4.6 Review

Organ-specific allergen challenges in airway allergy: Current utilities and future directions

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 78, 期 7, 页码 1794-1809

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/all.15731

关键词

allergic asthma; allergic rhinitis; bronchial allergen challenge; conjunctival allergen challenge; nasal allergen challenge

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aeroallergens can trigger respiratory symptoms in both atopic and non-atopic individuals. Nasal, conjunctival, and bronchial allergen challenges are helpful in determining the diagnosis, adjusting management strategies, and improving health outcomes for patients with airway allergy.
Atopy has been long used as the screening method for airway allergy. Nevertheless, aeroallergens can trigger respiratory symptoms not only in atopic patients (atopic respiratory allergy, ARA), but also in non-atopic subjects (local respiratory allergy, LRA). Moreover, ARA and LRA can coexist in the same patient, and this clinical scenario has been called dual respiratory allergy (DRA). When the clinical history cannot determine the relevance of sensitizations in ARA patients, nasal, conjunctival or bronchial allergen challenges (NAC, CAC, and BAC, respectively) should be conducted. Moreover, these tests are required to identify patients with LRA and DRA. The clarification of the allergic triggers of airway diseases has a profound impact on the management strategies the patients can be offered. Importantly, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) remains as the only disease-modifying intervention for ARA. Recent data indicate that AIT might have a similar effect on LRA patients. Nevertheless, AIT success relies largely on the correct phenotyping of allergic individuals, and NAC, CAC, and BAC are very helpful tools in this regard. In this review, we will summarize the main indications and methodology of CAC, NAC, and BAC. Importantly, the clinical implementation of these tests might translate into precision medicine approaches and better health outcomes for patients with airway allergy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据