Recent applications of basophil activation tests in the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity

An Unusual IgE-Mediated Hypersensitivity: Two Case Reports of Paracetamol Allergy

Paracetamol is one of the most commonly used analgesic and antipyretic agents worldwide, attributed in part to its excellent safety profile when administered at recommended doses. Paracetamol allergy is not common, and the majority of the reactions are related to the pharmacological action of cyclooxygenase 1 inhibition. Selective and Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated hypersensitivity reactions are rare. In this article, the authors report two cases of paracetamol allergy in which the mechanism of IgE-mediated hypersensitivity was demonstrated by positive skin tests and basophil activation tests. We highlight the relevance of identifying the mechanism underlying the reaction since patients with IgE-mediated paracetamol allergies will be able to tolerate non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to steroids and steroid containing medications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although rare and counterintuitive, hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids have been reported since the 1950s. Delayed hypersensitivity reactions following cutaneous exposure (contact allergy) are well understood and principles of testing, as well as cross-reactivity patterns, have been established. In contrast, understanding of immediate hypersensitivity reactions and delayed hypersensitivity reactions after systemic exposure is evolving more slowly. However, progress has been made in the delineating of underlying pathogenic mechanisms and in the development of testing.

RECENT FINDINGS

IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids have been described. It has been recognized that some, if not all of them, may be due to excipients in steroid formulations. Two excipients, polyethylene glycol and carboxymethylcellulose, seem of particular importance, but cases of reactions to polysorbate 80 and lactose have also been reported. The use of skin testing but also, increasingly, in-vitro methods such as basophil activation test is improving diagnostic accuracy.

SUMMARY

The recognition of the role of excipients is leading to a paradigm shift in our approach to immediate hypersensitivity to corticosteroids. Improved access to in-vivo and in-vitro testing will enhance our understanding of true corticosteroid immediate allergy.

A Challenge for Allergologist: Application of Allergy Diagnostic Methods in Mast Cell Disorders

Primary and secondary mast cell activation syndromes (MCAS) can occur in patients with mastocytosis. During the past few years our knowledge about the pathogenesis and disease-triggering mechanisms in MCAS and mastocytosis have increased substantially. Whereas mastocytosis is characterized by an accumulation of neoplastic (clonal) mast cells (MC) in various organ systems, MCAS is defined by a massive and systemic activation of these cells. Mast cells are crucial effector cells in allergic diseases, thus their elevated number and activation can cause severe anaphylactic reactions and MCAS in patients with mastocytosis. However, these cells may also degranulate spontaneously or degranulate in response to non-allergic triggers leading to clinical symptoms. In mastocytosis patients, such symptoms may lead to the diagnosis of a primary MCAS. The diagnosis of a concomitant allergy in mastocytosis patients is challenging. In these patients, a mixed form (primary and secondary) of MCAS may be diagnosed. These patients may also suffer from life-threatening anaphylactic reactions when exposed to allergens. In these cases, the possibility of severe side effects of in vivo provocations can sometimes also limit diagnostic evaluations. In the current article, we discuss the diagnosis and management of patients suffering from mastocytosis and concomitant MCAS, with special emphasis on novel diagnostic tests and management, including allergen microarrays, recombinant allergen analysis, basophil activation tests, optimal prophylaxis, and specific therapies.

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.

An unusual dual hypersensitivity reaction to moxifloxacin in a patient

Both immediate and nonimmediate type hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) with a single dose of quinolone in the same patient have not been previously reported. A 47-year-old female patient referred to us because of the history of a nonimmediate type HR to radio contrast agent and immediate type HR to clarithromycin. She experienced anaphylaxis in minutes after the second dose of 50 mg when she was provocated with moxifloxacin. She was treated immediately with epinephrine, fluid replacement and methylprednisole and pheniramine. On the following day she came with macular eruptions, and she was treated with methylprednisolone. The positive patch test performed with moxifloxacin as well as the lymphocyte transformation test proved the T-cell mediated HR. In order to prove the immediate type HR, basophil activation test was performed but was found negative. This case report presents for the first time the 2 different types of HRs in a patient with a test dose of quinolone.

Antibacterial Peptides in Dermatology-Strategies for Evaluation of Allergic Potential

During recent decades, the market for peptide-based drugs, including antimicrobial peptides, has vastly extended and evolved. These drugs can be useful in treatment of various types of disorders, e.g., cancer, autoimmune diseases, infections, and non-healing wounds. Although peptides are less immunogenic than other biologic therapeutics, they can still induce immune responses and cause allergies. It is important to evaluate the immunogenic and allergic potential of peptides before they are forwarded to the expensive stages of clinical trials. The process of the evaluation of immunogenicity and cytotoxicity is complicated, as in vitro models and bioinformatics tools cannot fully simulate situations in the clinic. Nevertheless, several potentially promising tests for the preclinical evaluation of peptide drugs have been implemented (e.g., cytotoxicity assays, the basophil activation test, and lymphocyte activation assays). In this review, we focus on strategies for evaluation of the allergic potential of peptide-based therapeutics.

