Nasal allergen provocation test: updated indications and diagnostic accuracy.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-06 DOI:10.1097/ACI.0000000000001066
Dichapong Kanjanawasee, Apinat Wattanaphichet, Pongsakorn Tantilipikorn, Bannawat Tantikun
{"title":"Nasal allergen provocation test: updated indications and diagnostic accuracy.","authors":"Dichapong Kanjanawasee, Apinat Wattanaphichet, Pongsakorn Tantilipikorn, Bannawat Tantikun","doi":"10.1097/ACI.0000000000001066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>The Nasal Allergen Provocation Test (NAPT) is a valuable diagnostic tool for allergic rhinitis, particularly in cases where conventional tests, such as the skin prick test (SPT) and serum-specific IgE (sIgE), yield inconclusive results. By replicating real-life allergen exposure in a controlled setting, NAPT enables the assessment of allergen-specific nasal reactivity. This article aims to review the current knowledge of NAPT.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>Recent studies have reinforced NAPT as the gold standard for confirming nasal allergic responses. In the past, test protocols, allergen dosages, and outcome measurements varied widely. However, advancements in allergen standardization, the combination of objective and subjective measurements, and metered nasal allergen application have led to an improved and more reliable test method, with ongoing efforts to establish a universal protocol for clinical testing.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>This review summarizes current knowledge on NAPT, including its clinical applications, indications, methodology, and recent advancements. Additionally, we compare NAPT with SPT and sIgE in terms of diagnostic accuracy. The protocols, allergen types and doses, test methodologies, and outcome measures of these studies were analyzed and compared.</p>","PeriodicalId":10956,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology","volume":" ","pages":"157-168"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACI.0000000000001066","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of review: The Nasal Allergen Provocation Test (NAPT) is a valuable diagnostic tool for allergic rhinitis, particularly in cases where conventional tests, such as the skin prick test (SPT) and serum-specific IgE (sIgE), yield inconclusive results. By replicating real-life allergen exposure in a controlled setting, NAPT enables the assessment of allergen-specific nasal reactivity. This article aims to review the current knowledge of NAPT.

Recent findings: Recent studies have reinforced NAPT as the gold standard for confirming nasal allergic responses. In the past, test protocols, allergen dosages, and outcome measurements varied widely. However, advancements in allergen standardization, the combination of objective and subjective measurements, and metered nasal allergen application have led to an improved and more reliable test method, with ongoing efforts to establish a universal protocol for clinical testing.

Summary: This review summarizes current knowledge on NAPT, including its clinical applications, indications, methodology, and recent advancements. Additionally, we compare NAPT with SPT and sIgE in terms of diagnostic accuracy. The protocols, allergen types and doses, test methodologies, and outcome measures of these studies were analyzed and compared.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
鼻过敏原激发试验:最新适应症和诊断准确性。
回顾目的:鼻腔过敏原激发试验(NAPT)是一种有价值的诊断变应性鼻炎的工具,特别是在传统测试,如皮肤点刺试验(SPT)和血清特异性IgE (sIgE),结果不确定的情况下。通过在受控环境中复制真实的过敏原暴露,NAPT能够评估过敏原特异性鼻腔反应性。本文旨在回顾NAPT的现有知识。最近的发现:最近的研究已经加强了NAPT作为确认鼻腔过敏反应的金标准。在过去,测试方案、过敏原剂量和结果测量差异很大。然而,随着过敏原标准化、客观和主观测量相结合以及计量鼻过敏原应用的进展,导致了一种改进和更可靠的测试方法,并不断努力建立临床测试的通用协议。摘要:本文综述了目前关于NAPT的知识,包括其临床应用、适应症、方法和最新进展。此外,我们比较NAPT与SPT和sIgE的诊断准确性。对这些研究的方案、过敏原类型和剂量、试验方法和结果测量进行分析和比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.60%
发文量
109
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: This reader-friendly, bimonthly resource provides a powerful, broad-based perspective on the most important advances from throughout the world literature. Featuring renowned guest editors and focusing exclusively on one to three topics, every issue of Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology delivers unvarnished, expert assessments of developments from the previous year. Insightful editorials and on-the-mark invited reviews cover key subjects such as upper airway disease; mechanisms of allergy and adult asthma; paediatric asthma and development of atopy; food and drug allergies; and immunotherapy.
期刊最新文献
Occupational anaphylaxis: a comprehensive review. Crystalline killer: the molecular cascade of silica toxicity from inflammation to fibrosis. Skin pain in pediatric atopic dermatitis: mechanisms and management. Occupational hypersensitivity to cannabis. Update on occupational contact urticaria: a systematic narrative review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1