Fluoroquinolone photodegradation influences specific basophil activation

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.

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.

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.

BAT in the Diagnosis of Drug Allergy: a Novel Tool in Clinical Daily Practice?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study is to critically review the relevant literature published on basophil activation test, presenting the current knowledge and future perspectives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Basophil activation test (BAT) results varied accordingly to the class of the drug studied, and have promising results in immediate hypersensitivity reactions to pyrazolone (selective reactors), neuromuscular blockers, beta-lactams, and platinum compounds, all examples of classical IgE-mediated hypersensitivity drug reactions. Currently, BAT is applied in research settings, but based in the results of our review, the test can be considered as a diagnostic tool for daily practice for selected patients and selected drugs, when the test is available, particularly for patients who experienced severe reactions and when diagnosis cannot be stablished by serum-specific IgE and skin testing, in order to avoid unnecessary drug provocations tests.

Update on Quinolone Allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Quinolones are a group of synthetic antibiotics widely use as first-line treatment for many infections. There has been an increase in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions to quinolones in recent years, likely due to increased prescription. The purpose of this review is to summarize the clinical pictures, the methods used for diagnosing and the management of allergic reactions to quinolones.

RECENT FINDINGS

Allergic reactions to quinolones can be immediate or delayed, being anaphylaxis and maculopapular exanthema respectively the most frequent clinical entities. A precise diagnosis is particularly difficult since clinical history is often unreliable, skin tests can induce false-positive results, and commercial in vitro test are not well validated. Therefore, drug provocation testing is considered the gold standard to establish diagnosis, which is not a risk-free procedure. Cross-reactivity between quinolones is difficult to predict due to the small number of patients included in the few published studies. Moreover, hypersensitivity to quinolones has also been associated with beta-lactam and neuromuscular blocking agent allergies, although further studies are needed to understand the underlying mechanisms. Avoidance of the culprit quinolone is indicated in patients with a diagnosis of hypersensitivity to these drugs. When quinolone treatment is the only therapeutic option available, desensitization is necessary. This review summarizes the complex diagnostic approach and management of allergic reactions to quinolones.

Diagnosing and managing patients with drug hypersensitivity

INTRODUCTION

Diagnosing and managing drug hypersensitivity is challenging because there are no clear limits between different types of drug reactions. Distinguishing between type A (predictable) and type B (hypersensitivity) reactions when a drug is introduced on the market is not easy. When many people use a drug, adverse reactions can occur, conditioned by diverse genetic profiles, viral infections or concomitant therapy. Occasionally the only tool clinicians have on which to base the diagnosis is the clinical history. Skins tests or in vitro tests sometimes have low sensitivity or are unavailable, and drug provocation tests may be dangerous or strictly forbidden in case of severe cutaneous reactions. Areas covered: This paper reviews the diagnosis and management of the two main types of immunological reactions: IgE-mediated immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) and non-immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (NIDHRs). Expert commentary: Although Europe and the United States use different diagnostic methods, patients with history of drug hypersensitivity must avoid the suspicious drug, and clinicians must assess tolerance to safe alternatives under medical surveillance. Sometimes desensitization may be required. There is a consensus about the need to perform genetic testing for specific drugs and give patients proper documentation to prevent future exposure to culprit drugs.

Pros and Cons of Clinical Basophil Testing (BAT)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review basophil testing by flow cytometry with an emphasis on advantages and disadvantages.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are many tools available to assess the presence and severity of allergic diseases in patients. For 50 years, peripheral blood basophils have been used as tools to study these diseases. It is a very accessible cell that binds IgE antibody and secretes the classical mediators responsible for the symptoms of allergic reactions. In the last decade, an even more accessible methodology, using flow cytometry, has been developed to enhance the ability to use basophils for both mechanistic and clinical diagnostics. Basophil testing has been included in diagnostics for different forms of allergies as well as to monitor disease status. A variety of studies have begun to establish both precise methods and their clinical relevance for disease diagnosis, but there remain some important questions on how to take optimal advantage of the behaviours of basophils.

