panel of 18 allergen extracts is recommended, in the US between 10 to 50 allergens are used. The specificity and sensitivity of skin testing is individually highly variable depending on age, body mass, and skin barrier status. In atopic inflammation skin testing gives more false positive results. Smaller skin area and strain limits prick testing in small children. Although the risk for systemic reactions in skin prick testing is very small, emergency medications must be available. Considering the fact that IgE is the only reliable biomarker for type I allergy, upfront IgE screening with ISAC, followed by fewer skin tests to approve positive sensitizations, is proposed. It is time to arrive in the age of molecular allergy diagnosis in daily patient care.

Background

Since its detection, specific IgE represents the only diagnostic biomarker for exposure and sensitization in allergy [1] with predictive value in asthma [2], and of value for selecting patients for allergen immunotherapy [3]. It reliably correlates with clinical symptoms in respiratory allergies, less in food allergies, and is usually interpreted in the context of skin prick tests [4]. In most cases during daily clinical practice, IgE-determinations as well as skin prick tests are done with allergen extracts. In both cases, results must be interpreted considering the clinical symptoms and history of the patient, as even inhalant sensitization not necessarily correlates with symptoms [5]. Allergen extracts are produced under good laboratory practice (GLP) conditions by incubation of allergen sources (pollen from pollen farms, cultured house dust mites, food) in aqueous buffer solutions, followed by filtering and purification steps. As a result, the extracts contain a variety of allergens (e.g. Bet v 1 a), besides non-allergenic proteins or isoallergens non-relevant for IgE binding (e.g. Bet v 1d, e). Production severely depends on the allergen sources and associated environmental, culture and ripening conditions, which makes standardization of allergen extracts a difficult task. To improve the quality of extracts, it is accepted that they may sometimes be “spiked” with singe allergen molecules [6]. Variations in the biological activity of allergen extracts are decisive for in vitro IgE testing and skin prick tests, and even more when extracts are applied as therapeutics for allergen immunotherapy [7]. Comparisons to reference extracts have been requested for a long time [8]. In Europe, allergens for diagnostic application fall under the directives for therapeutics [9]. The cost-intensive procedures of approval and maintenance of approved products led to a dramatic reduction of diagnostic allergens available for intradermal use [10], but also for skin prick allergens a diagnostic bottle neck is to be expected. The improved standards of diagnostic and therapeutic allergens may critically affect allergy diagnosis in the near future and prompts the critical evaluation of the fidelity and reliability of alternative methods.

Skin prick testing – allergy screening in the skin

Skin prick tests are regarded as means to determine sensitization and should be interpreted in the light of clinical history, clinical picture and results of testing for specific IgE. According to the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) [11], 1050 allergen extracts are used for skin prick testing. The European guidelines propose a panel of 18 respiratory allergens of which, simultaneously, improved standardization is encouraged [12]. While skin prick testing in respiratory allergies is a reliable diagnostic tool, in food allergy more false positive results are seen on the one hand, while on the other hand over 95% of patients negative in skin prick tests with food do not present with immediate type symptoms [13]. The skin prick results should be compared to the positive control prick with histamine dihydrochloride 10 mg/ml [14]. The calculation of a histamine equivalent prick -index (HEP) area may be helpful, where the allergen prick size is correlated to the size of the histamine wheal to define a cut off value, but it is proposed that the true area of the wheal “is theoretically more accurate” than the diameter [15]. Like the Immuno solid-phase allergen chip (ISAC) -test, therefore, also the skin prick test (SPT) is a “semiquantitative” method. The wheal size of allergen skin prick tests has been associated with the extent of clinical reactivity especially in adults [16], and was suggested a predictive marker for clinical reactivity to specific food allergens, for instance for albumin at a diameter of 9 mm, for yolk 7, for cow’s milk or fresh cow’s milk 20 or 1 mm, respectively [17].

It should be noted that the histamine prick result itself is individually variable and depends on age and body mass index of the patient [18]. This finding was approved in a Korean study where obese children had significantly larger histamine wheals [19]. In contrast, the histamine tests in atopic children resulted in a significantly smaller flare, but longer itch reaction [20].

