Negativization rates of IgE radioimmunoassay and basophil activation test in immediate reactions to penicillins

Mast cell versus basophil activation test in allergy: Current status

In the past two decades, we witnessed the evolution of the basophil activation test (BAT) from mainly research applications to a potential complementary diagnostic tool to document IgE-dependent allergies. However, BAT presents some technical weaknesses. Around 10%-15% of tested patients are non-responders, BAT can be negative immediately post-reaction and the use of fresh basophils, ideally analysed within 4 h of collection, restricts the number of tests that can be performed per sample. The need for fresh basophils is especially limiting when conducting batch analyses and interlaboratory comparisons to harmonize BAT methodology. These limitations significantly hinder the wider application of BAT and urge the development of alternative testing, such as the mast cell activation test (MAT). The essential difference between BAT and MAT is the heterogeneity of the starting material used to perform the assays. Mast cells are tissue-resident, so cannot be easily accessed. Current alternative sources for functional studies are generating primary human mast cells, differentiated from donor progenitor cells, or using immortalized mast cell lines. Hence, the methodological approaches for MAT are not only vastly different from BAT, but also different among MAT protocols. This review summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of BAT and MAT assays, dedicating special attention to elucidating the key differences between the cellular sources used and provides an overview of studies hitherto performed comparing BAT and MAT in the diagnosis of IgE-mediated food and drug allergies.

Biomarkers of immediate drug hypersensitivity

Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) are a burden for patients and the health systems. This problem increases when taking into account that only a small proportion of patients initially labelled as allergic are finally confirmed after an allergological workup. The diverse nature of drugs involved will imply different interactions with the immunological system. Therefore, IDHRs can be produced by a wide array of mechanisms mediated by the drug interaction with specific antibodies or directly on effector target cells. These heterogeneous mechanisms imply an enhanced complexity for an accurate diagnosis and the identification of the phenotype and endotype at early stages of the reaction is of vital importance. Currently, several endophenotypic categories (type I IgE/non-IgE, cytokine release, Mast-related G-protein coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2) or Cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) inhibition and their associated biomarkers have been proposed. A precise knowledge of endotypes will permit to discriminate patients within the same phenotype, which is crucial in order to personalise diagnosis, future treatment and prevention to improve the patient's quality of life.

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.

Performance Characteristics of Basophil Activation Tests for Diagnosing Penicillin Allergy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10% of the global population identify themselves as penicillin allergic, yet 90% are not truly allergic and could safely tolerate penicillin. There is no simple way to identify these people. Current in vitro diagnostics include specific immunoglobulin E (with a sensitivity of 19% and specificity of 97%) and a basophil activation test (BAT) with undefined sensitivity and specificity.

OBJECTIVE

To define the sensitivity and specificity of BAT in the diagnosis of penicillin allergy METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE from inception to April 2, 2023, for original studies evaluating the performance characteristics of BAT for penicillin allergy in adults. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias, assessment with QUADAS-2 tool, certainty assessment with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology were performed independently, in duplicate. Meta-analysis was performed using Reitsma methodology.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twelve used the same positive threshold giving a summary point sensitivity 51% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]46%-56%) and specificity 89% (95% CI 85%-93%). Significant risk of bias was identified owing to patient selection. GRADE certainty of evidence rated sensitivity very low due to imprecision and specificity as low. There was great heterogeneity in methods used. Use of 1,000 basophils per test did not improve performance above 500 basophils.

CONCLUSIONS

BAT sensitivity is highly variable across studies and remains too low to be considered as a routine element of clinical practice. BAT specificity is not as good as specific immunoglobulin E in penicillin allergy diagnosis. Significant further work is required in this field before clinical application of BAT in routine practice.

An Update on Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug-Induced Urticaria

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity reactions to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (HR-NSAIDs) are common adverse events related to the widespread use of over-the-counter NSAIDs for the treatment of a variety of inflammatory conditions. Urticaria is the most commonly reported immediate cutaneous clinical sign of HR-NSAIDs, but it can be a manifestation of pathophysiologically different clinical entities that require different therapeutic strategies. The aim of this study is to ease the identification of the correct phenotype of HR-NSAIDs in patients reporting urticaria associated with the intake of NSAIDs and provide updated information about their diagnosis and management.