Adverse Medication Reactions

Cutaneous adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are among the most frequent adverse reactions in patients receiving drug therapy. They have a broad spectrum of clinical manifestations, are caused by various drugs, and result from different pathophysiological mechanisms. Hence, their diagnosis and management is challenging.

Severe cutaneous ADRs comprise a group of diseases with major morbidity and mortality, reaching 30 % mortality rate in cases of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis.

This chapter covers the terminology, epidemiology, pathogenesis and classification of cutaneous ADR, describes the severe cutaneous ADRs and the clinical and laboratory approach to the patient with cutaneous ADR and presents the translation of laboratory-based discoveries on the genetic predisposition and pathogenesis of cutaneous ADRs to clinical management guidelines.

Basophil Activation Test is a Relevant Biomarker of the Outcome of Rapid Desensitization in Platinum Compounds-Allergy

BACKGROUND

Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) has become a cornerstone in the management of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to chemotherapeutic agents. Because of the inherent risk of anaphylaxis during RDD, biomarkers to predict patients at risk of developing such severe reactions are needed. The basophil activation test (BAT) has been used in DHRs as a diagnostic tool.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated basophil CD63 and CD203c expression (BAT) as a biomarker to assess the safety and effectiveness of RDD in platinum compounds-allergic patients.

METHODS

Patients allergic to platinum compounds (n = 15) undergoing RDD were assessed through clinical history, skin testing, serum tryptase levels, and BAT. BAT was performed immediately before RDD, assessing CD203c and CD63 expression on basophils. BAT was also performed in 6 patients tolerant to platinum compounds and in 6 healthy volunteers.

RESULTS

BAT was positive to CD203c or CD63 in 11 out of 15 patients allergic to platinum compounds (73%), with increased expression of CD203c and CD63 in 11 (73%) and 6 (40%) patients, respectively. Increased CD63 expression tended to be associated with more severe initial reactions. All controls had negative test results. Reactions during RDD were associated with BAT positivity and increased tryptase levels. Only 1 of 4 patients with negative BAT had a mild reaction during RDD. BAT remained positive in multiple sequential RDD.

CONCLUSIONS

BAT identified patients allergic to platinum compounds with an increased risk of reactions during desensitization and higher CD63 expression was observed in severe reactions. Multiple RDDs to platinum compounds did not induce persistent hyporesponsiveness on basophils. BAT is a potential biomarker for RDD.

Sugammadex and rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a life-threatening clinical condition that is typically the result of drugs or substances used for anesthesia or surgery. The most common cause of anaphylaxis during anesthesia is reportedly neuromuscular blocking agents. Of the many muscle relaxants that are clinically available, rocuronium is becoming popular in many countries. Recent studies have demonstrated that succinylcholine (but also rocuronium use) is associated with a relatively high rate of IgE-mediated anaphylaxis compared with other muscle relaxant agents. Sugammadex is widely used for reversal of the effects of steroidal neuromuscular blocking agents, such as rocuronium and vecuronium. Confirmed cases of allergic reactions to clinical doses of sugammadex have also been recently reported. Given these circumstances, the number of cases of hypersensitivity to either sugammadex or rocuronium is likely to increase. Thus, anesthesiologists should be familiar with the epidemiology, mechanisms, and clinical presentations of anaphylaxis induced by these drugs. In this review, we focus on the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis to sugammadex and neuromuscular blocking agents. Moreover, we discuss recent studies in this field, including the diagnostic utility of flow cytometry and improvement of rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis with the use of sugammadex.

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.

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.

Use of a basophil activation test as a complementary diagnostic tool in the diagnosis of severe peanut allergy in adults

Background

Diagnosis of severe peanut allergy is difficult and delays in making an accurate diagnosis may place the patient at risk. Adults with a history of anaphylaxis must strictly avoid any contact with peanuts or products that may contain traces of peanuts. For these persons, conventional evaluations with skin prick testing (SPT) and IgE tests may not be sufficient to assess the risk of anaphylaxis. Therefore, we investigated whether the basophil activation test (BAT) could be used for the diagnosis of severe peanut allergy in adults. We compared the non-invasive BAT with conventional laboratory diagnostic tests, including SPT and specific IgE to allergen extracts and components, for the diagnosis of severe peanut allergy.

