Immunoglobulin E Antibodies to Rocuronium

Rocuronium-specific antibodies drive perioperative anaphylaxis but can also function as reversal agents in preclinical models

Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) relax skeletal muscles to facilitate surgeries and ease intubation but can lead to adverse reactions, including complications because of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade (rNMB) and, in rare cases, anaphylaxis. Both adverse reactions vary between types of NMBAs, with rocuronium, a widely used nondepolarizing NMBA, inducing one of the longest rNMB durations and highest anaphylaxis incidences. rNMB induced by rocuronium can be reversed by the synthetic γ-cyclodextrin sugammadex. However, in rare cases, sugammadex can provoke anaphylaxis. Thus, additional therapeutic options are needed. Rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis is proposed to rely on preexisting rocuronium-binding antibodies. To understand the pathogenesis of rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis and to identify potential therapeutics, we investigated the memory B cell antibody repertoire of patients with suspected hypersensitivity to rocuronium. We identified polyclonal antibody repertoires with a high diversity among V(D)J genes without evidence of clonal groups. When recombinantly expressed, these antibodies demonstrated specificity and low affinity for rocuronium without cross-reactivity for other NMBAs. Moreover, when these antibodies were expressed as human immunoglobulin E (IgE), they triggered human mast cell activation and passive systemic anaphylaxis in transgenic mice, although their affinities were insufficient to serve as reversal agents. Rocuronium-specific, high-affinity antibodies were thus isolated from rocuronium-immunized mice. The highest-affinity antibody was able to reverse rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade in nonhuman primates with kinetics comparable to that of sugammadex. Together, these data support the hypothesis that antibodies cause anaphylactic reactions to rocuronium and pave the way for improved diagnostics and neuromuscular blockade reversal agents.

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.

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.

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.

Rocuronium-Induced Anaphylaxis in the Perioperative Period: A Clinical Review

Rocuronium, a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agent used for muscle relaxation especially during endotracheal intubation, can cause hypersensitivity reactions. This article provides an overview of anaphylactic reactions; risk factors; and the pathophysiology, presentation, diagnosis, treatment, and nursing implications associated with rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis. Life-threatening anaphylaxis can be immunoglobulin E-mediated or non-immunoglobulin E-mediated and usually occurs after the first dose. Anaphylaxis can present with hypotension and bronchospasm; cutaneal symptoms, such as erythema, may not be obvious. Diagnosis is initially presumptive and may require a transesophageal echocardiogram to rule out other causes of hypotension (eg, pulmonary embolus). Emergency treatment begins with epinephrine administration and fluid boluses; cardiac support devices may be needed. Definitive diagnosis requires early measurement of histamine and tryptase levels and skin testing after the patient recovers from the reaction. Perioperative nurses should be prepared to participate in emergency treatment of anaphylaxis and advocate for testing for a definitive diagnosis.

History and Utility of Specific IgE Cutoff Levels: What is the Relevance for Allergy Diagnosis?

Allergy is defined clinically, by symptoms on allergen exposure. A patient is considered sensitized when allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) antibody can be detected in serum or plasma or a skin test result is positive, even if no clinical reaction has been experienced. Sensitization should be regarded as a requisite and risk factor for allergy but is not synonymous with an allergy diagnosis. To provide a correct allergy diagnosis, test results regarding allergen-sIgE must always be considered in view of the patient's case history and clinical observations. Correct assessment of a patient's sensitization to specific allergens relies on the use of accurate and quantitative methods for detection of sIgE antibodies. The evolution of sIgE immunoassays toward higher analytical performance and the use of different cutoff levels in the interpretation of test results sometimes cause confusion. Earlier versions of sIgE assays offered a limit of quantitation of 0.35 kilounits of sIgE per liter (kUA/L), which also became an established cutoff level for a positive test result in the clinical use of the assays. Current sIgE assays are capable of reliably measuring sIgE levels as low as 0.1 kUA/L and can thereby demonstrate sensitization in cases in which previous assays could not. When the outcome of sIgE test results is evaluated, it is critically important to distinguish between the analytical data as such and their clinical interpretation. Even though sIgE may be present in the absence of symptoms of allergy, available information suggests that sIgE concentrations between 0.1 kUA/L and 0.35 kUA/L may be clinically relevant in some individuals, not least among children, although this should be further evaluated for various allergies. Moreover, it is becoming widely adopted that nondichotomous interpretation of sIgE levels may offer a diagnostic benefit compared with using a predefined cutoff level.

