Basophil activation test has high reproducibility and is feasible in the clinical setting

Biomarker-driven drug development for allergic diseases and asthma: An FDA public workshop

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hosted a workshop on February 22, 2024, to discuss the status of biomarkers in drug development for allergic asthma and food allergy. The workshop provided a forum for open discussion among regulators, academicians, National Institutes of Health staff and industry to inform stakeholders of the requirements for the FDA to adopt a biomarker as a surrogate end point for a clinical trial, and to inform FDA of the status of various biomarkers in development. The workshop was divided into 3 sessions: (1) FDA and European Union regulators discussing regulatory perspectives on use of biomarkers in drug development programs, (2) investigators discussing biomarkers for pediatric and adult asthma, and (3) investigators discussing biomarkers for food allergy. In this report, we review the information presented at the workshop and summarize the current status of potential biomarkers for these allergic diseases.

Basophil Activation Test for the Improved Diagnosis of Peanut and Tree Nut Allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As an ex-vivo test of allergic effector cell activation, basophil activation testing (BAT) to allergen enables quantification of the in-vivo IgE-mediated allergic response. BAT thus holds promise in the diagnosis and monitoring of peanut and tree nut allergies. Recent systematic analyses and expert recommendations support a role for BAT in the diagnosis of peanut and tree nut allergy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Diagnostic cut-offs for BAT in peanut and tree nut allergy have been identified. Consistently, BAT can discriminate with high sensitivity and specificity between allergy and tolerance when measured against oral food challenges. Furthermore, the utilization of BAT has can increase the sensitivity and specificity of peanut allergy and tree nut allergy diagnosis, both alone and in conjunction with specific IgE testing and skin prick testing. BAT is a promising tool in the diagnosis of peanut and tree nut allergy.

Tolerance to cooked egg in infants with risk factors for egg allergy after early introduction of baked egg

Egg allergy (EA),along with cow's milk allergy (CMA) and atopic dermatitis (AD is one of the most frequent allergies in children. Tolerance to food allergens seems to be related to the early and regular intake and the cooking method. The objective of this study is to prove that the introduction of baked eggs at 4-6 months of age and its daily maintenance for 6 months prevents EA. Controlled randomized clinical trial from February 2019 to November 2023 was done for all patients under 6 months of age, including those with CMA and/or AD without previous egg consumption. Skin prick test (SPT), specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE), basophil activation test (BAT), and oral food challenge (OFC) on baked eggs were performed at the beginning of the study (T0). Patients were classified into group A (nontolerant to baked egg) following an egg-free diet and group B (tolerant to baked egg). These were randomized into B1 who ate baked egg daily and B2 who avoided egg. Six months later, at time 1 (T1), an OFC to hard-boiled egg was performed. There were 27 patients in all. Those who ate baked egg daily for 6 months tolerated boiled eggs and only 47.4% of patients who followed an egg-free diet tolerated boiled eggs (P-value 0.012). All three tests-sIgE, SPT, and BAT-are considered good techniques to discriminate between tolerant versus not tolerant patients toward eggs.Patients under 6 months of age with CMA and/or AD who ate baked eggs daily for 6 months tolerated cooked eggs more frequently than patients who avoided eggs. Early introduction of baked eggs could prevent EA.

Blood stored in EDTA tubes provides accurate peanut basophil activation test results for 48 hours

BACKGROUND

The peanut basophil activation test (BAT) has demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy with heparinized blood, but its clinical utility is limited by the short stability of samples stored in this anticoagulant.

OBJECTIVE

Using EDTA anticoagulated blood, these investigations determined if Peanut BAT sample stability can be extended to 2 days, the minimum stability requirement for diagnostic tests currently offered through American reference laboratories.

METHODS

Peanut non-allergic control (NAC), peanut IgE sensitized (PS), and peanut allergic (PA) children aged 6 months through 17 years were recruited from members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California. EDTA anti-coagulated blood samples were collected from participants, shipped to a centralized laboratory, and stored at 4oC for peanut BAT testing 1 and 2 days later.

RESULTS

Peanut BAT results for 23 unblinded participants were used to establish sample rejection and interpretation criteria that were subsequently validated in a prospective double-blind study involving 112 additional children (39-NAC, 36-PS, 37-PA). Of 105 blinded blood samples tested on each study day, 88 (84%) day-1 and 90 (86%) day-2 peanut BAT results were considered interpretable, with diagnostic accuracies of 95.5% and 94.4%, respectively. Moreover, all interpretable PA results were considered positive (100% sensitivity).

CONCLUSION

Using EDTA anti-coagulated blood samples collected remotely, 1 and 2 days before testing, study results highlight the favorable diagnostic performance characteristics of the peanut BAT and provide further evidence that the test could be readily operationalized for clinical use by interested commercial reference laboratories.

