Tryptase release does not discriminate between IgE- or MRGPRX2-mediated activation in human mast cells

Non-IgE-Mediated Immediate Drug-Induced Hypersensitivity Reactions

Immediate drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions (IDHSRs) have conventionally been attributed to an immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated mechanism. Nevertheless, it has now been acknowledged that IDHSRs can also occur independently of IgE involvement. Non-IgE-mediated IDHSRs encompass the activation of effector cells, both mast cell-dependent and -independent and the initiation of inflammatory pathways through immunogenic and nonimmunogenic mechanisms. The IDHSRs involve inflammatory mediators beyond histamine, including the platelet-activating factor, which activates multiple cell types, including smooth muscle, endothelium, and MC, and evidence supports its importance in IgE-mediated reactions in humans. Clinically, distinguishing IgE from non-IgE mechanisms is crucial for future treatment strategies, including drug(s) restriction, readministration approaches, and pretreatment considerations. However, this presents significant challenges because certain drugs can trigger both mechanisms, and their presentations can appear similarly, ranging from mild to life-threatening symptoms. Thus, history alone is often inadequate for differentiation, and skin tests lack a standardized approach. Moreover, drug-specific IgE immunoassays have favorable specificity but low sensitivity, and the usefulness of the basophil activation test remains debatable. Lastly, no biomarker reliably differentiates between both mechanisms. Whereas non-IgE-mediated mechanisms likely predominate in IDHSRs, reclassifying most drug-related IDHSRs as non-IgE-mediated, with suggested prevention through dose administration adjustments, is premature and risky. Therefore, continued research and validated diagnostic tests are crucial to improving our capacity to distinguish between these mechanisms, ultimately enhancing patient care.

Biomarkers of immediate drug hypersensitivity

Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) are a burden for patients and the health systems. This problem increases when taking into account that only a small proportion of patients initially labelled as allergic are finally confirmed after an allergological workup. The diverse nature of drugs involved will imply different interactions with the immunological system. Therefore, IDHRs can be produced by a wide array of mechanisms mediated by the drug interaction with specific antibodies or directly on effector target cells. These heterogeneous mechanisms imply an enhanced complexity for an accurate diagnosis and the identification of the phenotype and endotype at early stages of the reaction is of vital importance. Currently, several endophenotypic categories (type I IgE/non-IgE, cytokine release, Mast-related G-protein coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2) or Cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) inhibition and their associated biomarkers have been proposed. A precise knowledge of endotypes will permit to discriminate patients within the same phenotype, which is crucial in order to personalise diagnosis, future treatment and prevention to improve the patient's quality of life.

Paediatric perioperative hypersensitivity: the performance of the current consensus formula and the effect of uneventful anaesthesia on serum tryptase

Background

Paired sampling of acute (aST) and basal (bST) serum tryptase has been recommended when investigating patients with a suspected perioperative hypersensitivity (POH) reaction. In the current consensus formula, an aST value exceeding (1.2×bST+2) confirms mast cell activation. The current consensus formula has been validated in adults but not in children.

Methods

We prospectively included 96 children who underwent uneventful anaesthesia and sampled serum tryptase at baseline and 60-90 min after induction. Tryptase changes were then compared with those in 94 children with suspected POH who were retrospectively included from four reference centres in Belgium, France, and Denmark.

Results

We observed a median decrease in serum tryptase during uneventful anaesthesia of 0.41 μg L-1 (-15.9%; P<0.001). The current consensus formula identified mast cell activation in 31.9% of paediatric POH patients. After generating receiver operating characteristic curves through 100 repeated five-fold cross-validation, aST>bST+0.71 was identified as the optimal cut-off point to identify mast cell activation. This new paediatric formula has higher sensitivity than the current consensus formula (53.2% vs 31.9%, P<0.001) with a specificity of 96.9%. Analysis in the subpopulation where a culprit was identified and in grade 3-4 reactions similarly yielded higher sensitivity for the new paediatric formula when compared with the current consensus formula (85.3% vs 61.8%; P=0.008 and 78.0% vs 48.8%; P<0.001, respectively). Internally cross-validated sensitivity and specificity were 53.3% and 93.3%, respectively.

Conclusions

This is the first study suggesting the need for an adjusted formula in children to identify perioperative mast cell activation as tryptase is significantly lowered during uneventful anaesthesia. We propose a new formula (aST>bST+0.71) which performs significantly better than the current consensus formula in our multicentric paediatric population.

Diagnostic Significance of Tryptase for Suspected Mast Cell Disorders

Tryptase has proven to be a very useful and specific marker to demonstrate mast cell activation and degranulation when an acute (i.e., within 4 h after the event) and baseline value (i.e., at least 24 h after the event) are compared and meet the consensus formula (i.e., an increase of 20% + 2). The upper limit of normal determined by the manufacturer is 11.4 ng/mL; however, this boundary has been the subject of debate. According to ECNM and AIM experts, the normal range of baseline tryptase should be 1 to 15 ng/mL. A genetic trait, hereditary alpha tryptasemia, characterized by an increased alpha coding TPSAB1 copy number is associated with a baseline value above 8 ng/mL. Elevated tryptase can also be found in chronic kidney disease, obesity, and hematological neoplasms. A tryptase > 20 ng/mL serves as a minor criterion to diagnose systemic mastocytosis and an increase in tryptase > 20% + 2 during an acute event is a required criterion in the diagnosis of mast cell activation syndrome. The goal of this review is to demonstrate the (in)significance of tryptase using some clinical vignettes and to provide a practical guide on how to manage and interpret an elevated tryptase level.

