Serum specific IgE antibodies in immediate drug hypersensitivity

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.

Flow-based basophil activation test in immediate drug hypersensitivity. An EAACI task force position paper

Diagnosing immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) can pose a significant challenge and there is an urgent need for safe and reliable tests. Evidence has emerged that the basophil activation test (BAT), an in vitro assay that mirrors the in vivo response, can be a complementary test for many drugs. In this position paper, members of Task Force (TF) "Basophil activation test in the evaluation of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions" from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) present the data from a survey about the use and utility of BAT in IDHRs in Europe. The survey results indicate that there is a great interest for using BAT especially for diagnosing IDHRs. However, there are still main needs, mainly in the standardization of the protocols. Subsequently consensus-based recommendations were formulated for: (i) Technical aspects of BAT in IDHRs including type of sample, management of drugs, flow cytometry protocols, interpretation of the results; and (ii) Drug-specific aspects that should be taken into account when performing BAT in relation to betalactams, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluoroquinolones, chlorhexidine, opioids, radio contrast media, chemotherapeutics, biological agents, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, COVID vaccine, and excipients. Moreover, aspects in the evaluation of pediatric population have also been considered. All this indicates that BAT offers the clinician and laboratory a complementary tool for a safe diagnostic for IDHRs, although its place in the diagnostic algorithm depends on the drug class and patient population (phenotype, geography, and age). The standardization of BAT is important for generalizing this method beyond the individual laboratory.

Tools for Etiologic Diagnosis of Drug-Induced Allergic Conditions

Drug hypersensitivity reactions are a serious concern in clinical practice because they can be severe and result in lifelong sequelae. An accurate diagnosis and identification of the culprit drug is essential to prevent future reactions as well as for the identification of safe treatment alternatives. Nonetheless, the diagnosis can be challenging. In vivo and in vitro tests can be helpful, although none are conclusive; therefore, the tests are not usually performed in isolation but as part of a diagnostic algorithm. In addition, some in vitro tests are only available in research laboratories, and standardization has not been fully accomplished. Collaborating research is needed to improve drug hypersensitivity reaction diagnosis. In this review, we update the current available in vivo and in vitro tools with their pros and cons and propose an algorithm to integrate them into clinical practice.

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.

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.

Advances in the Understanding of Drug Hypersensitivity: 2012 Through 2022

Over the last decade there have been key advances in understanding mechanisms, risk, and consequences of both true immunological drug hypersensitivity and unverified drug allergy labels that have changed clinical practice. This has been facilitated by the widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). The vast majority of EHR drug allergy labels are unverified and cause significant morbidity from unnecessary avoidance of optimal drug therapy. There has also been significant movement in our understanding of mechanisms of drug hypersensitivity that, in addition to advancing our understanding of the pathogenesis of immediate and delayed reactions, have guided preventive efforts, diagnostic procedures, and clinical management. More widespread adoption, including scale-up of "allergy" delabeling and appropriate management, specifically for antibiotics, opiates, radiocontrast, chemotherapeutics, biologics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, will be necessary to improve patient outcomes over the next decade. This will require further engagement and collaboration between primary care health care providers, allergists, and other specialists.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening and under-recognized event most commonly caused by antibiotics, neuromuscular blocking agents, dyes, latex, and disinfectants. This review provides updates in the epidemiology and pathogenesis of perioperative anaphylaxis, discusses culprit agents, and highlights the tenets of management including a comprehensive allergy evaluation.

75% negative skin test results in patients with suspected hypersensitivity to beta-lactam antibiotics: Influencing factors and interpretation of test results

Background

The diagnostic approach for beta-lactam (BL) drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) is based on the history, clinical signs, skin tests (ST), in vitro tests, and drug provocation tests (DPT). The aim of this study was to assess the performance of an allergy workup with ST in a real-world use.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study the rate of positive ST in subjects with suspected DHR to penicillins and cephalosporins was investigated. Of special interest were correlations of ST positivity: 1) to the time intervals between index reaction and the allergic work-up, 2) time interval from drug exposure to the onset of signs, 3) pattern of manifestation in delayed DHR and involvement of test area in the index reaction, and 4) potential advantage of patch testing in delayed DHR.

