Allergy to XXXX : lack of predictability by skin testing.

@entity1 @entity9373 @entity2544 @entity3416 @entity56 @entity2827
Problems with determining @entity56 to @entity3416 , @entity9373 , and @entity2544 with intradermal skin tests and patch tests are reported in three @entity1 . Three @entity1 were tested with intradermal injections of 0.9% @entity2827 , 1% @entity3416 , 1% @entity9373 , and 0.5% @entity2544 following apparent @entity56 to @entity3416 . Patch testing using hydrophilic ointment base, 1% @entity3416 , 1% @entity9373 , and 0.5% @entity2544 was also done. All three @entity1 had no reaction to intradermal @entity2827 or @entity2544 ; all patch tests were negative. The first @entity1 reacted to @entity9373 strongly and to @entity3416 more weakly; punch biopsy of the @entity9373 reaction site showed a direct toxic effect with no allergic component. Punch biopsy of the @entity3416 site showed a typical @entity56 . Two concentrations (0.5% and 1.0%) of @entity9373 injection were used to test the second @entity1 , and he reacted to both concentrations but not to any other injections. His positive reactions contained blisters rather than the typical wheal-and-flare reaction of @entity56 . The third @entity1 had similar responses including reactions to 0.5% and 0.1% @entity9373 (he was not tested with 1% @entity9373 ). Skin testing may be of value in predicting @entity3416 or @entity9373 allergy, but the nonspecific toxic effect of @entity9373 makes interpretation difficult.
