Suppression of immediate‐type hypersensitivity elicitation in the skin prick test by ultraviolet B irradiation

Vocks, E.; Ständer, K.; Rakoski, J.; Ring, Johannes

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0781.1999.tb00096.x

Cited by 28 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our data are in good accord with other findings suggesting that UV irradiation significantly reduced the size of the allergen induced wheal in the skin prick test [17][18][19]. Whole-body UVB irradiation, excluding the prick test areas, did not significantly influence the wheal and flare responses to common aeroallergens, suggesting that the UVB-irradiation induced inhibition of histamine release is a local effect of the UVB light [19]. Fjellner et al demonstrated that moderate doses of UVB irradiation inhibited the histamine-release effect of compound 48/80 from rat peritoneal mast cells in vitro, while higher doses of UVB light caused cytotoxic histamine leakage from the mast cells [32].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 95%

“…The fact that the XeCl laser had no effect on histamine-induced wheal formation suggests that the XeCl laser inhibits histamine release from the mast cells. Our data are in good accord with other findings suggesting that UV irradiation significantly reduced the size of the allergen induced wheal in the skin prick test [17][18][19]. Whole-body UVB irradiation, excluding the prick test areas, did not significantly influence the wheal and flare responses to common aeroallergens, suggesting that the UVB-irradiation induced inhibition of histamine release is a local effect of the UVB light [19].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…The major mechanisms of UV irradiationinduced immunosuppression involve apoptosis induction in infiltrating T cells, reductions in the number of Langerhans cells and function, and the induction of immunosuppressive cytokines such as interleukin-10 in the skin [8,[11][12][13][14]. The results of many studies have confirmed that both broad-band UVB (wavelength 280-320 nm), narrow-band UVB (310-313 nm), ultraviolet A (UVA; 315-400 nm), combined UVA-UVB and highdose UVA1 (340-400 nm) inhibit histamine release from mast cells in vitro and in vivo [15][16][17][18][19]. For UVB treatment, a promising new therapeutic modality is the ''super narrow-band'' 308 nm xenon chloride (XeCl) excimer laser, which has been found to be more effective than narrow-band UVB in inducing T cell apoptosis in vitro and is also clinically more effective for the treatment of an inflammatory skin disease, psoriasis [20][21][22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Intranasal irradiation with the xenon chloride ultraviolet B laser improves allergic rhinitis

Csoma

Ignácz

Bor

et al. 2004

Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 95%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intranasal irradiation with the xenon chloride ultraviolet B laser improves allergic rhinitis

Csoma

Ignácz

Bor

et al. 2004

Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Khoo et al22 demonstrated that an elevated serum vitamin D level was associated with increased expression of Foxp3 in Treg cells in the summer. Moreover, ultraviolet B radiation may directly inhibit skin mast cells 23. Thus, the low prevalence of atopy and HDM sensitization in the summer in the present study may be partly explained by the higher level of exposure to ultraviolet B radiation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Seasonal Variation in Skin Sensitivity to Aeroallergens

Choi

Lee

Myeong

et al. 2013

Allergy Asthma Immunol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeWe previously demonstrated seasonal variation in sensitization to aeroallergens in a small group of patients with exercise-induced asthma. This study was performed to confirm the relationship in a much larger population.MethodsThe charts of 1,891 patients who received allergy skin prick tests were reviewed retrospectively. The test results from subjects aged ≤60 years were compared between the groups classified according to the season when the patients received the tests (spring: March-May, summer: June-August, fall: September-November, winter: December-February). The data from 25 respiratory allergy patients who received the tests two or more times and showed a positive response at least once were analyzed longitudinally.ResultsThe most prevalent among 29 tested aeroallergens were house dust mites (HDMs) Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and D. farinae. The skin sensitization rates to D. pteronyssinus (23.2% vs. 32.1%, P=0.004) and D. farinae (22.2% vs. 30.2%, P=0.009) were significantly lower in the summer and higher in the fall (38.3% vs. 26.6% and 35.6% vs. 25.3%; P=0.001 respectively) than those in other seasons in patients with a respiratory allergy (n=1,102). The sensitization rates to weed pollens in the fall (13.9% vs. 8.3%, P=0.006) and to Aspergillus fumigatus in the winter (2.9% vs. 0.7%, P=0.005) were significantly higher. In patients with non-respiratory allergy such as urticaria/anaphylaxis (n=340), the D. farinae sensitization rate was significantly lower in the summer also but higher in the spring. The trend of the HDM sensitization rate being lower in the summer and higher in the fall was observed in the longitudinal study.ConclusionsSkin sensitivity to aeroallergens such as HDMs, pollens, and molds demonstrates seasonal variation in respiratory allergy patients. Non-respiratory allergy patients also showed seasonal variation in sensitivity to aeroallergens, which might be related to the "priming" effect of allergens.