Importantly, the mean wheal diameter resulting from the prick has been shown to be affected by the personnel testing and by the lancet weight [21], and is differing between test centers, naturally depending on the concentration of the histamine solution used: a 1 mg/ml solution with wheals between 3 and 6.8 mm was found unacceptable, the form and size of lancets used resulted in comparable analytical sensitivities and specificities, and pain scores [22].

The collected data thus document continuous efforts to improve the fidelity of skin prick tests which individually vary depending not only on the patient, but even more on the assistants doing the test and on the exactness of the recording method.

There are disadvantages in skin prick testing

Anaphylactic side effects are a concern when testing with biologically active allergens in vivo and the possibility of emergency treatment must be provided [23]. In the largest cohort so far investigated with this specific question, 31,000 patients, in 0.077% systemic side reactions were recorded, with the highest risk with peanut and nuts when the wheal diameter was of over 8 mm [24]. The risk for systemic reactions due to skin tests treated by epinephrin i.m. evaluated in 1456 patients was totally 3.6% (intradermal testing: 3.1%; skin prick testing 0.41%), and highest in females [25]. A study in 20,530 patients reported that 80 patients tested experienced systemic reactions, 13 of them more severe, and calculated a risk of 0.009 and 0.003% for experiencing a major reaction during skin prick testing [26].

It is accepted that several conditions may elevate the risk for systemic reactions in skin prick testing, like previous anaphylactic events, testing in small children and in pregnancy with a risk for mother and child, and in uncontrolled asthma [27]. It is also known that the higher number of skin tests in polysensitized patients needed for diagnosis is associated with a higher risk for adverse reactions [28]. Larger skin prick test reactions and associated enhanced risk for adverse reactions have been explained by enhanced permeability of the skin [28].

Conditions reducing skin prick test reliability

It has been reported that stress in the patient may sporadically lead to false positive skin reactivity [29], but more studies are needed to support these observations. However, what is much more important in clinics is that the intake of numerous medications may interfere with skin prick reactivity. This was recently analysed in detail in a large retrospective study [30]. Tricyclic antidepressants, benzodiazepines, quetiapine, and mirtazapine should be discontinued 1 week before testing, H(1)-blockers 3 days [30]. The risk for a negative histamine test was not elevated for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors [30]. Therefore, the abstinence from drugs needs to be planned in advance of skin prick testing, but it is often a difficult task to take patients off their medications even over a few days. IgE testing is not dependent on any interferences with medications.

Why doctors and patients like skin prick testing

Albeit the many practical limitations as reviewed above, it seems impossible to abstain from skin prick tests in daily management of allergic patients. In most incidences skin prick tests are done upfront further allergy diagnosis as they allow a readout within 1520 min. Physicians of any specialty apply skin prick tests, especially as costs are refunded by health insurances and they do not require expensive devices but only well-trained personnel. They know well that skin prick tests visually and dramatically document to the patients the existing hypersensitivity. This is very useful for patient compliance concerning further allergy tests and therapy. A patient who has undergone repeated skin tests is no longer fond of this method and tends to reject repeated testing.

Skin prick testing in an epidemiological study achieved a 90% compliance in school children when re-testing after 10 years [31] and allowed an estimation of prevalence of sensitization rising from 30 to 41%. Positive skin prick tests in newborns predicted an allergic career to early adult age [32]. However, when skin test with house dust mite allergens was evaluated in 692 patients, it was found most reliable only in patients below 50 years of age [33]. This is problematic as allergies occur in elderly to a similar rate as in younger adults, and must be diagnosed, as reviewed previously [34].

The interpretation of skin prick test results on atopic skin, which may be false positive, actually requires an expert in order to prevent unnecessary avoidance diets [35]. When Foong et al. compared head-to-head skin prick testing and IgE testing in atopic children, there was no difference in food-specific results, but in respiratory allergies specific IgE testing resulted in more (false) positive results than prick testing or ISAC IgE testing [36]. Also before, ISAC testing in atopic children has been found to be a promising alternative overcoming problems of testing in the hypersensitive atopic skin, but still correlating well with the skin tests [37].

