Diagnosing cefazolin hypersensitivity: Lessons from dual-labeling flow cytometry

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.

The Value of Current Laboratory Tests in Diagnosing Food, Venom, and Drug Allergies

An accurate diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergies is necessary to inform risk management for severe allergic reactions including anaphylaxis for food, venom, and drug allergies. The most widely available laboratory test for allergy is serum-specific IgE testing, which is routinely used for food allergy and insect sting allergy. Testing for specific IgE is limited by high sensitivity and low specificity, resulting in concern regarding overdiagnosis. Testing of allergen components has led to improved diagnosis for some food and venom allergens. Additional options for laboratory tests, such as epitope analysis, basophil activation, and mast cell activation, are being investigated for their potential to optimize diagnosis and provide predictors for reaction severity and treatment response. In contrast, laboratory testing for drug allergy is more limited because to date, there are no well-validated commercial assays in the United States. Furthermore, it is important to diagnose delayed reactions to medications, because these also significantly affect decision-making regarding therapeutic options for infectious disorders. Reliable tests for both immediate and delayed drug hypersensitivity are much needed, because drug allergy labels can significantly limit treatment options for patients. Research in this area is emerging.

A quarter of a century fundamental and translational research in perioperative hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis at the Antwerp university hospital, a Belgian Centre of Excellence of the World Allergy Organization

Perioperative hypersensitivity constitutes an important health issue, with potential dramatic consequences of diagnostic mistakes. However, safe and correct diagnosis is not always straightforward, mainly because of the application of incorrect nomenclature, absence of easy accessible in-vitro/ex-vivo tests and uncertainties associated with the non-irritating skin test concentrations. In this editorial we summarize the time line, seminal findings, and major realizations of 25 years of research on the mechanisms, diagnosis, and management of perioperative hypersensitivity.

Standards for practical intravenous rapid drug desensitization & delabeling: A WAO committee statement

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to intravenous drugs can be severe and might leave patients and doctors in a difficult position where an essential treatment or intervention has to be suspended. Even if virtually any intravenous medication can potentially trigger a life-threatening DHR, chemotherapeutics, biologics, and antibiotics are amongst the intravenous drugs most frequently involved in these reactions. Admittedly, suspending such treatments may negatively impact the survival outcomes or the quality of life of affected patients.

Delabeling pathways and rapid drug desensitization (RDD) can help reactive patients stay on first-choice therapies instead of turning to less efficacious, less cost-effective, or more toxic alternatives. However, these are high-complexity and high-risk techniques, which usually need expert teams and allergy-specific techniques (skin testing, in vitro testing, drug provocation testing) to ensure safety, an accurate diagnosis, and personalized management. Unfortunately, there are significant inequalities within and among countries in access to allergy departments with the necessary expertise and resources to offer these techniques and tackle these DHRs optimally.

The main objective of this consensus document is to create a great benefit for patients worldwide by aiding allergists to expand the scope of their practice and support them with evidence, data, and experience from leading groups from around the globe.

This statement of the Drug Hypersensitivity Committee of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) aims to be a comprehensive practical guide on the technical aspects of implementing acute-onset intravenous hypersensitivity delabeling and RDD for a wide range of drugs. Thus, the manuscript does not only focus on clinical pathways. Instead, it also provides guidance on topics usually left unaddressed, namely, internal validation, continuous quality improvement, creating a healthy multidisciplinary environment, and redesigning care (including a specific supplemental section on a real-life example of how to design a dedicated space that can combine basic and complex diagnostic and therapeutic techniques in allergy).

Diagnostic Approach of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Cefazolin in a Large Prospective Cohort

BACKGROUND

Cefazolin is a common trigger of perioperative anaphylaxis. The diagnostic approach is controversial because the optimal concentration for skin testing is uncertain, drug provocation tests (DPTs) are contraindicated in severe reactions, and in vitro tests are not thoroughly validated.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to characterize a large number of patients reporting cefazolin allergic reactions and to analyze the diagnostic role of in vivo and in vitro tests.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated patients with suspicion for allergic reactions to cefazolin by clinical history, skin tests (STs), and, if negative, DPT. In a subgroup of patients, basophil activation test (BAT) and radioallergosorbent test were done before allergologic workup was performed and the final diagnosis was achieved.

RESULTS

We evaluated 184 patients, 76 of whom were confirmed as allergic (41.3%), 90 were nonallergic (48.9%), and 18 were nonconfirmed (9.8%). All patients reporting anaphylactic shock and most reporting anaphylaxis were confirmed to be allergic (P < .001). Forty allergic patients (52.6%) were confirmed by STs, 22 by DPT (28.9%), and 14 by clinical history (18.4%). All subjects manifesting exanthemas and pruritus were nonallergic. The BAT sensitivity was 66.7% when CD63 and CD203c were combined as activation markers. Six of 8 patients with negative STs and positive DPT had a positive BAT.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients allergic to cefazolin often reported severe immediate-type reactions. Skin tests enabled a diagnosis in half of patients when using cefazolin at 20 mg/mL. Unfortunately, DPT could not be performed in all patients owing to reaction severity, which makes BAT a promising diagnostic tool. Further research is needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms, especially in severe reactions.