METHODS

The study is a narrative review conducted by collecting the most relevant and up-todate data related to the classification, pathophysiology, severity, and prognosis of NSAID hypersensitivity reactions. PubMed and Embase scientific databases were used as search engines to select relevant articles.

RESULTS

Patients developing HR-NSAIDs can be divided into two categories: selective responders (SR), who develop reactions after the administration of a single specific NSAID due to an underlying IgE or T-cell mediated hypersensitivity mechanism, or cross-intolerant (CI), who develop reactions to more than one chemically unrelated NSAIDs due to abnormalities in the biochemical pathways related with prostaglandin metabolism, independently from an underlying immunological mechanism. Five major different categories of HR-NSAIDs have been identified: NSAIDs-exacerbated cutaneous disease (NECD), NSAIDs-induced urticaria/angioedema with/without respiratory and systemic symptoms of anaphylaxis (NIUAA), and NSAIDsexacerbated respiratory disease (NERD), which are developed by CI patients, and single NSAIDs-induced urticaria, angioedema and/ or anaphylaxis (SNIUAA) and single NSAIDsinduced delayed hypersensitivity reactions (SNIDHR), which are developed by CI patients. In vivo and in vitro diagnostic tests have rarely been shown to be reliable in all these entities and therefore are not routinely used in clinical practice. The management in SR patients consists of strict avoidance of the culprit drug, while for cross-intolerance reactions oral tolerance tests with safe alternative drugs (e.g. weak COX-1 inhibitors or selective COX-2 inhibitors) can be performed.

CONCLUSION

HR-NSAIDs are being observed with increasing frequency, however, the pathogenesis behind some NSAIDS-associated clinical entities is still unclear. Diagnosis is mostly based on a thorough clinical history and confirmed by a drug challenge test. Clinical management is based on strict avoidance and use of alternative tolerated medications. Overall, all therapeutic decisions depend on the correct identification of the type of reaction the patient experienced.

Hypersensitivity to gadolinium-based contrast

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The use of contrast media is increasing in recent decades. Although gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are generally well tolerated, adverse reactions, including hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), although infrequent, may occur. It is important to perform a thorough allergological evaluation in patients with suspected GBCA-HSRs to avoid potentially serious reactions in subsequent exposures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Data on GBCA-HSRs are scarce. Most published articles dealing with skin tests and drug provocation tests (DPTs) with GBCAs are case series and small cohorts. Controversies exist about the role of premedication for preventing HSRs on subsequent exposures. Selection of well tolerated alternatives is based on potential cross-reactivity among GBCAs; however, the extent of cross-reactivity among them remains unclear.

SUMMARY

As premedication is not useful because breakthrough reactions are frequent in patients with GBCA-HSRs in subsequent exposures, an allergological evaluation is required. Available data suggest a high negative predictive value of skin tests, being crucial for guiding the selection of an alternative GBCA. However, DPTs are still necessary to confirm or exclude the diagnosis or find alternative GBCAs. Cross-reactivity is high among GBCAs belonging from the same group, mainly among macrocyclic compounds, so this must be taken into account for selecting alternatives.

Suspected perioperative anaphylaxis: are we making the correct diagnosis?

We provide a commentary on aspects of a prospective study of the epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis in Japan (Japanese Epidemiologic Study for Perioperative Anaphylaxis [JESPA]). Accurate diagnosis of perioperative anaphylaxis is important for research but essential for clinical safety. We evaluate the diagnostic approach used in the JESPA study and caution against over-reliance on diagnostic tests that lack sensitivity and specificity when clinical data suggest an immediate perioperative hypersensitivity reaction is likely.

The Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy (SWAB) guideline for the approach to suspected antibiotic allergy

OBJECTIVES

Prudent handling of reported antibiotic allergy is an important aspect of antibiotic stewardship. The Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy (SWAB) constituted a multidisciplinary expert committee to provide evidence-based recommendations for bedside decision making in antibiotic therapy in patients that report an antibiotic allergy.

METHODS

The guideline committee generated 12 key questions, most of which were population, intervention, comparison and outcome (PICO) questions relevant for both children and adults with suspected antibiotic allergy. For each question a systematic literature search was performed and reviewed for the best available evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Quality of evidence was graded from very low to high and recommendations were formulated in structured discussions as strong or weak.