Methods

Forty-seven persons with severe allergy to peanuts and a clinical diagnosis of anaphylaxis (PA-group), 22 subjects with peanut sensitization (PS-group) and 22 control (C-group) subjects, all in the age range of 18–60 years, were recruited retrospectively and prospectively into the study. Thirty-four patients with peanut allergy and 11 peanut-sensitized patients were sensitized to soy, while 36 patients in the PA-group and 20 patients in the PS-group were sensitized to birch pollen. All the patients and control subjects were investigated with BAT and SPT for responses to peanut, soy and birch extracts and their serum samples were assayed for the presence of specific IgE to peanut, soy and birch extracts, as well as IgE to allergen components (ISAC).

Results

In a multivariate factor analysis, severe peanut allergy (PA) was positively associated with SPT to peanut, IgE to peanut, BAT to peanut and IgE to rAra h 1, 2, 3 and 6 peanut components, as well as to soy components (nGly m 5 and nGly m 6). In contrast, peanut sensitization was positively associated with increased levels of IgE to rAra h 8, birch and birch-related components. BAT-detected reactivity to peanut was significantly higher in patients who had a history of severe allergy to peanuts, as compared with patients who were sensitized to peanuts (p < 0.001), and the receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis showed that BAT had high sensitivity and specificity for predicting severe peanut allergy, with a ROC area under the curve of 0.862. However, in the PA-group, the BAT results for peanut correlated only weakly with the levels of IgE to rAra h 1, 2 and 3 and nAra h 6. Study limitations: oral provocation in the patients with a history of severe peanut allergy could not be performed to compare clinical reactivity with the BAT result due to ethical constraints. Neither was it possible to perform BAT with peanut recombinant allergens which were not available at the time the study commenced

Conclusions

BAT is useful in determining the severity of peanut allergy and may be used as a complementary diagnostic tool to ensure accurate diagnosis of severe peanut allergy in adults. Thus, it may reduce the need to subject these patients to further tests, including an open challenge with peanuts.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13601-015-0064-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Severe Dextran-Induced Anaphylactic Shock during Induction of Hypertension-Hypervolemia-Hemodilution Therapy following Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Dextran is a colloid effective for volume expansion; however, a possible side effect of its use is anaphylaxis. Dextran-induced anaphylactoid reaction (DIAR) is a rare but severe complication, with a small dose of dextran solution sufficient to induce anaphylaxis. An 86-year-old female who underwent clipping for a ruptured cerebral aneurysm was admitted to the intensive care unit. Prophylactic hypertension-hypervolemia-hemodilution therapy was induced for cerebral vasospasm following a subarachnoid hemorrhage. The patient went into severe shock after administration of dextran for volume expansion, and dextran administration was immediately discontinued. The volume administered at that time was only 0.8 mL at the most. After fluid resuscitation with a crystalloid solution, circulatory status began to recover. However, cerebral vasospasm occurred and the patient's neurological condition deteriorated. Five weeks after the shock, she was diagnosed with hypersensitivity to dextran by a skin test. When severe hypotension occurs after dextran administration, appropriate treatments for shock should be performed immediately with discontinuation of dextran solution. Although colloid administration is recommended in some guidelines and researches, it is necessary to consider concerning the indication for volume expansion as well as the risk of colloid administration.

Radiocontrast media hypersensitivity in the Asia Pacific region

Radiocontrast media (RCM) is a major cause of drug hypersensitivity reactions as the medical application of RCM is increasing recently. RCM induced hypersensitivity reactions are considered as unpredictable type B reactions. Underlying mechanism of RCM induced hypersensitivity was previously regarded as nonimmunological mechanisms but recent studies suggest that immunological mechanisms could also be involved. As a result, the roles of skin tests and premedication are revisiting. As there has been no report that comprehensively summarized and analyzed the results of the studies on RCM hypersensitivity in the Asia Pacific region, we aimed to review the literatures on hypersensitivity reactions to RCM in terms of prevalence clinical manifestations, diagnostic approach, and preventive measures in the Asia Pacific region.

Basophil activation test with food additives in chronic urticaria patients

The role of food additives in chronic urticaria (CU) is still under investigation. In this study, we aimed to explore the association between food additives and CU by using the basophil activation test (BAT). The BAT using 15 common food additives was performed for 15 patients with CU who had a history of recurrent urticarial aggravation following intake of various foods without a definite food-specific IgE. Of the 15 patients studied, two (13.3%) showed positive BAT results for one of the tested food additives. One patient responded to monosodium glutamate, showing 18.7% of CD203c-positive basophils. Another patient showed a positive BAT result to sodium benzoate. Both patients had clinical correlations with the agents, which were partly determined by elimination diets. The present study suggested that at least a small proportion of patients with CU had symptoms associated with food additives. The results may suggest the potential utility of the BAT to identity the role of food additives in CU.