The diagnostic value of basophil activation test in patients with an immediate hypersensitivity reaction to radiocontrast media

Flow-based basophil activation test in immediate drug hypersensitivity. An EAACI task force position paper

Diagnosing immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) can pose a significant challenge and there is an urgent need for safe and reliable tests. Evidence has emerged that the basophil activation test (BAT), an in vitro assay that mirrors the in vivo response, can be a complementary test for many drugs. In this position paper, members of Task Force (TF) "Basophil activation test in the evaluation of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions" from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) present the data from a survey about the use and utility of BAT in IDHRs in Europe. The survey results indicate that there is a great interest for using BAT especially for diagnosing IDHRs. However, there are still main needs, mainly in the standardization of the protocols. Subsequently consensus-based recommendations were formulated for: (i) Technical aspects of BAT in IDHRs including type of sample, management of drugs, flow cytometry protocols, interpretation of the results; and (ii) Drug-specific aspects that should be taken into account when performing BAT in relation to betalactams, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluoroquinolones, chlorhexidine, opioids, radio contrast media, chemotherapeutics, biological agents, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, COVID vaccine, and excipients. Moreover, aspects in the evaluation of pediatric population have also been considered. All this indicates that BAT offers the clinician and laboratory a complementary tool for a safe diagnostic for IDHRs, although its place in the diagnostic algorithm depends on the drug class and patient population (phenotype, geography, and age). The standardization of BAT is important for generalizing this method beyond the individual laboratory.

Skin Test Reactivity Patterns in Patients Allergic to Iodinated Contrast Media: A Refined View

BACKGROUND

Two-dimensional (2D) classifications of iodinated contrast media (ICM) are insufficient to explain the observed skin test (ST) reactivity patterns in patients with drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to ICM.

OBJECTIVE

To refine the current view on allergic DHRs to ICM by analyzing ST reactivity patterns in patients with previous reactions to ICM.

METHODS

Patients with a history of DHR to ICM and positive STs, who presented at the University Hospital of Montpellier between 2004 and 2022, were included in the study. The relative difference between every two ICM products was measured by Manhattan distance and odds ratios were computed for all pairs of products in the immediate reaction (IR) and non-immediate reaction (NIR) ST groups.

RESULTS

A total of 181 patients were included in the study. Odds ratio analysis identified significant associations between classical cross-reactive ICM, such as iohexol-ioversol, iohexol-iomeprol, iomeprol-ioversol, and iohexol-iodixanol in the IR ST group and iohexol-ioversol, iopromide-iohexol, and iomeprol-ioversol in the NIR ST group. We also identified uncommon associations, such as ioxitalamate-amidotrizoate in the IR ST group and amidotrizoate-iopamidol and amidotrizoate-ioxitalamate in the NIR ST group. The results were reflected by the Manhattan distance, which suggested the existence of clusters containing the same classically associated ICM as well as uncommon associations, which we hypothesize to be related to similarities in the 3D structure of the respective ICM.

CONCLUSIONS

Current chemical (2D) classifications cannot explain all observed ST reactivity patterns. Whether the 3D structure can be integrated into the current classifications to interpret the observed ST reactivity patterns and predict tolerance to alternative ICM requires further research.

Diagnostic utility of basophil CD203c expression in β-lactam allergy

Background: A diagnosis of immunoglobulin E (IgE) mediated reactions to β-lactam (BL) antibiotics is still challenging because of the limited availability of skin-prick test (SPT), and standardization issues, particularly with newer BLs, are still ongoing. Because encouraging data are increasingly emerging in the use of basophil activation tests in the diagnosis of IgE-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions, in this study, we aimed to determine CD203c expression, a basophil surface marker, in the diagnosis of IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to BL antibiotics. Methods: This study included two groups of subjects. The first group (group 1) (n = 20) included patients with a diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergy to BLs as confirmed through STs or drug provocation tests, and the control group consisted of healthy volunteers (group 2) (n = 24). Expression of CD203c by flow cytometry was studied in samples stimulated by two different concentrations of six different BL antibiotics. A stimulation index ≥ 2 was considered a positive response. Results: The study groups had comparable age and sex distribution. In the entire group, the sensitivity and specificity of CD203c were 29.4% (5 out of 17) and 82.6% (19 out of 23), respectively. When considering the single reactors, two among four patients who were allergic to amoxicillin demonstrated upregulation of CD203c with amoxicillin, which makes 50% sensitivity. The specificity was 100%. Conclusion: Our data demonstrated that assessment of CD203c in the diagnosis of IgE-mediated reactions to BLs provided encouraging results, particularly with amoxicillin allergy. However, this finding needs to be verified in a larger number of cases.