show abstract

“…29 In one study, UV-B exposure was found to reduce skin reaction by as much as 48 %. 121 Concerning racial factors, dark-skinned patients seem to have larger wheal-and-fl are reactions, but some authors found Caucasians to be more reactive than non-Caucasians. 10,46 Circadian rhythm has no infl uence on skin reactivity 10,122 but some data show maximum wheal size during the night.…”

Section: Variability Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skin prick tests and allergy diagnosis

Antunes

Borrego

Romeira

et al. 2009

Allergologia et Immunopathologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Skin testing remains an essential diagnostic tool in modern allergy practice. A signifi cant variability has been reported regarding technical procedures, interpretation of results and documentation. This review has the aim of consolidating methodological recommendations through a critical analysis on past and recent data. This will allow a better understanding on skin prick test (SPT) history; technique; (contra-) indications; interpretation of results; diagnostic pitfalls; adverse reactions; and variability factors. Skin has an important physiological role in the internal balance homeostasis and constitutes a crucial barrier against external aggressions, with well-known immunological properties. 1 It has been used by allergists for decades as an easily assessed laboratory of the immunological status of the individual.The fi rst skin testing technique was developed by Charles H. Blackley in 1865, a Manchester homeopathic physician with allergic rhinitis. He abraded a quarter-inch area of his skin with a lancet and then applied grass pollen grains. 2 The so-called scratch test was later adopted by Schloss for the diagnosis of food allergy in children. 3 Epicutaneous tests can be divided into scratch tests and prick/puncture tests. The fi rst method, proposed by Blackley 2 , implied a linear scratch without drawing blood and could either be performed fi rst, with the extract then dropped on the abraded skin, or be made through a drop of extract. 4 Although it was used extensively in the past, this technique became progressively obsolete due to patient discomfort, poor reproducibility, possible residual lesions and newer and innocuous procedures. 4 Therefore, scratch test is mentioned here for historical purposes only. It was Sir Thomas Lewis who, in 1924, fi rst applied skin prick tests (SPT). 5 Nevertheless, their generalised use in clinical practice only became a reality about 30 years ago, as a result of technique modifi cations proposed by Pepys. 6 For the purpose of this review and for easier comprehension, skin testing will be referred interchangeably as SPT, whatever device is used for its application.In 1966, Ishizaka's work on immunoglobulin E (IgE) and immediate hypersensitivity reactions 7 established the scientifi c corpus to what was done till then on a strictly empiric basis.As written by Dr Walzer in 1974, "the fact that skin testing has not turned out to be a simple and completely reliable technique does not detract from the fact that, when it is intelligently and skilfully performed, it remains the most effective diagnostic procedure in reaginic allergic disorders". 8 The reliability of skin testing and proper documentation of test results are essential in allergy practice. A recent survey to all physician members and fellows of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology practicing in the

show abstract

Suppression of immediate‐type hypersensitivity elicitation in the skin prick test by ultraviolet B irradiation

Cited by 28 publications

References 9 publications

Intranasal irradiation with the xenon chloride ultraviolet B laser improves allergic rhinitis

Intranasal irradiation with the xenon chloride ultraviolet B laser improves allergic rhinitis

Seasonal Variation in Skin Sensitivity to Aeroallergens

Skin prick tests and allergy diagnosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About