RESULTS

Sixty recommendations were provided for suspected allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics (BLA) and non-beta-lactam antibiotics (NBLA). Due to the absence of randomized controlled trials in this field, the underlying evidence was predominantly graded as low or very low. Available data supports that a detailed allergy history should always be performed and critically appraised. When cross-allergy between BLA groups is not to be expected due to absence of molecular similarity of the side chains, the patient can be safely exposed to the alternative BLA. An exception to this rule are severe delayed type reactions, in which reexposure to a BLA should only be considered after consultation of a multidisciplinary team.

CONCLUSIONS

Accumulated scientific data now supports a more liberal approach that better balances benefits of treatment with first choice and usually smaller spectrum antibiotics with appropriate avoidance of antibiotics in case of a truly high risk of a (severe) allergic reaction. In the Netherlands, a formal guideline was developed that provides recommendations for the approach towards suspected allergy to BLA and frequently used NBLA, thereby strongly supporting antimicrobial stewardship.

The Safety of the Direct Drug Provocation Test in Beta-Lactam Hypersensitivity in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Direct drug provocation test (DPT) without prior skin testing (ST) has been investigated in children suspected of being at risk for beta-lactam (BL) hypersensitivity reaction (HSR). However, no systematic review and meta-analysis has investigated the efficacy and safety of direct DPT for BL-HSR in children.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence of BL-HSR by direct DPT and the safety of direct DPT in children.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL from their inception to July 23, 2022, for studies that performed direct DPT in children with suspected BL-HSR, or for studies that performed DPT in all cases with ST results, but they ignored the ST results. The true prevalence was defined as the proportion of children who experienced an HSR during direct DPT. Safety was determined according to the proportion of children who developed a dangerous reaction following DPT.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies with 8,334 direct challenges were included. Fifteen studies included patients who presented with either immediate or nonimmediate HSR, and the majority of the index reactions were nonsevere. Amoxicillin/amoxicillin-clavulanic acid was the most commonly used during the DPT. The pooled prevalence of confirmed BL-HSR was 5.23% (95% CI 4.17-6.39; I² = 72%). Immediate and nonimmediate HSR were reported in 0.8% (95% CI 0.43-1.25; I² = 55.1%) and 3.69% (95% CI 2.66-4.87; I² = 79.77%), respectively. Severe reactions were found in 3 cases with the frequency of 0.036% (95% CI 0.012-0.112; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of BL-HSR by direct DPT was 5.23%, and the frequency of severe reactions from direct DPT was very low (0.036%). Our findings support direct DPT as a safe and effective delabeling tool in children with suspected nonsevere BL-HSR.

Basophil Activation Test Shows Poor Sensitivity in Immediate Amoxicillin Allergy

BACKGROUND

In light of the pandemic of spurious penicillin allergy, correct diagnosis of amoxicillin (AX) allergy is of great importance. The diagnosis of immediate hypersensitivity reactions relies on skin tests and specific IgE, and although reliable, these are not absolutely predictive. Therefore, drug challenges are needed in some cases, which contain the risk of severe reactions. Safe in vitro diagnostics as an alternative for the drug challenge in the diagnostic workup of AX allergy would be more than welcome to fill this gap. In this respect, the basophil activation test (BAT) has shown potential, but its clinical reliability is doubtful.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the reliability of the BAT to AX and determining its exact place in the diagnostic algorithm of AX allergy.

METHODS

BAT for AX was performed in 70 exposed control individuals and 66 patients diagnosed according to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines for AX allergy. Upregulation of both CD63 and CD203c was flow-cytometrically assessed.

RESULTS

Analyses revealed that 1370 μmol/L and 685 μmol/L were the most discriminative stimulation concentrations for CD63 and CD203c upregulation, respectively, and a diagnostic threshold of 9% for positivity for both markers was identified. At these concentrations, sensitivity and specificity for CD63 upregulation were 13% and 100%, respectively, and for CD203c upregulation, 23% and 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

BAT with dual analysis of CD63 and CD203c is of poor performance to document AX allergy. The sensitivity is too low to let it occupy a prominent role in the diagnostic algorithm.

