scholarly journals Skin tests in adverse reactions to Pfizer-BioNTech SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: limits of intradermal testing

Author(s):  
Leonardo Bianchi ◽  
Filippo Biondi ◽  
Katharina Hansel ◽  
Nicola Murgia ◽  
Marta Tramontana ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 366-368
Author(s):  
Gayatri Patel ◽  
Carol Saltoun

Skin tests are used in addition to a directed history and physical examination to exclude or confirm immunoglobulin E (IgE) mediated diseases, such as allergic rhinitis, asthma, and anaphylaxis, to aeroallergens, foods, insect venoms, and certain drugs. There are two types of skin testing used in clinical practice: percutaneous testing (prick or puncture) and intracutaneous testing (intradermal). Prick testing involves introducing a needle into the upper layers of the skin through a drop of allergen extract that has been placed on the skin and gently lifting the epidermis up. Various devices are available for prick testing. Intracutaneous (intradermal) testing involves injecting a small amount of allergen into the dermis. The release of preformed histamine from mast cells causes increased vascular permeability via smooth-muscle contraction and development of a wheal; inflammatory mediators initiate a neural reflex, which causes vasodilatation, which leads to erythema (the flare). Prick testing methods are the initial technique for detecting the presence of IgE. These may correlate better with clinical sensitivity and are more specific but less sensitive than intradermal testing. Sites of skin testing include the back and the volar aspect of the arm. By skin testing on the arm, the patient can witness the emergence and often sense the pruritus of the skin test reaction. Because more patients are sensitized (have IgE antibodies and positive skin test reactions) than have corresponding symptoms, the diagnosis of allergy can be made only by correlating skin testing results with the presence of clinical symptoms.


1981 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 381-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Sage

Intradermal testing of intravenous anaesthetic drugs was performed on 34 patients following acute anaphylactoid reactions during anaesthesia. Twenty-three patients had positive skin tests and 18 of these were positive for a single drug. Muscle relaxants were the drugs implicated most commonly. Intradermal testing is safe and provides useful and often specific positive information, but false-negative results probably occur.


2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Fellinger ◽  
Felix Wantke ◽  
Wolfgang Hemmer ◽  
Gabriele Sesztak-Greinecker ◽  
Stefan Wöhrl

The majority of immediate type adverse reactions to local anaesthetics seem to be non-IgE-mediated. We report a case of a 31-year-old woman, who developed conjunctivitis and conjunctival erythema immediately after intrauterine application of a local anaesthetic. Skin prick testing and intradermal testing were done with lidocaine, mepivacaine, and procaine. Intradermal testing showed positive reactions to mepivacaine (1 : 10), undiluted lidocaine, and procaine (1 : 10 and undiluted). Specific IgE could be detected against mepivacaine, but not against latex. Serum tryptase was in the normal range. In order to rule out the exceptional case of a true IgE-mediated reaction, allergy testing with local anaesthetics is still required in the workup of patients.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Chiang ◽  
Pearl P. T. Mong ◽  
Edward K. K. Chan ◽  
Elaine Y. L. Au ◽  
Philip H. Li

2019 ◽  
Vol 213 (6) ◽  
pp. 1187-1193
Author(s):  
Sung-Ryeol Kim ◽  
Kyung Hee Park ◽  
Yoo Jin Hong ◽  
Young Taik Oh ◽  
Jung-Won Park ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Leonardo Bianchi ◽  
Filippo Biondi ◽  
Katharina Hansel ◽  
Nicola Murgia ◽  
Alessandro D’Arpino ◽  
...  

Allergy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Bianchi ◽  
Filippo Biondi ◽  
Katharina Hansel ◽  
Nicola Murgia ◽  
Marta Tramontana ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. ar.2014.5.0080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha R. Gendelman ◽  
Lily C. Pien ◽  
Ravi C. Gutta ◽  
Susan R. Abouhassan

The Center for Disease Control guidelines recommend desensitization to metronidazole in patients with trichomoniasis and hypersensitivity to metronidazole. There is only one published oral metronidazole desensitization protocol. The purpose of this study was to design a new, more gradual oral desensitization protocol to decrease systemic reactions that may occur when using the previously published protocol. We present two patients with presumed IgE-mediated allergy to metronidazole who underwent oral desensitization using our modified protocol. Case 1 was a 65-year-old woman with trichomoniasis who presented for metronidazole desensitization with a history of intraoperative anaphylaxis and positive skin tests to metronidazole. The patient tolerated six doses of the modified desensitization but developed systemic symptoms of nasal congestion and diffuse pruritus after the 25- and 100-mg doses. Both reactions were treated with intravenous (i.v.) antihistamines. Because of gastrointestinal irritation, the desensitization was completed at a dose of 250 mg orally every 6 hours. Case 2 was a 42-year-old woman with trichomoniasis and a history of hives immediately after administration of i.v. metronidazole who presented for desensitization. The patient had negative skin-prick and intradermal testing to metronidazole. She developed lip tingling and pruritus on her arms 15 minutes after the 10-mg dose. Fexofenadine at 180 mg was given orally and symptoms resolved. She tolerated the rest of the protocol without reaction and received a total dose of 2 g of metronidazole. Our oral metronidazole desensitization for presumed IgE-mediated reactions offers a second option for physicians wishing to use a more gradual escalation in dose.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document