Negativization rates of IgE radioimmunoassay and basophil activation test in immediate reactions to penicillins

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.

Recent developments and highlights in biomarkers in allergic diseases and asthma

The potential of precision medicine in allergy and asthma has only started to be explored. A significant clarification in the pathophysiology of rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, asthma, food allergy and drug hypersensitivity was made in the last decade. This improved understanding led to a better classification of the distinct phenotypes and to the discovery of new drugs such as biologicals, targeting phenotype-specific mechanisms. Nevertheless, many conditions remain poorly understood such as non-eosinophilic airway diseases or non-IgE-mediated food allergy. Moreover, there is a need to predict the response to specific therapies and the outcome of drug and food provocations. The identification of patients at risk of progression towards severity is also an unmet need in order to establish adequate preventive or therapeutic measures. The implementation of precision medicine in the clinical practice requires the identification of phenotype-specific markers measurable in biological matrices. To become useful, these biomarkers need to be quantifiable by reliable systems, and in samples obtained in an easy, rapid and cost-efficient way. In the last years, significant research resources have been put in the identification of valid biomarkers for asthma and allergic diseases. This review summarizes these recent advances with focus on the biomarkers with higher clinical applicability.

Prospective assessment of diagnostic tests for pediatric penicillin allergy: From clinical history to challenge tests

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic guidelines for penicillin allergy in children recommend cumbersome protocols based partially on data from adults, which may be suboptimal for pediatric use.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the accuracy of tools for diagnosis of penicillin allergy in children.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter study was conducted in children with reported adverse events related to penicillin, excluding severe reactions. All patients underwent a uniform diagnostic protocol that consisted of clinical history, skin tests, serum specific IgE (sIgE), and, regardless of these results, drug provocation tests (DPTs).

RESULTS

A total of 732 children (mean age, 5.5 years; 51.2% males) completed the allergy workup, including DPTs. Amoxicillin triggered 96.9% of all reactions. None of the patients with an immediate index reaction (IR) developed a reaction on DPT. Penicillin allergy was confirmed in 35 children (4.8%): 6 immediate reactions (17%) and 29 nonimmediate reactions (83%) on the DPT. No severe reactions were recorded. The allergist diagnosis based on the clinical history was not associated with the DPT final outcome. In 30 of 33 allergic patients (91%), the results of all skin tests and sIgE tests were negative. A logistic regression model identified the following to be associated with penicillin allergy: a family history of drug allergy (odds ratio [OR], 3.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-6.89; P = .008), an IR lasting more than 3 days vs 24 hours or less (OR, 8.96; 95% CI, 2.01-39.86; P = .004), and an IR treated with corticosteroids (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.30-5.54; P = .007).

CONCLUSION

Conventional predictors of allergy to penicillin performed weakly. The authors propose straightforward penicillin provocation testing in controlled, experienced centers for the diagnosis of nonsevere penicillin allergy in children.

An EAACI task force report: recognising the potential of the primary care physician in the diagnosis and management of drug hypersensitivity

Adverse drug reactions include drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs), which can be immunologically mediated (allergy) or non-immunologically mediated. The high number of DHRs that are unconfirmed and often self-reported is a frequent problem in daily clinical practice, with considerable impact on future prescription choices and patient health. It is important to distinguish between hypersensitivity and non-hypersensitivity reactions by adopting a structured diagnostic approach to confirm or discard the suspected drug, not only to avoid life-threatening reactions, but also to reduce the frequent over-diagnosis of DHRs. Primary care physicians are often the first point of contact for the sufferer of a reaction, as such they have a key role in deciding whether to discard the diagnosis or send the patient for further investigation. In this review, we highlight the importance of diagnosing DHRs, analysing in detail the role of primary care physicians. We describe the common patterns of DHRs and signs of its progression, as well as the indications and contraindications for referring the patient to an allergist. The diagnostic process is described and the possible tests are discussed, which often depend on the drug involved and the type of DHR suspected. We also describe recommendations regarding the avoidance of medication suspected to have caused the reaction and the use of alternatives.