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.

Reliability of Early and Late Testing for Suspected Perioperative Hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of diagnostic testing for perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) remains unknown. It has been recommended that investigation is best carried out at least 4 to 6 weeks after the event. On the other hand, guidelines discourage the use of in vitro tests later than 3 years after the index reaction.

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study aimed to assess the reliability of early and late skin tests (STs). It also attempted to verify whether discouraging late ex vivo and in vitro tests is substantiated.

METHODS

For the first aim, patients were stratified over three epochs: an early timing group, with investigations performed within 6 weeks; a recommended timing group, with tests performed between 6 weeks and 6 months; and a late timing group, tested later than 6 months after the event. For the second study purpose, we studied the reliability of specific IgE quantification and basophil activation test rocuronium within 6 weeks and after 3 years in patients who experienced an ST-proven POH to rocuronium.

RESULTS

A total of 677 patients were included. Based on a positive ST result, a causative agent was found in 74.2% of the early timing group, 62.6% of the recommended timing group, and 50% of the late timing group. A positive specific IgE for rocuronium or morphine was found in 80% of patients tested within 6 weeks, 63% of patients tested between 6 weeks and 3 years, and 50% of patients tested more than 3 years after the event. A positive basophil activation test was found in 83.3%, 51%, and 20%, respectively, of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data confirm that evaluation of drug allergy for suspected POH can be performed before 6 weeks after the event, and there is no maximal upper time limit disclosing ex vivo and in vitro testing.

Practical guidelines for the response to perioperative anaphylaxis

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a severe adverse event during anesthesia that requires prompt diagnosis and treatment by physicians, including anesthesiologists. Muscle relaxants and antibiotics are the most common drugs that cause perioperative anaphylaxis in Japan, as in many countries. In addition, sugammadex appears to be a primary causative agent. Obtaining previous anesthesia records is necessary in a patient with a history of allergic reactions during anesthesia, whenever possible, to avoid recurrence of anaphylaxis. Although medical staff are likely to notice abnormal vital signs because of complete monitoring during anesthesia, surgical drapes make it difficult to notice the appearance of skin symptoms. Even if there are no skin symptoms, anaphylaxis should be suspected, especially when hypotension resistant to inotropes and vasopressors persists. For improving the diagnostic accuracy of anaphylaxis, it is helpful to collect blood samples to measure histamine/tryptase concentrations immediately after the events and at baseline. The first-line treatment for anaphylaxis is adrenaline. In the perioperative setting, adrenaline should be administered through the intravenous route, which has a faster effect onset and is secured in most cases. Adrenaline can cause serious complications including severe arrhythmias if the appropriate dose is not selected according to the severity of symptoms. The anesthesiologist should identify the causative agent after adverse events. The gold standard for identifying the causative agent is the skin test, but in vitro tests including specific IgE antibody measurements and basophil activation tests are also beneficial. The Working Group of the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists has developed this practical guide to help appropriate prevention, early diagnosis and treatment, and postoperative diagnosis of anaphylaxis during anesthesia.Grade of recommendations and levels of evidence Anaphylaxis is a relatively rare condition with few controlled trials, and thus a so-called evidence-based scrutiny is difficult. Therefore, rather than showing evidence levels and indicating the level of recommendation, this practical guideline only describes the results of research available to date. The JSA will continue to investigate anaphylaxis during anesthesia, and the results may lead to an amendment of this practical guideline.