Bridging the gap between bench and clinic: the importance of understanding the mechanism of iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity

Since the advent of CT, iodinated contract media (ICM) has become one of the most regularly administered intravenous medications in clinical settings. Although considered generally safe, ICM is one of the most common causes of adverse drug reactions in clinical practice, accounting for more than 2 million adverse reactions worldwide. Currently, there are few useful tools to diagnose patient hypersensitivity, with the major limitation being the lack of consensus regarding the mechanisms of hypersensitivity to ICM. While there is an overwhelming abundance of literature pertaining to clinical features including incidence, symptomatology, and risk, few studies have further investigated the underlying mechanisms behind their clinical observations. Of the available literature discussing pathophysiology, most primary studies were completed over 20 years ago, since which the molecular characteristics of ICM have changed. Furthermore, many reviews mentioning pathophysiology fail to adequately emphasize the clinical importance of understanding the molecular pathways involved in hypersensitivity. In this review, we aim to emphasize the clinical relevance of pathophysiology as it relates to the prediction and diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions to ICM. To this end, we will first briefly characterize hypersensitivity reactions to ICM with respect to epidemiology and clinical presentation. We will then present the existing evidence supporting various proposed mechanisms of hypersensitivity, highlighting the gaps that remain in the mechanistic delineation of both immediate and delayed reactions. Finally, we discuss the possibility of in vitro testing as a way to predict and diagnose hypersensitivity reactions, pending a more complete elucidation of mechanisms.

Beta-lactam hypersensitivity diagnosis in ambulatory and hospitalized settings require different approaches

BACKGROUND

Data on beta-lactam hypersensitivity (BLH) are mainly focused on immediate or mild nonimmediate reactions in the ambulatory setting, but limited in patients with concurrent illness and moderate-to-severe nonimmediate reactions in the hospitalized setting.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the entire spectrum of BLH in Thai tertiary hospital.

METHODS

Clinical characteristics of 357 patients with suspected BLH were evaluated in a 7-year period. Culprit drug identification was performed in 335 patients by combined skin testing, in vitro testing, or drug provocation tests.

RESULTS

The predominant BLH presentations were non-immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated reactions with severe cutaneous adverse reactions of 18.9%, and BLH status was definitively confirmed in 18.1%. The most common verified culprits were cephalosporins (34.8%), particularly in hypersensitivity type IV reactions. Natural penicillins were the main implicated drugs in 48.5% of ambulatory patients. In contrast, cephalosporins and carbapenems were the main implicated drugs in hospitalized patients. Non-IgE-mediated anaphylaxis and serum sickness-like reaction remained diagnostically challenged. New generations of beta-lactams, hospitalized patients, recent allergic history, and underlying malignancies or autoimmune diseases were associated with increased BLH risk.

CONCLUSION

At present, cephalosporins are the leading causes of BLH, particularly in non-IgE-mediated reactions. More research on the verification of non-IgE hypersensitivity reactions from new generations of beta-lactams should be better emphasized.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The registry was approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, and listed on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01667055; https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ct2/show/NCT01667055).

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Iodinated Contrast Media

At present, iodinated contrast media (ICM) are mostly non-ionic, have low osmolality, and are safe. Even if adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occur, most are chemo-toxic symptoms and require only observation or H1 antihistamines. However, rare, unpredictable, and even life-threatening hypersensitivity can still occur. The aim of this review is to summarize the issues that all relevant staff need to know about and be able to respond to. The most significant risk factor for ICM hypersensitivity is a history of ICM hypersensitivity. For high-risk populations, we must cautiously weigh the advantages and disadvantages of premedication and be aware that breakthrough reactions may still occur. The best policy for patients with a history of severe ICM hypersensitivity is to avoid the same ICM. If ICM are inevitable, skin tests, in vitro tests, and drug provocation tests may help to find a feasible alternative that is safer. The severity of the hypersensitivity is correlated with the positivity rate of these tests, so there is no need for further investigations for patients with only mild reactions. We should also keep in mind that even excipients in ICM may induce hypersensitivity. Detailed, standardized documentation is essential for correct diagnosis and the prevention of future occurrence.

Radiocontrast Media Hypersensitivity Reactions in Children

Hypersensitivity reactions to radiocontrast media seem to be rare in children. Furthermore, the use of radiocontrast media in children remains quite safe in terms of the severity of reactions. Since pediatric guidelines are lacking, the diagnostic workup employed in adults could be adapted to children, taking into account that results have not yet been validated in this age group. Specific protocols for risk stratification and management of severe reactions have been proposed so far.

Clinical implication of detecting sensitization to iodinated radiocontrast media in the basophil activation test by flow cytometry

The use of iodinated radiocontrast media is necessary for visualization. A number of patients have adverse effects of various nature and severity when these drugs are administered. Routine allergy tests do not provide adequate diagnosis of reactions to drugs in this group. The aim of this work is to assess the capabilities of the basophil activation test to confirm sensitization to non-ionic iodinated radiocontrast media, as well as to select a safe alternative drug in patients with a burdened history. Basophil activation test by flow cytometry was performed in 184 patients The Nikiforov Russian Centre of Emergency and Radiation Medicine» EMERCOM of Russia and 32 volunteers using ultravist, omnipack, and optiray. The presence of sensitization was assessed based on the basophil activation index, as well as spontaneous and anti-IgE antibody-induced activation of basophils and the population of T-lymphocytes type 2 immune response. The volunteers showed no sensitization to iodinated radiocontrast media. In patients with a medium degree of hypersensitivity reaction in vivo, in vitro sensitization to drugs was detected 4 times more often than in patients with a mild degree (51% versus 13.5%). In patients with systemic reactions to the administration of a known drug, in vitro sensitization was confirmed in 86% of cases, while the frequency of detection of sensitization to drugs did not differ. Spontaneous activation of basophils in patients and type 2 T-lymphocytes were 2 times higher than in volunteers. Patients were more likely to have low (less than 30%) activation of basophils for anti-IgE antibodies. The specificity of the basophil activation test with iodinated radiocontrast media was 100% with a sensitivity of 94.1%. Most patients were able to select a non-sensitizing contrast. Inclusion in the algorithm of spontaneous and anti-IgE antibody-induced activation of basophils and a population of T-lymphocytes type 2 immune response will allow the doctor to carry out a personalized approach to the management of patients with a burdened history.

Practical guidelines for the response to perioperative anaphylaxis

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a severe adverse event during anesthesia that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment by physicians, including anesthesiologists. Muscle relaxants and antibiotics are the most common drugs that cause perioperative anaphylaxis in Japan, as in many countries. In addition, sugammadex appears to be a primary causative agent. Obtaining previous anesthesia records is necessary in a patient with a history of allergic reactions during anesthesia, whenever possible, to avoid recurrence of anaphylaxis. Although medical staff are likely to notice abnormal vital signs because of complete monitoring during anesthesia, surgical drapes make it difficult to notice the appearance of skin symptoms. Even if there are no skin symptoms, anaphylaxis should be suspected, especially when hypotension resistant to inotropes and vasopressors persists. For improving the diagnostic accuracy of anaphylaxis, it is helpful to collect blood samples to measure histamine/tryptase concentrations immediately after the events and at baseline. The first-line treatment for anaphylaxis is adrenaline. In the perioperative setting, adrenaline should be administered through the intravenous route, which has a faster effect onset and is secured in most cases. Adrenaline can cause serious complications including severe arrhythmias if the appropriate dose is not selected according to the severity of symptoms. The anesthesiologist should identify the causative agent after adverse events. The gold standard for identifying the causative agent is the skin test, but in vitro tests including specific IgE antibody measurements and basophil activation tests are also beneficial. The Working Group of the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists has developed this practical guide to help appropriate prevention, early diagnosis and treatment, and postoperative diagnosis of anaphylaxis during anesthesia.Grade of recommendations and levels of evidence Anaphylaxis is a relatively rare condition with few controlled trials, and thus a so-called evidence-based scrutiny is difficult. Therefore, rather than showing evidence levels and indicating the level of recommendation, this practical guideline only describes the results of research available to date. The JSA will continue to investigate anaphylaxis during anesthesia, and the results may lead to an amendment of this practical guideline.

Diagnosing and Managing Patients with Reactions to Radiocontrast Media

Purpose of the review

Iodinated radio contrast media (RCM) belong to the most common elicitors of drug hypersensitivity reactions (HR). Urticaria or anaphylaxis may occur ≤ 1(−6) hour(s) (immediate HR) and exanthems (non-immediate HR) develop > 6 h after application of RCM. Evidence for an immunologic mechanism of RCM HR against the different RCM benzene ring molecules and the benefit of allergological testing in patients with previous hypersensitivity reactions is progressively increasing.

Recent findings

Positive skin tests can confirm allergy in patients with previous reactions to RCM and help to select alternative better tolerated RCMs. Severe hypersensitivity reactions are mainly caused by an allergic mechanism, whereas the majority of non-severe reactions appear to be non-allergic. Skin testing is highly recommended to help identify allergic hypersensitivity reactions and to select alternatives. Using structurally different RCM is more effective than premedication for the prevention of future reactions. Drug provocation tests to RCM have been increasingly used, but are not yet standardized among different centers.

Summary

In patients with previous severe hypersensitivity reactions to RCM, skin testing is recommended. For future RCM-enhanced examinations in patients with previous reactions, structurally different, skin test-negative preparations should be applied. Drug provocation tests do confirm or exclude RCM hypersensitivity or may demonstrate tolerability of alternative RCMs.