Evaluation of IFN-γ Enzyme-linked Immunospot Assay (ELISPOT) as a First-line Test in the Diagnosis of Non-Immediate Hypersensitivity to Amoxicillin and Penicillin

The current diagnostic algorithm for beta-lactam allergy is based on skin and provocation tests, both of which carry a certain risk of inducing hypersensitivity reactions. Thus, non-invasive in vitro tests reliable enough to replace skin and provocation tests at least in a portion of patients are desirable. We aimed to verify the utility of IFN-γ ELISPOT as a first-line test in patients with suspected non-immediate hypersensitivity reaction to amoxicillin (AMX) and penicillin (PNC). The prospective observational study included 24 patients with recent, suspected non-immediate hypersensitivity reaction to AMX or PNC and 6 recently-exposed healthy subjects. In vitro tests were performed in all patients and healthy subjects: a) IFN-γ ELISPOT with PNC, AMX and amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid (AMX-CL); b) penicillin specific IgE; c) basophil activation test (BAT). Skin and provocation tests followed only in certain patients. IFN-γ ELISPOT results with PNC and AMX stimulation did not differ from the unstimulated condition. The highest IFN-γ responses to AMX-CL were close to previously published criteria in three patients; one of which had true hypersensitivity according to drug provocation tests. Five patients with confirmed hypersensitivity by skin tests showed no response to the culprit antibiotic on IFN-γ ELISPOT assay. Our results did not support the utility of IFN-γ ELISPOT in the diagnosis of mild, non-immediate hypersensitivity to amoxicillin and penicillin.

Individual risk assessment in the diagnosis of immediate type drug hypersensitivity reactions to betalactam and non-betalactam antibiotics using basophil activation test: a single center experience

BACKGROUND

Drug hypersensitivity reactions of immediate type pose a challenging problem, especially, if standard diagnostic procedures do not lead to conclusive results. The aim of this investigation is to identify, whether basophil activation test (BAT) is able to provide additional benefit in the diagnostic evaluation of immediate type drug hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics in comparison with the routine allergological diagnostic methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We investigated patients, who presented to the Department of Dermatology and Allergology of the University Hospital of RWTH Aachen in Germany for diagnostic workup of type I allergic reactions to antibiotics during the period from 2009 to 2012. The analysis was performed retrospectively based on patient records. The inclusion criteria were performed standard allergological in vivo diagnostic and a BAT as a part of diagnostic workup.

RESULTS

Eighty-two diagnostic investigations were performed in 52 patients. BAT was positive in 9 of 12 cases with a positive clinical history but negative skin test results. Furthermore, all patients who reported severe drug hypersensitivity reactions (anaphylactic reaction grade 2 and above) showed positive BAT (5/5), while only three of these five cases demonstrated a positive skin testing that led to the conclusion of possible immediate type drug hypersensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Although skin tests remain the most important part of the primary diagnostic investigation, BAT is an additional valuable and sensitive in vitro test in the diagnostic procedure of immediate type allergic reactions to antibiotics. However, further standardized investigations are needed in order to calculate exact sensitivity and specificity of this diagnostic tool in both, adult and pediatric populations.

Occupational generalized urticaria and anaphylaxis after inhalation of cefuroxime in a nurse

We present the case of a 53 years old nonatopic female nurse who experienced repeated anaphylactic reactions at work without involvement in drug-specific tasks such as crushing of tablets or preparation of injections. The causal allergen was not identified until a further severe anaphylactic reaction occurred after oral use of cefuroxime during a respiratory infection. Sensitization to cefuroxime was demonstrated by specific IgE, basophil activation test and skin prick test. An inhalation challenge with a dosimeter induced generalized urticaria after a cumulative dose of about 10 μg of the drug, but no asthmatic reaction. Complete exposure cessation was initiated and a 1-year follow-up was without further allergic reactions. We conclude that work-related systemic allergic reactions to β-lactam antibiotics may occur in nurses after inhalation of low doses and without perceived association with drug-specific tasks like handling of antibiotics.

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.

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.

