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

BACKGROUND: 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 in vivo tests. Data on whether in vitro 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Differential presentation of hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin and oxaliplatin: Phenotypes, endotypes, and management with desensitization.

BACKGROUND: Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to platinum-based drugs are heterogenous and restrict their access, and drug desensitization (DD) has provided a ground-breaking procedure for their re-introduction, although the response is heterogeneous. We aimed to identify the phenotypes, endotypes, and biomarkers of reactions to carboplatin and oxaliplatin and their response to DD. METHODS: Seventy-nine patients presenting with DHRs to oxaliplatin (N = 46) and carboplatin (N = 33) were evaluated at the Allergy Departments of two tertiary care hospitals in Spain. Patient symptoms, skin testing, biomarkers, and outcomes of 267 DDs were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Oxaliplatin-reactive patients presented with type I (74%), cytokine release reaction (CRR) (11%), and mixed (Mx) (15%) phenotypes. In contrast, carboplatin reactive patients presented with predominantly type I (85%) and Mx (15%) but no CRRs. Out of 267 DDs, breakthrough reactions (BTRs) to oxaliplatin occurred twice as frequently as carboplatin (32% vs. 15%; p < .05). Phenotype switching from type I to another phenotype was observed in 46% of oxaliplatin DDs compared to 21% of carboplatin DDs. Tryptase was elevated in type I and Mx reactions, and IL-6 in CRR and Mx, indicating different mechanisms and endotypes. CONCLUSION: Carboplatin and oxaliplatin induced three different types of reactions with defined phenotypes and endotypes amendable to DD. Although most of the initial reactions for both were type I, oxaliplatin presented with unique CRR reactions. During DD, carboplatin reactive patients presented mostly type I BTR, while oxaliplatin-reactive patients frequently switched from type I to CRR, providing a critical difference and the need for personalized DD protocols.

Hypersensitivity to gadolinium-based contrast.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of contrast media is increasing in recent decades. Although gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) are generally well tolerated, adverse reactions, including hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), although infrequent, may occur. It is important to perform a thorough allergological evaluation in patients with suspected GBCA-HSRs to avoid potentially serious reactions in subsequent exposures. RECENT FINDINGS: Data on GBCA-HSRs are scarce. Most published articles dealing with skin tests and drug provocation tests (DPTs) with GBCAs are case series and small cohorts. Controversies exist about the role of premedication for preventing HSRs on subsequent exposures. Selection of well tolerated alternatives is based on potential cross-reactivity among GBCAs; however, the extent of cross-reactivity among them remains unclear. SUMMARY: As premedication is not useful because breakthrough reactions are frequent in patients with GBCA-HSRs in subsequent exposures, an allergological evaluation is required. Available data suggest a high negative predictive value of skin tests, being crucial for guiding the selection of an alternative GBCA. However, DPTs are still necessary to confirm or exclude the diagnosis or find alternative GBCAs. Cross-reactivity is high among GBCAs belonging from the same group, mainly among macrocyclic compounds, so this must be taken into account for selecting alternatives.

Drug-induced Anaphylaxis.

Drug hypersensitivity is increasing worldwide as the consumption of drug is increasing. Many clinical presentations of drug hypersensitivity are complex and take place in the setting of illness and/or polypharmacotherapy. To review the most recent findings in the diagnosis and management of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions. Studies were selected based on their relevance, originality and date of publication. The understanding of endotypes, biomarkers and phenotypes has improved the categorization of immediate hypersensitivity reactions. In this review, we discussed the short- and long-term management of anaphylaxis with a special focus on in vivo and in vitro diagnostic methods. Moreover, the clinical management of drug-induced anaphylaxis, the role of hidden allergens and the importance of delabeling are discussed. Endophenotyping is crucial to correctly diagnose and treat patients with immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions, preventing future episodes through drug desensitization.

