Improvement of the Elevated Tryptase Criterion to Discriminate IgE- From Non-IgE-Mediated Allergic Reactions

A US-Based Multicenter Retrospective Report of Perioperative Anaphylaxis, 2010-2021

BACKGROUND

US-based perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) studies are limited to single-center experiences. A recent report found that a serum acute tryptase (sAT) >9.8 ng/mL or mast cell activation (MCA) can predict POA causal agent identification. Urinary mast cell mediator metabolites (uMC) have not been studied in POA.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the epidemiologic data of POA, to determine if sAT or MCA can predict suspected causal agent identification, and to evaluate uMC utility in POA.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective multicenter review of POA cases that were subcategorized by suspected causal agent identification status. sAT, MCA (defined as sAT >2 + 1.2 × serum baseline tryptase), and uMC (N-methylhistamine [N-MH], 11β-prostaglandin-F2α [11β-PGF2α], leukotriene E4 [LTE4]) were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients (mean age 52 [standard deviation 17] years, 94% adult, 50% female, 90% White, and 2% Hispanic) with POA, 73% had an sAT available, 41% had MCA, 16% had uMC available, and 50% had an identifiable suspected cause. POA cases with an identifiable suspected cause had a positive MCA status (100% vs 78%; P = .01) compared with POA with an unidentifiable cause. An elevated median sAT did not predict causal agent identification. Positive uMC were not associated with suspected causal agent identification during POA. Patients with positive uMC had a higher median sAT (30 vs 6.45 ng/mL; P = .001) and MCA status (96% vs 12%; P = .001) compared with negative uMC patients. Patients with POA had an elevated acute/baseline uMC ratios: 11β-PGF2α ratio > 1.6, N-MH ratio >1.7, and LTE4 ratio >1.8.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of MCA in POA is associated with suspected causal agent identification. Positive uMC possibly correlate with a higher sAT level and MCA status but require further study. The authors suggest applying an acute/baseline uMC ratio (11β-PGF2α ratio >1.6, N-MH ratio >1.7, and LTE4 ratio >1.87) in patients with POA for MCA when a tryptase level is inconclusive during POA evaluations.

Non-IgE-Mediated Immediate Drug-Induced Hypersensitivity Reactions

Immediate drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions (IDHSRs) have conventionally been attributed to an immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated mechanism. Nevertheless, it has now been acknowledged that IDHSRs can also occur independently of IgE involvement. Non-IgE-mediated IDHSRs encompass the activation of effector cells, both mast cell-dependent and -independent and the initiation of inflammatory pathways through immunogenic and nonimmunogenic mechanisms. The IDHSRs involve inflammatory mediators beyond histamine, including the platelet-activating factor, which activates multiple cell types, including smooth muscle, endothelium, and MC, and evidence supports its importance in IgE-mediated reactions in humans. Clinically, distinguishing IgE from non-IgE mechanisms is crucial for future treatment strategies, including drug(s) restriction, readministration approaches, and pretreatment considerations. However, this presents significant challenges because certain drugs can trigger both mechanisms, and their presentations can appear similarly, ranging from mild to life-threatening symptoms. Thus, history alone is often inadequate for differentiation, and skin tests lack a standardized approach. Moreover, drug-specific IgE immunoassays have favorable specificity but low sensitivity, and the usefulness of the basophil activation test remains debatable. Lastly, no biomarker reliably differentiates between both mechanisms. Whereas non-IgE-mediated mechanisms likely predominate in IDHSRs, reclassifying most drug-related IDHSRs as non-IgE-mediated, with suggested prevention through dose administration adjustments, is premature and risky. Therefore, continued research and validated diagnostic tests are crucial to improving our capacity to distinguish between these mechanisms, ultimately enhancing patient care.

Allergenic and Mas-Related G Protein-Coupled Receptor X2-Activating Properties of Drugs: Resolving the Two

Since the seminal description implicating occupation of the Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2) in mast cell (MC) degranulation by drugs, many investigations have been undertaken into this potential new endotype of immediate drug hypersensitivity reaction. However, current evidence for this mechanism predominantly comes from (mutant) animal models or in vitro studies, and irrefutable clinical evidence in humans is still missing. Moreover, translation of these preclinical findings into clinical relevance in humans is difficult and should be critically interpreted. Starting from our clinical priorities and experience with flow-assisted functional analyses of basophils and cultured human MCs, the objectives of this rostrum are to identify some of these difficulties, emphasize the obstacles that might hamper translation from preclinical observations into the clinics, and highlight differences between IgE- and MRPGRX2-mediated reactions. Inevitably, as with any subject still beset by many questions, alternative interpretations, hypotheses, or explanations expressed here may not find universal acceptance. Nevertheless, we believe that for the time being, many questions remain unanswered. Finally, a theoretical mechanistic algorithm is proposed that might advance discrimination between MC degranulation from MRGPRX2 activation and cross-linking of membrane-bound drug-reactive IgE antibodies.

Ineffectiveness of Skin Tests in Predicting Allergic Reactions Induced by Chinese Herbal Injections

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether skin tests are suitable to predict the allergy reactions induced by Chinese herbal injections (CHIs).