Targeting inhibitory Siglec-3 to suppress IgE-mediated human basophil degranulation

BACKGROUND

Sialic acid-binding immunoglobulin-like lectin-3 (Siglec-3 [CD33]) is a major Siglec expressed on human mast cells and basophils; engagement of CD33 leads to inhibition of cellular signaling via immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motifs.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to inhibit human basophil degranulation by simultaneously recruiting inhibitory CD33 to the IgE-FcεRI complex by using monoclonal anti-IgE directly conjugated to CD33 ligand (CD33L).

METHODS

Direct and indirect basophil activation tests (BATs) were used to assess both antigen-specific (peanut) and antigen-nonspecific (polyclonal anti-IgE) stimulation. Whole blood from donors with allergy was used for direct BAT, whereas blood from donors with nonfood allergy was passively sensitized with plasma from donors with peanut allergy in the indirect BAT. Blood was incubated with anti-IgE-CD33L or controls for 1 hour or overnight and then stimulated with peanut, polyclonal anti-IgE, or N-formylmethionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine for 30 minutes. Degranulation was determined by measuring CD63 expression on the basophil surface by flow cytometry.

RESULTS

Incubation for 1 hour with anti-IgE-CD33L significantly reduced basophil degranulation after both allergen-induced (peanut) and polyclonal anti-IgE stimulation, with further suppression after overnight incubation with anti-IgE-CD33L. As expected, anti-IgE-CD33L did not block basophil degranulation due to N-formylmethionyl-leucyl-phenylalanine, providing evidence that this inhibition is IgE pathway-specific. Finally, CD33L is necessary for this suppression, as monoclonal anti-IgE without CD33L was unable to reduce basophil degranulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreating human basophils with anti-IgE-CD33L significantly suppressed basophil degranulation through the IgE-FcεRI complex. The ability to abrogate IgE-mediated basophil degranulation is of particular interest, as treatment with anti-IgE-CD33L before antigen exposure could have broad implications for the treatment of food, drug, and environmental allergies.

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.

BAT and MAT for diagnosis of peanut allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Basophil activation test (BAT) or the mast cell activation test (MAT) are two in vitro tests that are currently being studied in food allergy as diagnostic tools as an alternative to oral food challenges (OFCs). We conducted a meta-analysis on BAT and MAT, assessing their specificity and sensitivity in diagnosing peanut allergy. Six databases were searched for studies on patients suspected of having peanut allergy. Studies using BAT or MAT to peanut extract and/or component as diagnostic tools with results given in percentage of CD63 activation were included in this meta-analysis. Study quality was evaluated with the QUADAS-2 tool. On the 11 studies identified, eight focused exclusively on children, while three included a mixed population of adults and children. Only one study provided data on MAT, precluding us from conducting a statistical analysis. The diagnostic accuracy of BAT was higher when stimulated with peanut extract rather than Ara h 2 with a pooled specificity of 96% (95% CI: 0.89-0.98) and sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.74-0.93). The sensitivity and specificity of BATs in discriminating between allergic and sensitized patients were studied as well, with pooled analysis revealing a sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.74; 0.93) and a specificity of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94, 0.98). BATs, when stimulated with peanut extracts, exhibit a satisfactory sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of peanut allergy and can help to discriminate between allergic individuals and those only sensitized to peanuts. More investigations on the potential for MATs diagnostic methods are warranted.

Basophil allergen threshold sensitivity to casein (casein-specific CD-sens) predicts allergic reactions at a milk challenge in most but not all patients

BACKGROUND

The basophil activation test is an emerging clinical tool in the diagnosis of cow's milk allergy (CMA). The aim was to assess the association between the basophil allergen threshold sensitivity to the major milk protein casein (casein-specific CD-sens), the levels of milk- and casein-specific Immunoglobulin E antibodies (IgE-ab), and the severity of allergic reactions at milk challenges.

METHODS

We enrolled 34 patients aged 5-15 (median 9) years who underwent a double-blind placebo-controlled milk-challenge (DBPCMC) as screening before inclusion in an oral immunotherapy study for CMA. The severity of the allergic reaction at the DBPCMC was graded using Sampson's severity score. Venous blood was drawn before the DBPCMC. Milk- and casein-specific IgE-ab were analyzed. Following in vitro stimulation of basophils with casein, casein-specific CD-sens, was determined.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients completed the DBPCMC. There were strong correlations between casein-specific CD-sens and IgE-ab to milk (rs = 0.682, p < .001), and between casein-specific CD-sens and IgE-ab to casein (rs = 0.823, p < .001). There was a correlation between the severity of the allergic reaction and casein-specific CD-sens level (rs = 0.395, p = .041) and an inverse correlation between casein-specific CD-sens level and the cumulative dose of milk protein to which the patient reacted at the DBPCMC (rs = -0.418, p = .027). Among the 30 patients with an allergic reaction at the DBPCMC, 67% had positive casein-specific CD-sens, 23% had negative casein-specific CD-sens, and 10% were declared non-responders.

