Mast cell activation test in chlorhexidine allergy: a proof of concept

Mast cell versus basophil activation test in allergy: Current status

In the past two decades, we witnessed the evolution of the basophil activation test (BAT) from mainly research applications to a potential complementary diagnostic tool to document IgE-dependent allergies. However, BAT presents some technical weaknesses. Around 10%-15% of tested patients are non-responders, BAT can be negative immediately post-reaction and the use of fresh basophils, ideally analysed within 4 h of collection, restricts the number of tests that can be performed per sample. The need for fresh basophils is especially limiting when conducting batch analyses and interlaboratory comparisons to harmonize BAT methodology. These limitations significantly hinder the wider application of BAT and urge the development of alternative testing, such as the mast cell activation test (MAT). The essential difference between BAT and MAT is the heterogeneity of the starting material used to perform the assays. Mast cells are tissue-resident, so cannot be easily accessed. Current alternative sources for functional studies are generating primary human mast cells, differentiated from donor progenitor cells, or using immortalized mast cell lines. Hence, the methodological approaches for MAT are not only vastly different from BAT, but also different among MAT protocols. This review summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of BAT and MAT assays, dedicating special attention to elucidating the key differences between the cellular sources used and provides an overview of studies hitherto performed comparing BAT and MAT in the diagnosis of IgE-mediated food and drug allergies.

Detecting Changes in Mast Cell Numbers Versus Activation in Human Disease: A Roadblock for Current Biomarkers?

The pathophysiology of mast cell (MC)-driven disorders is diverse, ranging from localized reactions to systemic disorders caused by abnormal accumulation and activation in multiorgan systems. Prompt and accurate diagnosis is critically important, both for informing treatment and objective assessment of treatment outcomes. As new therapeutics are being developed to deplete MCs or silence them (eg, by engaging inhibitory receptors that block activation), new biomarkers are needed that can distinguish between MC activation versus burden. Serum tryptase is the gold standard for assessing both MC burden and activation; however, commercial tryptase assays have limitations related to timing of release, lack of discernment between inactive (α) and active (β) forms of tryptase, and interpatient variability of baseline levels. Alternative approaches to measuring MC activation include urinary MC mediators, flow cytometry-based assays or gene expression profiling. Additional markers of MC activation are needed for use in clinical diagnostics, to help selection of treatment of MC diseases, and for assessing outcomes of therapy. We review the spectrum of disorders with known or suspected MC contribution, describe the utility and limitations of current MC markers and assays, and discuss the need for new markers that can differentiate between MC activation and burden.

Comparison of the passive mast cell activation test with the basophil activation test for diagnosis of perioperative rocuronium hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

Rocuronium is a major cause of perioperative hypersensitivity (POH). Skin tests (STs) and quantification of specific immunoglobulin E antibodies (sIgEs) can yield incongruent results. In such difficult cases, the basophil activation test (BAT) can be helpful. Here, we evaluated the passive mast cell activation test (pMAT) as a substitute of BAT as part of the diagnostic tests for rocuronium allergy.

METHODS

Sera from patients with a suspected POH reaction potentially related to rocuronium were included. All patients had a complete diagnostic investigation, including STs, quantification of sIgEs to morphine and rocuronium, and BAT. For execution of pMAT, human mast cells were generated from healthy donor peripheral blood CD34+ progenitor cells and sensitised overnight with patient sera.

RESULTS

In total, 90 sera were studied: 41 from ST+sIgE+ patients, 13 from ST-sIgE- patients, 20 from ST+sIgE- patients, and 16 from ST-sIgE+ patients. According to BAT results, patients were further allocated into subgroups. Of the 38 BAT+ patients, 25 (66%) showed a positive pMAT as well. Of the 44 BAT- patients, 43 (98%) also showed a negative pMAT. Mast cells that were not passively sensitised did not respond to rocuronium.

CONCLUSIONS

We show that the pMAT, in many cases, can substitute for BAT in the diagnosis of rocuronium hypersensitivity and advance diagnosis in difficult cases with uncertain ST or sIgE results when BAT is not locally available.