A clinical decision-making algorithm for penicillin allergy

BACKGROUND

About 10% of subjects report suspected penicillin allergy, but 85-90% of these patients are not truly allergic and could safely receive beta-lactam antibiotics Objective: To design and validate a clinical decision-making algorithm, based on anamnesis (chronology, severity, and duration of the suspected allergic reactions) and reaching a 100% sensitivity and negative predictive value, to assess allergy risk related to a penicillin prescription in general practise.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

All patients were included prospectively and explorated based on ENDA/EAACI recommendations. Results of penicillin allergy work-up (gold standard) were compared with results of the algorithm.

RESULTS

Allergological work-up diagnosed penicillin hypersensitivity in 41/259 patients (15.8%) [95% CI: 11.5-20.3]. Three of these patients were diagnosed as having immediate-type hypersensitivity to penicillin, but had been misdiagnosed as low risk patients using the clinical algorithm. Thus, the sensitivity and negative predictive value of the algorithm were 92.7% [95% CI: 80.1-98.5] and 96.3% [95% CI: 89.6-99.2], respectively, and the probability that a patient with true penicillin allergy had been misclassified was 3.7% [95% CI: 0.8-10.4].

CONCLUSIONS

Although the risk of misclassification is low, we cannot recommend the use of this algorithm in general practice. However, the algorithm can be useful in emergency situations in hospital settings. Key messages True penicillin allergy is considerably lower than alleged penicillin allergy (15.8%; 41 of the 259 patients with suspected penicillin allergy). A clinical algorithm based on the patient's clinical history of the supposed allergic event to penicillin misclassified 3/41 (3.7%) truly allergic patients.

Natural evolution in patients with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced urticaria/angioedema

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most frequent triggers of drug hypersensitivity with NSAIDs-induced urticaria/angioedema (NIUA) the most common phenotype. Loss of hypersensitivity has been reported for IgE-mediated reactions; however, it has not been assessed in nonimmunological reactions such as NIUA. We evaluated NSAID-hypersensitivity over time in NIUA patients.

METHODS

Patients confirmed as NIUA by positive drug provocation test (DPT) with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) during 2005-2012 (V1) were included (n=38). Subjects were prospectively re-evaluated by DPT with ASA/other NSAIDs at two time points between 2013 and 2015 (V2 and V3). Atopy was assessed by skin prick test (SPT) using inhalant and food allergens.

RESULTS

Patients were evaluated at V1 and re-evaluated after 60 months (V2; IR:48-81) and a further 18 months (V3; IR:14-24). At V2, the majority (24; 63.15%) tolerated ASA and other NSAIDs (Group A) while 14 (36.84%) still reacted (Group B). At V3, all Group A patients remained tolerant; all Group B patients remained hypersensitive. The number of previous episodes reported at V1 and the percentage of reactions induced by ASA/ibuprofen were significantly lower in Group A (P=.005 and P=.006, respectively). Group A patients developed tolerance 72 months (IR:45-87) after their last evaluated reaction (V1); this interval was shorter in nonatopics (P=.003), patients who experienced reactions over 1 hour after NSAIDs administration (P=.001), and those who experienced isolated urticaria after NSAID intake (P=.024).

CONCLUSIONS

NIUA patients may develop tolerance to NSAIDs over time, a process that seems to be influenced by atopy and type of clinical reaction.

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.

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.

Precision medicine in allergic disease-food allergy, drug allergy, and anaphylaxis-PRACTALL document of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

This consensus document summarizes the current knowledge on the potential for precision medicine in food allergy, drug allergy, and anaphylaxis under the auspices of the PRACTALL collaboration platform. PRACTALL is a joint effort of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, which aims to synchronize the European and American approaches to allergy care. Precision medicine is an emerging approach for disease treatment based on disease endotypes, which are phenotypic subclasses associated with specific mechanisms underlying the disease. Although significant progress has been made in defining endotypes for asthma, definitions of endotypes for food and drug allergy or for anaphylaxis lag behind. Progress has been made in discovery of biomarkers to guide a precision medicine approach to treatment of food and drug allergy, but further validation and quantification of these biomarkers are needed to allow their translation into practice in the clinical management of allergic disease.

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.

