Performance and Pain Tolerability of Current Diagnostic Allergy Skin Prick Test Devices

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Allergen skin prick testing remains an essential tool for diagnosing atopic disease and guiding treatment. Sensitivity needs to be defined for newly introduced devices. Objective: Our aim was to compare the performance of 10 current allergy skin prick test devices. Methods: Single- and multiheaded skin test devices (n = 10) were applied by a single operator in a prospective randomized manner. Histamine (1 and 6 mg/mL) and control diluent were introduced at 6 randomized locations onto the upper and lower arms of healthy subjects. Wheal and flare reactions were measured independently by 2 masked technicians. Results: Twenty-four subjects provided consent, and 768 skin tests were placed. Mean wheal diameter among devices differed from 3.0 mm (ComforTen; Hollister-Stier, Spokane, Wash) to 6.8 mm (UniTest PC; Lincoln Diagnostics, Decatur, Ill) using 1 mg/mL histamine (P <.001) and 4.8 mm (GREER Pick; Greer, Lenoir, NC) to 8.4 mm (Duotip-Test II; Lincoln Diagnostics, Decatur, Ill; and Sharp-Test; Panatrex, Placentia, Calif) using 6 mg/mL histamine (P <.001). The false-negative rates ranged from 0% to 45% with 1 mg/mL histamine. The analytical specificity was 100% for all devices tested. All devices were well tolerated, with average pain score of less than 4 on a 10-point visual analog scale. Pain scores were higher among women, but this did not reach statistical significance. The Multi-Test PC and the UniTest PC had the lowest pain scores compared with the other devices. Conclusions: All 10 skin prick test devices displayed good analytical sensitivity and specificity; however, 3 mm cannot arbitrarily be used as a positive threshold. The use of histamine at 1 mg/mL is unacceptable for certain devices but may be preferable for the most sensitive devices. On average, there was no pain score difference between multiheaded and single-head devices.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)888-893
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice
Volume3
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2015

Fingerprint

Skin Tests
Hypersensitivity
Pain
Equipment and Supplies
Histamine
Visual Analog Scale
Allergens
Healthy Volunteers
Arm
Head
Sensitivity and Specificity
Skin

Keywords

  • Device
  • Diagnostic
  • Histamine
  • Pain
  • Performance
  • Sensitivity
  • Skin test

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Allergy

Cite this

@article{4d10357a264d43f5b4706bdef77ac37f,
title = "Performance and Pain Tolerability of Current Diagnostic Allergy Skin Prick Test Devices",
abstract = "Background: Allergen skin prick testing remains an essential tool for diagnosing atopic disease and guiding treatment. Sensitivity needs to be defined for newly introduced devices. Objective: Our aim was to compare the performance of 10 current allergy skin prick test devices. Methods: Single- and multiheaded skin test devices (n = 10) were applied by a single operator in a prospective randomized manner. Histamine (1 and 6 mg/mL) and control diluent were introduced at 6 randomized locations onto the upper and lower arms of healthy subjects. Wheal and flare reactions were measured independently by 2 masked technicians. Results: Twenty-four subjects provided consent, and 768 skin tests were placed. Mean wheal diameter among devices differed from 3.0 mm (ComforTen; Hollister-Stier, Spokane, Wash) to 6.8 mm (UniTest PC; Lincoln Diagnostics, Decatur, Ill) using 1 mg/mL histamine (P <.001) and 4.8 mm (GREER Pick; Greer, Lenoir, NC) to 8.4 mm (Duotip-Test II; Lincoln Diagnostics, Decatur, Ill; and Sharp-Test; Panatrex, Placentia, Calif) using 6 mg/mL histamine (P <.001). The false-negative rates ranged from 0{\%} to 45{\%} with 1 mg/mL histamine. The analytical specificity was 100{\%} for all devices tested. All devices were well tolerated, with average pain score of less than 4 on a 10-point visual analog scale. Pain scores were higher among women, but this did not reach statistical significance. The Multi-Test PC and the UniTest PC had the lowest pain scores compared with the other devices. Conclusions: All 10 skin prick test devices displayed good analytical sensitivity and specificity; however, 3 mm cannot arbitrarily be used as a positive threshold. The use of histamine at 1 mg/mL is unacceptable for certain devices but may be preferable for the most sensitive devices. On average, there was no pain score difference between multiheaded and single-head devices.",
keywords = "Device, Diagnostic, Histamine, Pain, Performance, Sensitivity, Skin test",
author = "Tversky, {Jody R} and Yohalakshmi Chelladurai and John McGready and Hamilton, {Robert G}",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jaip.2015.07.022",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "888--893",
journal = "Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice",
issn = "2213-2198",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Performance and Pain Tolerability of Current Diagnostic Allergy Skin Prick Test Devices

