Threshold for basophil activation test positivity in neuromuscular blocking agents hypersensitivity reactions

Basophil Activation Test with Different Polyethylene Glycols in Patients with Suspected PEG Hypersensitivity Reactions

Allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccine components are rare but should be considered. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is responsible for anaphylaxis in mRNA vaccines. Skin tests have been used in the allergological work-up programs for COVID-19 vaccine evaluation. However, the reproducibility of the skin prick test is time-dependent and the reactivity declines over time. Therefore, we combined the administration of the skin tests with the basophil activation test (BAT) using PEG2000, PEG4000 and DMG-PEG2000, where the BAT was considered positive when the percentage of activated basophils was higher than 6%, 5% and 6.5%, for PEG 4000, PEG2000 and DMG-PEG2000, respectively. To this end, among the subjects that underwent allergy counseling at the Allergy Unit of our Institution during the 2020/2021 vaccination campaign, 13 patients had a suggested medical history of PEG/drug hypersensitivity and were enrolled together with 10 healthy donors. Among the enrolled patients 2 out of 13 tested patients were positive to the skin test. The BAT was negative in terms of the percentages of activated basophils in all analyzed samples, but the stimulation index (SI) was higher than 2.5 in 4 out of 13 patients. These data evidenced that, when the SI is higher than 2.5, even in the absence of positivity to BAT, the BAT to PEG may be a useful tool to be coupled to skin tests to evidence even low-grade reactions.

Practical guidelines for the response to perioperative anaphylaxis

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

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.

Basophil activation test in allergy diagnostics

The prevalence of allergic diseases in Poland and in the world continues to rise in recent years. The most commonly used methods for diagnosing IgE – dependent allergies are skin prick testing (SPT) and assessment of specific IgE (sIgE) directed against specific allergens. However, both methods have some disadvantages and the obtained results may be inconsistent. In particular, routine diagnostic tests are not always effective for some drugs and foods. Consequently, additional laboratory tools should be used. Basophil activation test (BAT) based on flow cytometry is a promising diagnostic method. The present paper demonstrates the usefulness and effectiveness of BAT protocols in allergy diagnosis in scientific research. In comparison to routinely used diagnostic methods, BAT is an expensive and complicated laboratory tool. However, it offers the possibility to efficiently and effectively recognize allergies. Introducing BAT into routine diagnostics in allergology is problematic because this method has not yet been standardized and validated. Therefore, there is a justified need to continue research in this field. If standardized and validated, BAT may offer a reasonable improvement in allergy diagnostics in the future.

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

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

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.

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.

Reclassifying Anaphylaxis to Neuromuscular Blocking Agents Based on the Presumed Patho-Mechanism: IgE-Mediated, Pharmacological Adverse Reaction or "Innate Hypersensitivity"?

Approximately 60% of perioperative anaphylactic reactions are thought to be immunoglobulin IgE mediated, whereas 40% are thought to be non-IgE mediated hypersensitivity reactions (both considered non-dose-related type B adverse drug reactions). In both cases, symptoms are elicited by mast cell degranulation. Also, pharmacological reactions to drugs (type A, dose-related) may sometimes mimic symptoms triggered by mast cell degranulation. In case of hypotension, bronchospasm, or urticarial rash due to mast cell degranulation, identification of the responsible mechanism is complicated. However, determination of the type of the underlying adverse drug reaction is of paramount interest for the decision of whether the culprit drug may be re-administered. Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) are among the most frequent cause of perioperative anaphylaxis. Recently, it has been shown that NMBA may activate mast cells independently from IgE antibodies via the human Mas-related G-protein-coupled receptor member X2 (MRGPRX2). In light of this new insight into the patho-mechanism of pseudo-allergic adverse drug reactions, in which as drug-receptor interaction results in anaphylaxis like symptoms, we critically reviewed the literature on NMBA-induced perioperative anaphylaxis. We challenge the dogma that NMBA mainly cause IgE-mediated anaphylaxis via an IgE-mediated mechanism, which is based on studies that consider positive skin test to be specific for IgE-mediated hypersensitivity. Finally, we discuss the question whether MRGPRX2 mediated pseudo-allergic reactions should be re-classified as type A adverse reactions.

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.

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

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

Comparison of HE4, CA125, and ROMA Diagnostic Accuracy: A Prospective and Multicenter Study for Chinese Women With Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) combing human epididymis secretary protein 4 (HE4) and CA125 showed better diagnostic accuracy for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) when compared with HE4 or CA125 alone; however, other studies showed no or worse diagnostic accuracy. We aim to conduct a prospective and multicenter clinical trial to compare the diagnostic accuracy of HE4, CA125, and ROMA for EOC.A prospective and multicenter (n = 9) trial including 2481 individuals was performed in Chinese women. HE4, CA125, and ROMA diagnostic accuracy were evaluated according to different menopausal status and stages of EOC. Their diagnostic values were evaluated by the area under curve (AUC) and compared by the Z scores. Diagnostic specificity of other kinds of participants (n = 1098) was also evaluated.For discriminating between healthy control (HC) and EOC, only CA125 showed significant difference for discriminating HC and EOC in all the individuals when compared with HE4 and ROMA (P < 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively), at the cutoff value of 31.5, the sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) were 88.6% and 97.1%. For discriminating between benign pelvic mass (BPM) and EOC, ROMA showed significant difference for discriminating BPM and EOC in the all individuals (P = 0.01 and P = 0.02, respectively) and the postmenopausal individuals (P = 0.03 and P = 0.04, respectively), at the cutoff value of 27.3 and 34.5, the SNs were 97.0% and 89.4%, SPs were 81.4% and 82.5%, separately. Within all kinds of diseases, there was no significant difference in specificity between CA125 and HE4.In conclusions, when HE4, CA125, and ROMA were compared with each other according to different menopausal status, and stages. Only CA125 showed significant difference for discriminating HC and EOC in all the individuals, and ROMA for discriminating BPM and EOC in the all individuals and postmenopausal individuals when compared with HE4 or CA125. HE4 has showed no significant difference in specificity with all kinds of diseases when compared with CA125.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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