Epidemiology, Mechanisms, and Diagnosis of Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is an acute, life-threatening, multisystem syndrome resulting from the sudden release of mediators by mast cells and basophils. Although anaphylaxis is often under-communicated and thus underestimated, its incidence appears to have risen over recent decades. Drugs are among the most common triggers in adults, being analgesics and antibiotics the most common causal agents. Anaphylaxis can be caused by immunologic or non-immunologic mechanisms. Immunologic anaphylaxis can be mediated by IgE-dependent or -independent pathways. The former involves activation of Th2 cells and the cross-linking of two or more specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies on the surface of mast cells or basophils. The IgE-independent mechanism can be mediated by IgG, involving the release of platelet-activating factor, and/or complement activation. Non-immunological anaphylaxis can occur through the direct stimulation of mast cell degranulation by some drugs, inducing histamine release and leading to anaphylactic symptoms. Work-up of a suspected drug-induced anaphylaxis should include clinical history; however, this can be unreliable, and skin tests should also be used if available and validated. Drug provocation testing is not recommended due to the risk of inducing a harmful reaction. In vitro testing can help to confirm anaphylaxis by analyzing the release of mediators such as tryptase or histamine by mast cells. When immunologic mechanisms are suspected, serum-sIgE quantification or the use of the basophil activation test can help confirm the culprit drug. In this review, we will discuss multiple aspects of drug-induced anaphylaxis, including epidemiology, mechanisms, and diagnosis.

Evolution of diagnostic approaches in betalactam hypersensitivity

INTRODUCTION

Betalactams are the most widely used drugs against infections and the primary cause of antibiotic hypersensitivity reactions. Reaction patterns for different betalactams have been changing in accordance with consumption trends, and vary among countries. As a consequence, in vivo and in vitro tests have had to change with to keep up with new tendencies. Areas covered: This review is focused on advances in betalactam hypersensitivity diagnosis. Changes in in vivo methods have been limited to the inclusion of new haptens. In contrast, major progress has been achieved for in vitro tests since the 1960s, from the first description of immunoassays, the basophil activation test and the lymphocyte transformation test, to the more sophisticated assays developed in last years. Expert commentary: Issues with diagnosis are related to test sensitivity. In vivo tests show higher sensitivity, however they can be risky, especially in severe and life-threatening reactions. Therefore, we believe that in vitro tests should be the preferred method. Current efforts are under way to enhance their sensitivity. Only multidisciplinary approaches involving immunology, proteomics, nanotechnology and chemistry can help us to fully understand conjugate structures and mechanisms involved in hypersensitivity reactions to betalactams, and consequently lead to advances in in vitro methods.

Approach to the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions: similarities and differences between Europe and North America

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) affect an unknown proportion of the general population, and are an important public health problem due to their potential to cause life-threatening anaphylaxis and rare severe cutaneous allergic reactions. DHR evaluations are frequently needed in both ambulatory and hospital settings and have a complex diagnosis that requires a detailed clinical history and other tests that may include in vitro tests and in vivo procedures such as skin tests and drug provocation tests. Although over the years both European and U.S. experts have published statements on general procedures for evaluating DHRs, a substantial discordance in their daily management exists. In this review, we highlight both the differences and the similarities between the European and U.S. perspectives. While a general consensus exists on the importance of skin tests for evaluating DHRs, concordance between Americans and Europeans exists solely regarding their use in immediate reactions and the fact that a confirmation of a presumptive diagnosis by drug provocation tests is often the only reliable way to establish a diagnosis. Finally, great heterogeneity exists in the application of in vitro tests, which require further study to be well validated.

Penicillin allergy-getting the label right

Penicillinⁱ allergy is a potentially serious adverse reaction that impacts on antibacterial treatment options. Although it is commonly reported and recorded in medical records, only a minority of patients with a label of penicillin allergy actually have the condition confirmed. The term 'allergy' may be incorrectly applied to adverse reactions that do not have an immunological basis and inappropriate labelling of penicillin allergy can lead to the unnecessary avoidance of penicillins and other beta-lactam antibacterials. Here, we discuss key features that help to distinguish patients at low or high risk of having a true penicillin allergy, summarise what is known about the risk of allergic reactions to other beta-lactam antibacterials in patients with penicillin allergy and discuss the steps to consider when assessing a label of penicillin allergy.