Resensitization in suspected penicillin allergy

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of allergic reactions to penicillins (AR-PEN) is very complex as there is a loss of sensitization over time, which leads to negative skin tests (STs) and specific IgE in serum, and even to tolerance to the drug involved. However, STs may become positive after subsequent exposure to the culprit drug (resensitization), with the risk of inducing potentially severe reactions. The exact rate of resensitization to penicillins is unknown, ranging from 0% to 27.9% in published studies.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the rate of resensitization in patients with suggestive AR-PEN by repeating STs (retest) after an initial evaluation (IE).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with suspected AR-PEN were prospectively evaluated between 2017 and 2020. They underwent STs, and a randomized group also underwent a drug provocation test (DPT) with the culprit. Only patients with negative STs and/or DPT were included. All included cases were retested by STs at 2-8 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 545 patients were included: 296 reporting immediate reactions (IRs) and 249 non-immediate reactions (NIRs). Eighty (14.7%) cases had positive results in retest (RT+): 63 (21.3%) IRs and 17 (6.8%) NIRs (p < 0.0001). The rate of RT+ was higher in anaphylaxis compared with all other reactions (45.8% vs 9.1%, p < 0.0001). The risk of RT+ was higher from the fifth week after IE (OR: 4.64, CI: 2.1-11.6; p < 0.001) and increased with the patient's age (OR: 1.02; CI: 1.01-1.04; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the high rate of resensitization, retest should be included in the diagnostic algorithm of IRs to penicillins after an initial negative study, especially in anaphylaxis, to avoid potentially severe reactions after subsequent prescriptions of these drugs.

Synthetic antigenic determinants of clavulanic acid induce dendritic cell maturation and specific T cell proliferation in patients with immediate hypersensitivity reactions

BACKGROUND

Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) to clavulanic acid (CLV) have increased in the last decades due to a higher consumption alongside amoxicillin (AX). Due to its chemical instability, diagnostic procedures to evaluate IDHRs to CLV are difficult, and current in vitro assays do not have an optimal sensitivity. The inclusion of the specific metabolites after CLV degradation, which are efficiently recognised by the immune system, could help to improve sensitivity of in vitro tests.

METHODS

Recognition by dendritic cells (DCs) of CLV and the synthetic analogues of two of its hypothesised antigenic determinants (ADs) was evaluated by flow cytometry in 27 allergic patients (AP) and healthy controls (HC). Their ability to trigger the proliferation of T cells was also analysed by flow cytometry.

RESULTS

The inclusion of synthetic analogues of CLV ADs, significantly increased the expression of maturation markers on DCs from AP compared to HC. A different recognition pattern could be observed with each AD, and, therefore, the inclusion of both ADs achieves an improved sensitivity. The addition of synthetic ADs analogues increased the proliferative response of CD4⁺ Th2 compared to the addition of native CLV. The combination of results from both ADs increased the sensitivity of proliferative assays from 19% to 65% with a specificity higher than 90%.

CONCLUSIONS

Synthetic ADs from CLV are efficiently recognised by DCs with ability to activate CD4⁺ Th2 cells from AP. The combination of analogues from both ADs, significantly increased the sensitivity of DC maturation and T-cell proliferation compared to native CLV.

Antibiotic Allergy De-Labeling: A Pathway against Antibiotic Resistance

Antibiotics are one of the most frequently prescribed drugs. Unfortunately, they also are the most common cause for self-reported drug allergy, limiting the use of effective therapies. However, evidence shows that more than 90% of patients labeled as allergic to antibiotics are not allergic. Importantly, the label of antibiotic allergy, whether real or not, constitutes a major public health problem as it directly impacts antimicrobial stewardship: it has been associated with broad-spectrum antibiotic use, often resulting in the emergence of bacterial resistance. Therefore, an accurate diagnosis is crucial for de-labeling patients who claim to be allergic but are not really allergic. This review presents allergy methods for achieving successful antibiotic allergy de-labeling. Patient clinical history is often inaccurately reported, thus not being able to de-label most patients. In vitro testing offers a complementary approach but it shows limitations. Immunoassay for quantifying specific IgE is the most used one, although it gives low sensitivity and is limited to few betalactams. Basophil activation test is not validated and not available in all centers. Therefore, true de-labeling still relies on in vivo tests including drug provocation and/or skin tests, which are not risk-exempt and require specialized healthcare professionals for results interpretation and patient management. Moreover, differences on the pattern of antibiotic consumption cause differences in the diagnostic approach among different countries. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended to reduce the risks associated with the reported penicillin allergy label.