Novel Insights on MRGPRX2-Mediated Hypersensitivity to Neuromuscular Blocking Agents And Fluoroquinolones

Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) like atracurium and rocuronium as well as fluoroquinolones (FQs) cause mast cell-mediated anaphylaxis by activating Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2), but many questions remain unanswered. Here, we address three of them, namely whether primary human mast cells show similar activation by these drugs as murine mast cells and mast cell lines, how sugammadex protects from atracurium-induced MRGPRX2-mediated mast cell activation, and why some but not all patients treated with rocuronium develop anaphylaxis. We used peripheral blood-derived cultured mast cells from healthy donors and patients, assessed mast cell activation and degranulation by quantifying intracellular calcium and CD63 expression, respectively, and made use of MRGPRX2-silencing, via electroporation with Dicer-substrate small interfering RNAs, and single cell flow cytometric analyses. Atracurium, ciprofloxacin, and levofloxacin activated and degranulated primary human mast cells, but only MRGPRX2-positive and not MRGPRX2-negative or -silenced mast cells. Sugammadex attenuated the atracurium-induced and MRGPRX2-mediated activation and degranulation of human mast cells by reducing free atracurium levels. The mast cells of patients with IgE-independent anaphylaxis to rocuronium were similar, in their MRGPRX2 expression and function, to those of patients with IgE-mediated anaphylaxis. These findings further improve our understanding of the role and relevance of MRGPRX2-driven mast cell activation in anaphylactic reactions to NMBAs and FQs and may help to improve their prediction, prevention, and treatment.

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.

Anaphylaxis to drugs: Overcoming mast cell unresponsiveness by fake antigens

Our understanding of IgE‐mediated drug allergy relies on the hapten concept, which is well established in inducing adaptive reactions of the immune system to small molecules like drugs. The role of hapten‐carrier adducts in re‐challenge reactions leading to mast cell degranulation and anaphylaxis is unclear. Based on clinical observations, the speed of adduct formation, skin and in vitro tests to inert drug molecules, a different explanation of IgE‐mediated reactions to drugs is proposed: These are (a) A natural role of reduced mast cell (MC) reactivity in developing IgE‐mediated reactions to drugs. This MC unresponsiveness is antigen‐specific and covers the serum drug concentrations, but allows reactivity to locally higher concentrations. (b) Some non‐covalent drug‐protein complexes rely on rather affine bindings and have a similar appearance as covalent hapten‐protein adducts. Such drug‐protein complexes represent so‐called “fake antigens,” as they are unable to induce immunity, but may react with and cross‐link preformed drug‐specific IgE. As they are formed very rapidly and in high concentrations, they may cause fulminant MC degranulation and anaphylaxis. (c) The generation of covalent hapten‐protein adducts requires hours, either because the formation of covalent bonds requires time or because first a metabolic step for forming a reactive metabolite is required. This slow process of stable adduct formation has the advantage that it may give time to desensitize mast cells, even in already sensitized individuals. The consequences of this new interpretation of IgE‐mediated reactions to drugs are potentially wide‐reaching for IgE‐mediated drug allergy but also allergy in general.

Prevalence and screening of specific aeroallergens in Chinese male patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A retrospective cross-sectional observational study

INTRODUCTION

Sensitization to aeroallergens was linked to severe symptoms and frequent exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Elevated serum total immunoglobulin E (tIgE) level is a hallmark of allergic COPD patients. Phadiatop test exhibited high sensitivity for predicting specific aeroallergens (SAs) sensitization. However, the prevalence of aeroallergens, the value of Phadiatop test, alone or combined with tIgE, for predicting aeroallergens sensitization in male COPD patients have not been explored in China.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the prevalence and predictors of aeroallergens in the context of COPD.

METHODS

The predictive value of Phadiatop test for SAs sensitization in male COPD patients was analyzed via the area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs).