In Vitro Research Tools in the Field of Human Immediate Drug Hypersensitivity and Their Present Use in Small Animal Veterinary Medicine

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) are immune-mediated idiosyncratic adverse drug events. Type I DHR are often referred to as "immediate" and involve B lymphocyte-secreted IgE that bind to the membrane of basophils and mast cells, inducing their degranulation. This review presents various in vitro tests that were developed in the field of human type I HS and implemented as clinical diagnostic tools in human cases of immediate DHR. The respective strengths and weaknesses of each test will be discussed in parallel of validation data such as specificity and sensitivity whenever available. Some of them have also been used as diagnostic tools in veterinary medicine, but not in cases of immediate DHR. Most of these diagnostic tools can be categorized into humoral and cellular tests. The former tests measure serum concentrations of factors, such as histamine, tryptase, and drug-specific IgE. The latter assays quantify markers of drug-induced basophil activation or drug-specific lymphocyte proliferation. Pharmacogenetic markers have also been investigated in immediate DHR, but not as extensively as in non-immediate ones. Throughout, practical aspects and limitations of the tests, as well as sensitivity and specificity parameters, will be presented. In addition, the experience of veterinary medicine with these diagnostic tools will be summarized. However, to date, none of them has ever been reported in a veterinary case of type I DHR.

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.

Quantification of specific IgE antibodies in immediate drug hypersensitivity: More shortcomings than potentials?

BACKGROUND

For many physicians, quantification of serum drug-specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies constitutes the first measure in the diagnostic approach of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHR).

AIM

To review the accuracy and limitations of the main drug-sIgE tests, especially those that are commercially available.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted, using the key-words allergy, diagnosis, drugs, hypersensitivity, specific IgE antibodies; this was complemented by the authors' own experience.

RESULTS

The drugs that have mostly been studied appeared to be β-lactam antibiotics, neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) and morphine, the latter as a biomarker for sensitisation to substituted ammonium structures that constitute the major epitope of NMBA. For β-lactams sensitivity and specificity varied between 0-85% and 52-100%, respectively. For NMBA, sensitivity and specificity varied between 38.5-92% and 92-100%, respectively. With respect to sIgE to morphine it appears this drug to be a sensitive biomarker for sensitisation to rocuronium and suxamethonium but not for atracurium. However, sIgE morphine should not be applied in isolation to diagnose IDHR to NMBA nor opiates.

CONCLUSIONS

Although drug-sIgE assay can provide valuable information they should not be performed in isolation to establish correct diagnosis, as their predictive value is not per se absolute. Larger comprehensive studies are urgently required to determine the accuracy of drug-sIgE assays.

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.

Pyrazolones metabolites are relevant for identifying selective anaphylaxis to metamizole

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most common cause of hypersensitivity reactions, with pyrazolones the most frequent drugs inducing selective reactions. Immediate selective hypersensitivity to pyrazolones is thought to be mediated by specific-IgE. Sensitivity of in vitro diagnostic tests is low and this may be due to the incomplete characterization of the structures involved. Here we investigated whether main metabolites of metamizole (dipyrone) in human could be involved in the immune response using the basophil activation test (BAT). We studied subjects with confirmed selective immediate hypersensitivity to metamizole and performed BAT with metamizole and its metabolites: 4-methylamino-antipyrine (MAA), 4-aminoantipyrine (AA), 4-acetylamino-antipyrine (AAA) and 4-formylamino-antipyrine (FAA). BAT results showed an increase of positive results from 37.5% to 62.5% using metamizole plus metabolites as compared with the BAT carried out only with the parent drug, demonstrating that metamizole metabolites have a role in the reaction and can induce specific basophil activation in patients with immediate hypersensitivity to this drug. Our findings indicate that pyrazolone metabolites are useful for improving the in vitro diagnosis of allergic reactions to metamizole.