Detection of Serum-Specific IgE by Fluoro-Enzyme Immunoassay for Diagnosing Type I Hypersensitivity Reactions to Penicillins

Diagnosis of type I hypersensitivity reactions (IgE-mediated reactions) to penicillins is based on clinical history, skin tests (STs), and drug provocation tests (DPTs). Among in vitro complementary tests, the fluoro-enzyme immunoassay (FEIA) ImmunoCAP^® (Thermo-Fisher, Waltham, MA, USA) is the most widely used commercial method for detecting drug-specific IgE (sIgE). In this study, we aimed to analyze the utility of ImmunoCAP^® for detecting sIgE to penicillin G (PG) and amoxicillin (AX) in patients with confirmed penicillin allergy. The study includes 139 and 250 patients evaluated in Spain and Italy, respectively. All had experienced type I hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins confirmed by positive STs. Additionally, selective or cross-reactive reactions were confirmed by DPTs in a subgroup of patients for further analysis. Positive ImmunoCAP^® results were 39.6% for PG and/or AX in Spanish subjects and 52.4% in Italian subjects. When only PG or AX sIgE where analyzed, the percentages were 15.1% and 30.4%, respectively, in Spanish patients; and 38.9% and 46% in Italian ones. The analysis of positive STs showed a statistically significant higher percentage of positive STs to PG determinants in Italian patients. False-positive results to PG (16%) were detected in selective AX patients with confirmed PG tolerance. Low and variable sensitivity values observed in a well-defined population with confirmed allergy diagnosis, as well as false-positive results to PG, suggest that ImmunoCAP^® is a diagnostic tool with relevant limitations in the evaluation of subjects with type I hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins.

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).

Reliability of Early and Late Testing for Suspected Perioperative Hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of diagnostic testing for perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) remains unknown. It has been recommended that investigation is best carried out at least 4 to 6 weeks after the event. On the other hand, guidelines discourage the use of in vitro tests later than 3 years after the index reaction.

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study aimed to assess the reliability of early and late skin tests (STs). It also attempted to verify whether discouraging late ex vivo and in vitro tests is substantiated.

METHODS

For the first aim, patients were stratified over three epochs: an early timing group, with investigations performed within 6 weeks; a recommended timing group, with tests performed between 6 weeks and 6 months; and a late timing group, tested later than 6 months after the event. For the second study purpose, we studied the reliability of specific IgE quantification and basophil activation test rocuronium within 6 weeks and after 3 years in patients who experienced an ST-proven POH to rocuronium.

RESULTS

A total of 677 patients were included. Based on a positive ST result, a causative agent was found in 74.2% of the early timing group, 62.6% of the recommended timing group, and 50% of the late timing group. A positive specific IgE for rocuronium or morphine was found in 80% of patients tested within 6 weeks, 63% of patients tested between 6 weeks and 3 years, and 50% of patients tested more than 3 years after the event. A positive basophil activation test was found in 83.3%, 51%, and 20%, respectively, of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data confirm that evaluation of drug allergy for suspected POH can be performed before 6 weeks after the event, and there is no maximal upper time limit disclosing ex vivo and in vitro testing.

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.

Detection of drug-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) and acute mediator release for the diagnosis of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions

The diagnosis of a drug hypersensitivity reaction (DHR) is complex. The first step after taking the clinical history is to look for a sensitization to confirm or exclude the diagnosis and to identify the culprit drug. Skin tests are the primary means of detecting sensitization in DHR, but are associated with a risk for a severe reaction and may be contraindicated. In vitro tests offer the potential to support or confirm a diagnosis of DHR and influence medical decision making. For immediate-type DHR, a few validated assays for measurement of specific IgE (sIgE) are commercially available to a limited number of drugs. In addition, several home-made sIgE radioimmunoassays have been used in other studies. The sensitivity of the sIgE assay is drug-dependant and generally low (0-85%) for betalactams and reported heterogeneous for other drugs ranging from 26% for chlorhexidine and 44% for suxamethonium to 92% for chlorhexidine. However, as all these studies included patients, in whom DHR was confirmed only by skin tests and not by provocation, the results have to be interpreted carefully and may be unreliable. Determination of mediators during an acute phase of a reaction may indirectly support the diagnosis of a DHR by demonstrating mast cell and basophil mediator release. Negative in vitro tests do not exclude a DHR or imputability of a drug, but a positive result may support causality and eliminate the necessity for a drug provocation test. Unfortunately, evidence is limited with a lack of well-controlled studies in larger numbers of well-phenotyped patients, which results in susceptibility for bias and a need for future multicenter studies.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis: Evaluation and Management