RESULTS

The top five SAs in the context of COPD were d2, mx2, i6, d1, and tx5, of which the seasonal distribution showed no significant differences. Allergic group showed higher levels of blood eosinophils, total Phadiatop IgE and tIgE than the nonallergic group (all P ≤ 0.001). The AUCs of total Phadiatop IgE and tIgE for predicting the sensitization to SAs, SAs excluding mx2 (AEM) and mx2 were ((0.921 vs. 0.879, P = 0.2522), (0.967 vs. 0.807, P = 0.0003), and (0.780 vs. 0.883, P < 0.05)) (AUC_Phadiatop vs AUC_tIgE ), respectively. The combined application of these two parameters (model) increased the AUC of SAs, significantly higher than the single parameter used (P < 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSION

d2, mx2, i6, and d1 were the top four SAs sensitized in male COPD patients; Phadiatop test was valuable for predicting the sensitization to SAs when it was > 0.13 kAU/L.

Early Skin Test after Anaphylaxis during Induction of Anesthesia: A Case Report

Background: It is recommended that a skin test be performed 4–6 weeks after anaphylaxis. However, there is little evidence about the timing of the skin test when there is a need to identify the cause within 4–6 weeks. Case report: A 57-year-old woman was scheduled to undergo surgery via a sphenoidal approach to remove a pituitary macroadenoma. Immediately after the administration of rocuronium, pulse rate increased to 120 beats/min and blood pressure dropped to 77/36 mmHg. At the same time, generalized urticaria and tongue edema were observed. Epinephrine was administered and the surgery was postponed. Reoperation was planned two weeks after the event. Four days after the anaphylactic episode, rocuronium was confirmed to be the cause by the skin prick test. Cisatracurium, which showed a negative reaction, was selected as an alternative agent for future procedures. Two weeks later, the patient underwent reoperation without any adverse events. Conclusions: The early skin test can be performed if there is a need even earlier than 4–6 weeks after anaphylaxis.

Basophil Activation Experiments in Immediate Drug Hypersensitivity: More Than a Diagnostic Aid

BACKGROUND

Correct diagnosis of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) can pose a significant challenge, mainly because of the absence of reliable in vitro tests, uncertainties associated with skin testing, and incomplete understanding of the underlying mechanisms.

AIM

To summarize and hypothesize on the potential of basophil activation test (BAT) as a safe aid to explore the mechanistic endotypes of IDHR, to identify antibody recognition sites, and to monitor drug desensitization.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the keywords "allergy, basophil activation, CD63, CD203c, diagnosis, drugs, hypersensitivity, flow cytometry"; this was complemented by the authors' own expertise.

RESULTS

At present BAT has mainly been employed as a diagnostic aid. However, evidence is emerging that the technique might also deepen our insights in immune (allergic) and nonimmune (nonallergic) mechanistic processes of IDHR. It is anticipated that BAT might also benefit the identification of antibody recognition sites and benefit our understandings of desensitization strategies.

CONCLUSION

Although the nondiagnostic application of BAT in IDHR is still in its infancy, with increasing employment, we can expect the technique to become a valuable asset to study many domains of IDHR that remain poorly understood.