Role of Histamine Release Test for the Evaluation of Patients with Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions to Clavulanic Acid

BACKGROUND

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to clavulanic acid (CLV) seem to be on the increase. Diagnosis is mainly based on skin testing and the drug provocation test (DPT), procedures that are not risk free. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the histamine release test (HRT) could help evaluate patients with selective hypersensitivity to CLV.

METHODS

Eighteen patients with immediate selective hypersensitivity reactions to CLV (positive skin tests to CLV but negative to the major and minor determinants of benzylpenicillin and amoxicillin; negative DPT to benzylpenicillin and amoxicillin) and 21 controls with tolerance to CLV were included. Direct and passive HRT, using patient whole blood or 'IgE-stripped' donor blood sensitized by patient serum, respectively, were performed by stimulating the blood with CLV, and basophil histamine release was detected by fluorometric determination.

RESULTS

The clinical symptoms were anaphylaxis (n = 6), urticaria (n = 9) and urticaria-angioedema (n = 3). The median time interval between the reaction and the study was 225 days (interquartile range, IQR: 120-387.5) and between drug intake and the development of symptoms 30 min (IQR: 6.25-30). We obtained similar data for both the direct and passive HRT, with a sensitivity and specificity of 55 and 85%, respectively, a positive predictive value of 76% and a negative predictive value of 69%.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity of both the direct and passive HRT for diagnosing patients with immediate allergy to CLV is less than 60%. However, the passive HRT has the advantage that it is based on the testing of serum samples that can be handled more easily than fresh blood samples.

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.

Differential Plasma-cell evolution is linked with Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus immunotherapy response

Allergic rhinitis is highly prevalent worldwide. Immunotherapy has been shown to control its symptoms, however, up to 30% of patients may not respond. Previous studies of the immunological mechanisms involved in allergen-immunotherapy (AIT) have focused on the humoral and T-cell response and several studies have evaluated some B-cell subpopulations during AIT and their role in immunological tolerance. However, although B and plasma-cell subpopulations are two of the most important cellular subtypes involved in allergic reactions, their relation with AIT efficacy remains unelucidated. The objective was to analyze the effects of immunotherapy on different B and plasma-cell subpopulations and whether these changes correlate with the clinical response to the treatment. Although no changes are found in B-cell subpopulations, responder patients show increased levels of memory B-cells even before the beginning of treatment. Changes in plasma-cell subpopulations are found, mainly in circulating inflammatory plasma-cells that could affect the response to the allergen. Moreover, an early increase of specific-IgG4 and IgG4 secreting-cells was found. All these suggest that the determination of the memory B-cells before the initiation of the treatment, and the quantification of IgG4 and IgG4-secreting-cells in the first months of immunotherapy, could serve as markers for the clinical response to treatment.

Management of allergy to penicillins and other beta-lactams

The Standards of Care Committee of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) and an expert panel have prepared this guidance for the management of immediate and non-immediate allergic reactions to penicillins and other beta-lactams. The guideline is intended for UK specialists in both adult and paediatric allergy and for other clinicians practising allergy in secondary and tertiary care. The recommendations are evidence based, but where evidence is lacking, the panel reached consensus. During the development of the guideline, all BSACI members were consulted using a Web-based process and all comments carefully considered. Included in the guideline are epidemiology of allergic reactions to beta-lactams, molecular structure, formulations available in the UK and a description of known beta-lactam antigenic determinants. Sections on the value and limitations of clinical history, skin testing and laboratory investigations for both penicillins and cephalosporins are included. Cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins is discussed in detail. Recommendations on oral provocation and desensitization procedures have been made. Guidance for beta-lactam allergy in children is given in a separate section. An algorithm to help the clinician in the diagnosis of patients with a history of penicillin allergy has also been included.