Basophil and mast cell activation tests by flow cytometry in immediate drug hypersensitivity: Diagnosis and beyond

Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) constitute a significant health issue with serious consequences of diagnostic error. The primary diagnostics to document IDHRs usually consists of quantification of drug-specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies and skin tests. Unfortunately, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of these tests are not absolutely, which leaves room for new tests. Over the last two decades, the basophil activation test (BAT), in which ex vivo activation of individual basophils is quantified by flow cytometry, has emerged as a reliable complementary diagnostic to document IDHRs, to explore allergenic recognition, to study cross-reactivity and to monitor therapy. However, the BAT is technically challenging requiring specialized personnel and equipment, fresh samples and the technique is lost as a diagnostic in patients showing a non-responder status of their cells. By consequence, the BAT has still not entered mainstream application. In contrast, mast cell activation tests (MATs) use serum samples that can be frozen, stored, and shipped to a recognized reference centre experienced in mast cell (MC) lines and/or cultures and capable of offering batch testing with necessary quality controls. This review does not only highlight the use of the BAT and MAT as diagnostics in IDHRs, but also outlines the potential of both techniques in further exploring and unveiling the mechanisms that govern drug-induced basophil and MC activation and degranulation.

Towards a more precise diagnosis of hypersensitivity to beta-lactams - an EAACI position paper

A recent survey of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Drug Allergy Interest Group (DAIG) on how European allergy specialists deal with beta-lactam (BL) hypersensitivity demonstrated a significant heterogeneity in current practice, suggesting the need to review and update existing EAACI guidelines in order to make the diagnostic procedures as safe and accurate, but also as cost-effective, as possible. For this purpose, a bibliographic search on large studies regarding BL hypersensitivity diagnosis was performed by an EAACI task force, which reviewed and evaluated the literature data using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. The updated guidelines provide a risk stratification in BL hypersensitivity according to index reaction(s), as well as an algorithmic approach, based on cross-reactivity studies, in patients with a suspicion of BL hypersensitivity and an immediate need for antibiotic therapy, when referral to an allergist is not feasible. Furthermore, the update addresses availability and concentrations of skin test (ST) reagents, ST and drug provocation test (DPT) protocols, and diagnostic algorithms and administration of alternative BL in allergic subjects. Specifically, distinct diagnostic algorithms are suggested depending on risk stratification of the patient into high and low risk based on the morphology and chronology of the reaction, immediate (ie, occurring within 1-6 hours after the last administered dose) or nonimmediate (ie, occurring more than 1 hour after the initial drug administration), and the reaction severity. Regarding the allergy workup, the main novelty of this document is the fact that in some low-risk nonimmediate reactions ST are not mandatory, especially in children. For DPT, further studies are necessary to provide data supporting the standardization of protocols, especially of those regarding nonimmediate reactions, for which there is currently no consensus.

Basophil Activation Experiments in Immediate Drug Hypersensitivity: More Than a Diagnostic Aid

BACKGROUND

Correct diagnosis of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) can pose a significant challenge, mainly because of the absence of reliable in vitro tests, uncertainties associated with skin testing, and incomplete understanding of the underlying mechanisms.

AIM

To summarize and hypothesize on the potential of basophil activation test (BAT) as a safe aid to explore the mechanistic endotypes of IDHR, to identify antibody recognition sites, and to monitor drug desensitization.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the keywords "allergy, basophil activation, CD63, CD203c, diagnosis, drugs, hypersensitivity, flow cytometry"; this was complemented by the authors' own expertise.

RESULTS

At present BAT has mainly been employed as a diagnostic aid. However, evidence is emerging that the technique might also deepen our insights in immune (allergic) and nonimmune (nonallergic) mechanistic processes of IDHR. It is anticipated that BAT might also benefit the identification of antibody recognition sites and benefit our understandings of desensitization strategies.

CONCLUSION

Although the nondiagnostic application of BAT in IDHR is still in its infancy, with increasing employment, we can expect the technique to become a valuable asset to study many domains of IDHR that remain poorly understood.

Cephalosporin Allergy: Current Understanding and Future Challenges

Cephalosporins are commonly used antibiotics both in hospitalized patients and in outpatients. Hypersensitivity reactions to cephalosporins are becoming increasingly common with a wide range of immunopathologic mechanisms. Cephalosporins are one of the leading causes for perioperative anaphylaxis and severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Patients allergic to cephalosporins tend to tolerate cephalosporins with disparate R1 side chains but may react to other beta-lactams with common R1 side chains. Skin testing for cephalosporins has not been well validated but appears to have a good negative predictive value for cephalosporins with disparate R1 side chains. In vitro tests including basophil activation tests have lower sensitivity when compared with skin testing. Rapid drug desensitization procedures are safe and effective and have been used successfully for immediate and some nonimmediate cephalosporin reactions. Many gaps in knowledge still exist regarding cephalosporin hypersensitivity.

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 Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice - 2016 Year in Review

As editors, we concluded that it would be helpful to our readers to write a Year in Review article that highlights the Review, Original, and Clinical Communication articles published in 2016 in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. We summarized articles on the topics of asthma, rhinitis/rhinosinusitis, food allergy, anaphylaxis, drug allergy, urticarial/angioedema, eosinophilic disorders, and immunodeficiency. Within each topic, epidemiologic findings are presented, relevant aspects of prevention are described, and diagnostic and therapeutic advances are enumerated. Diagnostic tools described include history, skin tests, and in vitro tests. Treatments discussed include behavioral therapy, allergen avoidance therapy, positive and negative effects of pharmacologic therapy, and various forms of immunologic and desensitization management. We hope this review will help you, our readers, consolidate and use this extensive and practical knowledge for the benefit of your patients.