An IgG-induced neutrophil activation pathway contributes to human drug-induced anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is a systemic acute hypersensitivity reaction that is considered to depend on allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies and histamine release by mast cells and basophils. Nevertheless, allergen-specific IgG antibodies have been proposed to contribute when the allergen is an abundant circulating large molecule, e.g., after infusions of therapeutic antibodies or dextran. Data from animal models demonstrate a pathway involving platelet-activating factor (PAF) release by monocytes/macrophages and neutrophils activated via their Fc gamma receptors (FcγRs). We hypothesized that such a pathway may also apply to small drugs and could be responsible for non–IgE-mediated anaphylaxis and influence anaphylaxis severity in humans. We prospectively conducted a multicentric study of 86 patients with suspected anaphylaxis to neuromuscular-blocking agents (NMBAs) during general anesthesia and 86 matched controls. We found that concentrations of anti-NMBA IgG and markers of FcγR activation, PAF release, and neutrophil activation correlated with anaphylaxis severity. Neutrophils underwent degranulation and NETosis early after anaphylaxis onset, and plasma-purified anti-NMBA IgG triggered neutrophil activation ex vivo in the presence of NMBA. Neutrophil activation could also be observed in patients lacking evidence of classical IgE-dependent anaphylaxis. This study supports the existence of an IgG-neutrophil pathway in human NMBA-induced anaphylaxis, which may aggravate anaphylaxis in combination with the IgE pathway or underlie anaphylaxis in the absence of specific IgE. These results reconcile clinical and experimental data on the role of antibody classes in anaphylaxis and could inform diagnostic approaches to NMBA-induced acute hypersensitivity reactions.

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.

Morphine and pholcodine-specific IgE have limited utility in the diagnosis of anaphylaxis to benzylisoquinolines

BACKGROUND

Investigation of immediate hypersensitivity reactions in the perioperative setting involves skin testing and measurement of specific IgE (sIgE) as standard practice. In the case of the neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), the main allergenic epitopes have been shown to be substituted ammonium groups. Commercial assays are available for detection of sIgE to these epitopes using morphine and pholcodine substrates but questions have been raised about the effectiveness of these assays in the diagnosis of benzylisoquinoline anaphylaxis. This study was therefore undertaken to assess the effectiveness of these assays in the diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions to this group of NMBAs.

METHODS

Analysis was carried out on all available results for patients assessed at the Royal North Shore Hospital Anaesthetic Allergy Clinic during the period June 2009 to June 2016. Standardised intradermal skin tests were performed with a panel of NMBAs. Measurement of sIgE to morphine and pholcodine was performed via the Phadia ImmunoCAP^® system.

RESULTS

For all patients with positive skin test results to NMBAs which included a benzylisoquinoline NMBA (n = 24), 75% exhibited negative sIgE to both morphine and pholcodine. Where patients were reactive to benzylisoquinoline NMBAs alone (n = 12), 100% exhibited negative sIgE results, indicating 0% sensitivity of the assays relative to skin testing, in this subgroup.

CONCLUSION

Use of sIgE testing to morphine and pholcodine in the assessment of NMBA immediate hypersensitivity is a valuable tool particularly in the case of reactions to the aminosteroid NMBAs. However, these assays are unreliable in detecting sensitisation to benzylisoquinoline NMBAs.

The practical benefit of Phadiatop test as the first-line in vitro allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) screening of aeroallergens among Chinese asthmatics: a validation study

Background

Phadiatop test is a variant of ImmunoCAP assay that covers a mixture of common aeroallergens. Its diagnostic efficiency in Chinese population remains so far inadequate. We validated Phadiatop testing with ImmunoCAP assays in a Chinese cohort.

Methods

Phadiatop test was performed for serum samples from 290 asthmatics and 92 healthy controls previously tested with "classic" ImmunoCAP for house dust mix (hx2), molds and yeasts mix (mx2), tree pollen mix (tx4) and weed mix (wx5).

Results

Phadiatop positivity was shown in 46.2% of 290 asthmatic patients. Using ImmunoCAP as the gold standard, the concordance rate was 91.7%; negative predictive value, 92.9%; and positive predictive value, 90.2%. The sensitivity of Phadiatop test was high for hx2 (98.2%), tx4 (100%) and wx5 (95.5%), but not for mx2 (78.4%). Yet the mx2 allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) level in all missed cases was relatively low (0.35 to 0.90 kU_A/L). The total Phadiatop sIgE level was correlated with the ImmunoCAP sIgE levels for all allergen mixes combined (r_s =0.941, P<0.001) or each allergen mix, particularly the hx2 (r_s =0.924) (all P<0.001), 0.53 kU_A/L used as a cut-off would optimize the diagnostic performance of Phadiatop testing, yielding 89.4% sensitivity and 97.5% specificity in indentifying serums positive to any of these allergen mixes.