Perioperative anaphylaxis (PA) is a rare but life-threatening condition that poses diagnostic and management challenges in the operating room. The incidence of severe perioperative reactions is estimated to be approximately 1:7000-10,000. Management involves both immediate stabilization of the patient and identifying the culprit agent. Identification is essential to prevent recurrence of the event in subsequent surgeries and to avoid unnecessary labeling of drug allergy. Identifying all possible exposures including medications, disinfectants, latex, and dyes and choosing the appropriate tests are essential for proper evaluation. To identify the culprit, primary testing modalities include tryptase at the time of the reaction with subsequent levels and skin testing with nonirritating concentrations to the medications and substances utilized during the procedure and those potentially used as alternates. This strategy provides guidance for future surgeries and procedures. Close collaboration between the allergy, anesthesiology, and surgery teams is essential for appropriate management of these patients at the time of the reaction, during the post event evaluation and in preparation for subsequent surgeries.

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.

Biomarkers for diagnosis and prediction of therapy responses in allergic diseases and asthma

Modern health care requires a proactive and individualized response to diseases, combining precision diagnosis and personalized treatment. Accordingly, the approach to patients with allergic diseases encompasses novel developments in the area of personalized medicine, disease phenotyping and endotyping, and the development and application of reliable biomarkers. A detailed clinical history and physical examination followed by the detection of IgE immunoreactivity against specific allergens still represents the state of the art. However, nowadays, further emphasis focuses on the optimization of diagnostic and therapeutic standards and a large number of studies have been investigating the biomarkers of allergic diseases, including asthma, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, food allergy, urticaria and anaphylaxis. Various biomarkers have been developed by omics technologies, some of which lead to a better classification of distinct phenotypes or endotypes. The introduction of biologicals to clinical practice increases the need for biomarkers for patient selection, prediction of outcomes and monitoring, to allow for an adequate choice of the duration of these costly and long‐lasting therapies. Escalating healthcare costs together with questions about the efficacy of the current management of allergic diseases require further development of a biomarker‐driven approach. Here, we review biomarkers in diagnosis and treatment of asthma, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, viral infections, chronic rhinosinusitis, food allergy, drug hypersensitivity and allergen immunotherapy with a special emphasis on specific IgE, the microbiome and the epithelial barrier. In addition, EAACI guidelines on biologicals are discussed within the perspective of biomarkers.

Minimal agreement between basophil activation test and immunoassay in diagnosis of penicillin allergy

INTRODUCTION

Basophil activation test (BAT) and immunoassays are the most widely used in vitro tests to diagnose IgE-mediated allergic reactions to penicillin. However, studies to determine if one test is interdependent from another are limited.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to measure the agreement between BAT and immunoassay in diagnosis of penicillin allergy.

METHOD

BAT was performed using penicillin G (Pen G), penicillin V (Pen V), penicilloyl-polylysine (PPL), minor determinant mix (MDM), amoxicillin (Amx) and ampicillin (Amp) in 25 patients. Immunoassay of total IgE (tIgE) and specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies to Pen G, Pen V, Amx and Amp were quantified. Skin prick test (SPT) using PPL-MDM, Amx, Amp and Clavulanic acid were also performed.

RESULTS

Minimal agreement was observed between BAT and immunoassay (k=0.25). Of two BAT-positive patients, one patient is positive to Amx (59.27%, SI=59) and Amp (82.32%, SI=82) but sIgE-negative to all drug tested. This patient is also SPT-positive to both drugs. Another patient is BAT-positive to Pen G (10.18%, SI=40), Pen V (25.07%, SI=100) and Amp (19.52%, SI=79). In sIgE immunoassay, four patients were sIgE-positive to at least one of the drugs tested. The sIgE level of three patients was between low and moderate and they were BAT-negative. One BAT-positive patient had a high level of sIgE antibodies (3.50-17.5kU/L) along with relatively high specific to total IgE ratio ≥0.002 (0.004-0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

The agreement between BAT and immunoassay is minimal. Performing both tests provides little increase in the sensitivity of allergy diagnosis work-up for immediate reactions to penicillin.

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.

