Aeroallergen - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Aeroallergen

The Experts below are selected from a list of 12651 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Aeroallergen – Free Register to Access Experts & Abstracts

James R. Nethercott – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Aeroallergen patch testing for patients presenting to contact dermatitis clinics
    Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1996
    Co-Authors: S. Elizabeth Whitmore, Elizabeth F. Sherertz, Donald V. Belsito, Howard I. Maibach, James R. Nethercott
    Abstract:

    Abstract Background: The role of Aeroallergens in the production of allergic contact dermatitis or “allergic contact dermatitis-like” atopic dermatitis is controversial. Although techniques and allergens lack standardization, most studies find positive patch test results in 30% to 40% of patients with atopic dermatitis. Objective: Our purpose was to determine the prevalence and clinical significance of positive Aeroallergen patch tests in patients undergoing standard patch testing for suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. Methods: One hundred three consecutive patients referred to three university patch test clinics for patch testing were also patch tested with six common Aeroallergens in glycerine—dust, mold, cat epithelium, tree, grass, and weed—as well as with a glycerine control. Patches were removed at 48 hours. Readings were performed at this time and at 3 to 7 days after initial application. Results: As determined by history, these 103 patients included 16 patients with both atopic dermatitis and mucosal atopy, 10 patients with atopic dermatitis only, 22 patients with mucosal atopy only, and 55 patients with neither atopic dermatitis nor mucosal atopy. Allergic reactions were seen to one Aeroallergen in five patients (three with atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy, and two with no history of atopy). The prevalence (3 of 16 [18.8%]) of reactions in patients with both atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy was significantly greater than the prevalence (2 of 87 [2.3%]) in patients with only one or neither of these two atopic disorders ( p = 0.02). None of these Aeroallergen contact hypersensitivities were deemed significant in the patients’ current dermatitis. However, reactions were of past relevance in two of the three patients with atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy. Conclusion: In this referral group, none of the six common Aeroallergens tested was relevant in the origin of suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. This study suggests that Aeroallergen patch testing is of little use in the evaluation of patients referred for routine patch testing for suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. Similar but larger studies inclusive of the assessment of relevance, as well as masked controlled clinical trials assessing the effect of Aeroallergen exposure and avoidance, are needed to evaluate this issue more fully.

  • Aeroallergen patch testing for patients presenting to contact dermatitis clinics.
    Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1996
    Co-Authors: S. Elizabeth Whitmore, Elizabeth F. Sherertz, Donald V. Belsito, Howard I. Maibach, James R. Nethercott
    Abstract:

    The role of Aeroallergens in the production of allergic contact dermatitis or “allergic contact dermatitis-like” atopic dermatitis is controversial. Although techniques and allergens lack standardization, most studies find positive patch test results in 30% to 40% of patients with atopic dermatitis. Our purpose was to determine the prevalence and clinical significance of positive Aeroallergen patch tests in patients undergoing standard patch testing for suspected “nonaeroallerge” allergic contact dermatitis. One hundred three consecutive patients referred to three university patch test clinics for patch testing were alos patch tested with six common Aeroallergens in glycerine-dust, mold, cat epithelium, tree, grass, and weed-as well as with a glycerine control. Patches were removed at 48 hours. Readings were performed at this time and at 3 to 7 days after initial application. As determined by history, these 103 patients included 16 patients with both atopic dermatitis and mucosal atopy, 10 patients with atopic dermatitis only, 22 patients with mucosal atopy only, and 55 patients with neither atopic dermatitis nor mucosal atopy. Allergic reactions were seen to one Aeroallergen in five patients (three with atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy, and two with no history of atopy). The prevalence (3 of 16 [18.8%]) of reactions in patients with both atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy was significantly greater than the prevalence (2 of 87 [2.3%]) in patients with only one or neither of these two atopic disorders (p = 0.02). None of these Aeroallergen contact hypersensitivities were deemed significant in the patients’ current dermatitis. However, reactions were of past relevance in two of the three patients with atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy. In this referral group, none of the six common Aeroallergens tested was relevant in the origin of suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. This study suggests that Aeroallergen patch testing is of little use in the evaluation of patients referred for routine patch testing for suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. Similar but larger studies inclusive of the assessment of relevance, as well as masked controlled clinical trials assessing the effect of Aeroallergen exposure and avoidance, are needed to evaluate this issue more fully.

S. Elizabeth Whitmore – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Aeroallergen patch testing for patients presenting to contact dermatitis clinics
    Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1996
    Co-Authors: S. Elizabeth Whitmore, Elizabeth F. Sherertz, Donald V. Belsito, Howard I. Maibach, James R. Nethercott
    Abstract:

    Abstract Background: The role of Aeroallergens in the production of allergic contact dermatitis or “allergic contact dermatitis-like” atopic dermatitis is controversial. Although techniques and allergens lack standardization, most studies find positive patch test results in 30% to 40% of patients with atopic dermatitis. Objective: Our purpose was to determine the prevalence and clinical significance of positive Aeroallergen patch tests in patients undergoing standard patch testing for suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. Methods: One hundred three consecutive patients referred to three university patch test clinics for patch testing were also patch tested with six common Aeroallergens in glycerine—dust, mold, cat epithelium, tree, grass, and weed—as well as with a glycerine control. Patches were removed at 48 hours. Readings were performed at this time and at 3 to 7 days after initial application. Results: As determined by history, these 103 patients included 16 patients with both atopic dermatitis and mucosal atopy, 10 patients with atopic dermatitis only, 22 patients with mucosal atopy only, and 55 patients with neither atopic dermatitis nor mucosal atopy. Allergic reactions were seen to one Aeroallergen in five patients (three with atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy, and two with no history of atopy). The prevalence (3 of 16 [18.8%]) of reactions in patients with both atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy was significantly greater than the prevalence (2 of 87 [2.3%]) in patients with only one or neither of these two atopic disorders ( p = 0.02). None of these Aeroallergen contact hypersensitivities were deemed significant in the patients’ current dermatitis. However, reactions were of past relevance in two of the three patients with atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy. Conclusion: In this referral group, none of the six common Aeroallergens tested was relevant in the origin of suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. This study suggests that Aeroallergen patch testing is of little use in the evaluation of patients referred for routine patch testing for suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. Similar but larger studies inclusive of the assessment of relevance, as well as masked controlled clinical trials assessing the effect of Aeroallergen exposure and avoidance, are needed to evaluate this issue more fully.

  • Aeroallergen patch testing for patients presenting to contact dermatitis clinics.
    Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1996
    Co-Authors: S. Elizabeth Whitmore, Elizabeth F. Sherertz, Donald V. Belsito, Howard I. Maibach, James R. Nethercott
    Abstract:

    The role of Aeroallergens in the production of allergic contact dermatitis or “allergic contact dermatitis-like” atopic dermatitis is controversial. Although techniques and allergens lack standardization, most studies find positive patch test results in 30% to 40% of patients with atopic dermatitis. Our purpose was to determine the prevalence and clinical significance of positive Aeroallergen patch tests in patients undergoing standard patch testing for suspected “nonaeroallerge” allergic contact dermatitis. One hundred three consecutive patients referred to three university patch test clinics for patch testing were alos patch tested with six common Aeroallergens in glycerine-dust, mold, cat epithelium, tree, grass, and weed-as well as with a glycerine control. Patches were removed at 48 hours. Readings were performed at this time and at 3 to 7 days after initial application. As determined by history, these 103 patients included 16 patients with both atopic dermatitis and mucosal atopy, 10 patients with atopic dermatitis only, 22 patients with mucosal atopy only, and 55 patients with neither atopic dermatitis nor mucosal atopy. Allergic reactions were seen to one Aeroallergen in five patients (three with atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy, and two with no history of atopy). The prevalence (3 of 16 [18.8%]) of reactions in patients with both atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy was significantly greater than the prevalence (2 of 87 [2.3%]) in patients with only one or neither of these two atopic disorders (p = 0.02). None of these Aeroallergen contact hypersensitivities were deemed significant in the patients’ current dermatitis. However, reactions were of past relevance in two of the three patients with atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy. In this referral group, none of the six common Aeroallergens tested was relevant in the origin of suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. This study suggests that Aeroallergen patch testing is of little use in the evaluation of patients referred for routine patch testing for suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. Similar but larger studies inclusive of the assessment of relevance, as well as masked controlled clinical trials assessing the effect of Aeroallergen exposure and avoidance, are needed to evaluate this issue more fully.

