Histamine Skin Prick Tests: From Established Diagnostic Technique to Advanced Experimental Biomarker.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 DERMATOLOGY Skin Pharmacology and Physiology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1159/000528772
Dorien Bamps, Katarina Berdon, Hasan Hernandez, Rik Schrijvers, Jan de Hoon
{"title":"Histamine Skin Prick Tests: From Established Diagnostic Technique to Advanced Experimental Biomarker.","authors":"Dorien Bamps,&nbsp;Katarina Berdon,&nbsp;Hasan Hernandez,&nbsp;Rik Schrijvers,&nbsp;Jan de Hoon","doi":"10.1159/000528772","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Skin prick tests have a long history as diagnostic and pharmacodynamic biomarker. Besides visual assessments of the wheal and flare, objective blood flow measurements using laser Doppler imaging (LDI) and laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) have been reported. In light of these advancements, an up-to-date characterization of the histamine-evoked response is worthwhile.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-centre study was completed in healthy males. Two parameters were addressed: (1) dermal blood flow (DBF) within a 7.65-mm ring encircling the skin prick site (DBFring), and (2) surface area of the flare (AREAflare). First, the dose response was assessed using placebo (0.9% sodium chloride) or histamine (histamine dihydrochloride 1, 3, or 10 mg/mL) skin pricks on the volar surface of subjects' (n = 12) forearm. The DBFring was measured by LDI, and the AREAflare by LDI and by ruler. Secondly, the inter-arm and inter-period reproducibility of the DBFring and AREAflare, as evoked by histamine (10 mg/mL) and measured by LDI and LSCI, was examined (n = 14). Lastly, the effect of aprepitant (125 mg), ketotifen (1 mg), and a single (5 mg) and fourfold (20 mg) dose of desloratadine and levocetirizine on the histamine-induced (10 mg/mL) DBFring and AREAflare was evaluated with LSCI (n = 13 or 12).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All three histamine doses induced a time-dependent vasodilation. Ruler recordings did not conclusively correlate with LDI assessments of the AREAflare. The DBFring and AREAflare were reasonably reproducible when measured by using LDI or LSCI, with negligible bias between arms and study periods and poor to moderate within-subject reproducibility (0.23 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.71). While the fourfold dose of desloratadine (p = 0.0041) and the single and fourfold dose of levocetirizine (p < 0.0001) managed to reduce the AREAflare, only the fourfold dose of levocetirizine (p = 0.0052) reduced the DBFring.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Caution is warranted when translating years of clinical experience with histamine skin prick tests to objective recordings of the associated changes in skin perfusion. Ruler and LDI assessments of the AREAflare do not consistently correlate, and the reproducibility and histamine dependency of the measurements are not obvious. While 10 mg/mL histamine may be a good choice for qualitative diagnostic evaluations, a lower dose may be better suited to use as a quantitative biomarker.</p>","PeriodicalId":21748,"journal":{"name":"Skin Pharmacology and Physiology","volume":"36 2","pages":"87-97"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Skin Pharmacology and Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000528772","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Skin prick tests have a long history as diagnostic and pharmacodynamic biomarker. Besides visual assessments of the wheal and flare, objective blood flow measurements using laser Doppler imaging (LDI) and laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) have been reported. In light of these advancements, an up-to-date characterization of the histamine-evoked response is worthwhile.

Methods: A single-centre study was completed in healthy males. Two parameters were addressed: (1) dermal blood flow (DBF) within a 7.65-mm ring encircling the skin prick site (DBFring), and (2) surface area of the flare (AREAflare). First, the dose response was assessed using placebo (0.9% sodium chloride) or histamine (histamine dihydrochloride 1, 3, or 10 mg/mL) skin pricks on the volar surface of subjects' (n = 12) forearm. The DBFring was measured by LDI, and the AREAflare by LDI and by ruler. Secondly, the inter-arm and inter-period reproducibility of the DBFring and AREAflare, as evoked by histamine (10 mg/mL) and measured by LDI and LSCI, was examined (n = 14). Lastly, the effect of aprepitant (125 mg), ketotifen (1 mg), and a single (5 mg) and fourfold (20 mg) dose of desloratadine and levocetirizine on the histamine-induced (10 mg/mL) DBFring and AREAflare was evaluated with LSCI (n = 13 or 12).