In Vitro Diagnostic Testing for Antibiotic Allergy

Allergy to antibiotics is an important worldwide problem, with an estimated prevalence of up to 10% of the population. Reaction patterns for different antibiotics have changed in accordance with consumption trends. Most of the allergic reactions to antibiotics have been reported for betalactams, followed by quinolones and macrolides and, to a lesser extent, to others, such as metronidazole clindamycin and sulfonamides. The diagnostic procedure includes a detailed clinical history, which is not always possible and can be unreliable. This is usually followed by in vivo, skin, and drug provocation tests. These are not recommended for severe, potentially lifethreaten reactions or for drugs that are known to produce a high rate of false positive results. Given the limitations of in vivo tests, in vitro test can be helpful for diagnosis, despite having suboptimal sensitivity. The most highly employed techniques for diagnosing immediate reactions to antibiotics are immunoassays and basophil activation tests, while lymphocyte transformation tests are more commonly used to diagnose non-immediate reactions. In this review, we describe different in vitro techniques employed to diagnose antibiotic allergy.

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.

Hypersensitivity to fluoroquinolones: The expression of basophil activation markers depends on the clinical entity and the culprit fluoroquinolone

Although fluoroquinolones (FQs) are generally well-tolerated antibiotics, increasing numbers of hypersensitivity reactions have been reported. These can be evaluated in vitro by basophil activation tests (BATs); however, sensitivity is not optimal. Many factors could influence sensitivity such as basophil activation markers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of 2 different activations markers, CD63 and CD203c, on the sensitivity of BAT to FQ. We studied 17 patients with immediate allergic reactions to FQ. BAT was performed with moxifloxacin and ciprofloxacin using CD193 (CCR3) for basophil selection and CD203c or CD63 as activation markers. Stimulation with ciprofloxacin induced a significantly higher expression of CD63 in ciprofloxacin-allergic patients compared to moxifloxacin-allergic patients (P = 0.002). In patients allergic to moxifloxacin with anaphylactic shock, we have observed an increase in the percentage of cells that upregulate CD203c, whereas patients with anaphylaxis preferentially upregulate CD63. The best sensitivity-specificity was obtained using a cutoff of 3 and the culprit FQ, using CD203c for moxifloxacin-allergic patients (sensitivity = 36.4%; specificity = 94.4%), and CD63 for ciprofloxacin-allergic patients (sensitivity = 83.3%; specificity = 88.9%). A negative correlation was found between the upregulation of CD63 and CD203c and the time interval between the reaction occurrence and the performance of the test (Spearman r = -0.446; P < 0.001 for CD63 and Spearman r = -0.386; P < 0.001 for CD203c). The performance of BAT for FQ allergy must be optimized for each drug, taking into account possible differences in the stimulation mechanism that leads to the upregulation of different activation markers.

Years in Review: Recent Progress in Cellular Allergology

This review highlights the recent key advances in the biology of CD4⁺ effector T cells, antigen-presenting cells, Th17 and T regulatory cells, as well as immediate effector cells, such as mast cells, basophils and eosinophils, which are critically contributing to the better understanding of the pathophysiology of allergic diseases and are helping to improve their diagnosis and therapy. Some of the key advances with a direct impact on allergic asthma research and treatment are summarized.

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.

Chlorpheniramine-induced anaphylaxis diagnosed by basophil activation test

Chlorpheniramine is a widely prescribed H1-antihistamine for relieving urticaria or histamine-mediated allergic reactions. However, although rare, it may cause immediate hypersensitivity reactions. The diagnosis is usually made by provocation test, but its application is often limited due to comorbidities or potential risk of severe reactions. In those cases, skin tests and basophil activation tests can be considered as additional diagnostic tests for the drug allergy. Here, we report a 33-year-old female with underlying chronic urticaria, who recurrently developed anaphylaxis after chlorpheniramine administration. Intradermal test showed positive responses in the patient at 0.02 mg/mL of chlorpheniramine, but not in healthy controls. Basophil activation test showed significant up-regulation of CD63 and CD203c by chlorpheniramine. The present case reminds the rare but potential allergic risk of chlorpheniramine, and also suggests the potential utility of basophil activation test in making the diagnosis.

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.