Acupuncture may be helpful in the treatment of some types of allergy. Studies of mice treated with acupuncture provide evidence of an anti-allergic effect with results similar to treatment with corticosteroids (cortisone-like drugs). A preliminary trial found a significant decrease in allergy symptoms following acupuncture treatment. It was found that the decline in symptoms coincided with a decline in laboratory measures of allergy. Relief persisted for two months following the treatment. Other preliminary trials have also demonstrated positive results. One controlled trial reported a reduction in allergic complaints following acupuncture treatment, but the results were not statistically significant. In the future, controlled trials with larger numbers of subjects may help to determine conclusively whether allergies can be successfully treated with acupuncture therapy.
Provocation-neutralization is a controversial method of both allergy testing and treatment. Treatment consists of injecting minute dilutions of foods, inhalants, or (in some cases) chemicals into the lower layers of the skin. This approach is not the same as traditional desensitization injections given by medical allergy specialists. Preliminary and double-blind research suggests treatment of allergies by provocation-neutralization may be effective, though negative double-blind research also exists.
Allergy treatment using extracts of allergens taken orally is another controversial method advocated by some alternative healthcare practitioners. Most but not all double-blind trials have found this approach effective for house dust allergy. Preliminary and double-blind trials have reported success using this method for other allergies as well.
Treatment of food allergy using very small but increasing daily doses of actual foods has been reported, and in one controlled trial 12 of 14 patients successfully completed the program and could tolerate previously allergenic foods.
All desensitization programs require the guidance of a healthcare professional. While none of these approaches has been unequivocally proven, several show promise that people with allergies may be treatable by means other than simple avoidance of the offending food or inhalant substance.
What tests can detect allergies? Several tests or procedures are used by physicians to detect allergies. Most of these tests remain controversial. Some clinicians (cited below), however, believe some of these tests can be effective.
This form of testing is one of the most widely used. A patient’s skin is scratched with a needle that contains a portion of the food, inhalant, or chemical that is being tested. After a period of time, the skin is examined for reactions. If there is a reaction, it is determined that an allergy exists. Although this test is accepted by most allergists, scratch testing is subject to a relatively high incidence of inaccurate results, some tests showing positive when the person is not truly allergic to the substance (false positive) and some tests showing negative when an allergy really exists (false negative).
RAST/MAST/PRIST/ELISA (and other tests that measure immunoglobulins)
The radioallergosorbent test (RAST) indirectly measures antibodies in the blood that react to specific foods. It is used by many physicians and has been shown to be a somewhat reliable indicator of allergies. It does not, however, help diagnose non-allergic food sensitivities and is therefore associated with a high risk of false negative readings. In an attempt to avoid this problem, a variety of modifications have been made to tests related to RAST (such as MAST, PRIST, and ELISA). Some of these changes may have reduced the risk of false negative readings somewhat but are likely to have increased the risk of false positive readings. A number of conditions associated with food sensitivities, such as migraine headaches and irritable bowel syndrome, have shown remarkably poor correlation between RAST results and the actual sensitivities of patients.
The cytotoxic test views a patient’s serum under a microscope to see whether it is reacting to certain substances. The test is subject to numerous errors and is not generally considered to be reliable.
Clinical ecology (provocation-neutralization; end-point titration)
This branch of medicine is considered very controversial. Testing is done using intra-dermal (under the skin) injections of minute dilutions of foods, inhalants or (in some cases) chemicals. Based on reactions, additional dilutions are used. This test not only determines whether an allergy exists but also operates on the theory that one dilution can trigger a reaction while another can neutralize a reaction. Preliminary research suggests this approach may have beneficial effects, A similar method uses these dilutions under the tongue to test for allergies. Double-blind research has not found this method effective.
Elimination and reintroduction
The most reliable way to determine a food allergy is to have the patient eliminate a suspected food from the diet for a period of time and then reintroduce it later. Once a food is eliminated, the symptoms it may be causing either improve or resolve, typically after several days to three weeks. The body then becomes more sensitive to the food, so when the food is reintroduced, the symptom is more likely to recur. This tool shows with a high degree of certainty which foods are problem foods. The testing requires a great deal of patience and, as with all other forms of allergy testing, is best undertaken with the help of a physician who can monitor the diet. Reintroduction of an allergenic food has been reported to lead occasionally to dangerous reactions in some people with certain conditions, particularly asthma—another reason this approach should not be attempted without supervision.
Bioelectric tests are controversial procedures that attempt to measure changes in electrical activity at acupuncture points when a potential allergen is brought into proximity. A preliminary study reported that the EAV (Electroacupuncture According to Voll) device, also called the Vega test, identified the same allergens as RAST testing in 70.5 percent of tests. Another preliminary study found the Vega test identified the same neutralization doses as clinical ecology testing (see above) in 66% of tests. More research is needed to better evaluate these testing techniques.