Practice parameters for diagnosing and managing iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity

Immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media (ICM) have been reported to occur in a frequency of about 0.5%-3% of patients receiving nonionic ICM. The diagnosis and management of these patients vary among guidelines published by various national and international scientific societies, with recommendations ranging from avoidance or premedication to drug provocation test. This position paper aims to give recommendations for the management of patients with ICM hypersensitivity reactions and analyze controversies in this area. Skin tests are recommended as the initial step for diagnosing patients with immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions; besides, they may also help guide on tolerability of alternatives. Re-exposition or drug provocation test should only be done with skin test-negative ICMs. The decision for performing either re-exposition or drug provocation test needs to be taken based on a risk-benefit analysis. The role of in vitro tests for diagnosis and pretreatment for preventing reactions remains controversial.

Clinical value of in vitro tests for the management of severe drug hypersensitivity reactions

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) occasionally present with severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs) which result in a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Although SCARs are rare, the occurrence could lead to a significant increase in healthcare and economic burden, especially when more than one possible culprit drug is implicated. Therefore, the accurate identification of the culprit drug(s) is important for correct labeling and subsequent patient education and avoidance. To date, clinical evaluation using causality assessment has limitations because the assessment may be inaccurate due to the overlapping timelines when multiple drugs are initiated/continued. Moreover, drug provocation tests (DPTs) which is the gold standard in diagnosis, are contraindicated, and in vivo skin tests may also be associated with risks of triggering SCAR. The European Network for Drug Allergy recommended that in vitro tests, if available, should be performed before any in vivo tests. Basophil activation tests and lymphocyte transformation tests, could serve as reliable in vitro tests for both immediate and delayed-type DHR. Many academic medical centers with affiliated laboratory services offer these tests in the diagnostic evaluation of SCARs in clinical practice. This not only complements identification of the culprit drug(s), but may also be used to test for potentially non cross-reactive alternatives, hence avoiding DPTs. In this review, we summarize the roles of in vitro tests in identifying the culprit drug(s) in SCARs, issues with utilization and interpretation of test results, and our experience in clinical practice.

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Multiple Iodinated Contrast Media

The incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to iodinated contrast media (ICM) has risen over last years, representing an important health problem. HSRs to ICMs are classified into immediate reactions (IRs) and non-immediate reactions (NIRs) according to if they occur within 1 h or longer after ICM administration. The diagnosis of HSRs to ICM is complex as skin test (ST) sensitivity ranges widely, and drug provocation test (DPT) protocols are heterogeneous. In this manuscript, we describe the clinical characteristics of a series of patients confirmed as HSR to ICM and the diagnosis procedure carried out, looking into those cases confirmed as HSRs to multiple ICMs. For this purpose, we prospectively evaluated patients suggestive of HSRs to ICMs and classified them as IRs or NIRs. STs were carried out using a wide panel of ICMs, and in those with a negative ST, a single-blind placebo controlled DPT was performed with the culprit. If ST or DPT were positive, then tolerance was assessed with an alternative negative ST ICM. We included 101 cases (12 IRs and 89 NIRs) confirmed as allergic. Among them, 36 (35.64%) cases were allergic to more than one ICM (8 IRs and 28 NIRs). The most common ICM involved were iomeprol and iodixanol. Although not statistically significant, the percentage of patients reporting anaphylaxis was higher in patients allergic to multiple ICMs compared with patients allergic to a single ICM (50 vs. 25%). Likewise, the percentage of positive results in STs was higher in patients allergic to multiple ICMs compared with those allergic to a single ICM (for IR 62.5 vs. 25%, p > 0.05; and for NIR, 85.71 vs. 24.59%, p < 0.000). In cases allergic to more than one ICM, DPT with negative-ST ICM was positive in more than 60% (24/36) of cases. Therefore, allergy to multiple ICMs is common, associated to severe reactions in IRs, and confirmed frequently by positive STs. The allergological work-up should include DPT not only to establish the diagnosis but also to identify safe alternative ICM, even if ICM is structurally unrelated and ST is negative. More studies are needed to clarify mechanisms underlying cross-reactivity among ICMs.

Adverse reactions during procedures: Hypersensitivity to contrast agents and dyes

OBJECTIVE

This review provides an overview of the literature on hypersensitivity reactions during procedures to commonly used contrast agents and dyes. A synthesis of current knowledge on clinical symptoms, epidemiology and risk factors, pathomechanism, and management of hypersensitivity reactions to these substances is presented.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted through Medline. Included were peer-reviewed articles written in English between 2000 and 2019.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Relevant clinical studies, experimental studies, and review articles have been selected. Additionally, case reports have been included if they carried significant information about rare clinical forms of hypersensitivity reactions, disease mechanisms, or therapy.