Conclusions

Overall, Phadiatop test may efficiently detect sensitization to common aeroallergen mixes. In light of the currently rigorous administration on crude extracts for skin tests in China, using Phadiatop as the first-line test for suspected atopy can be cost-effective.

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.

Diagnosing and managing patients with drug hypersensitivity

INTRODUCTION

Diagnosing and managing drug hypersensitivity is challenging because there are no clear limits between different types of drug reactions. Distinguishing between type A (predictable) and type B (hypersensitivity) reactions when a drug is introduced on the market is not easy. When many people use a drug, adverse reactions can occur, conditioned by diverse genetic profiles, viral infections or concomitant therapy. Occasionally the only tool clinicians have on which to base the diagnosis is the clinical history. Skins tests or in vitro tests sometimes have low sensitivity or are unavailable, and drug provocation tests may be dangerous or strictly forbidden in case of severe cutaneous reactions. Areas covered: This paper reviews the diagnosis and management of the two main types of immunological reactions: IgE-mediated immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) and non-immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (NIDHRs). Expert commentary: Although Europe and the United States use different diagnostic methods, patients with history of drug hypersensitivity must avoid the suspicious drug, and clinicians must assess tolerance to safe alternatives under medical surveillance. Sometimes desensitization may be required. There is a consensus about the need to perform genetic testing for specific drugs and give patients proper documentation to prevent future exposure to culprit drugs.

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.

The Value of In Vitro Tests to DiminishDrug Challenges

Drug hypersensitivity reactions have multiple implications for patient safety and health system costs, thus it is important to perform an accurate diagnosis. The diagnostic procedure includes a detailed clinical history, often unreliable; followed by skin tests, sometimes with low sensitivity or unavailable; and drug provocation testing, which is not risk-free for the patient, especially in severe reactions. In vitro tests could help to identify correctly the responsible agent, thus improving the diagnosis of these reactions, helping the physician to find safe alternatives, and reducing the need to perform drug provocation testing. However, it is necessary to confirm the sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values for these in vitro tests to enable their implementation in clinical practice. In this review, we have analyzed these parameters from different studies that have used in vitro test for evaluating drug hypersensitivity reactions and estimated the added value of these tests to the in vivo 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.

Basophil Reactivity as Biomarker in Immediate Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions-Potential and Limitations

Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) resemble typical immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated symptoms. Clinical manifestations range from local skin reactions, gastrointestinal and/or respiratory symptoms to severe systemic involvement with potential fatal outcome. Depending on the substance group of the eliciting drug the correct diagnosis is a major challenge. Skin testing and in vitro diagnostics are often unreliable and not reproducible. The involvement of drug-specific IgE is questionable in many cases. The culprit substance (parent drug or metabolite) and potential cross-reacting compounds are difficult to identify, patient history and drug provocation testing often remain the only means for diagnosis. Hence, several groups proposed basophil activation test (BAT) for the diagnosis of immediate DHRs as basophils are well-known effector cells in allergic reactions. However, the usefulness of BAT in immediate DHRs is highly variable and dependent on the drug itself plus its capacity to spontaneously conjugate to serum proteins. Stimulation with pure solutions of the parent drug or metabolites thereof vs. drug-protein conjugates may influence sensitivity and specificity of the test. We thus, reviewed the available literature about the use of BAT for diagnosing immediate DHRs against drug classes such as antibiotics, radio contrast media, neuromuscular blocking agents, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and biologicals. Influencing factors like the selection of stimulants or of the identification and activation markers, the stimulation protocol, gating strategies, and cut-off definition are addressed in this overview on BAT performance. The overall aim is to evaluate the suitability of BAT as biomarker for the diagnosis of immediate drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions.

