Evaluation of basophil activation in mastocytosis with Hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis

Predictors of Clonality and Underlying Mastocytosis in Mast Cell Activation Syndromes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Mast cell (MC) activation can present with a wide range of symptoms. The mechanisms that cause such activation are varied. One of them is the presence of clonal MCs which is defined, within other possible changes, by the presence of a somatic, activating mutation in the KIT gene. The clinical course and prognosis of patients with this underlying disease may be different from other causes of MC activation (MCA). For this reason, it is important to early diagnose, or at least suspect, which patients with MCA are due to clonal MCs.

RECENT FINDINGS

The diagnosis of clonality must be made in a comprehensive manner. However, this paper reviews chronologically each of the stages from the patient's first visit to the doctor's office which can be indicative of clonality: clinical presentation of MCA, physical examination, analytical determinations of tryptase, and/or KIT mutational analysis and bone involvement, among others. The different clonality predictive scores proposed are also reviewed and compared. Although the gold standard for the diagnosis of certainty of MC clonality is the performance of a bone marrow (BM) biopsy, there are clinical symptoms, signs, and biological parameters suggestive of clonality, as well as predictive scores, which can guide (or rule out) an early diagnosis and avoid unnecessary BM biopsies.

[Basophil activation test to follow-up of patients treated with hymenoptera venom immunotherapy: a review of current evidence]

Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (HVI) is a long-term effective treatment to avoid new systemic reactions in patients with Hymenoptera allergy. The sting challenge test is considered the gold standard to confirm the tolerance. However, the use of this technique is not generalized in clinical practice, being the basophil activation test (BAT), which functionally explores allergen response, an alternative that does not entail any of the provocation risks associated with the sting challenge test. This study reviews the publications that used the BAT to follow up and evaluate the success of the HVI. Studies assessing the changes between a baseline BAT before the start and BATs performed between the starting and maintenance phases of the HVI were selected. Ten articles were found, comprising information from 167 patients, of which 29% used the sting challenge test. The studies concluded the importance of evaluating the responses with submaximal allergen concentrations, which reflect basophil sensitivity, to monitor the HVI using the BAT. It was also observed that changes in the maximum response (reactivity) could not reflect the clinical status of tolerance, particularly in the initial phases of HVI.

Basophil activation test as alternative method to CAP-inhibition in patients with double sensitization to vespid venoms

Most patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) to vespid venoms present double sensitization by specific IgE (sIgE)-mediated cross-reactivity. Thus, it is mandatory could discriminate between a true double and primary sensitization to implement an accurate venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT). To date, CAP-inhibition is the reference method in the diagnosis of cross-reactivity in double sensitized patients to vespid venoms, being the results obtained with the component resolved diagnostics (CRD) conflicting. For this, we have studied in a cohort of double sensitized patients to Vespula vulgaris (VV) and Polistes dominulus (PD) venoms (n = 40) the diagnostic accuracy of CRD using the CAP-inhibition as reference method, as well as to investigate whether basophil activation test (BAT) is an alternative method for inconclusive results obtained by CAP-inhibition. CAP-inhibition showed a sensitivity of 59.46 % in view of the indeterminate results; most patients had true double sensitization (54.5 %), followed by single sensitization to PD (27.27 %) and VV (18.18 %) venoms. CRD based on rVes v 5/rPol d 5 (or vice versa) ratio as well as whole extracts I3/I77 (or vice versa) ratio (specific IgE-I3 to VV/specific IgE-I77 to PD) showed a low diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.504, p = 0.974; AUC = 0.35, p = 0.235; respectively). BAT was determined in parallel with CAP-inhibition in 12 patients, presented higher sensitivity than CAP-inhibition (p = 0.021) and a positive agreement of 71.43 %. Likewise it was able to identify 100% of inconclusive results, showing a specificity of 83.3 %. Therefore, CRD is not a suitable method to distinguish monosensitization and BAT appears to be an appropriate method resolving indeterminate results from the gold standard method.