Results

175 patients were included between January 2018 and April 2019 (63.4% female), 45 (25.7%) with immediate DHR manifestation and 130 with delayed DHR manifestation (74.3%). A total of 44 patients (25.1%) had a positive ST (immediate DHR 37.8% versus 20.0% in delayed DHR). ST positivity decreased in both groups after 3 years from 47.8% [95%CI 29.2-67] to 23.5% [95%CI 9.6-47.3] in immediate DHR and 23.0% [95%CI 15-4-32.9] to 12.9% [95%CI 5.1-28.9] in delayed DHR. The proportion of positive ST was higher in patients with more severe forms of delayed DHR, and in subjects with a shorter latency period of onset of symptoms after drug exposure: 0-3d: 29.5% [95%CI 19.6-41.9] vs. >3d: 11.6% [95%CI 6.0-21.2]). No sensitization was shown in delayed urticaria or angioedema. ST done outside the skin area involved during the index reaction were negative in all cases (0/38 vs. 26/84 in cases with involved area). The combination of patch test and intradermal test (IDT) revealed an additional positive result in 2/77 cases. Additional in vitro testing reduced the proportion of negative test results to 72%.

Conclusion

In most patients with negative test results, we could not clarify the cause of the BL-associated adverse events even with further investigations (including DPT). How to prevent new drug-induced adverse events in such patients has hardly been investigated yet. Corresponding cohort studies could improve the data situation.

Detection of drug-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) and acute mediator release for the diagnosis of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions

The diagnosis of a drug hypersensitivity reaction (DHR) is complex. The first step after taking the clinical history is to look for a sensitization to confirm or exclude the diagnosis and to identify the culprit drug. Skin tests are the primary means of detecting sensitization in DHR, but are associated with a risk for a severe reaction and may be contraindicated. In vitro tests offer the potential to support or confirm a diagnosis of DHR and influence medical decision making. For immediate-type DHR, a few validated assays for measurement of specific IgE (sIgE) are commercially available to a limited number of drugs. In addition, several home-made sIgE radioimmunoassays have been used in other studies. The sensitivity of the sIgE assay is drug-dependant and generally low (0-85%) for betalactams and reported heterogeneous for other drugs ranging from 26% for chlorhexidine and 44% for suxamethonium to 92% for chlorhexidine. However, as all these studies included patients, in whom DHR was confirmed only by skin tests and not by provocation, the results have to be interpreted carefully and may be unreliable. Determination of mediators during an acute phase of a reaction may indirectly support the diagnosis of a DHR by demonstrating mast cell and basophil mediator release. Negative in vitro tests do not exclude a DHR or imputability of a drug, but a positive result may support causality and eliminate the necessity for a drug provocation test. Unfortunately, evidence is limited with a lack of well-controlled studies in larger numbers of well-phenotyped patients, which results in susceptibility for bias and a need for future multicenter studies.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis: Evaluation and Management

Perioperative anaphylaxis (PA) is a rare but life-threatening condition that poses diagnostic and management challenges in the operating room. The incidence of severe perioperative reactions is estimated to be approximately 1:7000-10,000. Management involves both immediate stabilization of the patient and identifying the culprit agent. Identification is essential to prevent recurrence of the event in subsequent surgeries and to avoid unnecessary labeling of drug allergy. Identifying all possible exposures including medications, disinfectants, latex, and dyes and choosing the appropriate tests are essential for proper evaluation. To identify the culprit, primary testing modalities include tryptase at the time of the reaction with subsequent levels and skin testing with nonirritating concentrations to the medications and substances utilized during the procedure and those potentially used as alternates. This strategy provides guidance for future surgeries and procedures. Close collaboration between the allergy, anesthesiology, and surgery teams is essential for appropriate management of these patients at the time of the reaction, during the post event evaluation and in preparation for subsequent surgeries.

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.

Mechanisms of human drug-induced anaphylaxis

Drug-induced anaphylaxis is a hyperacute reaction affecting multiple organs that can be of fatal consequence. Its incidence is increasing, consistent with a global increased sensitization to various allergens and drugs in the population. Few risk factors and mechanisms have been identified from human studies due to the rarity of anaphylactic events and their unpredictability. This systemic reaction is caused by the rapid release of a large range of functionally diverse mediators, including histamine and platelet-activating factor as the main drivers identified. Mechanisms defined from models of experimental anaphylaxis identify drug-specific antibodies of the IgE and IgG class that link the drug to antibody receptors on multiple cell types, causing their activation and mediator release. In the case of drugs with peculiar chemical structures, antibodies may not be necessary because drug-binding receptors, such as Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor member X2, have been identified. This review describes the complex reaction leading to drug-induced anaphylaxis that can involve various antibody classes, various cell types-including mast cells, neutrophils, platelets, basophils, macrophages, and monocytes-and their mediators and receptors that, importantly, can be activated alone or in association to participate in the severity of the reaction.

