Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Lessons from atopy patch testing in Atopic Dermatitis

Lessons from atopy patch testing in Atopic Dermatitis The exposure of atopic eczema (AE) patients to their relevant protein allergens (eg, from house dust mite, cat dander, grass pollen, or food allergens) can trigger an exacerbation or maintain the disease. Diagnostic procedures are needed to specify allergen avoidance recommendations for the individual patient. Skin prick tests and specific serum IgE tests might be helpful in pointing out potential trigger factors, but relevance needs to be confirmed (eg, with food provocation tests). The atopy patch test (APT) involves the epicutaneous application of intact protein allergens in a diagnostic patch test setting with an evaluation of the induced eczematous skin lesions after 24 to 72 hours. The APT targets the cellular component of AE and helps round out the AE test spectrum. As a number of apparently minor test modifications greatly influence the sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of the APT, the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis (ETFAD) has developed a standardized APT technique. It consists of purified allergen preparations in petrolatum, applied in 12-mm diameter Finn chambers mounted on Scanpor tape to non-irritated, non-abraded, or tape-stripped skin of the upper back. The APT is read at 48 and 72 hours according to the test criteria and reading key of the ETFAD for appearance of erythema, and number and distribution pattern of the papules. In contrast with skin prick tests, the APT might even detect a relevant sensitization in the absence of specific IgE. Many studies have been undertaken to objectify the sensitivity and specificity of the APT to show its diagnostic use in clinical practice. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Current Allergy and Asthma Reports Springer Journals

Lessons from atopy patch testing in Atopic Dermatitis

Download PDF
5 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/lessons-from-atopy-patch-testing-in-atopic-dermatitis-zMKScH0d3e

References (53)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by Current Science Inc
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Allergology; Pneumology/Respiratory System; Otorhinolaryngology; Infectious Diseases
ISSN
1529-7322
eISSN
1534-6315
DOI
10.1007/s11882-004-0072-7
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The exposure of atopic eczema (AE) patients to their relevant protein allergens (eg, from house dust mite, cat dander, grass pollen, or food allergens) can trigger an exacerbation or maintain the disease. Diagnostic procedures are needed to specify allergen avoidance recommendations for the individual patient. Skin prick tests and specific serum IgE tests might be helpful in pointing out potential trigger factors, but relevance needs to be confirmed (eg, with food provocation tests). The atopy patch test (APT) involves the epicutaneous application of intact protein allergens in a diagnostic patch test setting with an evaluation of the induced eczematous skin lesions after 24 to 72 hours. The APT targets the cellular component of AE and helps round out the AE test spectrum. As a number of apparently minor test modifications greatly influence the sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility of the APT, the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis (ETFAD) has developed a standardized APT technique. It consists of purified allergen preparations in petrolatum, applied in 12-mm diameter Finn chambers mounted on Scanpor tape to non-irritated, non-abraded, or tape-stripped skin of the upper back. The APT is read at 48 and 72 hours according to the test criteria and reading key of the ETFAD for appearance of erythema, and number and distribution pattern of the papules. In contrast with skin prick tests, the APT might even detect a relevant sensitization in the absence of specific IgE. Many studies have been undertaken to objectify the sensitivity and specificity of the APT to show its diagnostic use in clinical practice.

Journal

Current Allergy and Asthma Reports – Springer Journals

Published: May 27, 2004

There are no references for this article.