RESULTS

An allergological workup is only indicated for patients with a history of immediate (IHR) and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions (NIHR) but not for toxic or unrelated adverse events. Skin tests with or without experimental cellular laboratory tests in patients with previous reactions can provide evidence for an allergic mechanism. Positive skin tests indicating allergy are more common in severe reactions. If the adverse event was allergic, skin testing of alternatives is helpful for the selection of other contrast agents for future procedures. Premedication alone may be insufficient in these cases, and breakthrough reactions occur. For nonallergic reactions, change of contrast agent and premedication is often but not always sufficient to suppress reactions.

CONCLUSION

Patients with previous NIHR or IHR, especially moderate and severe IHR, needing potential re-administration of contrast agents should be skin tested to identify an allergic mechanism as well as alternative agents to be used for future procedures.

Pediatric drug hypersensitivity: which diagnostic tests?

Along with the anamnesis and clinical evaluation, diagnostic tests are one of the mainstream key points in the evaluation and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR). A wide knowledge gap, both in diagnosis and management of pediatric DHR, must be filled.  Only a few published studies evaluated sensitivity and specificity of skin and in vitro tests in children. However, selected case series show that diagnostic work-up for adults could be useful, with some limitations, in pediatric age. Indeed, despite improvement in in vivo and in vitro diagnosis, drug provocation test remains the gold standard in pediatric age, too. Unmet needs in children include multi-centric studies on incidence of DHR, utility and feasibility of in vivo and in vitro diagnostic tests and specifically dedicated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of DHR in children.

Controversies in Drug Allergy: Radiographic Contrast Media

The risk for developing immediate or delayed hypersensitivity reactions to radiocontrast media (RCM) interferes with the diagnosis and treatment of a number of patients requiring imaging diagnostic methods for many common diseases. A group of experts met in Orlando, Florida, in March 2018 to analyze the similarities and differences in the management of RCM reactions in different areas of the world. This paper presents a summary of the recommendations provided by this consensus group, highlighting controversial issues and unmet needs that require further research.

The involvement of osmolarity in the safety of contrast media

Background

New non-ionic contrast agents, classified into low osmolar agents and iso-osmolar agents, present different biochemical characteristics that may influence the allergic reactions they cause. The aim of our study was to evaluate how osmolarity may affect safety in the use of contrast agents.

Case presentation

Six patients with a positive history for reaction to contrast agent were included in this study. Only one patient prick and intradermal skin test was positive. However, in 5 cases, patients presented an immediate reaction after administration of contrast agent that was not IgE mediated.

Conclusions

In this study, we focused on iodixanol, an iso-osmolar contrast agent, finding good safety of this product in patients with previous hypersensitivity reactions to contrast agent.

Drug-induced anaphylaxis: is it an epidemic?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review addresses the epidemiology, analyzes the current data and promotes global awareness of drug-induced anaphylaxis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Anaphylaxis is a medical emergency that may cause death! In the last decade, studies have shown an increasing incidence and prevalence of anaphylaxis.

SUMMARY

Drug-induced anaphylaxis fatalities have increased, and this syndrome remains underdiagnosed and undertreated.

Prueba de activación de basófilos: aspectos técnicos, metodológicos y su utilidad clínica

Introducción. La prueba de activación de basófilos (PAB) se considera una técnica confiable y segura para el diagnóstico de problemas alérgicos.Objetivo. Profundizar en el estado del arte de la PAB y su utilidad clínica.Materiales y métodos. Se realizó una revisión narrativa de la literatura mediante la búsqueda electrónica en las bases de datos y metabuscadores Ovid Medline, Google Scholar y PubMed, sin limitar la búsqueda por fecha, idioma o tipo de artículo. Se buscaron artículos sobre los detalles técnicos de la PAB y su utilidad clínica en el manejo de las enfermedades alérgicas.Resultados. De los marcadores de activación, CD63 ha sido el más estudiado y es el que mejor representa un evento de degranulación anafiláctica, mientras que CD203c es representativo de varias formas de degranulación. La superioridad de uno sobre otro como prueba diagnóstica depende del problema alérgico estudiado. En cuanto a los métodos de detección de basófilos, su selección con un único marcador, CCR3, se propone como una opción con buena relación de costo-efectividad.Conclusiones. La PAB es una herramienta prometedora para evaluar en clínica las reacciones alérgicas de forma segura. Es necesario una mayor estandarización de protocolos para obtener resultados más reproducibles.

In Vitro Diagnosis of Immediate Drug Hypersensitivity Anno 2017: Potentials and Limitations

Background

For most physicians, quantification of drug-specific immunoglobulin E (drug-sIgE) antibodies constitutes the primary in vitro measure to document immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHR). Unfortunately, this is often insufficient to correctly identify patients with IgE-mediated IDHR and impossible for non-IgE-mediated IDHR that result from alternative routes of basophil and mast cell activation. In these difficult cases, diagnosis might benefit from cellular tests such as basophil activation tests (BAT).