IgE-mediated chlorhexidine allergy-Cross-reactivity with other biguanide disinfectants

BACKGROUND

Chlorhexidine (CHX) is a widely utilized disinfectant that can cause IgE-mediated urticaria/anaphylaxis. The cross-reactivity of patients with IgE-mediated CHX allergy with other disinfectants, which share structural similarities with CHX like polyhexanide (polyhexamethylene biguanide; PHMB), alexidine (ALX), or octenidine (OCT), is unknown.

METHODS

Forty-four patients with anaphylaxis or urticaria upon CHX exposure and positive skin prick test (SPT) and/or positive CHX ImmunoCAP test (Phadia TFS, Uppsala, Sweden) were recruited. IgE to the biguanide and/or hexamethylene structure was investigated with PHMB ImmunoCAP (n = 32) and by basophil activation tests (BAT) with CHX and ALX (n = 37). Inhibition tests of CHX and PHMB ImmunoCAPs by CHX, ALX, PHMB, and OCT were performed.

RESULTS

IgE reactivity to PHMB as surrogate marker for biguanide/hexamethylene reactivity was detected in 5/32 sera. Seven of 37 patients showed a positive BAT with ALX, but only under optimized conditions. Binding to CHX ImmunoCAP was inhibited by ALX in 1/32 sera, and binding to PHMB was blocked by ALX (1/5) and by OCT in another (1/5). In SPT, 9/10 patients were positive for CHX and 3 of them with ALX (only at highest concentration at 5 mg/mL). A further patient reacted primarily with OCT and showed IgE cross-reactivity with CHX, ALX, and PHMB.

CONCLUSION

The IgE response to CHX seems polyclonal. The chloroguanide ending of CHX is the main epitope for the IgE and is suitable as screening assay to detect CHX reactivity. IgE-reactivities with the biguanide or hexamethylene components of other disinfectants (ALX, PHMB) can be detected by SPT, PHMB ImmunoCAP, and ALX-BAT in 15%-33% of CHX-allergic patients.

Advances and novel developments in drug hypersensitivity diagnosis

A correct diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) is very important for both the patient and health system. However, DHRs diagnosis is complex, time consuming, requires trained personnel, is not standardized for many drugs, involves procedures not exempt of risk, and in most cases lacks standardized in vivo and in vitro tests. Thus, there is an urgent need for improving the different approaches to diagnose patients with suspected DHRs. In this review, we have analyzed the advances performed in immediate and nonimmediate DHRs diagnosis during the last two years and obtained several conclusions: the significant heterogeneity in current practice among centers illustrates the need to re-evaluate, update, and standardize in vivo tests and protocols for the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected drug allergy. Regarding in vitro tests, the latest studies have focused on increasing their sensitivity or on establishing the sensitivity and specificity for the tests performed with new drugs. There seems to be a consensus about combining in vivo and in vitro tests as the best way to increase the diagnostic accuracy.

Prospective study of 5-day challenge with penicillins in children

OBJECTIVES

To examine if a 5-day challenge with penicillin improves the diagnostic sensitivity compared with a single full dose in children with mild skin reactions.

DESIGN

Subjects referred with suspected allergy to penicillin were consecutively included. Irrespectively of the morphology of the index reaction and the result of specific IgE, all subjects underwent a two-step titrated drug provocation test (DPT) with the culprit drug followed by a 5-day challenge at home.

PARTICIPANTS

Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years referred to allergic workup for penicillin hypersensitivity at two paediatric Danish centres. Only subjects with non-severe skin reactions were included.

RESULTS

A total of 305 subjects were included and 22 (7%) of the DPTs were positive. Three subjects reacted within 1 hour of the first full dose and nine reacted 1-8 hours after the first full dose. Additional 10 positive reactions were observed during the prolonged provocation. Seven subjects reacted after the second full dose and three reacted after 3-6 days. Only mild skin rashes were observed. Eighteen subjects had a specific IgE to a penicillin >0.1 kU/L. Only one of these had a positive DPT.

CONCLUSION

In children, a DPT with penicillins should include at least two full doses. In children with mild hypersensitivity reactions it may be safe to perform DPTs despite a low specific IgE.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04331522.