The Value of Current Laboratory Tests in Diagnosing Food, Venom, and Drug Allergies

An accurate diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergies is necessary to inform risk management for severe allergic reactions including anaphylaxis for food, venom, and drug allergies. The most widely available laboratory test for allergy is serum-specific IgE testing, which is routinely used for food allergy and insect sting allergy. Testing for specific IgE is limited by high sensitivity and low specificity, resulting in concern regarding overdiagnosis. Testing of allergen components has led to improved diagnosis for some food and venom allergens. Additional options for laboratory tests, such as epitope analysis, basophil activation, and mast cell activation, are being investigated for their potential to optimize diagnosis and provide predictors for reaction severity and treatment response. In contrast, laboratory testing for drug allergy is more limited because to date, there are no well-validated commercial assays in the United States. Furthermore, it is important to diagnose delayed reactions to medications, because these also significantly affect decision-making regarding therapeutic options for infectious disorders. Reliable tests for both immediate and delayed drug hypersensitivity are much needed, because drug allergy labels can significantly limit treatment options for patients. Research in this area is emerging.

Perioperative anaphylaxis: when the allergological work-up goes negative

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) is rare but is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Patients are referred to the allergist to identify the mechanism of the reaction, the causative agent and make recommendations regarding subsequent anaesthesia. Despite a well conducted allergological evaluation, the causative agent is not found in 30-60% of these reactions, leaving patients without a well established diagnosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several mechanisms can induce POA. In addition to the well known IgE-mediated reactions, IgG-mediated reaction, MRGPR-X2-related reaction or nonspecific histamine release may be involved. These situations are not easily assessed by the allergological workup.

SUMMARY

When the allergological workup is negative, the situation should be reassessed with the team present at the time of the reaction to confirm the reality of the hypersensitivity reaction and to search for a possible differential diagnosis. If POA is confirmed, the allergological evaluation should be repeated, ensuring proper execution according to current guidelines and including the search for hidden allergens. Specific IgE assays or basophil activation tests may be of interest. In case of negative results, a closely monitored drug challenge test, in coordination with the anaesthesia teams, may be useful to avoid the exclusion of any drug injected during the reaction.

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to antineoplastic agents - A practical guide for the oncologist

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) to antineoplastic agents occur frequently, and every oncologist will encounter these reactions in their clinical practice at some point. The clinical signature of IHRs can range from mild to life-threatening, and their occurrence can substantially impede the treatment course of patients with cancer. Yet, clear guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management are scarce, especially from an oncologic point of view. Therefore, herein, we review the definition, pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis and management of IHRs to chemotherapeutic agents and monoclonal antibodies. First, we focus on defining the specific entities that comprise IHRs and discuss their underlying mechanisms. Then, we summarize the epidemiology for the antineoplastic agents that represent the most common causes of IHRs, i.e., platinum compounds, taxanes and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Next, we describe the possible clinical pictures and the comprehensive diagnostic work-up that should be executed to identify the culprit and safe alternatives for the future. Finally, we finish with reviewing the treatment options in both the acute phase and after recovery, with the aim to improve the oncologic care of patients with cancer.

A quarter of a century fundamental and translational research in perioperative hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis at the Antwerp university hospital, a Belgian Centre of Excellence of the World Allergy Organization

Perioperative hypersensitivity constitutes an important health issue, with potential dramatic consequences of diagnostic mistakes. However, safe and correct diagnosis is not always straightforward, mainly because of the application of incorrect nomenclature, absence of easy accessible in-vitro/ex-vivo tests and uncertainties associated with the non-irritating skin test concentrations. In this editorial we summarize the time line, seminal findings, and major realizations of 25 years of research on the mechanisms, diagnosis, and management of perioperative hypersensitivity.

Opioid toxicity: histamine, hypersensitivity, and MRGPRX2

Insights into the pathophysiology of many non-immune-mediated drug reactions referred to as toxicities, sensitivities, intolerances, or pseudoallergies have resulted from research identifying the mastocyte-related G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) member X2 (MRGPRX2), a human mast cell receptor mediating adverse reactions without the involvement of antibody priming. Opioid-induced degranulation of mast cells, particularly morphine, provoking release of histamine and other preformed mediators and causing hemodynamic and cutaneous changes seen as flushing, headache and wheal and flare reactions in the skin, is an example of results of MRGPRX2 activation. Opioids including morphine, codeine, dextromethorphan and metazocine as well as endogenous prodynorphin opioid peptides activate MRGPRX2 at concentrations causing mast cell degranulation. Unlike the canonical opioid receptors, MRGPRX2 shows stereochemical recognition preference for dextro rather than levo opioid enantiomers. Opioid analgesic drugs (OADs) display a range of histamine-releasing potencies from the strong releaser morphine to doubtful releasers like hydromorphone and the non-releaser fentanyl. Whether there is a correlation between histamine release by individual OADs, MRGPRX2 activation, and presence or absence of adverse cutaneous effects is not known. To investigate the question, ongoing research with recently pursued methodologies and strategies employing basophil and mast cell tests resulting from MRGPRX2 insights should help to elucidate whether or not an opioid's histamine-releasing potency, and its property of provoking an adverse reaction, are each a reflection of its activation of MRGPRX2.

