IADVL
Indexed with PubMed and Science Citation Index (E) 
 
Users online: 5145 
     Home | Feedback | Login 
About Current Issue Archive Ahead of print Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe What's New Contact  
  Navigate here 
  Search
 
   Next article
   Previous article 
   Table of Contents
  
 Resource links
   Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
   Article in PDF (493 KB)
   Citation Manager
   Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
   References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1944    
    Printed39    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded195    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2007  |  Volume : 73  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 265-266

Authors' reply


Dept. of Dermatology, PSG Hospitals, Peelamedu, Coimbatore - 4, India

Correspondence Address:
C R Srinivas
Dept. of Dermatology, PSG Hospitals, Peelamedu, Coimbatore - 641 004
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0378-6323.33642

Rights and Permissions



How to cite this article:
Lakshmi C, Srinivas C R. Authors' reply. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2007;73:265-6

How to cite this URL:
Lakshmi C, Srinivas C R. Authors' reply. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol [serial online] 2007 [cited 2019 Dec 10];73:265-6. Available from: http://www.ijdvl.com/text.asp?2007/73/4/265/33642


Sir,

We thank Dr. Kaushal Verma for his interest in our article. [1] The author of the letter states, 'Atopics are more susceptible to develop contact allergy to compositae plants also. In this study, it seems atopic individuals have developed Parthenium dermatitis and this atopic state may have resulted in positive prick test and elevated IgE levels in these patients . . .' Until this point, we concur with the authors of the letter; however, the authors continue, '. . . which may not have been actually due to parthenium.'

These patients tested positive to prick test with parthenium and negative with saline (negative control). In addition, histamine, which was used as a positive control, also elicited an immediate reaction. The late-phase reaction (LPR) was elicited to parthenium alone and neither the control nor histamine showed a late-phase reaction. This proves that the patient had type I hypersensitivity in addition to type IV hypersensitivity (which was confirmed by patch testing). With regard to the comment that ELISA would be a more reliable test to confirm type I hypersensitivity to parthenium, the only available test is RAST. During our initial trials, RAST gave false positive results. A 6-month-old baby with pustular psoriasis tested positive, and some frank cases of parthenium dermatitis tested negative. In addition, the RAST yields numerous positive reactions which are obviously irrelevant and poses a problem in advising patients. Finally, we planned our study based on an article in Dermatology Clinics which categorically states 'the RAST is considered to be less sensitive than a prick test.' [2]

 
  References Top

1.Verma KK. Type I hypersensitivity to Parthenium hysterophorus in patients with parthenium dermatitis. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2007;73:(in current issue).  Back to cited text no. 1      
2.Warner MR, Taylor JS, Leow YH. Agents causing contact urticaria. Clin Dermatol 1997;15:623-35.  Back to cited text no. 2  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article

    

Online since 15th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow