Correlation between conjunctival provocation test (CPT) and systemic allergometric tests in allergic conjunctivitis.

Regional Centre for the Diagnosis and the Treatment of Inflammatory Eye Diseases, University of Padova, Italy.
Eye (Impact Factor: 1.9). 02/1990; 4 ( Pt 5):760-4. DOI: 10.1038/eye.1990.109
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In order to assess the potential usefulness of CPT as a diagnostic tool for ocular allergy, the correlation between skin/RAST tests and CPT was determined in 144 patients affected by allergic 'hay fever' type conjunctivitis. The results showed that an agreement between skin/RAST tests and CPT occurred in 71% of the cases (130/183). Of the 29% uncorrelated cases, 23% (43/183) were positive for at least one specific antigen by skin/RAST tests but not by CPT, while 6% (10/183) were positive for at least one specific antigen by CPT, but not by skin/RAST tests. CPT dramatically increased the histamine levels in tears (p less than 0.001). These findings show that (1) systemic tests can be misleading in that they may suggest a specific sensitisation which, in fact, does not involve the conjunctiva (systemic test positive/CPT negative); (2) CPT can identify local conjunctival sensitisation in the absence of a systemic sensitisation (systemic test negative/CPT positive); (3) CPT can demonstrate that allergic 'hay fever' type conjunctivitis may be related to allergens different from those responsible for a systemic sensitisation.

  • Source
    Allergy 12/2008; 52(s35):5 - 35. · 6.00 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Allergic conjunctivitis, unlike many ocular conditions, is rarely associated with permanent visual impairment. It is, however, a common and extremely uncomfortable problem for those who are affected. Because patients with allergic conjunctivitis may be seen by the allergist and the ophthalmologist, it is important for both to recognize the hallmarks of allergic conjunctivitis and to understand the different therapeutic alternatives for the management of this condition.
    Immunology and Allergy Clinics of North America 02/1997; 17(19-1):19-&. · 2.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ocular allergy can take several different clinical forms, including those in which IgE-mediated reactions are predominant or in others where they are an aggregating factor. The need for an allergy workup varies depending on the clinical manifestations. Pollen-induced conjunctivitis, so-called seasonal pollinosis, is in general easily diagnosed and the allergy workup is used only to confirm the identity of the responsible allergen(s). Conjunctivitis associated with perennial allergens is sometimes more difficult to diagnose, in which case the allergy workup is a essential diagnostic element. However, allergic sensitisation is not always synonymous with allergic conjunctivitis, and other local examinations, such as a conjunctival provocation test, are sometimes necessary to establish the diagnosis. Atopic vernal keratoconjunctivitis and atopic keratoconjunctivitis are two special forms of keratoconjunctivitis, the first involving pre-pubertal males and the second involving young adults with a history of atopic dermatitis. In these two conditions, conjunctival sensitisation is not the principal mechanism, but it can aggravate the disease. Results of an allergy workup can provide evidence for recommending avoidance of the allergen(s) or specific immunotherapy, which may ameliorate the evolution of the disease. Contact eczema may require a dermatological workup when the allergen has not been identified in the allergy workup. Finally, certain cases of chronic conjunctivitis occurring in association with dry eye syndrome or with blepharitis, such as ocular rosacea, can look like allergic conjunctivitis and vice versa. An allergy workup is then an important diagnostic element. Thus, an allergy workup has a variable but often important place in the care of patients with conjunctivitis.
    Revue Française d Allergologie et d Immunologie Clinique 04/2005; 45(3):222-225. · 0.24 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 2, 2014