Component-resolved diagnosis in hymenoptera allergy

Component-resolved diagnosis based on the use of well-defined, properly characterised and purified natural and recombinant allergens constitutes a new approach in the diagnosis of venom allergy. Prospective readers may benefit from an up-to-date review on the allergens. The best characterised venom is that of Apis mellifera, whose main allergens are phospholipase A2 (Api m1), hyaluronidase (Api m2) and melittin (Api m4). Additionally, in recent years, new allergens of Vespula vulgaris have been identified and include phospholipase A1 (Ves v1), hyaluronidase (Ves v2) and antigen 5 (Ves v5). Polistes species are becoming an increasing cause of allergy in Europe, although only few allergens have been identified in this venom. In this review, we evaluate the current knowledge about molecular diagnosis in hymenoptera venom allergy.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy of Hymenoptera venom allergy - also a matter of diagnosis

Stings of hymenoptera can induce IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions in venom-allergic patients, ranging from local up to severe systemic reactions and even fatal anaphylaxis. Allergic patients' quality of life can be mainly improved by altering their immune response to tolerate the venoms by injecting increasing venom doses over years. This venom-specific immunotherapy is highly effective and well tolerated. However, component-resolved information about the venoms has increased in the last years. This knowledge is not only able to improve diagnostics as basis for an accurate therapy, but was additionally used to create tools which enable the analysis of therapeutic venom extracts on a molecular level. Therefore, during the last decade the detailed knowledge of the allergen composition of hymenoptera venoms has substantially improved diagnosis and therapy of venom allergy. This review focuses on state of the art diagnostic and therapeutic options as well as on novel directions trying to improve therapy.

Mastocytosis and Anaphylaxis

This article updates current knowledge on epidemiology, risk factors, triggers, and management of anaphylaxis in patients with mastocytosis. Hyperactive mast cells and higher number of effector mast cells are speculated to facilitate anaphylaxis in this condition. In children, increased risk is limited to those with extensive skin involvement and high tryptase. In adults, manifestations of anaphylaxis are severe with high frequency of cardiovascular symptoms. Hymenoptera stings are the most common triggers for these reactions; however, idiopathic anaphylaxis and reactions to food or drugs occur. Patients with mastocytosis should be informed about risk of anaphylaxis and prescribing emergency self-medication and installing emergency preparedness before general anesthesia is considered.

Hymenoptera Allergy and Mast Cell Activation Syndromes

Mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS) can be diagnosed in patients with recurrent, severe symptoms from mast cell (MC)-derived mediators, which are transiently increased in serum and are attenuated by mediator-targeting drugs. When KIT-mutated, clonal MC are detected in these patients, a diagnosis of primary MCAS can be made. Severe systemic reactions to hymenoptera venom (HV) represent the most common form of anaphylaxis in patients with mastocytosis. Patients with primary MCAS and HV anaphylaxis are predominantly males and do not have skin lesions in the majority of cases, and anaphylaxis is characterized by hypotension and syncope in the absence of urticaria and angioedema. A normal value of tryptase (≤11.4 ng/ml) in these patients does not exclude a diagnosis of mastocytosis. Patients with primary MCAS and HV anaphylaxis have to undergo lifelong venom immunotherapy, in order to prevent further potentially fatal severe reactions.

Stinging insect allergy: current perspectives on venom immunotherapy

Systemic allergic reactions to insect stings affect up to 5% of the population during their lifetime, and up to 32% of beekeepers. Such reactions can be fatal, albeit very rarely, and fear of a further systemic reaction (SR) can lead to significant anxiety and quality of life impairment. A recent Cochrane systematic review confirmed that venom immunotherapy (VIT) is an effective treatment for people who have had a systemic allergic reaction to an insect sting. VIT reduces risk of a further SR (relative risk 0.10, 95% confidence interval 0.03-0.28), but VIT also reduces risk of a future large local reaction, and significantly improves disease-specific quality of life. However, health economic analysis showed that VIT is generally not cost effective for preventing future SRs; most people are stung infrequently, most SRs resolve without long-term consequences, and a fatal outcome is extremely rare. VIT only becomes cost effective if one is stung frequently (eg, beekeepers) or if quality of life improvement is considered. Thus, for most people with insect sting allergy, anxiety and quality of life impairment should be the overriding consideration when making treatment decisions, highlighting the importance of a patient-centered approach. Areas which need to be explored in future research include efforts to improve the safety and convenience of VIT such as the use of sublingual immunotherapy; quality of life effects of venom allergy in children and adolescents as well as their parents; and the optimal duration of treatment.