In vitro testing for diagnosis of idiosyncratic adverse drug reactions: Implications for pathophysiology

Idiosyncratic drug reactions (IDRs) represent a major health problem, as they are unpredictable, often severe and can be life threatening. The low incidence of IDRs makes their detection during drug development stages very difficult causing many post-marketing drug withdrawals and black box warnings. The fact that IDRs are always not predictable based on the drug's known pharmacology and have no clear dose-effect relationship with the culprit drug renders diagnosis of IDRs very challenging, if not impossible, without the aid of a reliable diagnostic test. The drug provocation test (DPT) is considered the gold standard for diagnosis of IDRs but it is not always safe to perform on patients. In vitro tests have the advantage of bearing no potential harm to patients. However, available in vitro tests are not commonly used clinically because of lack of validation and their complex and expensive procedures. This review discusses the current role of in vitro diagnostic testing for diagnosis of IDRs and gives a brief account of their technical and mechanistic aspects. Advantages, disadvantages and major challenges that prevent these tests from becoming mainstream diagnostic tools are also discussed here.

Guideline for the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions: S2K-Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) and the German Dermatological Society (DDG) in collaboration with the Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the German Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the Austrian Society for Allergology and Immunology (ÖGAI), the German Academy of Allergology and Environmental Medicine (DAAU), the German Center for Documentation of Severe Skin Reactions and the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Products (BfArM)

Drug hypersensitivity reactions are unpredictable adverse drug reactions. They manifest either within 1–6 h following drug intake (immediate reactions) with mild to life-threatening symptoms of anaphylaxis, or several hours to days later (delayed reactions), primarily as exanthematous eruptions. It is not always possible to detect involvement of the immune system (allergy). Waiving diagnostic tests can result in severe reactions on renewed exposure on the one hand, and to unjustified treatment restrictions on the other. With this guideline, experts from various specialist societies and institutions have formulated recommendations and an algorithm for the diagnosis of allergies. The key principles of diagnosing allergic/hypersensitivity drug reactions are presented. Where possible, the objective is to perform allergy diagnostics within 4 weeks–6 months following the reaction. A clinical classification of symptoms based on the morphology and time course of the reaction is required in order to plan a diagnostic work-up. In the case of typical symptoms of a drug hypersensitivity reaction and unequivocal findings from validated skin and/or laboratory tests, a reaction can be attributed to a trigger with sufficient confidence. However, skin and laboratory tests are often negative or insufficiently reliable. In such cases, controlled provocation testing is required to clarify drug reactions. This method is reliable and safe when attention is paid to indications and contraindications and performed under appropriate medical supervision. The results of the overall assessment are discussed with the patient and documented in an „allergy passport“ in order to ensure targeted avoidance in the future and allow the use of alternative drugs where possible.

Positive serum specific IgE has a short half-life in patients with penicillin allergy and reversal does not always indicate tolerance

Background

The positive and negative predictive values of specific IgE to penicillins are not well established for penicillin hypersensitivity. One reason may be that serum IgE levels to penicillin diminish over time. The objective in this study was to investigate variations in serum half-life (T½) for specific IgE to penicillins (s-IgE) and to evaluate the outcome of penicillin challenges in patients with previous but not present specific IgE to penicillins.

Methods

Two subgroups were investigated. All included patients had a history of penicillin allergy with reported symptoms such as urticaria/angioedema or unclassified cutaneous rash. T½ of specific IgE to penicillins was calculated based on sera from 29 patients with repeated measurements of s-IgE. Twenty-two patients with a previous positive s-IgE was followed and challenged with penicillin when IgE had become negative.

Results

The T½ for s-IgE varied between the 26 patients with decreasing s-IgE from 1.6 months to 76.4 months and 52% had a T½ of less than a year. The three patients with stable and increasing IgE-values showed T½ approaching infinity A total of 29 challenges with β-lactams were performed. Four different patterns were seen when evaluating the clinical reaction to challenge (positive/negative) and post-challenge boost of s-IgE (yes/no). Eight (36.4%) had negative challenge and negative post-challenge s-IgE, eight (36.4%) negative challenge, but positive post-challenge s-IgE levels. 3 (13.6%) had positive challenge and positive post-challenge s-IgE whereas 3 (13.6%) were challenge positive, but had negative post-challenge s-IgE.

Conclusion

Specific IgE to penicillins declines over time stressing the importance of a close time relation between diagnostic work-up and clinical reaction. Reversal of previously positive s-IgE may still be associated with positive penicillin challenges and/or re-boostering of s-IgE to positivity.