Non-IgE-Dependent Hypersensitivity to Rocuronium Reversed by Sugammadex: Report of Three Cases and Hypothesis on the Underlying Mechanism

We present 3 cases of pseudoallergic (anaphylactoid) reactions to perioperatively administered rocuronium, which rapidly resolved after sugammadex injection. Allergological workup showed no evidence for immediate-type hypersensitivity to the drugs used for anesthesia, including rocuronium. However, rocuronium induced an irritative reaction in skin tests in all 3 patients and in 3 healthy individuals. This reaction was specifically suppressed by adding sugammadex at a 1:1 molecular proportion to rocuronium before the skin tests. This observation suggests that the patients suffered from a pseudoallergic reaction, and indicates that sugammadex might act via the inhibition of non-IgE mediated MRGPRX2 (Mas-related G-protein-coupled receptor member X2)-triggered mast cell degranulation induced by rocuronium.

[Allergy to neuromuscular blocking agents]

Allergy to neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) has been the first cause of perioperative anaphylaxis for decades, in most countries. The most frequently involved agents are suxamethonium and rocuronium. The allergy work-up is compulsory to demonstrate or rule out allergy to NMBAs, if there is a compatible clinical history. Doing otherwise exposes the patient to death if the same or related NMBA is re-injected. In cases of true allergy, assessing cross-reactivity to other NMBAs is mandatory. The cross-sensitization hypothesis is presently being investigated and if confirmed, it could allow primary prevention measures to be implemented.

Dynamics of plasma levels of specific IgE in chlorhexidine allergic patients with and without accidental re-exposure

BACKGROUND

Chlorhexidine is an effective disinfectant, which may cause severe allergic reactions. Plasma level of specific IgE to chlorhexidine (ImmunoCAP(®) ) has high estimated sensitivity and specificity when measured within 6 months of allergic reaction, but knowledge of the dynamics over longer time periods is lacking and it is unknown whether levels fall below <0.35 kUA/L in patients with previously elevated levels. It is also unclear whether re-exposure influences levels of specific IgE.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the dynamics of specific IgE in chlorhexidine allergic patients with and without re-exposure.

METHODS

All patients diagnosed with chlorhexidine allergy in the Danish Anaesthesia Allergy Centre January 1999 to March 2015 were invited to participate. The study included blood samples from the time of reaction and time of investigation and blood samples drawn prospectively over several years.

RESULTS

Overall, 23 patients were included. Specific IgE within hours of reaction was available in eight patients and was >0.35 kUA/L in six of these. During allergy investigations, usually 2-4 months later, specific IgE was >0.35 kUA/L in 22 of 23 patients. In the following months/years specific IgE declined <0.35 kUA/L in 17 of 23 patients (most rapidly within 4 months). Nine re-exposures in the healthcare setting were reported by seven patients (35%). Most re-exposures caused symptoms and were followed by an increase in specific IgE. Two patients with specific IgE <0.35 kUA/L reacted upon re-exposure.

CONCLUSIONS & CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Time from reaction should be considered when interpreting specific IgE results. Specific IgE is >0.35 kUA/L in most patients at time of reaction but should be repeated after a few weeks/months if negative. The optimal sampling time seems to be >1 month and <4 months. A value <0.35 kUA/L neither excludes allergy nor implies loss of reactivity in previously sensitized patients. Re-exposures are common, often iatrogenic, and can cause a rebound in specific IgE.

Flow-assisted basophil activation tests in immediate drug hypersensitivity: two decades of Antwerp experience

The last two decades have witnessed that flow-assisted analysis of in vitro-activated basophils can constitute a valuable adjunct in the in vitro diagnostic approach of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHR). This article summarises the current experience with the basophil activation test in the diagnosis of IDHR, with particular focus on allergy to curarising neuromuscular blocking agents, antibiotics (β-lactams and fluoroquinolones), iodinated radiocontrast media and opiates.

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.