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

Perioperative Anaphylaxis in Japanese Secondary Care Institutions: Incidence, Causes, and the Imperative for Improved Diagnostic Practices

Background This research investigates the incidence, suspected causes, and diagnostic procedures for perioperative anaphylaxis (POA), a potentially severe complication, in secondary care hospitals across Japan. Methodology We surveyed Saiseikai hospitals and gathered data on surgical procedures, POA occurrences, potential triggers, and diagnostic methods. Results Among 70,523 surgeries, seven were associated with POA, resulting in an approximate incidence rate of 0.01%. Rocuronium was the most commonly suspected trigger, followed by sugammadex, latex, and angiography contrast agents. Despite the importance of skin tests as the most basic and crucial diagnostic method, they were conducted in only three instances. No in vitro tests for drug identification were conducted, and in four cases, the cause was determined merely based on the timing of drug administration, indicating significant diagnostic limitations. Conclusions The study underscores the critical situation in Japan regarding insufficient diagnostic practices and difficulties in identifying triggering drugs rather than the consistent prevalence of POA in secondary care facilities. The findings emphasize the need for improved diagnostic proficiency and more rigorous drug identification practices to ensure prompt and accurate POA diagnosis. It is essential to conduct further research and interventions to increase patient safety during the perioperative period in secondary care settings.

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.

Real-Life Utility of Basophil Activation Test in the Diagnosis of Immediate Hypersensitivity Drug Reactions

INTRODUCTION

The basophil activation test (BAT) is a flow cytometry laboratory technique that assesses the level of activation indicators expressed on the surface of basophils. We conducted a real-life study in a prospective cohort of patients with reported drug hypersensitivity reactions to determine the true relevance of BAT as a diagnostic tool for assessing immediate hypersensitivity reactions to medicines.

METHODS

We prospectively assessed individuals with clinical suspicion of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to drugs over a 2-year period. The allergological evaluation was carried out in accordance with European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) guidance. All patients underwent BAT using the activation marker CD63.

RESULTS

In total 13 patients with 54 reported immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions to medications were included in this study. Twelve were female (92.3%) and one was male (7.70%). The mean ± SD age of the patients was 47.31 ± 19.94 years. Antibiotics were tested in 35.2% (19/54) of patients, corticosteroids in 24.1% (13/54), iodinated contrast medium in 14.8% (8/54), and NSAIDs in 5.6% (3/54). There was no correlation between the BAT results and the age of patients, gender, type of medication, or time interval between the allergic reaction and BAT procedure. The sensitivity of BAT 5% CD63+ basophils to drugs was 97.6%, specificity was 96% for drug allergies, positive predictive value (PPV) was 94.3%, and negative predictive value (NPV) was 95.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity of BAT for drug allergies is limited, but it can nevertheless be very helpful before contemplating provocation testing in cases of life-threatening drug allergies where patients cannot be rechallenged or in cases of medications for which no other tests are available or their results are ambiguous.

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.

Suspected perioperative anaphylaxis: are we making the correct diagnosis?

We provide a commentary on aspects of a prospective study of the epidemiology of perioperative anaphylaxis in Japan (Japanese Epidemiologic Study for Perioperative Anaphylaxis [JESPA]). Accurate diagnosis of perioperative anaphylaxis is important for research but essential for clinical safety. We evaluate the diagnostic approach used in the JESPA study and caution against over-reliance on diagnostic tests that lack sensitivity and specificity when clinical data suggest an immediate perioperative hypersensitivity reaction is likely.

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.

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.

Towards an FDA-cleared basophil activation test

Food allergy is a global health problem affecting up to 10% of the world population. Accurate diagnosis of food allergies, however, is still a major challenge in medical offices and for patients seeking alternative avenues of diagnosis. A flawless test to confirm or rule out a food allergy does not exist. The lack of optimum testing methods to establish precise clinical correlations remains a major obstacle to effective treatment. Certain IgE measurement methods, including component testing, have received FDA clearance, but they have been used primarily as an analytical tool and not to establish clinical correlations. Most allergy tests are still carried out within the laboratory, and skin tests outside a laboratory setting that are used for food allergy diagnosis rely on non-standardized allergens, according to the FDA definition. Epitope mapping and basophil activation test (BAT) have recently been proposed as a means of establishing better clinical correlations. Yet neither have received FDA clearance for widespread distribution. Of the two methods, the BAT has the advantage of being a functional assay. Over the past few years, several large private practice groups in the United States, have developed BAT as a clinical assay and have started using it in patient care. Given this clinical experience, the vast number of papers published on BAT (more than 1,400 as of 2022) and the trend toward increasing FDA regulation, it is essential to understand the roadmap for regulatory clearance of this assay.

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.

Current and Future Strategies for the Diagnosis and Treatment of the Alpha-Gal Syndrome (AGS)

The α-Gal syndrome (AGS) is a pathognomonic immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated delayed anaphylaxis in foods containing the oligosaccharide galactose-α-1,3-galactose (α-Gal) such as mammalian meat or dairy products. Clinical presentation of AGS can also comprise immediate hypersensitivity due to anticancer therapy, gelatin-containing vaccines or mammalian serum-based antivenom. The IgE initial sensitization is caused by hard-bodied tick bites and symptomatic individuals typically develop delayed pruritus, urticaria, angioedema, anaphylaxis, malaise or gut-related symptoms. Due to inapparent presentation, delayed reactions and a wide variety of patients´ clinical history, the AGS diagnosis and treatment remain challenging. This review covers not only current diagnostic methods used for AGS such as the skin prick test (SPT), the oral food challenge (OFC), anti-α-Gal IgE levels measurement and the basophil activation test (BAT), but also potentially relevant next-generation diagnostic tools like the mast cell activation test (MAT), the histamine-release (HR) assay, omics technologies and model-based reasoning (MBR). Moreover, it focuses on the therapeutical medical and non-medical methods available and current research methods that are being applied in order to elucidate the molecular, physiological and immune mechanisms underlying this allergic disorder. Lastly, future treatment and preventive tools are also discussed, being of utmost importance for the identification of tick salivary molecules, with or without α-Gal modifications, that trigger IgE sensitivity as they could be the key for further vaccine development. Bearing in mind climate change, the tick-host paradigm will shift towards an increasing number of AGS cases in new regions worldwide, which will pose new challenges for clinicians in the future.