Perioperative Hypersensitivity Evaluation and Management: A Practical Approach

Perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) is an uncommon, potentially life-threatening event. Identification of POH can be difficult given the lack of familiarity, physiological effects of anesthesia, draping of the patient during surgery, and potential nonimmunological factors contributing to signs and symptoms. Given the unique nature and large number of medications administered in the perioperative setting, evaluation of POH can be challenging. In this paper, we present a practical approach to management with an emphasis on understanding what happens in the operating room, the overlap of signs and symptoms between nonimmunological and immunological reactions, acute management, and subsequent evaluation. In addition, we provide a strategy for further review of an initially negative evaluation and emphasize the importance of establishing management plans for the patient as well as providing recommendations to the medical, anesthesia, and surgical teams for future surgeries. A critical factor for successful management at all points in the process is a close collaboration between the anesthesia and the allergy teams.

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.

Mast cell activation test: A new asset in the investigation of the chlorhexidine cross-sensitization profile

BACKGROUND

Insights into the IgE cross-sensitization and possible cross-reactivity patterns of sera reactive to chlorhexidine (CHX) are still incomplete and are likely to benefit from a functional exploration using a passive mast cell activation test (pMAT). Therefore, we want to study whether the pMAT with CHX-specific IgE (sIgE) enables to depict effector cell degranulation in response to alexidine (ALX), octenidine (OCT) and/or polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) indicative of cross-reactivity between these compounds and CHX.

METHODS

Serum of 10 CHX-allergic patients, nine individuals with an isolated sIgE CHX and five healthy controls were included. Human cultured mast cells (MCs) were, before and after sensitization, challenged with CHX, ALX, OCT or PHMB. Degranulation was measured via quantification of upregulation of CD63.

RESULTS

Mast cell responsiveness to ALX and OCT was demonstrable with 4/10 and 3/10 of the sera of CHX-allergic patients respectively. Percentage of degranulation varied between 12 and 34% for ALX-reactive MCs and between 4 and 22% for OCT-reactive MCs. No reactivity to ALX or OCT was demonstrable when using sera obtained from individuals with an isolated sIgE CHX or from healthy controls. Unlike CHX, ALX and OCT, PHMB turned out to be a direct MC activator via occupation of MRGPRX2. PHMB-reactive sIgEs were demonstrable in some patients with an isolated sIgE CHX but were unable to trigger PHMB-induced degranulation in MRGPRX2 knockdown MCs.

CONCLUSION

Mast cells constitute an attractive tool to explore cross-reactivity between structurally similar compounds. Along with the identification of safe alternatives for the individual patient, the pMAT can advance our insights into sIgE cross-reactivity patterns including assessment of molecules not yet approved for human use.

Mast cell activation tests by flow cytometry: A new diagnostic asset?

Since the late nineties, evidence has accumulated that flow-assisted basophil activation test (BAT) might be an accessible and reliable method to explore the mechanisms governing basophil degranulation and diagnostic allowing correct prediction of the clinical outcome following exposure to the offending allergen(s) and cross-reactive structures for different IgE-dependent allergies and particular forms of autoimmune urticaria. Although the BAT offers many advantages over mediator release tests, it is left with some weaknesses that hinder a wider application. It is preferable to perform the BAT analysis within 4 h of collection, and the technique does not advance diagnosis in patients with non-responsive cells. Besides, the BAT is difficult to standardize mainly because of the difficulty to perform large batch analyses that might span over several days. This article reviews the status of flow cytometric mast cell activation test (MAT) using passively sensitized mast cells (MCs) with patients' sera or plasma (henceforth indicated as passive MAT; pMAT) using both MC lines and cultured MCs in the diagnosis of IgE-dependent allergies. In addition, this paper provides guidance for generating human MCs from peripheral blood CD34⁺ progenitor cells (PBCMCs) and correct interpretation of flow cytometric analyses of activated and/or degranulating cells. With the recent recognition of the mas-related G protein-coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2) occupation as a putative mechanism of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs), we also speculate how direct activation of MCs (dMAT)-that is direct activation by MRGPRX2 agonists without prior passive sensitization-could advance paradigms for this novel endotype of IDHRs.