Guideline on diagnostic procedures for suspected hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibiotics: Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in collaboration with the German Society of Allergology (AeDA), German Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG), the Austrian Society for Allergology and Immunology (ÖGAI), and the Paul-Ehrlich Society for Chemotherapy (PEG)

This guideline on diagnostic procedures for suspected beta-lactam antibiotic (BLA) hypersensitivity was written by the German and Austrian professional associations for allergology, and the Paul-Ehrlich Society for Chemotherapy in a consensus procedure according to the criteria of the German Association of Scientific Medical Societies. BLA such as penicillins and cephalosporins represent the drug group that most frequently triggers drug allergies. However, the frequency of reports of suspected allergy in patient histories clearly exceeds the number of confirmed cases. The large number of suspected BLA allergies has a significant impact on, e.g., the quality of treatment received by the individual patient and the costs to society as a whole. Allergies to BLA are based on different immunological mechanisms and often manifest as maculopapular exanthema, as well as anaphylaxis; and there are also a number of less frequent special clinical manifestations of drug allergic reactions. All BLA have a beta-lactam ring. BLA are categorized into different classes: penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems, monobactams, and beta-lactamase inhibitors with different chemical structures. Knowledge of possible cross-reactivity is of considerable clinical significance. Whereas allergy to the common beta-lactam ring occurs in only a small percentage of all BLA allergic patients, cross-reactivity due to side chain similarities, such as aminopenicillins and aminocephalosporins, and even methoxyimino cephalosporins, are more common. However, the overall picture is complex and its elucidation may require further research. Diagnostic procedures used in BLA allergy are usually made up of four components: patient history, laboratory diagnostics, skin testing (which is particularly important), and drug provocation testing. The diagnostic approach - even in cases where the need to administer a BLA is acute - is guided by patient history and risk - benefit ratio in the individual case. Here again, further studies are required to extend the present state of knowledge. Performing allergy testing for suspected BLA hypersensitivity is urgently recommended not only in the interests of providing the patient with good medical care, but also due to the immense impact of putative BLA allergies on society as a whole.

Progress in understanding hypersensitivity reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the medications most commonly used for treating pain and inflammation, are the main triggers of drug hypersensitivity reactions. The latest classification of NSAIDs hypersensitivity by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) differentiates between cross-hypersensitivity reactions (CRs), associated with COX-1 inhibition, and selective reactions, associated with immunological mechanisms. Three phenotypes fill into the first group: NSAIDs-exacerbated respiratory disease, NSAIDs-exacerbated cutaneous disease and NSAIDs-induced urticaria/angioedema. Two phenotypes fill into the second one: single-NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema/anaphylaxis and single-NSAID-induced delayed reactions. Diagnosis of NSAIDs hypersensitivity is hampered by different factors, including the lack of validated in vitro biomarkers and the uselessness of skin tests. The advances achieved over recent years recommend a re-evaluation of the EAACI classification, as it does not consider other phenotypes such as blended reactions (coexistence of cutaneous and respiratory symptoms) or food-dependent NSAID-induced anaphylaxis. In addition, it does not regard the natural evolution of phenotypes and their potential interconversion, the development of tolerance over time or the role of atopy. Here, we address these topics. A state of the art on the underlying mechanisms and on the approaches for biomarkers discovery is also provided, including genetic studies and available information on transcriptomics and metabolomics.

Prospective study of 5-day challenge with penicillins in children

OBJECTIVES

To examine if a 5-day challenge with penicillin improves the diagnostic sensitivity compared with a single full dose in children with mild skin reactions.

DESIGN

Subjects referred with suspected allergy to penicillin were consecutively included. Irrespectively of the morphology of the index reaction and the result of specific IgE, all subjects underwent a two-step titrated drug provocation test (DPT) with the culprit drug followed by a 5-day challenge at home.

PARTICIPANTS

Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years referred to allergic workup for penicillin hypersensitivity at two paediatric Danish centres. Only subjects with non-severe skin reactions were included.

RESULTS

A total of 305 subjects were included and 22 (7%) of the DPTs were positive. Three subjects reacted within 1 hour of the first full dose and nine reacted 1-8 hours after the first full dose. Additional 10 positive reactions were observed during the prolonged provocation. Seven subjects reacted after the second full dose and three reacted after 3-6 days. Only mild skin rashes were observed. Eighteen subjects had a specific IgE to a penicillin >0.1 kU/L. Only one of these had a positive DPT.

CONCLUSION

In children, a DPT with penicillins should include at least two full doses. In children with mild hypersensitivity reactions it may be safe to perform DPTs despite a low specific IgE.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04331522.