Resensitization in suspected penicillin allergy.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of allergic reactions to penicillins (AR-PEN) is very complex as there is a loss of sensitization over time, which leads to negative skin tests (STs) and specific IgE in serum, and even to tolerance to the drug involved. However, STs may become positive after subsequent exposure to the culprit drug (resensitization), with the risk of inducing potentially severe reactions. The exact rate of resensitization to penicillins is unknown, ranging from 0% to 27.9% in published studies. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the rate of resensitization in patients with suggestive AR-PEN by repeating STs (retest) after an initial evaluation (IE). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with suspected AR-PEN were prospectively evaluated between 2017 and 2020. They underwent STs, and a randomized group also underwent a drug provocation test (DPT) with the culprit. Only patients with negative STs and/or DPT were included. All included cases were retested by STs at 2-8 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 545 patients were included: 296 reporting immediate reactions (IRs) and 249 non-immediate reactions (NIRs). Eighty (14.7%) cases had positive results in retest (RT+): 63 (21.3%) IRs and 17 (6.8%) NIRs (p < 0.0001). The rate of RT+ was higher in anaphylaxis compared with all other reactions (45.8% vs 9.1%, p < 0.0001). The risk of RT+ was higher from the fifth week after IE (OR: 4.64, CI: 2.1-11.6; p < 0.001) and increased with the patient's age (OR: 1.02; CI: 1.01-1.04; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Due to the high rate of resensitization, retest should be included in the diagnostic algorithm of IRs to penicillins after an initial negative study, especially in anaphylaxis, to avoid potentially severe reactions after subsequent prescriptions of these drugs.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Shared Clavulanate and Tazobactam Antigenic Determinants Activate T-Cells from Hypersensitive Patients.

ß-Lactamase inhibitors such as clavulanic acid and tazobactam were developed to overcome ß-lactam antibiotic resistance. Hypersensitivity reactions to these drugs have not been studied in detail, and the antigenic determinants that activate T-cells have not been defined. The objectives of this study were to (i) characterize clavulanate- and tazobactam-responsive T-cells from hypersensitive patients, (ii) explore clavulanate and tazobactam T-cell crossreactivity, and (iii) define the antigenic determinants that contribute to T-cell reactivity. Antigen specificity, pathways of T-cell activation, and crossreactivity with clavulanate- and tazobactam-specific T-cell clones were assessed by proliferation and cytokine release assays. Antigenic determinants were analyzed by mass spectrometry-based proteomics methods. Clavulanate- and tazobactam-responsive CD4+ T-cell clones were stimulated to proliferate and secrete IFN-γ in an MHC class II-restricted and dose-dependent manner. T-cell activation with clavulanate- and tazobactam was dependent on antigen presenting cells because their fixation prevented the T-cell response. Strong crossreactivity was observed between clavulanate- and tazobactam-T-cells; however, neither drug activated ß-lactam antibiotic-responsive T-cells. Mass spectrometric analysis revealed that both compounds form multiple antigenic determinants with lysine residues on proteins, including an overlapping aldehyde and hydrated aldehyde adduct with mass additions of 70 and 88 Da, respectively. Collectively, these data show that although clavulanate and tazobactam are structurally distinct, the antigenic determinants formed by both drugs overlap, which explains the observed T-cell cross-reactivity.

Drug hypersensitivity, in vitro tools, biomarkers, and burden with COVID-19 vaccines.

Hypersensitivity reactions to drugs are increasing worldwide. They display a large degree of variability in the immunological mechanisms involved, which impacts both disease severity and the optimal diagnostic procedure. Therefore, drug hypersensitivity diagnosis relies on both in vitro and in vivo assessments, although most of the methods are not well standardized. Moreover, several biomarkers can be used as valuable parameters for precision medicine that provide information on the endotypes, diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction of drug hypersensitivity development, as well on the identification of therapeutic targets and treatment efficacy monitoring. Furthermore, in the last 2 years, the SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus) pandemic has had an important impact on health system, leading us to update approaches on how to manage hypersensitivity reactions to drugs used for its treatment and on COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease) vaccines used for its prevention. This article reviews recent advances in these 3 areas regarding drug hypersensitivity: in vitro tools for drug hypersensitivity diagnosis, recently identified biomarkers that could guide clinical decision making and management of hypersensitivity reactions to drugs and vaccines used for COVID-19.