Molecular allergy diagnosis goes global

In contrast to natural allergen extracts and purified allergens, recombinant allergens can be expressed under standardized conditions without undesired contamination, with an exactness matching the today’s requirements of diagnostic allergens.

Overall, the accumulating knowledge on molecular allergens has changed our understanding of allergic mechanisms and helped to design sensitization maps all over the world [38], and even establish correlations with climate change [39]. Equally important, molecular allergy, particularly multiplex allergen microarray diagnosis proved successful globally, such as in Spain [40], Italy [41], in the overall Mediterranean area [42], Iran [43], South Africa [44, 45], Brazil [46], and in China [47].

Molecular allergy diagnosis using singleplex allergens or multiplex allergen microarrays are typical methods of precision medicine [48] and they enhance the specificity of IgE-diagnosis in polysensitized respiratory allergies [49], can be applied in food allergies [36, 50] and atopic eczema [36, 37], and may even reveal unexplained anaphylaxis [3]. A strong correlation was found between results with the ISAC112 microarray test, and SPT and other specific IgE tests [51, 52], with a particularly good correlation in allergies to pollen [53] and to house dust mites [54]. It is accepted that molecular allergy diagnosis improves the risk evaluation, sorts out genuine from cross-reactive sensitizations, improves the overall predictive value of the diagnostic results, as well as the accuracy of the resulting allergen immunotherapy. In daily routine maximally 112 allergens can be tested at a time, but in experimental approaches more than 170 molecules have proven possible [55]. Technically much more will be possible in the future, considering that impressively half of the published 3000 allergens in the Allergome data base (www.allergome.org) are available in natural or recombinant form.

Considering the rapid development of molecular allergy during the past 3 decades, and relating it to the complexity of nature, we may only asymptotically approach harboring “all” allergens for diagnosis. This is even more true for therapeutic allergens. In terms of clinical diagnosis, this limitation may for the time being be circumvented by prick-to-prick testing with suspected (and suspicious) substances brought by the patient.

Recommendations and praxis: molecular allergy entered clinics

As a shift in paradigm, the WAO-ARIA-GA2LEN consensus document [56], which is presently updated, states that molecular-based allergy diagnostics, may be used by the expert in the second-line diagnostic workup, thus equivalent with extract-based skin prick- and IgE-testing. It has to be emphasized that any allergy diagnostic method, including IgE and SPT screening, may render unexpected results, which have to be handled in the light of the patient’s history and clinical picture. For the less experienced allergists, automated tools were developed to support the complex interpretations of over 100 results [57], whereas the classical method due to the subjective bias in the doctor’s investigation renders a simplified, but possibly incomplete view. Hence, the diagnostic allergy field is in transition at the moment, and a first “Molecular Allergology User’s Guide” was urgently needed as recently published by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) [58]. In this handbook, besides the classical diagnostic work-up “from symptoms to molecules” (Top-down) starting off with extract-based skin prick screening and IgE-testing, the procedure “from molecules to clinic” (bottom-up) is discussed, which starts with allergen molecule-related information followed by the other tests. Considering that most doctors in allergy diagnosis will not leave the skin prick method as a primary screening approach, the authors proposed the “U-shaped” approach as a compromise, integrating both methods [58].

One major argument against the bottom-up approach is usually the economic constraint.

Are the economic concerns against ISAC relevant?

At present few clinics routinely apply component-resolved diagnosis using allergen microarrays. In most cases this method is offered to the patient as a private service when all other diagnostic workup has been completed. This is on the one hand due to economic restrictions as most health insurances do not cover the costs of the ISAC allergen microarray testing. Therefore, the ISAC test is offered to more affluent patients. This economic perspective is the likely reason for the gender bias towards more male patients visiting the a private allergy center offering ISAC as first line diagnostics. It is well known that the socioeconomic and health insurance status affects the access to medical care also in totally other fields of medicine [59]. A recent meta-analysis predicted that microarray testing could be cost-saving only if a substantial reduction of single IgE testing and oral food challenge tests could be achieved. Simultaneously, the authors could not identify microarray studies resulting in changes in patient management significant enough to render cost-reductions [60].