Aim

The aim was to review the potential and limitations of quantification of sIgE and BAT in diagnosing IDHR. The utility of quantification of serum tryptase is discussed.

Methods

A literature search was conducted using the key words allergy, basophil activation, CD63, CD203c, diagnosis, drugs, hypersensitivity, flow cytometry, specific IgE antibodies; this was complemented by the authors’ own experience.

Results

The drugs that have been most studied with both techniques are β-lactam antibiotics and curarizing neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA). For sIgE morphine, data are available on the value of this test as a biomarker for sensitization to substituted ammonium structures that constitute the major epitope of NMBA, especially rocuronium and suxamethonium. For the BAT, there are also data on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and iodinated radiocontrast media. For β-lactam antibiotics, sensitivity and specificity of sIgE varies between 0 and 85% and 52 and 100%, respectively. For NMBA, sensitivity and specificity varies between 38.5 and 92% and 85.7 and 100%, respectively. Specific IgE to morphine should not be used in isolation to diagnose IDHR to NMBA nor opiates. For the BAT, sensitivity generally varies between 50 and 60%, whereas specificity attains 80%, except for quinolones and NSAIDs.

Conclusions

Although drug-sIgE assays and BAT can provide useful information in the diagnosis of IDHR, their predictive value is not absolute. Large-scale collaborative studies are mandatory to harmonize and optimize test protocols and to establish drug-specific decision thresholds.

The Value of In Vitro Tests to DiminishDrug Challenges

Drug hypersensitivity reactions have multiple implications for patient safety and health system costs, thus it is important to perform an accurate diagnosis. The diagnostic procedure includes a detailed clinical history, often unreliable; followed by skin tests, sometimes with low sensitivity or unavailable; and drug provocation testing, which is not risk-free for the patient, especially in severe reactions. In vitro tests could help to identify correctly the responsible agent, thus improving the diagnosis of these reactions, helping the physician to find safe alternatives, and reducing the need to perform drug provocation testing. However, it is necessary to confirm the sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values for these in vitro tests to enable their implementation in clinical practice. In this review, we have analyzed these parameters from different studies that have used in vitro test for evaluating drug hypersensitivity reactions and estimated the added value of these tests to the in vivo diagnosis.

In vitro tests for drug hypersensitivity reactions: an ENDA/EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group position paper

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are a matter of great concern, both for outpatient and in hospital care. The evaluation of these patients is complex, because in vivo tests have a suboptimal sensitivity and can be time-consuming, expensive and potentially risky, especially drug provocation tests. There are several currently available in vitro methods that can be classified into two main groups: those that help to characterize the active phase of the reaction and those that help to identify the culprit drug. The utility of these in vitro methods depends on the mechanisms involved, meaning that they cannot be used for the evaluation of all types of DHRs. Moreover, their effectiveness has not been defined by a consensus agreement between experts in the field. Thus, the European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has organized a task force to provide data and recommendations regarding the available in vitro methods for DHR diagnosis. We have found that although there are many in vitro tests, few of them can be given a recommendation of grade B or above mainly because there is a lack of well-controlled studies, most information comes from small studies with few subjects and results are not always confirmed in later studies. Therefore, it is necessary to validate the currently available in vitro tests in a large series of well-characterized patients with DHR and to develop new tests for diagnosis.

Basophil Reactivity as Biomarker in Immediate Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions-Potential and Limitations

Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) resemble typical immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated symptoms. Clinical manifestations range from local skin reactions, gastrointestinal and/or respiratory symptoms to severe systemic involvement with potential fatal outcome. Depending on the substance group of the eliciting drug the correct diagnosis is a major challenge. Skin testing and in vitro diagnostics are often unreliable and not reproducible. The involvement of drug-specific IgE is questionable in many cases. The culprit substance (parent drug or metabolite) and potential cross-reacting compounds are difficult to identify, patient history and drug provocation testing often remain the only means for diagnosis. Hence, several groups proposed basophil activation test (BAT) for the diagnosis of immediate DHRs as basophils are well-known effector cells in allergic reactions. However, the usefulness of BAT in immediate DHRs is highly variable and dependent on the drug itself plus its capacity to spontaneously conjugate to serum proteins. Stimulation with pure solutions of the parent drug or metabolites thereof vs. drug-protein conjugates may influence sensitivity and specificity of the test. We thus, reviewed the available literature about the use of BAT for diagnosing immediate DHRs against drug classes such as antibiotics, radio contrast media, neuromuscular blocking agents, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and biologicals. Influencing factors like the selection of stimulants or of the identification and activation markers, the stimulation protocol, gating strategies, and cut-off definition are addressed in this overview on BAT performance. The overall aim is to evaluate the suitability of BAT as biomarker for the diagnosis of immediate drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions.