C.e. Reed – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Quantification of occupational latex Aeroallergens in a medical center.
    Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 1994
    Co-Authors: Mark C. Swanson, Mark E. Bubak, Loren W. Hunt, John W. Yunginger, Mark A. Warner, C.e. Reed
    Abstract:

    Abstract To determine the quantity, variability, and mean aerodynamic diameter of latex Aeroallergens in a large medical center, we collected air samples from work sites by using area and personal breathing zone air samplers, and we measured latex allergens by an inhibition assay with IgE antibodies from latex-sensitive individuals. Latex Aeroallergen concentrations in 11 areas where powdered latex gloves were frequently used ranged from 13 to 208 ng/m 3 , and in areas where powdered latex gloves were never or seldom used, concentrations ranged from 0.3 to 1.8 ng/m 3 . Installation and use of a laminar flow glove changing station in one work area did not reduce latex Aeroallergen levels. Large quantities of allergen were recovered from used laboratory coats and anesthesia scrub suits and from laboratory surfaces. Latex allergen concentrations in personal breathing zone samplers worn by health care workers in areas where powdered gloves were frequently used ranged from 8 to 974 ng/m 3 . Exposure likely occurs when gloves are changed and as a result of resuspension from reservoirs of powder in the room and clothing. Latex allergens were found in all particle sizes but were predominant in particles greater than 7 μm in mass median aerodynamic diameter. Results of electrophoretic immunoblotting showed that the Aeroallergens are primarily the higher molecular mass components of the latex glove proteins. Measures to control exposure can be monitored by both area and personal air sampling with this immunochemical approach. Use of gloves with low allergen content or powder-free gloves appears to be more effective than use of a laminar flow glove changing station in reducing Aeroallergen levels. (J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL 1994;94:445-51.)

  • Quantification of occupational latex Aeroallergens in a medical center.
    The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology, 1994
    Co-Authors: Mark C. Swanson, Mark E. Bubak, Loren W. Hunt, John W. Yunginger, Mark A. Warner, C.e. Reed
    Abstract:

    To determine the quantity, variability, and mean aerodynamic diameter of latex Aeroallergens in a large medical center, we collected air samples from work sites by using area and personal breathing zone air samplers, and we measured latex allergens by an inhibition assay with IgE antibodies from latex-sensitive individuals. Latex Aeroallergen concentrations in 11 areas where powdered latex gloves were frequently used ranged from 13 to 208 ng/m3, and in areas where powdered latex gloves were never or seldom used, concentrations ranged from 0.3 to 1.8 ng/m3. Installation and use of a laminar flow glove changing station in one work area did not reduce latex Aeroallergen levels. Large quantities of allergen were recovered from used laboratory coats and anesthesia scrub suits and from laboratory surfaces. Latex allergen concentrations in personal breathing zone samplers worn by health care workers in areas where powdered gloves were frequently used ranged from 8 to 974 ng/m3. Exposure likely occurs when gloves are changed and as a result of resuspension from reservoirs of powder in the room and clothing. Latex allergens were found in all particle sizes but were predominant in particles greater than 7 microns in mass median aerodynamic diameter. Results of electrophoretic immunoblotting showed that the Aeroallergens are primarily the higher molecular mass components of the latex glove proteins. Measures to control exposure can be monitored by both area and personal air sampling with this immunochemical approach. Use of gloves with low allergen content or powder-free gloves appears to be more effective than use of a laminar flow glove changing station in reducing Aeroallergen levels.

  • airborne dust and Aeroallergen concentration in a horse stable under two different management systems
    Equine Veterinary Journal, 1993
    Co-Authors: Pamela S A Woods, C.e. Reed, N E Robinson, M C Swanson, R V Broadstone, F J Derksen
    Abstract:

    Summary Airborne dust concentration (ADC) was measured in 2 different horse management systems using an Andersen cascade impaimpactor in the box-stall, and a personal Marple cascade impaimpactor attached to the halter to measure ADC in the breathing zone. The levels of Aeroallergens implicated in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were measured by radioallergosorbent-inhibition immunoassay. A conventional management system (System C) utilising hay feed and straw bedding, and a recommended environment (System R) utilising wood shaving bedding and a complete pelleted diet were studied. In the stall, total and respirable ADC (geometric mean) were significantly higher in System C (2.55 mg/m3; 0.44 mg/m3, respectively) than in System R (0.70 mg/m3; 0.20 mg/m3, respectively). In System C, the total and respirable ADC in the breathing zone (17.51 mg/m3; 9.28 mg/m3) were much higher than in the stall, but values in both regions were similar in System R (0.52 mg/m3; 0.30 mg/m3). Major Aeroallergens were significantly higher in System C than in System R: Micropolyspora faeni (1423 ng/m3 and 705 ng/m3), Aspergillus fumigatus (1823 ng/m3 and 748 ng/m3), and mite allergens (1420 ng/m3 and 761 ng/m3). Measurement of ADC with personal samplers indicates that the very high inhalation challenge in the breathing zone is not reflected in measurements of stall air quality. When compared with System C, System R produced only 3% of the respirable dust burden in the breathing zone and a decreased Aeroallergen challenge.