Cost disadvantages of ISAC may have to do with i) multiplex IgE testing taking more time to interpret and communicate the results to the patient, but also by ii) the general habit of using the microarray as the final allergy diagnosis method, instead of using it for screening. This results in an enhancement of the cumulative costs.

Especially in polysensitized patients the ISAC allergen microarray could lead to a cost reduction [58]. In contrast to the procedure “from symptoms to molecules”, starting at the skin as primary screening organ followed by 2-step IgE screening, the “from molecules to clinic” approach is more timely and therefore economically interesting for patients, doctors and health insurances.

Conclusion

From the above research it becomes apparent that skin prick testing is a historic compromise and has many disadvantages, such as impreciseness, operator- and patient- dependency, and the risk for systemic reactions, albeit in the % to ‰ range. Nobody has so far dared to address any potential de novo sensitization through skin prick testing. This is remarkable since it has been known for a long time [61], and new evidence is accumulating that the skin is a highly effective route for sensitization, even more so in settings of barrier disruption, sometimes even rendering anaphylaxis [62].

Furthermore, we conclude that allergy screening with the ISAC multiplex allergen array not only with a similar fidelity leads to allergy diagnosis, but is favorable in
  • polysensitized patients

  • in small children with limited skin area, but higher strain

  • in elderly when skin tests get less reliable [34].

  • In all settings of inflamed or atopic skin

  • when medications interfering with skin prick testing cannot be discontinued

ISAC testing has a high sensitivity and specificity [38], and showed a strong correlation with singleplex tests including IgE and skin prick testing with extracts [51, 52], specifically for respiratory allergens [53, 54], with slight alterations from allergen to allergen.

We strongly believe that in the future, skin prick screening will no longer be acceptable for allergy diagnosis, considering the more stringent recent regulations. Allergy diagnosis should finally arrive in the twenty-first century and start with ISAC as one of the most comprehensive methods and using IgE as the unique biomarker for allergies. It is clear that – in analogy to the classical procedure starting with skin prick test screening, results must under any circumstances be aligned with the clinical picture. However, upfront IgE screening followed by fewer selected SPTs in relation to the clinical phenotype, will reduce the strain in the tested patient, whilst still following the international standards.

Notes

Abbreviations

ACAAI: 

American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

Ig: 

Immunoglobulin

ISAC: 

Immuno solid-phase allergen chip

SPT: 

Skin prick test

Declarations

Acknowledgements

No applicable.

Funding

Work to this article was supported by the Austrian Science Fund FWF, grant SFB F4606-B28 to EJJ.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

EJJ and GWC designed the concept of the article and GWC helped in writing; ANJ supported in current literature research and proof-read the article; the text was revised by all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors have seen and approved the last version.

Competing interests

GWC declares having previously lectured for Thermofisher (terminated 2016), and presently for ALK, Stallergenes, Hal Allergy, Anallergo (manufacturers of AIT and skin test solutions). EJJ sees patients in AllergyCare, Allergy Diagnosis and Study Center Vienna, Austria. ANJ is employed in AllergyCare, Allergy Diagnosis and Study Center Vienna, Austria.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute of Pathophysiology and Allergy Research, Center of Pathophysiology, Infectiology and Immunology, Medical University of Vienna
(2)
The interuniversity Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University Vienna, University of Vienna
(3)
AllergyCare, Allergy Diagnosis and Study Center
(4)
Personalized Medicine Asthma & Allergy Clinic, Humanitas University & Research Hospital

