Diagnosis Of Immediate Reactions Research Articles

Basophil activation test is a complementary tool in the diagnosis of immediate reactions to platinum salts and taxanes.

Delabelling pathways offer confirmatory diagnosis and can prevent unnecessary second-line therapies or drug desensitization procedures after chemotherapeutic hypersensitivity reactions (CHT-HSRs). However, these pathways rely on risky invivo tests. Data on whether invitro tests could be helpful are scarce. We assessed the role of basophil activation test (BAT) in the diagnosis of HSRs to platin salts (PSs) and taxanes (TXs) in a well-defined population featuring varied endophenotypes and severities of HSRs. We conducted a 3-year-long multicentric, prospective study with 121 suspected-immediate CHT-HSR patients. The allergy workup included clinical history (initial reaction based on Type I, cytokine release syndrome, and mixed phenotype's symptoms and if unable to fit in any of these, as "indeterminate"), skin testing (ST), and drug provocation testing (DPT), provided risk assessment was favorable. Final diagnosis classified patients as "hypersensitive," "non-hypersensitive," or "inconclusive." We performed BAT using CD63 and CD203c as activation markers in patients and controls. Patients underwent DPT regardless of BAT results to prevent bias. ST positivity significantly correlated with skin involvement, Type I phenotype, cancer recurrence, and lifetime exposures before reactions. DPTs were negative in all indeterminate phenotype patients (p = .02) and those considered low-risk, whereas they were negative in 62% moderate-risk patients. 55% were confirmed as hypersensitive (mainly Type I reactions, p < .0001), 24% as non-hypersensitive (mainly TXs and indeterminate phenotypes), and 21% as inconclusive. BAT showed 79% sensitivity in Type I IgE-mediated reactions to PSs with a high correlation to ST. BAT is a promising tool for delabelling and endotyping CHT-HSRs, especially Type I reactions to PSs, possibly identifying patients at risk of positive DPT. ST seems useful in confirming CHT-HSRs, especially PS-induced reactions, and DPT remains the gold standard, being essential even in moderate-risk patients.

Diagnosis of immediate reactions to amoxicillin: Comparison of basophil activation markers CD63 and CD203c in a prospective study.

Amoxicillin (AX) combined or not with clavulanic acid (CLV) is frequently involved in IgE-mediated reactions. Drug provocation test (DPT) is considered as the gold standard for diagnosis, although contraindicated in high-risk patients. Basophil activation test (BAT) can help diagnose immediate reactions to beta-lactams, although controversy exists regarding the best activation marker. We have performed a real-life study in a prospective cohort to analyze the real value of BAT as diagnostic tool and the best activation marker, CD63 and CD203c, for the evaluation of immediate reactions to these drugs. We prospectively evaluated patients with a clinical suspicion of immediate reactions after AX or AX-CLV administration during a 6-year period. The allergological work-up was done following the EAACI recommendations. BAT was performed in all patients using CD63 and CD203c as activation markers. In AX-allergic patients, both activation markers, CD63 and CD203c, showed similar SE values (48.6% and 46.7%, respectively); however, specificity was of 81.1% and 94.6%, respectively, with CD203c showing good positive predictive value and like-hood ratio. In CLV-allergic patients, CD203c showed higher SE (50%) than CD63 (42.9%), maintaining the same value of SP (80%). Combining the results of both markers can slightly increase the sensitivity (51.4% for AX and 54.8% for CLV), although decreasing the specificity (79.7% and 73%, respectively). Interestingly, all patients with an anaphylactic shock showed a positive BAT to CLV using CD203c. BAT using CD203c showed a good confirmatory power, especially for AX allergy. Placing BAT as a first step in the diagnostic procedure can help reduce the need of performing a complete allergological work-up in 46.6% of patients, diminishing the risk of reinducing allergic reactions.

Diagnostic value and safety of penicillin skin tests in children with immediate penicillin allergy.

Background: The first-line method in the diagnosis of patients who describe an immediate reaction after penicillin intake is a skin test (ST) with penicillin reagents. Objectives: We aimed to determine the safety and diagnostic value of penicillin STs in the diagnosis of immediate reactions to penicillins in pediatric patients. Methods: The study included pediatric patients with suspected immediate reaction to penicillin who were subjected to STs by using a standard penicillin test kit as well as suspected penicillin and the drug provocation tests (DPT) with the suspected penicillin at our clinic. Results: A total of 191 patients (53.9% boys) with a median age of 6.83 years (interquartile range, 4.2-12 years) were included in the study. The time from drug intake to the onset of reaction was ≤1 hour in 138 patients (72.3%) and 1 to 6 hours in 53 patients (27.7%). Penicillin allergy (PA) was confirmed by diagnostic tests in 36 of the 191 patients (18.8%). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the history of both urticaria and angioedema (odds ratio [OR] 27.683 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 3.143-243.837]; p = 0.003) and anaphylaxis (OR 56.246 [95% CI, 6.598-479.489]; p < 0.001) were the main predictors of a PA diagnosis. Although ST results were positive in 23 patients (63.8%), 13 patients (26.2%) had positive DPT results despite negative ST results. The negative predictive value (NPV) of STs was calculated 92.2% (155/168). None of our patients experienced immediate or delayed systemic and/or local reactions in relation to the STs. Conclusion: A history of urticaria with angioedema and anaphylaxis were the main predictors of true PA in children with suspected immediate reactions. STs with penicillin reagents are safe for use in children. Although STs have a high NPV, DPT is the gold standard for diagnosis. DPTs should be performed as the final step of the diagnostic evaluation of PA in patients with negative ST results.