Basophil and mast cell activation tests by flow cytometry in immediate drug hypersensitivity: Diagnosis and beyond

Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) constitute a significant health issue with serious consequences of diagnostic error. The primary diagnostics to document IDHRs usually consists of quantification of drug-specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies and skin tests. Unfortunately, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of these tests are not absolutely, which leaves room for new tests. Over the last two decades, the basophil activation test (BAT), in which ex vivo activation of individual basophils is quantified by flow cytometry, has emerged as a reliable complementary diagnostic to document IDHRs, to explore allergenic recognition, to study cross-reactivity and to monitor therapy. However, the BAT is technically challenging requiring specialized personnel and equipment, fresh samples and the technique is lost as a diagnostic in patients showing a non-responder status of their cells. By consequence, the BAT has still not entered mainstream application. In contrast, mast cell activation tests (MATs) use serum samples that can be frozen, stored, and shipped to a recognized reference centre experienced in mast cell (MC) lines and/or cultures and capable of offering batch testing with necessary quality controls. This review does not only highlight the use of the BAT and MAT as diagnostics in IDHRs, but also outlines the potential of both techniques in further exploring and unveiling the mechanisms that govern drug-induced basophil and MC activation and degranulation.

Peripheral blood cultured mast cells: Phenotypic and functional outcomes of different culture protocols

BACKGROUND

Mast cells (MCs) play a pivotal role in innate and adaptive immune responses. However, MCs are also involved in different pathologic conditions. Studies on the mechanisms that govern human MC functions are impeded by their limited and difficult recovery. Therefore, several research groups have developed protocols to culture human MCs from progenitor cells. These protocols vary with respect to culture duration and used maturation cytokines. How MCs obtained by different protocols differ in phenotype and functionality is currently unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare different protocols for the generation of human MCs from peripheral blood progenitors.

METHODS

Thirteen paired human MC cultures were investigated. MCs were cultured form CD34⁺ progenitors cells for 4 or 8 weeks and with or without the addition of IL-6. Phenotyping comprised staining for CD117, CD203c, FcεRI, MRGPRX2, CD300a and CD32. Functional studies included measurements of the up-regulation of CD63 and CD203c after allergen-specific cross-linking of sIgE/FcεRI complexes or ligation of MRGPRX2 with substance P and different drugs.

RESULTS

Cell cultures for 4 weeks in the presence of IL-6 consistently yielded the highest numbers of MCs. MCs cultured for 8 weeks with IL-6 showed more autofluorescence significantly impeding correct analyses of FcεRI and CD32. The density of FcεRI and CD32 was comparable between the different culture conditions. MRGPRX2 expression was significantly higher in the 8 week cultures. The density of CD300a was increased in the cultures with IL-6. Cells cultured for 8 weeks were more responsive to MRGPRX2 activation. In contrast, the 4-weeks cultures with IL-6 showed significantly higher allergen-specific activation.

CONCLUSION

Four weeks of culture with IL-6 are sufficient to generate sizeable numbers of human mast cells from blood progenitors, thereby enabling simultaneous exploration of allergen-specific sIgE/FcεRI cross-linking and non-specific activation via MRGPRX2.

Validation of inducible basophil biomarkers: Time, temperature and transportation

Background

The short stability window of several hours from blood collection to measuring basophil activation has limited the use of flow cytometry‐based basophil activation assays in clinical settings. We examine if it is possible to extend this window to 1 day allowing for shipment of samples between laboratories. Several options exist for reporting the results including reporting all the measured values directly, calculating ratios and reporting a single value covering all measured results. Each of these options have different stability and value to the physician.

Methods

Whole blood samples from peanut allergic patients were stimulated with four different peanut concentrations at Day 0, Day 1, and Day 2. Samples were stored under temperature‐controlled conditions. Flow cytometry was used to analyze the samples. The basophil activation and degranulation were measured as percentage of positive CD63 basophils and CD203c MFI fold change. Shipped samples were transported under ambient conditions.

Results

The results show that CD63 is a stable marker at Day 1. The CD203c ratio decreases significantly at Day 1. Calculating the CD63/IgE ratio proves to be more stable than CD63 alone. The most stable readouts are the semi‐quantitative results and the trajectory of the dose response curve. Finally, we confirmed that the stability can be extended to samples shipped overnight to the laboratory.

Conclusions

It is possible to extend the stability of the basophil activation assay to 1 day for samples stored at 18–25°C as well as samples shipped under ambient conditions as long as the temperature is within the 2–37°C range.

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.