Venom immunotherapy: an updated review

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the most effective form of specific immunotherapy to date. Hitherto, several relevant queries remain unanswered, namely optimal doses, duration, and means of assessment. Important progress has been lately made in terms of diagnosis by means of component-resolved diagnosis. Moreover, basophil activation test results in patients with negative serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) and skin prick test confer this technique a promising future, although these outcomes shall be considered with caution. This review aims to unravel the important advances made on diagnosis, management, and prognosis and also focuses on several undetermined aspects of VIT.

In vitro diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy and further development of component resolved diagnostics

For most people Hymenoptera stings result in transient and bothersome local inflammatory responses characterized by pain, itching, redness and swelling. In contrast, for those presenting an IgE-mediated allergic reaction, a re-sting may cause life-threatening reactions. In such patients, correct diagnosis is an absolute prerequisite for effective management, i.e. venom-specific immunotherapy. Generally, identification of the offending insect involves a detailed history along with quantification of venom-specific IgE antibodies and venom skin tests. Unfortunately, due to uncertainties associated with both tests, correct diagnosis is not always straightforward. This review summarizes the potentials and limitations of the various in vitro tests that are currently being used in the diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy. Particular attention is paid to the potential of novel cellular tests such as basophil activation tests and component-resolved diagnosis with recombinant venom allergens in the diagnostic approach of patients with difficult diagnosis, i.e. cases in whom traditional venom specific IgE and skin tests yield equivocal or negative results. Finally, this review also covers the recent discoveries in the field of proteome research of Hymenoptera venoms and the selection of cell types for recombinant allergens production.

Basophil activation test in the diagnosis and monitoring of mastocytosis patients with wasp venom allergy on immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

There is need for an accurate diagnostic test in mastocytosis patients with wasp venom allergy (WVA) and monitoring of these patients during immunotherapy (IT). In this study, we aimed to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of the Basophil Activation Test (BAT) as a diagnostic and monitoring test in patients with mastocytosis and WVA.

METHODS

Seventeen patients with mastocytosis and WVA and six mastocytosis patients without WVA were included. BAT was performed before the start of IT (first visit) and at 6 weeks (second visit) and 1 year (third visit), after reaching the maintenance dose. Of 17 patients included, 11 completed the third visit. In mastocytosis patients with WVA, dose-dependent wasp-venom induced upregulation of CD63 and CD203c expression on basophils was observed compared with mastocytosis patients without WVA. Serum specific IgE, IgG4, and tryptase levels were measured in all patients.

RESULTS

BAT had a sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 100% in diagnosing WVA in mastocytosis patients. Basophil allergen threshold sensitivity with respect to CD63 and CD203c was significantly decreased in the second visit compared with the first visit and increased significantly in the third visit compared with the second visit. Specific IgE levels increased significantly in the second visit compared with first and decreased significantly in the third visit compared with the second. Specific IgG4 levels rose significantly in the second visit compared with the first and on the third visit compared with the second. Tryptase levels did not change significantly during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

BAT represents a diagnostic test with 100% specificity in allergic patients with mastocytosis and these patients are better to be monitored for a longer period during IT.

Nonaggressive systemic mastocytosis (SM) without skin lesions associated with insect-induced anaphylaxis shows unique features versus other indolent SM

BACKGROUND

Indolent systemic mastocytosis (ISM) without skin lesions (ISMs(-)) shows a higher prevalence in males, lower serum baseline tryptase levels, and KIT mutation more frequently restricted to bone marrow (BM) mast cells (MCs) than ISM with skin lesions (ISMs(+)). Interestingly, in almost one-half of ISMs(-) patients, MC-mediator release episodes are triggered exclusively by insects.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the clinical and laboratory features of ISMs(-) associated with insect-induced anaphylaxis (insectISMs(-)) versus other patients with ISM.

METHODS

A total of 335 patients presenting with MC activation syndrome, including 143 insectISMs(-), 72 ISMs(-) triggered by other factors (otherISMs(-)), 56 ISMs(+), and 64 nonclonal MC activation syndrome, were studied.