AU - Tversky, Jody R

AU - Chelladurai, Yohalakshmi

AU - McGready, John

AU - Hamilton, Robert G

PY - 2015/11/1

Y1 - 2015/11/1

N2 - Background: Allergen skin prick testing remains an essential tool for diagnosing atopic disease and guiding treatment. Sensitivity needs to be defined for newly introduced devices. Objective: Our aim was to compare the performance of 10 current allergy skin prick test devices. Methods: Single- and multiheaded skin test devices (n = 10) were applied by a single operator in a prospective randomized manner. Histamine (1 and 6 mg/mL) and control diluent were introduced at 6 randomized locations onto the upper and lower arms of healthy subjects. Wheal and flare reactions were measured independently by 2 masked technicians. Results: Twenty-four subjects provided consent, and 768 skin tests were placed. Mean wheal diameter among devices differed from 3.0 mm (ComforTen; Hollister-Stier, Spokane, Wash) to 6.8 mm (UniTest PC; Lincoln Diagnostics, Decatur, Ill) using 1 mg/mL histamine (P <.001) and 4.8 mm (GREER Pick; Greer, Lenoir, NC) to 8.4 mm (Duotip-Test II; Lincoln Diagnostics, Decatur, Ill; and Sharp-Test; Panatrex, Placentia, Calif) using 6 mg/mL histamine (P <.001). The false-negative rates ranged from 0% to 45% with 1 mg/mL histamine. The analytical specificity was 100% for all devices tested. All devices were well tolerated, with average pain score of less than 4 on a 10-point visual analog scale. Pain scores were higher among women, but this did not reach statistical significance. The Multi-Test PC and the UniTest PC had the lowest pain scores compared with the other devices. Conclusions: All 10 skin prick test devices displayed good analytical sensitivity and specificity; however, 3 mm cannot arbitrarily be used as a positive threshold. The use of histamine at 1 mg/mL is unacceptable for certain devices but may be preferable for the most sensitive devices. On average, there was no pain score difference between multiheaded and single-head devices.

AB - Background: Allergen skin prick testing remains an essential tool for diagnosing atopic disease and guiding treatment. Sensitivity needs to be defined for newly introduced devices. Objective: Our aim was to compare the performance of 10 current allergy skin prick test devices. Methods: Single- and multiheaded skin test devices (n = 10) were applied by a single operator in a prospective randomized manner. Histamine (1 and 6 mg/mL) and control diluent were introduced at 6 randomized locations onto the upper and lower arms of healthy subjects. Wheal and flare reactions were measured independently by 2 masked technicians. Results: Twenty-four subjects provided consent, and 768 skin tests were placed. Mean wheal diameter among devices differed from 3.0 mm (ComforTen; Hollister-Stier, Spokane, Wash) to 6.8 mm (UniTest PC; Lincoln Diagnostics, Decatur, Ill) using 1 mg/mL histamine (P <.001) and 4.8 mm (GREER Pick; Greer, Lenoir, NC) to 8.4 mm (Duotip-Test II; Lincoln Diagnostics, Decatur, Ill; and Sharp-Test; Panatrex, Placentia, Calif) using 6 mg/mL histamine (P <.001). The false-negative rates ranged from 0% to 45% with 1 mg/mL histamine. The analytical specificity was 100% for all devices tested. All devices were well tolerated, with average pain score of less than 4 on a 10-point visual analog scale. Pain scores were higher among women, but this did not reach statistical significance. The Multi-Test PC and the UniTest PC had the lowest pain scores compared with the other devices. Conclusions: All 10 skin prick test devices displayed good analytical sensitivity and specificity; however, 3 mm cannot arbitrarily be used as a positive threshold. The use of histamine at 1 mg/mL is unacceptable for certain devices but may be preferable for the most sensitive devices. On average, there was no pain score difference between multiheaded and single-head devices.

KW - Device

KW - Diagnostic

KW - Histamine

KW - Pain

KW - Performance

KW - Sensitivity

KW - Skin test

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84946409950&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84946409950&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jaip.2015.07.022

DO - 10.1016/j.jaip.2015.07.022

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 888

EP - 893

JO - Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice

JF - Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice

SN - 2213-2198

IS - 6

ER -