References

  1. Matsui EC, Sampson HA, Bahnson HT, Gruchalla RS, Pongracic JA, Teach SJ, et al. Allergen-specific IgE as a biomarker of exposure plus sensitization in inner-city adolescents with asthma. Allergy. 2010;65:1414–22.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Al Obaidi AH, Al Samarai AM. Biochemical markers as a response guide for steroid therapy in asthma. J Asthma. 2008;45:425–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Patelis A, Borres MP, Kober A, Berthold M. Multiplex component-based allergen microarray in recent clinical studies. Clin Exp Allergy. 2016;46:1022–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Portnoy J (2015) IgE in Clinical Allergy and Allergy Diagnosis. Milwaukee: World Allergy Organization. http://www.worldallergy.org/professional/allergic_diseases_center/ige/
  5. Bianchi A, Tsilochristou O, Gabrielli F, Tripodi S, Matricardi PM. The Smartphone: a novel diagnostic tool in pollen allergy? J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2016;26:204–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Renz H, Biedermann T, Bufe A, Eberlein B, Jappe U, Ollert M, et al. Leitlinien: In-vitro-Allergiediagnostik. Allergo Journal. 2010;19:110–28.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Larenas Linnemann DE, Singh J, Rosario N, Esch R, Matta JJ, Maspero J, et al. Similar biological activity in skin prick test for Oralair(R) (8200 BAU) and Grazax(R) (6200 BAU) reinforces effective SLIT dosing level. Allergy. 2016;71:1782–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Malling HJ. Proposed guidelines for quantitative skin prick test procedure to determine the biological activity of allergenic extracts using parallel line assay. Allergy. 1987;42:391–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. The European Parliament and Council. Directive 2001/83/EC. The community code relating to medicinal products for human use, 2004: Official Journal of the European Union.Google Scholar
  10. Klimek L, Werfel T, Vogelberg C, Jung K. Zugelassene Fertigallergenlösungen zur Intrakutantestung werden in Deutschland bald nicht mehr verfügbar sein. (Authorised allergen products for intracutaneous testing may no longer be available in Germany. Allergy textbooks have to be re-written). Allergo J Int 2015; 24:1–10.Google Scholar
  11. The American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI). Allergy testing: Skin test. http://acaai.org/allergies/treatment/allergy-testing/skin-test
  12. Heinzerling L, Mari A, Bergmann KC, Bresciani M, Burbach G, Darsow U, et al. The skin prick test - European standards. Clin Transl Allergy. 2013;3:3.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Urisu A, Ebisawa M, Ito K, Aihara Y, Ito S, Mayumi M, et al. Japanese guideline for food allergy 2014. Allergol Int. 2014;63:399–419.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dreborg S. Allergen skin prick test should be adjusted by the histamine reactivity. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2015;166:77–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Van Der Valk JP, Gerth Van Wijk R, Hoorn E, Groenendijk L, Groenendijk IM, De Jong NW. Measurement and interpretation of skin prick test results. Clin Transl Allergy. 2015;6:8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Haahtela T, Burbach GJ, Bachert C, Bindslev-Jensen C, Bonini S, Bousquet J, et al. Clinical relevance is associated with allergen-specific wheal size in skin prick testing. Clin Exp Allergy. 2014;44:407–16.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Calvani M, Berti I, Fiocchi A, Galli E, Giorgio V, Martelli A, et al. Oral food challenge: safety, adherence to guidelines and predictive value of skin prick testing. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2012;23:755–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Park Do Y, Kim YS, Kim JH, Kang JW. Association of body mass index and other factors with histamine skin reactivity in adults with allergic nasal symptoms. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2015;29:e160–3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kang JW, Lee KH, Hong SC, Lee HS, Lee J, Kim CH, et al. Histamine skin reactivity increases with body mass index in Korean children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;79:111–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hawro T, Lehmann S, Altrichter S, Fluhr JW, Zuberbier T, Church MK, et al. Skin provocation tests may help to diagnose atopic dermatitis. Allergy. 2016;71:1745–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Andersen HH, Lundgaard AC, Petersen AS, Hauberg LE, Sharma N, Hansen SD, et al. The lancet weight determines wheal diameter in response to skin prick testing with histamine. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0156211.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Tversky JR, Chelladurai Y, Mcgready J, Hamilton RG. Performance and pain tolerability of current diagnostic allergy skin prick test devices. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2015;3:888–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Rueff F, Bergmann KC, Brockow K, Fuchs T, Grubl A, Jung K, et al. Skin tests for diagnostics of allergic immediate-type reactions. Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology. Pneumologie. 2011;65:484–95.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Sellaturay P, Nasser S, Ewan P. The incidence and features of systemic reactions to skin prick tests. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;115:229–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Bagg A, Chacko T, Lockey R. Reactions to prick and intradermal skin tests. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2009;102:400–2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Gordon BR, Hurst DS, Fornadley JA, Hunsaker DH. Safety of intradermal skin tests for inhalants and foods: a prospective study. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2013;3:171–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Liccardi G, D'amato G, Canonica GW, Salzillo A, Piccolo A, Passalacqua G. Systemic reactions from skin testing: literature review. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2006;16:75–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Antico A, Arisi M, Lima G. Anomalous cutaneous absorption of allergens as cause of skin prick testing adverse reactions in adult patients. Clinical and experimental evidence. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;47:126–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Heffner KL, Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Glaser R, Malarkey WB, Marshall GD. Stress and anxiety effects on positive skin test responses in young adults with allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2014;113:13–8.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Shah KM, Rank MA, Dave SA, Oslie CL, Butterfield JH. Predicting which medication classes interfere with allergy skin testing. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2010;31:477–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Bunne J, Moberg H, Hedman L, Andersson M, Bjerg A, Lundback B, et al. Increase in allergic sensitization in schoolchildren: two cohorts compared 10 years apart. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017;5:457–63. e451View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Pesonen M, Kallio MJ, Siimes MA, Ranki A. Allergen skin prick testing in early childhood: reproducibility and prediction of allergic symptoms into early adulthood. J Pediatr. 2015;166:401–6. e401View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Jung YG, Cho HJ, Park GY, Min JY, Kim HY, Dhong HJ, et al. Comparison of the skin-prick test and Phadia ImmunoCAP as tools to diagnose house-dust mite allergy. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2010;24:226–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Jensen-Jarolim E, Jensen SAF. Food allergies in the elderly: collecting the evidence. Ann Allergy Asthma and Immunol. 2016;117(5):1–4.Google Scholar
  35. Caffarelli C, Dondi A, Povesi Dascola C, Ricci G. Skin prick test to foods in childhood atopic eczema: pros and cons. Ital J Pediatr. 2013;39:48.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Foong RX, Roberts G, Fox AT, Du Toit G. Pilot study: assessing the clinical diagnosis of allergy in atopic children using a microarray assay in addition to skin prick testing and serum specific IgE. Clin Mol Allergy. 2016;14:8.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Choi JS, Roh JY, Lee JR. Clinical availability of component-resolved diagnosis using microarray technology in atopic dermatitis. Ann Dermatol. 2014;26:437–46.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Panzner P, Vachova M, Vitovcova P, Brodska P, Vlas T. A comprehensive analysis of middle-European molecular sensitization profiles to pollen allergens. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2014;164:74–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Hoflich C, Balakirski G, Hajdu Z, Baron JM, Kaiser L, Czaja K, et al. Potential health risk of allergenic pollen with climate change associated spreading capacity: ragweed and olive sensitization in two German federal states. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2016;219:252–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Garcia BE, Martinez-Aranguren R, Bernard Alonso A, Gamboa P, Feo Brito F, Bartra J, et al. Is the ISAC 112 microarray useful in the diagnosis of Pollinosis in Spain? J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2016;26:92–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Scala E, Till SJ, Asero R, Abeni D, Guerra EC, Pirrotta L, et al. Lipid transfer protein sensitization: reactivity profiles and clinical risk assessment in an Italian cohort. Allergy. 