Nasal allergen provocation test: updated indications and diagnostic accuracy
1
Issued Date
2025-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
15284050
eISSN
14736322
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105003777606
Pubmed ID
40048355
Journal Title
Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology (2025)
Suggested Citation
Kanjanawasee D., Wattanaphichet A., Tantilipikorn P., Tantikun B. Nasal allergen provocation test: updated indications and diagnostic accuracy. Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology (2025). doi:10.1097/ACI.0000000000001066 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/110010
Title
Nasal allergen provocation test: updated indications and diagnostic accuracy
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Purpose of review The Nasal Allergen Provocation Test (NAPT) is a valuable diagnostic tool for allergic rhinitis, particularly in cases where conventional tests, such as the skin prick test (SPT) and serum-specific IgE (sIgE), yield inconclusive results. By replicating real-life allergen exposure in a controlled setting, NAPT enables the assessment of allergen-specific nasal reactivity. This article aims to review the current knowledge of NAPT. Recent findings Recent studies have reinforced NAPT as the gold standard for confirming nasal allergic responses. In the past, test protocols, allergen dosages, and outcome measurements varied widely. However, advancements in allergen standardization, the combination of objective and subjective measurements, and metered nasal allergen application have led to an improved and more reliable test method, with ongoing efforts to establish a universal protocol for clinical testing. Summary This review summarizes current knowledge on NAPT, including its clinical applications, indications, methodology, and recent advancements. Additionally, we compare NAPT with SPT and sIgE in terms of diagnostic accuracy. The protocols, allergen types and doses, test methodologies, and outcome measures of these studies were analyzed and compared.