Howard I. Maibach – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Aeroallergen patch testing for patients presenting to contact dermatitis clinics
    Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1996
    Co-Authors: S. Elizabeth Whitmore, Elizabeth F. Sherertz, Donald V. Belsito, Howard I. Maibach, James R. Nethercott
    Abstract:

    Abstract Background: The role of Aeroallergens in the production of allergic contact dermatitis or “allergic contact dermatitis-like” atopic dermatitis is controversial. Although techniques and allergens lack standardization, most studies find positive patch test results in 30% to 40% of patients with atopic dermatitis. Objective: Our purpose was to determine the prevalence and clinical significance of positive Aeroallergen patch tests in patients undergoing standard patch testing for suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. Methods: One hundred three consecutive patients referred to three university patch test clinics for patch testing were also patch tested with six common Aeroallergens in glycerine—dust, mold, cat epithelium, tree, grass, and weed—as well as with a glycerine control. Patches were removed at 48 hours. Readings were performed at this time and at 3 to 7 days after initial application. Results: As determined by history, these 103 patients included 16 patients with both atopic dermatitis and mucosal atopy, 10 patients with atopic dermatitis only, 22 patients with mucosal atopy only, and 55 patients with neither atopic dermatitis nor mucosal atopy. Allergic reactions were seen to one Aeroallergen in five patients (three with atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy, and two with no history of atopy). The prevalence (3 of 16 [18.8%]) of reactions in patients with both atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy was significantly greater than the prevalence (2 of 87 [2.3%]) in patients with only one or neither of these two atopic disorders ( p = 0.02). None of these Aeroallergen contact hypersensitivities were deemed significant in the patients’ current dermatitis. However, reactions were of past relevance in two of the three patients with atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy. Conclusion: In this referral group, none of the six common Aeroallergens tested was relevant in the origin of suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. This study suggests that Aeroallergen patch testing is of little use in the evaluation of patients referred for routine patch testing for suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. Similar but larger studies inclusive of the assessment of relevance, as well as masked controlled clinical trials assessing the effect of Aeroallergen exposure and avoidance, are needed to evaluate this issue more fully.

  • Aeroallergen patch testing for patients presenting to contact dermatitis clinics.
    Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1996
    Co-Authors: S. Elizabeth Whitmore, Elizabeth F. Sherertz, Donald V. Belsito, Howard I. Maibach, James R. Nethercott
    Abstract:

    The role of Aeroallergens in the production of allergic contact dermatitis or “allergic contact dermatitis-like” atopic dermatitis is controversial. Although techniques and allergens lack standardization, most studies find positive patch test results in 30% to 40% of patients with atopic dermatitis. Our purpose was to determine the prevalence and clinical significance of positive Aeroallergen patch tests in patients undergoing standard patch testing for suspected “nonaeroallerge” allergic contact dermatitis. One hundred three consecutive patients referred to three university patch test clinics for patch testing were alos patch tested with six common Aeroallergens in glycerine-dust, mold, cat epithelium, tree, grass, and weed-as well as with a glycerine control. Patches were removed at 48 hours. Readings were performed at this time and at 3 to 7 days after initial application. As determined by history, these 103 patients included 16 patients with both atopic dermatitis and mucosal atopy, 10 patients with atopic dermatitis only, 22 patients with mucosal atopy only, and 55 patients with neither atopic dermatitis nor mucosal atopy. Allergic reactions were seen to one Aeroallergen in five patients (three with atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy, and two with no history of atopy). The prevalence (3 of 16 [18.8%]) of reactions in patients with both atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy was significantly greater than the prevalence (2 of 87 [2.3%]) in patients with only one or neither of these two atopic disorders (p = 0.02). None of these Aeroallergen contact hypersensitivities were deemed significant in the patients’ current dermatitis. However, reactions were of past relevance in two of the three patients with atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy. In this referral group, none of the six common Aeroallergens tested was relevant in the origin of suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. This study suggests that Aeroallergen patch testing is of little use in the evaluation of patients referred for routine patch testing for suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. Similar but larger studies inclusive of the assessment of relevance, as well as masked controlled clinical trials assessing the effect of Aeroallergen exposure and avoidance, are needed to evaluate this issue more fully.