Results: All three histamine doses induced a time-dependent vasodilation. Ruler recordings did not conclusively correlate with LDI assessments of the AREAflare. The DBFring and AREAflare were reasonably reproducible when measured by using LDI or LSCI, with negligible bias between arms and study periods and poor to moderate within-subject reproducibility (0.23 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.71). While the fourfold dose of desloratadine (p = 0.0041) and the single and fourfold dose of levocetirizine (p < 0.0001) managed to reduce the AREAflare, only the fourfold dose of levocetirizine (p = 0.0052) reduced the DBFring.

Conclusion: Caution is warranted when translating years of clinical experience with histamine skin prick tests to objective recordings of the associated changes in skin perfusion. Ruler and LDI assessments of the AREAflare do not consistently correlate, and the reproducibility and histamine dependency of the measurements are not obvious. While 10 mg/mL histamine may be a good choice for qualitative diagnostic evaluations, a lower dose may be better suited to use as a quantitative biomarker.

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
组胺皮肤点刺试验:从已建立的诊断技术到先进的实验生物标志物。
皮肤点刺试验作为诊断和药效学生物标志物有着悠久的历史。除了视觉评估车轮和耀斑,客观血流测量使用激光多普勒成像(LDI)和激光散斑对比成像(LSCI)已被报道。鉴于这些进展,组胺诱发反应的最新表征是值得的。方法:对健康男性进行单中心研究。两个参数被处理:(1)皮肤刺痛点周围7.65 mm环内的真皮血流量(DBF) (DBFring)和(2)耀斑表面积(areafflare)。首先,使用安慰剂(0.9%氯化钠)或组胺(盐酸组胺1、3或10 mg/mL)针刺受试者前臂掌面来评估剂量反应(n = 12)。dbring用LDI测量,areflare用LDI和直尺测量。其次,检测组胺(10 mg/mL)诱发的DBFring和areflare的臂间和周期间再现性,LDI和LSCI测量(n = 14)。最后,用LSCI (n = 13或12)评估阿瑞吡坦(125 mg)、酮替芬(1 mg)、地氯雷他定和左西替利嗪单次(5 mg)和四次(20 mg)剂量对组胺诱导(10 mg/mL) DBFring和areafare的影响。结果:三种组胺剂量均可诱导时间依赖性血管舒张。尺子记录与areafare的LDI评估没有决定性的相关性。当使用LDI或LSCI测量时,DBFring和areflare具有合理的可重复性,各组和研究期间之间的偏差可忽略不计,受试者内可重复性差至中等(0.23≤ICC≤0.71)。四倍剂量的地氯雷他定(p = 0.0041)和单、四倍剂量的左西替利嗪(p < 0.0001)都能降低areflare,但只有四倍剂量的左西替利嗪(p = 0.0052)能降低DBFring。结论:在将多年的组胺皮肤点刺试验临床经验转化为皮肤灌注相关变化的客观记录时,需要谨慎。areafare的标尺和LDI评估不一致相关,测量的可重复性和组胺依赖性不明显。虽然10 mg/mL组胺可能是定性诊断评估的良好选择,但较低的剂量可能更适合用作定量生物标志物。
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
Skin Pharmacology and Physiology
Skin Pharmacology and Physiology 医学-皮肤病学
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
23
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: In the past decade research into skin pharmacology has rapidly developed with new and promising drugs and therapeutic concepts being introduced regularly. Recently, the use of nanoparticles for drug delivery in dermatology and cosmetology has become a topic of intensive research, yielding remarkable and in part surprising results. Another topic of current research is the use of tissue tolerable plasma in wound treatment. Stimulating not only wound healing processes but also the penetration of topically applied substances into the skin, this novel technique is expected to deliver very interesting results.
期刊最新文献
A rigorously simple quantitative model for free radical behavior in aerobic biological systems. A Consideration on Infinite and Finite Dosing in Skin Permeation Using Reconstructed Models. Intraday Variations in Skin Water Parameters. A Brief Review of Vehicles for Topical Therapies. Cluster Analysis Identifies Clinical Phenotypes of Primary Hyperhidrosis.
×
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:481959085
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