Recent developments and highlights in drug hypersensitivity

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are nowadays the third cause of allergy after rhinitis and asthma with a significant increase in prevalence in both adults and paediatric population with new drugs included as culprit. For this, DHRs represent not only a health problem but also a significant financial burden for affected individuals and health systems. Mislabelling DHRs is showing to be a relevant problem for both, false label of drug allergic and false label of nonallergic. All this reinforces the need to improve accurate diagnostic approaches that allow an appropriate management. Moreover, there is a need for training both, nonallergist stakeholders and patients to improve the reaction identification and therefore decrease the mislabelling. The use of allergy cards has shown to be relevant to avoid the induction of DHRs due to the prescription of wrong medication. Recent developments over the last 2 years and highlights about risk factors, diagnostic approaches, mechanisms involved as well as prevention actions, and management have been reviewed. In these papers, it has been outlined the need for correct diagnosis and de-labelling of patients previously false-reported as allergic, which will improve the management and treatment of patients with DHRs.

An EAACI position paper on the investigation of perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions

Perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions are rare. Subsequent allergy investigation is complicated by multiple simultaneous drug exposures, the use of drugs with potent effects and the many differential diagnoses to hypersensitivity in the perioperative setting. The approach to the investigation of these complex reactions is not standardized, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that collaboration between experts in the field of allergy/immunology/dermatology and anaesthesiology is needed to provide the best possible care for these patients. The EAACI task force behind this position paper has therefore combined the expertise of allergists, immunologists and anaesthesiologists. The aims of this position paper were to provide recommendations for the investigation of immediate-type perioperative hypersensitivity reactions and to provide practical information that can assist clinicians in planning and carrying out investigations.

Identification of an antigenic determinant of clavulanic acid responsible for IgE-mediated reactions

BACKGROUND

Selective reactions to clavulanic acid (CLV) account for around 30% of immediate reactions after administration of amoxicillin-CLV. Currently, no immunoassay is available for detecting specific IgE to CLV, and its specific recognition in patients with immediate reactions has only been demonstrated by basophil activation testing, however with suboptimal sensitivity. The lack of knowledge regarding the structure of the drug that remains bound to proteins (antigenic determinant) is hampering the development of in vitro diagnostics. We aimed to identify the antigenic determinants of CLV as well as to evaluate their specific IgE recognition and potential role for diagnosis.

METHODS

Based on complex CLV degradation mechanisms, we hypothesized the formation of two antigenic determinants for CLV, AD-I (N-protein, 3-oxopropanamide) and AD-II (N-protein, 3-aminopropanamide), and designed different synthetic analogs to each one. IgE recognition of these structures was evaluated in basophils from patients with selective reactions to CLV and tolerant subjects. In parallel, the CLV fragments bound to proteins were identified by proteomic approaches.

RESULTS

Two synthetic analogs of AD-I were found to activate basophils from allergic patients. This determinant was also detected bound to lysines 195 and 475 of CLV-treated human serum albumin. One of these analogs was able to activate basophils in 59% of patients whereas CLV only in 41%. Combining both results led to an increase in basophil activation in 69% of patients, and only in 12% of controls.

CONCLUSION

We have identified AD-I as one CLV antigenic determinant, which is the drug fragment that remains protein-bound.

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.

Recent developments and highlights in biomarkers in allergic diseases and asthma

The potential of precision medicine in allergy and asthma has only started to be explored. A significant clarification in the pathophysiology of rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, asthma, food allergy and drug hypersensitivity was made in the last decade. This improved understanding led to a better classification of the distinct phenotypes and to the discovery of new drugs such as biologicals, targeting phenotype-specific mechanisms. Nevertheless, many conditions remain poorly understood such as non-eosinophilic airway diseases or non-IgE-mediated food allergy. Moreover, there is a need to predict the response to specific therapies and the outcome of drug and food provocations. The identification of patients at risk of progression towards severity is also an unmet need in order to establish adequate preventive or therapeutic measures. The implementation of precision medicine in the clinical practice requires the identification of phenotype-specific markers measurable in biological matrices. To become useful, these biomarkers need to be quantifiable by reliable systems, and in samples obtained in an easy, rapid and cost-efficient way. In the last years, significant research resources have been put in the identification of valid biomarkers for asthma and allergic diseases. This review summarizes these recent advances with focus on the biomarkers with higher clinical applicability.