RESULTS

Compared with otherISMs(-) and ISMs(+) patients, insectISMs(-) cases showed marked male predominance (78% vs 53% and 46%; P < .001), a distinct pattern of MC-related symptoms, and significantly lower median serum baseline tryptase levels (22.4 vs 28.7 and 45.8 μg/L; P ≤ .009). Moreover, insectISMs(-) less frequently presented BM MC aggregates (46% vs 70% and 81%; P ≤ .001), and they systematically showed MC-restricted KIT mutation.

CONCLUSIONS

ISMs(-) patients with anaphylaxis triggered exclusively by insects display clinical and laboratory features that are significantly different from other ISM cases, including other ISMs(-) and ISMs(+) patients, suggesting that they represent a unique subgroup of ISM with a particularly low BM MC burden in the absence of adverse prognostic factors.

Insect anaphylaxis: where are we? The stinging facts 2012

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Insect allergy remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. In 2011, the third iteration of the stinging insect hypersensitivity practice parameter was published, the first being published in 1999 and the second in 2004. Since the 2004 edition, our understanding of insect hypersensitivity has continued to expand and has been incorporated into the 2011 edition. This work will review the relevant changes in the management of insect hypersensitivity occurring since 2004 and present our current understanding of the insect hypersensitivity diagnosis and management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the 2004 commissioning by the Joint Task Force (JTF) on Practice Parameters of 'Stinging insect hypersensitivity: a practice parameter update', there have been important contributions to our understanding of insect allergy. These contributions were incorporated into the 2011 iteration. Similar efforts were made by the European Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology Interest Group in 2005 and most recently in 2011 by the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

SUMMARY

Our understanding of insect allergy, including the natural history, epidemiology, diagnostic testing, and risk factors, has greatly expanded. This evolution of knowledge should provide improved long-term management of stinging insect hypersensitivity. This review will focus primarily on the changes between the 2004 and 2011 stinging insect practice parameter commissioned by the JTF on Practice Parameters, but will, where appropriate, highlight the differences between working groups.

The role of basophil activation test in special populations with mastocytosis and reactions to hymenoptera sting

BACKGROUND

Systemic mastocytosis (SM) may be associated with hymenoptera allergy. In such cases, immunotherapy is a life-saving treatment, but a circumstantiated diagnosis is needed for its prescription. Patients with SM and previous reactions to stings, but with negative tests represent a diagnostic dilemma. The basophil activation test (BAT) may be helpful in refining the diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the usefulness of BAT in subpopulations of mastocytosis patients, including those with negative tests for insect allergy.

METHODS

Within a population of patients with mastocytosis and previous stings, we studied by BAT and augmented intradermal test (IDT) (10 µg/ml) two groups: (1) with reactions to stings and negative tests; (2) without reactions and negative tests. Basophil activation test was performed with different venoms, assessing at flow cytometry basophils' activation.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients had mastocytosis and 52 had reactions to previous hymenoptera stings. Of them, seven proved negative to diagnostic tests. In six of seven of those patients, BAT was negative with all venoms, and in one, basophils resulted activated also with the negative control. In six patients without previous reactions and negative tests, BAT was totally negative in five of six patients and weakly positive to Hornet in one. Finally, the IDT at 10 µg/ml venom produced nonspecific positive results in most cases.

CONCLUSION

In patients with mastocytosis, the negative results of standard tests are reliable, because BAT and IDT at higher concentration do not add useful information.

Update on diagnosis and treatment of mastocytosis

Mastocytosis is a disorder characterized by increased numbers of mast cells in tissues. Recent clinical observations highlight the association of mastocytosis with an increased risk of anaphylaxis and underline the diversity of this disease. At the molecular level, recent studies have attempted to unravel specific gene expression profiles for activating c-kit mutations in the etiology of mastocytosis. The diagnosis may be facilitated by surrogate markers and detection of aberrant immunophenotypic surface markers. New therapeutic strategies are in development based on intracellular signal pathways, or on application of topical treatments, as are novel forms of cytoreductive therapy, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors.