Tryptase as Severity Marker in Drug Provocation Tests

Causes and Diagnostic Usefulness of Tryptase Measurements for Anaphylaxis in a Korean Tertiary Care General Hospital

PURPOSE

The causes of anaphylaxis in a general hospital may differ from those occurring in a community setting. Underlying diseases in admitted patients and vague presenting symptoms can make the diagnosis of anaphylaxis difficult. Serum tryptase measurements may provide valuable evidence for diagnosing anaphylaxis in admitted patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was designed as a retrospective study of 53 patients with an anaphylaxis episode at a Korean tertiary care general hospital. Tryptase levels were measured at baseline and different time points from the onset of anaphylaxis.

RESULTS

Drugs (42 cases; 79.2%) and foods (10 cases; 18.9%) were the most common causes of anaphylaxis. In drug-induced anaphylaxis, antibiotics (24.5%), anticancer medications, which included monoclonal antibodies (22.6%), and contrast agents (11.3%) were the most frequent causes. The muscle relaxant eperisone (5.7%), neuromuscular blocking agent rocuronium (5.7%), and its antagonist sugammadex (3.8%) were other frequent triggering agents. Wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis was the most common entity in food-induced anaphylaxis. Tryptase concentrations were higher in patients with higher grades of anaphylaxis, as well as in accidental anaphylaxis, compared to meticulously provoked anaphylaxis. Overall diagnostic sensitivity was higher for tryptase algorithm criteria (≥[1.2×baseline+2] µg/L: 71.4%) than for abnormal tryptase level criteria (≥11.4 µg/L: 52.8%).

CONCLUSION

The triggers of anaphylaxis in a Korean tertiary care hospital were diverse, including beta-lactam antibiotics, anticancer medications, contrast medias, eperisone, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, rocuronium, sugammadex, and wheat. Tryptase measurements provided valuable evidence for diagnosis, and the sensitivity of algorithm criteria was superior to that of the abnormal value criteria.

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.

Pro and Contra: Provocation Tests in Drug Hypersensitivity

Drug provocation test (DPT) is the controlled administration of a drug to diagnose immune- or non-immune-mediated drug hypersensitivity and the last step for accurate recognition of drug hypersensitivity reactions when the previous diagnostic evaluations are negative or unavailable. A DPT is performed only if other conventional tests fail to yield conclusive results. In each clinical presentation, "to provoke or not to provoke" a patient should be decided after careful assessment of the risk-benefit ratio. Well-defined benefits of DPT include confirmative exclusion of diagnoses of drug hypersensitivity and provision of safe alternatives. However, disadvantages such as safety, difficulty in interpretations of results, lack of objective biomarkers, risks of resensitization, efficiency in daily practice, and lack of standardized protocols, are poorly debated. This review summarizes the current published research concerning DPT, with particular emphasis on the advantages and disadvantages of DPT in an evidence-based manner.

Basal serum tryptase is not a risk factor for immediate-type drug hypersensitivity during childhood

BACKGROUND

High serum basal tryptase (sBT) levels have been identified as a risk factor for both venom- and food-induced severe allergic reactions. The aim of this study was to compare sBT levels in children with different severity of actual drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) with those of age- and sex-matched controls without any history of DHRs.

METHOD

Patients between 0 and 18 years of age with a history of immediate-type DHRs manifested in 0-6 h after the culprit drug intake were included. Following ENDA (European Network for Drug Allergy) inquiries, patients were evaluated with skin and/or provocation tests to define the actual drug-hypersensitive patients. Serum BT levels were determined for both patients and controls.

RESULTS

Of 345 children, 106 patients (30.7%) [(58.5% male), median age (interquartile range) 8.0 years (4.2-12.2)] were diagnosed as drug hypersensitive. Ninety-eight controls were also included. The sBT levels of drug-hypersensitive patients with and without anaphylaxis and the control group were similar [2.6 (2.0-3.6) μg/l vs. 2.8 (1.6-4.3) μg/l vs. 2.6 (1.8-3.6) μg/l, respectively, (p > 0.05)]. The sBT levels of the patients with sole cutaneous symptoms 2.8 (1.6-4.3) μg/l, mild anaphylaxis 3.0 (1.9-4.9) μg/l, and moderate-to-severe anaphylaxis 2.6 (2.0-3.6) μg/l were also comparable (p > 0.05). The onset of DHRs [those occurring in 1 h (n = 87) or in 1-6 h (n = 19) after the drug intake], positive results with skin tests with the culprit drug, or the classification of the patients according to different age groups [(0-2 years), (2-6 years), (6-12 years), (12-18 years)] did not correlate with sBT levels.

CONCLUSION

The sBT levels in children with actual drug hypersensitivity would not be a risk factor for severe systemic reactions on the contrary to children with allergic reactions to food or insect venom.

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.

An increase in serum tryptase even below 11.4 ng/mL may indicate a mast cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction: a prospective study in Hymenoptera venom allergic patients

BACKGROUND

During a systemic hypersensitivity reaction (SR), an increase in serum tryptase compared to the baseline value is an indicator of mast cell activation, most often due to an IgE-mediated mechanism.

OBJECTIVE

To study the relevance of an increase in serum tryptase below the upper normal value of 11.4 ng/mL.

METHODS

Serum tryptase levels were measured in 35 patients with Hymenoptera venom hypersensitivity before and during venom exposure. Of these, 20 developed SR to stings or following venom injections during immunotherapy (reactors), while 15 tolerated reexposure to stings or venom injections during immunotherapy without SR (non-reactors). Serum tryptase was estimated at 2, 5 and 24 h after exposure and was compared to a baseline value obtained before or at least 72 h after exposure.

RESULTS

Considering circadian variation of serum tryptase, a relative increase to ≥135% of the baseline value (relative delta bound) was defined to indicate mast cell activation. Such an increase was observed in 17 of 20 reactors (85%), but none of 15 non-reactors. A serum tryptase of ≥11.4 ng/mL following venom exposure was observed in eight of the 20 reactors (40%) and 2 (13.3%) of the 15 non-reactors. Both these non-reactors also had an elevated baseline serum tryptase.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Serum tryptase values obtained during a suspected hypersensitivity reaction must always be compared to a baseline value. A relative tryptase increase to ≥135% of the baseline value during a suspected hypersensitivity reaction indicates mast cell activation even below 11.4 ng/mL.

Provocation tests in drug hypersensitivity

Provocation tests are regarded as the "gold standard" to establish or exclude the presence of hypersensitivity to a certain drugs because they reproduce not only allergy symptoms but other adverse manifestations, irrespective of their pathomechanism. Provocation testing is potentially harmful and should be considered only after balancing the risk-benefit ratio in the individual patient. The reasons for false-positive and false-negative results are numerous, including loss of sensitization, cofactors not being included in the diagnostic procedure, and the potential induction of tolerance during provocation. When conducted by experienced clinicians in a carefully monitored setting, however, drug provocation testing is a safe method to confirm or exclude drug hypersensitivity.