Flow-assisted basophil activation tests in immediate drug hypersensitivity: two decades of Antwerp experience

The last two decades have witnessed that flow-assisted analysis of in vitro-activated basophils can constitute a valuable adjunct in the in vitro diagnostic approach of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHR). This article summarises the current experience with the basophil activation test in the diagnosis of IDHR, with particular focus on allergy to curarising neuromuscular blocking agents, antibiotics (β-lactams and fluoroquinolones), iodinated radiocontrast media and opiates.

In vitro Diagnosis of Immediate Drug Hypersensitivity: Should We Go with the Flow

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) is based upon history taking, skin prick or intradermal tests and quantification of specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies. Unfortunately, this is often insufficient to correctly identify patients with IgE-mediated IDHRs and is impossible in the case of non-IgE-mediated IDHRs. Drug provocation tests (DPT) are considered the 'gold standard' diagnostic but are not always possible, for ethical and practical reasons. Therefore, the validation of new cellular tests such as basophil activation testing (BAT) was necessary. This review focuses on the applications of BAT in IDHRs.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted, using the words basophil, flow cytometry, immediate drug allergy and drugs; this was complemented by the authors' own expertise.

RESULTS

BAT/HistaFlow® is a useful diagnostic tool in IDHRs, mainly used to diagnose allergy to neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and iodinated radiocontrast media. Its sensitivity varies between 50 and 60%, and specificity attains 80%, except for with quinolones and NSAIDs.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic utility of BAT (and to lesser extent HistaFlow) has been demonstrated and is mostly applied in IDHRs. However, larger-scale collaborative studies are necessary to optimize test protocols and validate the entry of BAT as a diagnostic instrument in drug allergy.

The clinical utility of basophil activation testing in diagnosis and monitoring of allergic disease

The basophil activation test (BAT) has become a pervasive test for allergic response through the development of flow cytometry, discovery of activation markers such as CD63 and unique markers identifying basophil granulocytes. Basophil activation test measures basophil response to allergen cross-linking IgE on between 150 and 2000 basophil granulocytes in <0.1 ml fresh blood. Dichotomous activation is assessed as the fraction of reacting basophils. In addition to clinical history, skin prick test, and specific IgE determination, BAT can be a part of the diagnostic evaluation of patients with food-, insect venom-, and drug allergy and chronic urticaria. It may be helpful in determining the clinically relevant allergen. Basophil sensitivity may be used to monitor patients on allergen immunotherapy, anti-IgE treatment or in the natural resolution of allergy. Basophil activation test may use fewer resources and be more reproducible than challenge testing. As it is less stressful for the patient and avoids severe allergic reactions, BAT ought to precede challenge testing. An important next step is to standardize BAT and make it available in diagnostic laboratories. The nature of basophil activation as an ex vivo challenge makes it a multifaceted and promising tool for the allergist. In this EAACI task force position paper, we provide an overview of the practical and technical details as well as the clinical utility of BAT in diagnosis and management of allergic diseases.

Skin tests in patients with hypersensitivity reaction to iodinated contrast media: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with a previous history of hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) to iodinated contrast media (ICM) are at high risk of the development of HSR to ICM. Many studies have tried to evaluate the diagnostic potential of skin tests in this population but have not yet reached a common conclusion. We investigated the role of skin tests in patients with HSR to ICM in terms of positive rate, cross-reactivity rate, and tolerability to skin test-negative ICM according to the type of HSR.

METHODS

We performed literature searches of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and included studies where skin tests were performed in patients with HSR to ICM, with extractable outcomes. Outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included. Pooled per-patient positive rates of skin tests were 17% (95% CI, 10-26%) in patients with immediate HSR, and up to 52% (95% CI, 31-72%) when confined to severe immediate HSR. Among patients with nonimmediate HSR, the positive rate was 26% (95% CI, 15-41%). The pooled per-patient cross-reactivity rate was higher in nonimmediate HSR (68%; 95% CI, 48-83%) than that in immediate HSR (39%; 95% CI, 29-50%). Median per-test cross-reactivity rates between pairs of ICM were 7% (IQR, 6-9%) in immediate HSR and 38% (IQR, 22-51%) in nonimmediate HSR. Pooled per-patient recurrence rates of HSR to skin test-negative ICM were 7% (95% CI, 4-14%) in immediate HSR and 35% (95% CI, 19-55%) in nonimmediate HSR.

CONCLUSION

Skin tests may be helpful in diagnosing and managing patients with HSR to ICM, especially in patients with severe immediate HSR.