CONCLUSION

Two thirds of those reacting at the DBPMC had positive casein-specific CD-sens, but reactions also occurred despite negative casein-specific CD-sens. The association between casein-specific CD-sens and the severity of the allergic reaction and cumulative dose of milk protein, respectively, was moderate.

Feast for thought: A comprehensive review of food allergy 2021-2023

A review of the latest publications in food allergy over the past couple of years confirmed that food allergy is a major public health concern, affecting about 8% of children and 10% of adults in developed countries. The prevalence of food allergy varies around the world, with the increase being driven mainly by environmental factors, possibly together with genetic susceptibility to environmental changes. A precise diagnosis of food allergy is extremely important. Both new tests (eg, the basophil activation test) and improved optimization of information provided by existing tests (eg, the skin prick test and measurement of specific IgE level) can contribute to improving the accuracy and patients' comfort of food allergy diagnosis. Understanding the underlying immune mechanisms is fundamental to designing allergen-specific treatments that can be safe and effective in the long term. New discoveries of the immune response to food allergens, including T-cell and B-cell responses, have emerged. Novel therapeutic approaches are being trialed at various stages of development as attempts to allow for more active intervention to treat food allergy. Prevention is key to reducing the increase in prevalence. Early introduction of allergenic foods seems to be the most effective intervention, but others are being studied, and will, it is hoped, lead to modification of the epidemiologic trajectory of food allergy over time.

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.

EAACI guidelines on the diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy

This European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guideline provides recommendations for diagnosing IgE-mediated food allergy and was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Food allergy diagnosis starts with an allergy-focused clinical history followed by tests to determine IgE sensitization, such as serum allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) and skin prick test (SPT), and the basophil activation test (BAT), if available. Evidence for IgE sensitization should be sought for any suspected foods. The diagnosis of allergy to some foods, such as peanut and cashew nut, is well supported by SPT and serum sIgE, whereas there are less data and the performance of these tests is poorer for other foods, such as wheat and soya. The measurement of sIgE to allergen components such as Ara h 2 from peanut, Cor a 14 from hazelnut and Ana o 3 from cashew can be useful to further support the diagnosis, especially in pollen-sensitized individuals. BAT to peanut and sesame can be used additionally. The reference standard for food allergy diagnosis is the oral food challenge (OFC). OFC should be performed in equivocal cases. For practical reasons, open challenges are suitable in most cases. Reassessment of food allergic children with allergy tests and/or OFCs periodically over time will enable reintroduction of food into the diet in the case of spontaneous acquisition of oral tolerance.

The future of food allergy: Challenging existing paradigms of clinical practice

The field of food allergy has seen tremendous change over the past 5-10 years with seminal studies redefining our approach to prevention and management and novel testing modalities in the horizon. Early introduction of allergenic foods is now recommended, challenging the previous paradigm of restrictive avoidance. The management of food allergy has shifted from a passive avoidance approach to active interventions that aim to provide protection from accidental exposures, decrease allergic reaction severity and improve the quality of life of food-allergic patients and their families. Additionally, novel diagnostic tools are making their way into clinical practice with the goal to reduce the need for food challenges and assist physicians in the-often complex-diagnostic process. With all the new developments and available choices for diagnosis, prevention and therapy, shared decision-making has become a key part of medical consultation, enabling patients to make the right choice for them, based on their values and preferences. Communication with patients has also become more complex over time, as patients are seeking advice online and through social media, but the information found online may be outdated, incorrect, or lacking in context. The role of the allergist has evolved to embrace all the above exciting developments and provide patients with the optimal care that fits their needs. In this review, we discuss recent developments as well as the evolution of the field of food allergy in the next decade.

Will Oral Food Challenges Still Be Part of Allergy Care in 10 Years' Time?

Oral food challenges (OFCs) are currently the definitive diagnostic procedure in food allergy. Their design has evolved over the decades to maximize safety, optimize convenience, and address several specific clinical questions. However, they are a resource-intensive investigation that carry a risk for severe allergic reaction in which fatal outcomes, although rare, have been reported. In this review, we explore the many roles that OFC fulfil in the clinical and research settings. We also discuss progress that has been made in developing alternative diagnostic tools and how far these have reached in offering a viable replacement to OFC in clinical practice. Finally, we discuss the ongoing importance of research OFC to improve the future diagnostic capabilities of novel diagnostic tools.