2015;70:933–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Goikoetxea MJ, D'amelio CM, Martinez-Aranguren R, Gamboa P, Garcia BE, Gomez F, et al. Is microarray analysis really useful and sufficient to diagnose nut allergy in the Mediterranean area? J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2016;26:31–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Mohamad Yadzir ZH, Bakhtiar F, Misnan R, Abdullah N, Leecyous B, Murad S. Improved diagnosis of the Polysensitized allergic rhinitis patients using component resolved diagnosis method. Iran J Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2016;15:156–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Gray CL, Levin ME, Du Toit G. Which test is best for diagnosing peanut allergy in south African children with atopic dermatitis? S Afr Med J. 2016;106:214–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Gray CL, Levin ME, Zar HJ, Potter PC, Khumalo NP, Volkwyn L, et al. Food allergy in south African children with atopic dermatitis. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2014;25:572–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Araujo LM, Rosario NA, Mari A. Molecular-based diagnosis of respiratory allergic diseases in children from Curitiba, a city in southern Brazil. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2016;44:18–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Zeng G, Luo W, Zheng P, Wei N, Huang H, Sun B, et al. Component-resolved diagnostic study of Dermatophagoides Pteronyssinus major allergen molecules in a southern Chinese cohort. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2015;25:343–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Bousquet J, Anto JM, Akdis M, Auffray C, Keil T, Momas I, et al. Paving the way of systems biology and precision medicine in allergic diseases: the MeDALL success story. Allergy. 2016;71(11):1513–1525.Google Scholar
  49. Passalacqua G, Melioli G, Bonifazi F, Bonini S, Maggi E, Senna G, et al. The additional values of microarray allergen assay in the management of polysensitized patients with respiratory allergy. Allergy. 2013;68:1029–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Wuthrich B. History of food allergy. Chem Immunol Allergy. 2014;100:109–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Huss-Marp J, Gutermuth J, Schaffner I, Darsow U, Pfab F, Brockow K, et al. Comparison of molecular and extract-based allergy diagnostics with multiplex and singleplex analysis. Allergo J Int. 2015;24:46–53.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Williams P, Onell A, Baldracchini F, Hui V, Jolles S, El-Shanawany T. Evaluation of a novel automated allergy microarray platform compared with three other allergy test methods. Clin Exp Immunol. 2016;184:1–10.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Ahlgrim C, Gutermuth J, Onell A, Borres MP, Schaffner I, Darsow U, et al. Comparison of molecular multiplex and Singleplex analysis of IgE to grass pollen allergens in untreated German grass pollen-allergic patients. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2015;25:190–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Jung JH, Kang IG, Kim ST. Comparison of component-resolved diagnosis by using allergen microarray with the conventional tests in allergic rhinitis patients: the first using in Korea. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;8:385–9.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Lupinek C, Wollmann E, Baar A, Banerjee S, Breiteneder H, Broecker BM, et al. Advances in allergen-microarray technology for diagnosis and monitoring of allergy: the MeDALL allergen-chip. Methods. 2014;66:106–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Canonica GW, Ansotegui IJ, Pawankar R, Schmid-Grendelmeier P, Van Hage M, Baena-Cagnani CE, et al. A WAO - ARIA - GA(2)LEN consensus document on molecular-based allergy diagnostics. World Allergy Organ J. 2013;6:17.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Melioli G, Spenser C, Reggiardo G, Passalacqua G, Compalati E, Rogkakou A, et al. Allergenius, an expert system for the interpretation of allergen microarray results. World Allergy Organ J. 2014;7:15.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Matricardi PM, Kleine-Tebbe J, Hoffmann HJ, Valenta R, Hilger C, Hofmaier S, et al. EAACI molecular Allergology User's guide. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2016;27(Suppl 23):1–250.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Patel N, Deshmukh A, Thakkar B, Coffey JO, Agnihotri K, Patel A, et al. Gender, race, and health insurance status in patients undergoing catheter ablation for Atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 2016;117:1117–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Westwood M, Ramaekers B, Lang S, Armstrong N, Noake C, De Kock S, et al. ImmunoCAP(R) ISAC and microtest for multiplex allergen testing in people with difficult to manage allergic disease: a systematic review and cost analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20:1–178.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Kondo H, Ichikawa Y, Imokawa G. Percutaneous sensitization with allergens through barrier-disrupted skin elicits a Th2-dominant cytokine response. Eur J Immunol. 1998;28:769–79.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Yagami A, Suzuki K, Nakamura M, Sano A, Iwata Y, Kobayashi T, et al. Case of anaphylactic reaction to soy following percutaneous sensitization by soy-based ingredients in cosmetic products. J Dermatol. 2015;42:917–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017