1. Лучше сэкономить 300р и получить анафилактический шок, верно? Учитывая, 10-20% вероятность летального исхода несмотря ни на что.
2. Если вы не искали, это не означает, что таких данных нет:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12144647
3. Единичный случай это не статистика. Вы строите выводы по единичному случаю. Да и деньги никто не выкачивает. Есть услуга, есть стоимость, есть здоровье.
Приятно, что Вы открыты пабмеду!
По приведённой ссылке:
"Although anaphylaxis is very rare after SPTs, these tests should always be peformed in a place equipped to treat anaphylaxis."
В полном варианте статьи написано:
"Skin-prick testing (SPT) is commonly consideredthe most appropriate tool for diagnosis of IgE-mediated diseases, particularly in pediatricpatients, because of its high sensitivity, ease of performance, immediate availability of results,low cost and high safety factors. SPT may beconsidered very safe (1), with only minor adversereactions in a maximum of 0.04% of patientstested (2). The patient was an 8-year-old boy, suffering sincehis first year of life from atopic dermatitis andwheezing. Family history was positive for atopy:an asthmatic sister and a brother suffering fromallergic rhinitis."
То есть в анамнезе мальчика родители-аллергики, сам ребенок с АД и проявлял реакцию на продукты и шерсть. Врачи об этом знали, провели тест. Нет внятного описания как реагировали врачи, но похоже, что не было препаратов для остановки анафилактического шока. Есть явная халатность, когда родители держали дома аллерген (собаку), и он вызвал особстрение аллергии у ребенка.
Еще есть описание других редких случаев анафилактического шока:
"Two cases are described (4) where an anaphy-lactic reaction had occurred after a prick-by-pricktest with fresh kiwi and after prick tests withcommercial extracts for some species of fish. Bothpatients were adults and had a history of anaphylaxis after ingestion of kiwi and fish,respectively.Another two cases are reported (5,6) afterlatex SPT in a 17-year-old patient with a historyof contact urticaria as well as anaphylacticshock reactions and in a 34-year-old operatingroom nurse with hand eczema and episodicanaphylactic-type reactions to natural latex.Furthermore, in a series of 118 patients withlatex allergy manifestations, SPT with a crudelatex antigen preparation was shown to elicitanaphylactic reactions in four cases (7)."
По другой ссылке:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3565910/
"Skin prick testing is an essential test procedure to confirm sensitization in IgE-mediated allergic disease in subjects with rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma, urticaria, anapylaxis, atopic eczema and food and drug allergy.
Furthermore, in subjects with very high total serum IgE antibodies, low levels of specific IgE antibodies of doubtful clinical relevance are often detected. Concordance between in vitro specific IgE antibody assays and SPT results is between 85% and 95%, depending on the allergen being tested [15-18] and the method used to detect specific IgE [19-21]. In a study of over 8000 subjects, SPT versus quantitation of specific IgE antibodies, for example, with the CAP FEIA technology (Phadiatop®, Pharmacia, Uppsala, Sweden), had the best positive predictive value to determine clinical allergy for respiratory allergic diseases [22]. Moreover, SPT provides immediate information versus in vitro test results which may not be available for days or weeks. Thus, SPT has greater flexibility and is usually less costly.
Intradermal skin tests are more sensitive but less specific than SPT [42]. They are more labor-intensive and require more precise techniques. These tests have occasionally been associated with serious systemic allergic reactions and even death from anaphylaxis [43,44]. In clinical practice, SPT tests should always be performed first since a positive test circumvents the necessity for intradermal skin testing. Extracts utilized for intradermal skin testing are less concentrated (1:10–1:1000; 0.00001 μg/ml up to 1 μg/ml [42,45]) than those utilized for SPT and should be free of glycerine, in order to avoid false-positive reactions. (...) Thus, for the most part, SPT is preferable to intradermal testing, the latter being primarily used for Hymenoptera venom sensitivity, sensitization to medications, and where an allergen is considered historically relevant and in the circumstance that the SPT is negative [46].
SPT is highly specific and sensitive, 70-95% and 80-97%, respectively, to diagnose inhalant allergies [76].
Sensitivity and specificity are lower for food allergens, ranging from 30-90% and 20-60%, depending on the type of allergen and methods utilized.
The objective value of SPT for drug allergy depends on the tested drug. In most cases, a positive SPT makes drug allergy very probable; whereas a negative result does not necessarily indicate that the patient will not react on challenge to the drug [79]. However, for penicillin, the negative predictive value is high. In 98.5% of patients with a negative SPT, no type I allergy was observed upon challenge while the remaining 1.5% of patients had mild and self-limiting reactions, e.g., urticaria [80]. In many cases, intradermal testing is appropriate after negative SPT. Some drugs, e.g., muscle relaxants or opioids may cause SPT false-positive results. When evaluating patients for IgE-mediated drug allergy to antibiotics other than penicillin, SPT should be performed with the unadulterated pharmaceutical agent. Late readings (> 24h) of SPTs and especially intradermal skin tests are very valuable in the clarification of adverse drug reactions.
For suspected insect venom allergy, intradermal tests are the primary mode for detecting sensitization. SPT is performed prior to intradermal testing.
Sensitizations to aeroallergens, as measured by SPT, may precede symptomatic allergy. Prospective studies show that 30-60% of such subjects become allergic depending on the type of allergen tested and the time to follow-up [81,82]. "
Так что кожные тесты и пробы очень даже эффективны, безопасны и полезны для выявления скрытых аллергий.