Donald V. Belsito – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Aeroallergen patch testing for patients presenting to contact dermatitis clinics
    Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1996
    Co-Authors: S. Elizabeth Whitmore, Elizabeth F. Sherertz, Donald V. Belsito, Howard I. Maibach, James R. Nethercott
    Abstract:

    Abstract Background: The role of Aeroallergens in the production of allergic contact dermatitis or “allergic contact dermatitis-like” atopic dermatitis is controversial. Although techniques and allergens lack standardization, most studies find positive patch test results in 30% to 40% of patients with atopic dermatitis. Objective: Our purpose was to determine the prevalence and clinical significance of positive Aeroallergen patch tests in patients undergoing standard patch testing for suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. Methods: One hundred three consecutive patients referred to three university patch test clinics for patch testing were also patch tested with six common Aeroallergens in glycerine—dust, mold, cat epithelium, tree, grass, and weed—as well as with a glycerine control. Patches were removed at 48 hours. Readings were performed at this time and at 3 to 7 days after initial application. Results: As determined by history, these 103 patients included 16 patients with both atopic dermatitis and mucosal atopy, 10 patients with atopic dermatitis only, 22 patients with mucosal atopy only, and 55 patients with neither atopic dermatitis nor mucosal atopy. Allergic reactions were seen to one Aeroallergen in five patients (three with atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy, and two with no history of atopy). The prevalence (3 of 16 [18.8%]) of reactions in patients with both atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy was significantly greater than the prevalence (2 of 87 [2.3%]) in patients with only one or neither of these two atopic disorders ( p = 0.02). None of these Aeroallergen contact hypersensitivities were deemed significant in the patients’ current dermatitis. However, reactions were of past relevance in two of the three patients with atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy. Conclusion: In this referral group, none of the six common Aeroallergens tested was relevant in the origin of suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. This study suggests that Aeroallergen patch testing is of little use in the evaluation of patients referred for routine patch testing for suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. Similar but larger studies inclusive of the assessment of relevance, as well as masked controlled clinical trials assessing the effect of Aeroallergen exposure and avoidance, are needed to evaluate this issue more fully.

  • Aeroallergen patch testing for patients presenting to contact dermatitis clinics.
    Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1996
    Co-Authors: S. Elizabeth Whitmore, Elizabeth F. Sherertz, Donald V. Belsito, Howard I. Maibach, James R. Nethercott
    Abstract:

    The role of Aeroallergens in the production of allergic contact dermatitis or “allergic contact dermatitis-like” atopic dermatitis is controversial. Although techniques and allergens lack standardization, most studies find positive patch test results in 30% to 40% of patients with atopic dermatitis. Our purpose was to determine the prevalence and clinical significance of positive Aeroallergen patch tests in patients undergoing standard patch testing for suspected “nonaeroallerge” allergic contact dermatitis. One hundred three consecutive patients referred to three university patch test clinics for patch testing were alos patch tested with six common Aeroallergens in glycerine-dust, mold, cat epithelium, tree, grass, and weed-as well as with a glycerine control. Patches were removed at 48 hours. Readings were performed at this time and at 3 to 7 days after initial application. As determined by history, these 103 patients included 16 patients with both atopic dermatitis and mucosal atopy, 10 patients with atopic dermatitis only, 22 patients with mucosal atopy only, and 55 patients with neither atopic dermatitis nor mucosal atopy. Allergic reactions were seen to one Aeroallergen in five patients (three with atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy, and two with no history of atopy). The prevalence (3 of 16 [18.8%]) of reactions in patients with both atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy was significantly greater than the prevalence (2 of 87 [2.3%]) in patients with only one or neither of these two atopic disorders (p = 0.02). None of these Aeroallergen contact hypersensitivities were deemed significant in the patients’ current dermatitis. However, reactions were of past relevance in two of the three patients with atopic dermatitis and mucosal allergy. In this referral group, none of the six common Aeroallergens tested was relevant in the origin of suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. This study suggests that Aeroallergen patch testing is of little use in the evaluation of patients referred for routine patch testing for suspected “nonAeroallergen” allergic contact dermatitis. Similar but larger studies inclusive of the assessment of relevance, as well as masked controlled clinical trials assessing the effect of Aeroallergen exposure and avoidance, are needed to evaluate this issue more fully.