The Basophil Activation Test Can Be of Value for Diagnosing Immediate Allergic Reactions to Omeprazole

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly used to treat gastrointestinal diseases. Incidence of hypersensitivity reactions to PPIs has risen, likely because of increased consumption. Their diagnosis is difficult, with skin tests (STs) presenting low sensitivity, making it necessary to perform drug provocation tests (DPTs). The value of invitro tests for the diagnosis of immediate reaction to PPI is unclear. To analyze the diagnostic value of the basophil activation test (BAT) in a group of patients diagnosed with immediate allergy to omeprazole. The study included 42 patients with confirmed immediate allergic reactions to omeprazole confirmed by positive ST results or DPT results and 22 age- and sex-matched subjects tolerant to PPIs. BAT was performed with omeprazole, pantoprazole, and lansoprazole using CD63 and CD203c as activation markers. ST sensitivity was 66.7% with a specificity of 100%. BAT using CD63 with a stimulation index of more than 2 as positive revealed a sensitivity of 73.8%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 66.7%. BAT was positive in 57.1% of patients with negative ST result, and thus by combining ST and BAT we can correctly diagnose 85.7% of patients with immediate allergy to omeprazole. BAT represents a complementary tool for inclusion in the allergological workup for patients allergic to omeprazole. When combined with ST, it can be of value to guide the clinician as to whether to perform a DPT.

Anaphylaxis induced by proton pump inhibitors

Anaphylaxis induced by proton pump inhibitors

Diagnosis of immediate reactions to iodinated contrast media: a review

Diagnosis of immediate reactions to iodinated contrast media: a review

Diagnosis of Immediate Hypersensitivity to β-Lactam Antibiotics Can Be Made Safely with Current Approaches

Background: Diagnosing immediate hypersensitivity to β-lactam antibiotics is still a significant problem. Recently, a new penicillin testing reagent was introduced to the market. In this study, the recommendations of the European Network of Drug Allergy (ENDA) for the diagnosis of immediate reactions to β-lactams were followed, and the negative predictive value of this approach with currently available reagents was assessed. Methods: Eighty patients (age range: 6–74 years) with a history of immediate reactions to β-lactams were included. All cases underwent skin testing with benzylpenicilloyl-polylysine (PPL) and minor determinant mixture (MDM), followed by the culprit drug if necessary. If this step was negative, a drug provocation test was offered. If this step also yielded a negative result, then the patients were recommended to use β-lactam antibiotics in future whenever their use was indicated. Results: Overall, 29 patients (36.2%) were diagnosed as β-lactam allergic. The majority of the cases (72.4%) were diagnosed by positive skin tests to either PPL or MDM, whereas 10.3% were diagnosed by skin testing with culprit drugs and 17.2% with drug provocation tests. Regarding the use of the tested drug in the long term, almost half of the contacted patients had had an indication to use the tested drug and the majority had taken the whole course without problems. Conclusions: Although currently available new penicillin tests provide sufficient allergy data, all the steps recommended by ENDA should be followed in the diagnosis of immediate reactions to β-lactams. If these steps are negative, the patients usually tolerate β-lactams and only a few develop mild, non-life-threatening reactions in the long term.

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Contrast Media: Prevalence, Risk Factors and the Role of Skin Tests in Diagnosis – A Cross-Sectional Survey

Background: Hypersensitivity to contrast media (CMs) may be common and serious. Aim: To evaluate the prevalence of CM hypersensitivity, risk factors associated with it and the role of skin testing in its diagnosis. Methods: A structured questionnaire was administered to patients who underwent computed tomography during a 1-year period. Skin tests with CMs, including skin prick tests (SPTs), intradermal tests (IDTs) and patch tests (PTs), were conducted on CM reactors (n = 24). Volunteers who tolerated CM exposure or had never been exposed to any CMs served as controls (n = 37). Results: A total of 1,131 patients (630 females and 501 males; mean age 55 ± 14.2 years) were enrolled in the study. The prevalence of historical and current CM reactors was 33/1,131 (2.92%) and 8/1,105 (0.72%), respectively. The skin was the most affected site, with mild to moderate reactions. Female gender, a history of doctor-diagnosed asthma, drug allergy, food allergy and psychiatric diseases were significant risk factors. The sensitivities of SPTs and early readings of IDTs in the diagnosis of immediate reactions were 0 and 20%, respectively, and the specificities were 94.6 and 91.4%, respectively. For early readings of IDTs, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 40 and 80%, respectively. For nonimmediate reactions, the sensitivities of delayed readings of IDTs and PTs were 14.3 and 25%, respectively; specificity was 100% for both tests. The PPV was 100% for both of these tests, and the NPVs were 85.4 and 82.4%, respectively. Conclusions: Our findings are comparable with the incidence, profile and risk factors associated with CM hypersensitivity reported previously. Skin testing with CMs has a high specificity, but its role in diagnosis is limited due to low sensitivity.

Skin tests in the diagnosis of betalactam allergy

The sensitivity of prick and intradermal tests in the diagnosis of immediate reaction to betalactams mainly depends on the drug that elicited the reaction and the time elapsed from the clinical reaction. For penicillins the use of the major determinant (BPO-polylisine), a mixture of minor determinants (MDM), benzylpenicillin and aminopenicillins have a sensitivity of 60–90%. Taking into consideration that 10% of cases of penicillin allergy were made during rechallenge study, it supports the need to include this procedure in the study of penicillin allergy. This is particularly important in patients with immediate reactions sensitised only to aminopenicillin with good tolerance to penicillin and if the time elapsed from last reaction is more than 6 months. For immediate reactions to cephalosporins the sensitivity of the skin test is less than for penicillins, approximately 50%. For other betalactams the experience is limited and no conclusion can be drawn. The value of late reading of intradermal tests and the patch test in late reactions to betalactams is also limited but can be useful in approximately 40–80% of cases.