Hypersensitivity to contrast media and dyes

This article updates current knowledge on hypersensitivity reactions to diagnostic contrast media and dyes. After application of a single iodinated radiocontrast medium (RCM), gadolinium-based contrast medium, fluorescein, or a blue dye, a hypersensitivity reaction is not a common finding; however, because of the high and still increasing frequency of those procedures, patients who have experienced severe reactions are nevertheless frequently encountered in allergy departments. Evidence on allergologic testing and management is best for iodinated RCM, limited for blue dyes, and insufficient for fluorescein. Skin tests can be helpful in the diagnosis of patients with hypersensitivity reactions to these compounds.

In vitro diagnosis of immediate IgE-mediated drug hypersensitivity: warnings and (unmet) needs

Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) constitute an important health condition, with serious consequences of inadequate diagnosis. In this article, some of the most important issues related to in vitro diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergies are discussed. In vitro diagnostics will benefit from expanded and novel insights and understandings in drug chemical reactivity, protein binding, biotransformation, degradation, identification of (cross-reactive) drug antigenic determinants, and deeper understanding of sensitization routes. Collective efforts should be undertaken to activate fundamental and clinical investigations.

Radiocontrast media hypersensitivity in the Asia Pacific region

Radiocontrast media (RCM) is a major cause of drug hypersensitivity reactions as the medical application of RCM is increasing recently. RCM induced hypersensitivity reactions are considered as unpredictable type B reactions. Underlying mechanism of RCM induced hypersensitivity was previously regarded as nonimmunological mechanisms but recent studies suggest that immunological mechanisms could also be involved. As a result, the roles of skin tests and premedication are revisiting. As there has been no report that comprehensively summarized and analyzed the results of the studies on RCM hypersensitivity in the Asia Pacific region, we aimed to review the literatures on hypersensitivity reactions to RCM in terms of prevalence clinical manifestations, diagnostic approach, and preventive measures in the Asia Pacific region.

Basophil activation test with food additives in chronic urticaria patients

The role of food additives in chronic urticaria (CU) is still under investigation. In this study, we aimed to explore the association between food additives and CU by using the basophil activation test (BAT). The BAT using 15 common food additives was performed for 15 patients with CU who had a history of recurrent urticarial aggravation following intake of various foods without a definite food-specific IgE. Of the 15 patients studied, two (13.3%) showed positive BAT results for one of the tested food additives. One patient responded to monosodium glutamate, showing 18.7% of CD203c-positive basophils. Another patient showed a positive BAT result to sodium benzoate. Both patients had clinical correlations with the agents, which were partly determined by elimination diets. The present study suggested that at least a small proportion of patients with CU had symptoms associated with food additives. The results may suggest the potential utility of the BAT to identity the role of food additives in CU.

Recent applications of basophil activation tests in the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity

Immediate-type drug hypersensitivity is an increasingly significant clinical issue; however, the diagnosis is frequently hindered due to lack of safe and precise diagnostic tests. Flow cytometry-assisted basophil activation test is a safe in vitro diagnostic tool for assessing basophil activation upon allergen stimulation. In this review, we have summarized current literature on the diagnostic utilities, new indications, and methodological aspects of the basophil activation test for the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity.

Diagnosis of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to radiocontrast media

BACKGROUND

No consensus exists on the diagnostic approach for immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHR) to radiocontrast media (RCM). We analyzed the diagnostic value of a skin test (ST), drug provocation test (DPT) and basophil activation test (BAT) in patients with symptoms compatible with IHR to RCM.

METHODS

Ninety patients with symptoms suggestive of IHR to RCM were evaluated. ST with a panel of RCM was performed, and if negative, DPT was carried out with the culprit RCM. If ST or DPT were positive, tolerance was assessed with an alternative RCM and BAT was carried out with the same panel used for ST.

RESULTS

Eight (8.9%) cases were confirmed as having IHR, 5 (62.5%) by ST and 3 (37.5%) by DPT. Five from those confirmed as IHR (62.5%) had a positive BAT.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypersensitivity to RCM was confirmed in 9%, by ST or DPT. BAT proved a valuable method for diagnosis.

Update on the performance and application of basophil activation tests

The basophil activation test (BAT) is a flow-cytometry-based functional assay that assesses the degree of cell activation after exposure to a stimuli. Though no standardized technique currently exists, recent advances have improved the performance of this assay, including identification of new basophil-specific markers and comparisons of the expression of CD63 to CD203c during activation. The basophil activation test has also been validated for many IgE-mediated disease conditions, which have been extensively reviewed elsewhere. This review focuses on the most recent applications of this test to the diagnosis of allergy to drugs, foods, venoms, and pollens, and the evolving role of the BAT in monitoring immunotherapy.