METHODS

The skin tests including skin prick tests (SPT), intradermal tests (IDT) and provocation tests including subcutaneous tests and intravenous tests were administered to 249 healthy subjects and 180 allergic patients for 3 CHIs, including ginkgolide injection, diterpene ginkgolide meglumine injection and Salvianolate lyophilized injection. The results of the provocation tests were used as the "gold standard" to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the skin tests.

RESULTS

The results did not show any significant differences between the healthy and allergy groups in both skin tests and provocation tests (P>0.05). The specificities of SPT and IDT were 0.976 and 0.797, respectively, and the sensitivities of both SPT and IDT were 0.

CONCLUSION

Skin tests are insufficient to predict the likelihood of allergic reactions resulting from CHIs. (ChiCTR-CPC-15006921).

Diagnostic performance of serial serum total tryptase measurement to differentiate positive from negative allergy testing among patients with suspected perioperative hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

Serum total tryptase has been shown to increase during acute allergic reactions (acute tryptase, T_A ); however, few studies have investigated the values of T_A or a combination of T_A and baseline tryptase (T_B ) to discriminate positive from negative testing in perioperative hypersensitivity reaction (POH) allergy work up. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic performance of T_A in order to differentiate positive from negative allergy testing suspected POH and analyze the diagnostic performance of serial tryptase levels using several formulas.

METHODS

All patients from the University hospital of Montpellier and Strasbourg, France who presented with suspected POH and underwent complete drug allergy work-up between March 2011 and December 2019 with available T_A and T_B were included. Four formulas, including a change in T_A >11 (F1), or >2+1.2xT_B (F2), or >3+T_B (F3), or >120%T_B (F4), were applied.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-two patients were included, and 131 of them (80.8%) had grade III or IV reactions. Ninety patients had positive allergy testing. The optimal cut-off value of T_A to distinguish positive from negative allergy testing patients was 9.8 μg/L with an AUC of 0.817 (95%CI: 0.752-0.882, p<0.001). The 93% PPV threshold for T_A was 33 μg/L (95.8% specificity). Paired tryptase levels according to formulas F2 and F3 yielded the highest Youden index (0.54 and 0.53, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The optimal cut-off point for T_A for distinguishing positive from negative allergy testing suspected POH was 9.8 μg/L. T_A value of 33 μg/L was required to achieve >90% PPV.

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.

Using Baseline and Peak Serum Tryptase Levels to Diagnose Anaphylaxis: a Review

The diagnosis of anaphylaxis relies on a suggestive clinical history after exposure to a potential triggering factor. Serum tryptase concentrations increase on degranulation of mast cells and therefore serum tryptase levels are measured to diagnose anaphylaxis. There is no standardized method for assessing total serum mast cell tryptase (MCT) in anaphylaxis. The Working Conference in 2010 proposed a consensus equation (peak MCT should be > 1.2x baseline tryptase + 2 ng/L) to diagnose acute mast cell activation (aMCA). Our objective was to narratively review the literature since the Working Conference in 2010, examining the use of the consensus equation and other equations comparing baseline and peak serum tryptase during anaphylaxis. Computerized bibliographic searches of PUBMED and EMBASE were supplemented with a manual search of reference lists. English-language studies were included. Eleven studies met our inclusion criteria with a total of 4551 participants. However, only four studies with 653 participants used the consensus equation. The other seven studies used other methods to compare peak and baseline serum tryptase concentrations. Measuring serum tryptase levels is valuable in the diagnosis of anaphylaxis but is unable to detect all anaphylactic reactions. Based on our current literature review, the consensus equation is underused in the diagnosis of anaphylaxis. There is also a need for exploration of other biomarkers which could be used in parallel to peak and baseline serum tryptase measurements for further diagnostic certainty. Serum tryptase is the most studied biomarker in anaphylaxis but is still far from being the ideal biomarker for this. There is a need to identify new potential useful biomarkers. Serum tryptase levels are valuable in the diagnosis of anaphylaxis, but are unable to detect all anaphylactic reactions. Additionally serial tryptase measurements are laborious in daily clinical practice.

Diagnostic Testing and Decision-Making: Beauty Is Not Just in the Eye of the Beholder

To use a diagnostic test effectively and consistently in their practice, clinicians need to know how well the test distinguishes between those patients who have the suspected acute or chronic disease and those patients who do not. Clinicians are equally interested and usually more concerned whether, based on the results of a screening test, a given patient actually: (1) does or does not have the suspected disease; or (2) will or will not subsequently experience the adverse event or outcome. Medical tests that are performed to screen for a risk factor, diagnose a disease, or to estimate a patient's prognosis are frequently a key component of a clinical research study. Like therapeutic interventions, medical tests require proper analysis and demonstrated efficacy before being incorporated into routine clinical practice. This basic statistical tutorial, thus, discusses the fundamental concepts and techniques related to diagnostic testing and medical decision-making, including sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value, positive and negative likelihood ratio, receiver operating characteristic curve, diagnostic accuracy, choosing a best cut-point for a continuous variable biomarker, comparing methods on diagnostic accuracy, and design of a diagnostic accuracy study.