Serum tryptase and drug hypersensitivity: why, how and what? A systematic review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Serum tryptase, a mast cell marker, provides clues for the mechanism, severity, and management of drug hypersensitivity induced by immunoglobulin E dependent or independent mast cell activation.

RECENT FINDINGS

The interpretation of serum tryptase levels has been challenged during the last 2 years by major advances in tryptase genetics and their rapid incorporation into clinical practice. On the contrary, new pathophysiological insight into nonmast cell-dependent immediate hypersensitivity has been gained.

SUMMARY

This review provides up-to-date information on the pathophysiology and recommended use and interpretation of tryptase in the context of drug hypersensitivity reactions as a function of their endotype.

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.

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.

Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor MRGPRX2 in human basophils: Expression and functional studies

Background

Occupancy of MRGPRX2 heralds a new era in our understandings of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs), but a constitutive expression of this receptor by basophils is debated.

Objective

To explore the expression and functionality of MRGPRX2 in and on basophils.

Methods

Basophils from patients with birch pollen allergy, IDHRs to moxifloxacin, and healthy controls were studied in different conditions, that is, in rest, after stimulation with anti-IgE, recombinant major birch pollen allergen (rBet v 1), moxifloxacin, fMLP, substance P (SP), or other potential basophil secretagogues. In a separate set of experiments, basophils were studied after purification and resuspension in different media.

Results

Resting whole blood basophils barely express MRGPRX2 on their surface and are unresponsive to SP or moxifloxacin. However, surface MRGPRX2 is quickly upregulated upon incubation with anti-IgE or fMLP. Pre-stimulation with anti-IgE can induce a synergic effect on basophil degranulation in IgE-responsive subjects after incubation with SP or moxifloxacin, provided that basophils have been obtained from patients who experienced an IDHR to moxifloxacin. Cell purification can trigger a "spontaneous" and functional upregulation of MRGPRX2 on basophils, not seen in whole blood cells, and its surface density can be influenced by distinct culture media.

Conclusion

Basophils barely express MRGPRX2 in resting conditions. However, the receptor can be quickly upregulated after stimulation with anti-IgE, fMLP, or after purification, making cells responsive to MRGPRX2 occupation. We anticipate that such "conditioned" basophils constitute a model to explore MRGPRX2 agonism or antagonism, including IDHRs originating from the occupation of this receptor.

Hypersensitivity reactions to folinic acid: mechanisms involved based on two case reports and a literature review

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to antineoplastic agents are an increasing problem, especially when they lead to treatment discontinuation, sometimes without any equivalent therapeutic option. HSR to folinic acid (FA), used particularly for the treatment of digestive carcinoma along with oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil, are rare. Only seven publications report HSR to FA, mainly confirmed by the disappearance of symptoms after the withdrawal of FA from chemotherapy. Only two papers describe allergy testing. Due to the difficult diagnosis, patients usually receive several further cycles of chemotherapy with progressively more intense symptoms before the withdrawal of FA.

CASE PRESENTATION

Here we document two cases of HSR to FA, initially misattributed to oxaliplatin. The first patient described successive cycles with first back muscle pain, then chills and facial oedema and finally diffuse erythema with labial edema despite premedication. The allergy assessment highlighted high acute tryptase levels and intradermal tests positive for FA, pointing to an immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated mechanism. The second patient also had lower back muscle pain and chills in addition to tachycardia and desaturation during the administration of FA. Skin tests were negative and tryptase levels normal. After withdrawing FA, the symptoms did not recur, thus allowing the patient to continue chemotherapy. The mechanism of FA hypersensitivity is still unclear. The chronology of symptoms suggests an IgE-mediated mechanism that was not documented in the allergy assessment. A non-IgE-mediated mast cell/basophil activation could be involved, through complement activation or through Mas-related G protein-coupled receptors X2 (MRGPRX2) particularly.

CONCLUSIONS

These two cases of anaphylaxis to FA document the clinical manifestations associated with two different mechanisms of HSR. This paper provided the opportunity to review the limited literature on HSR to FA. Through these cases, we hope to draw the practitioner's attention to FA as a potential agent of severe hypersensitivity, especially if symptoms remain after withdrawing the most suspected chemotherapeutic agents. We want also to stress the importance of allergy testing.

Immediate hypersensitivity to COVID-19 vaccines: Focus on biological diagnosis

Soon after the release of the new anti-COVID mRNA vaccines, reports came in from the US and the UK of anaphylactic reactions. Fueled by the necessary caution toward these new vaccine platforms, these reports had a great impact and were largely commented upon in the scientific literature and global media. The current estimated frequency is of 5 cases per million doses. Very little biological data are presented in the literature to support the anaphylaxis diagnosis in these patients in addition to skin tests. Allergic reactions to vaccines are rare and mostly due to vaccine excipient. Therefore, the poly-ethylene-glycol (PEG) present in both mRNA formulation, and already known to be immunogenic, was soon suspected to be the potential culprit. Several hypersensitivity mechanisms to PEG or to other vaccine components can be suspected, even if the classical IgE-dependent anaphylaxis seems to be one of the most plausible candidates. In the early 2022, the international guidelines recommended to perform skin prick tests and basophil activation tests (BAT) in people experiencing allergic reaction to the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine or with a history of PEG allergy. The aim of this review is to discuss the main potential mechanisms of immediate allergy to COVID19 vaccines based on published data, together with the various techniques used to confirm or not sensitization to one component.