PD-BAT: A novel approach of pooling basophil donors for expansion of commercial laboratory testing of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria.

The type II autoimmune subtype of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria (CSU) is characterized by the presence of IgG autoantibodies targeting IgE or the IgE high-affinity receptor (FcεRI) on mast cells and basophils. In evaluation of CSU patients, indirect basophil activation testing (BAT), has been utilized, involving the mixing of patient serum with heterologous peripheral blood donors, followed by flow cytometric assessment of basophil markers. However, the reliability of the indirect BAT results hinges on the quality of the donor basophils utilized. In this study, we introduce an innovative approach where multiple potential basophil donors undergo rigorous BAT characterization alongside control samples. By selecting and pooling donors with optimal performance, we significantly enhance the inter-assay reproducibility of the indirect BAT test.

Basophil activation in insect venom allergy: comparison of an established test using liquid reagents with a test using 5-color tubes with dried antibody reagents.

BACKGROUND: Flow cytometry-based basophil activation tests (BAT) have been performed with various modifications, differing in the use of distinct identification and activation markers. Established tests use liquid reagents while a new development involves the use of tubes with dried antibody reagents. The aim of this pilot study was to compare these two techniques in patients with insect venom allergy. METHODS: Seventeen patients with an insect venom allergy were included in the study. The established "BAT 1" utilizes conventional antibody solutions of anti-CCR3 for basophil identification and anti-CD63 to assess basophil activation, whereas "BAT 2" uses dried anti-CD45, anti-CD3, anti-CRTH2, anti-203c and anti-CD63 for identification and activation measurement of basophils. Negative and positive controls as well as incubations with honey bee venom and yellow jacket venom at three concentrations were performed. RESULTS: Seven patients had to be excluded due to low basophil counts, high values in negative controls or negative positive controls. For the remaining 10 patients the overall mean (± SD) difference in activated basophils between the two tests was 0.2 (± 12.2) %P. In a Bland-Altman plot, the limit of agreement (LoA) ranged from 24.0 to -23.7. In the qualitative evaluation (value below/above cut-off) Cohen's kappa was 0.77 indicating substantial agreement. BAT 2 took longer to perform than BAT 1 and was more expensive. CONCLUSION: The BAT 2 technique represents an interesting innovation, however, it was found to be less suitable compared to an established BAT for the routine diagnosis of insect venom allergies.

Allergy to PEG (polyethylene glycol) - sensitivity of basophil activation test with COVID-19 mRNA-vaccine BNT162B2.

Basophil activation test (BAT) with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine seems particularly suitable for detecting sensitization to polyethylene glycol (PEG) in patients with PEG allergy. It was the aim of this study to determine the cutoffs for BAT using BNT162B2 (Comirnaty®) in a larger group of PEG allergic patients and controls. 10 PEG allergic patients and 10 controls were studied. BAT was performed using anti-CCR3 for basophil identification and anti-CD63 to assess basophil activation. Incubations with BNT162B2 at four different concentrations were performed. Basophil activation was significantly higher in PEG allergic patients compared to controls at the higher concentrations used. ROC curves showed best results with a sensitivity of 60% and specificity of 100% with a cutoff of 5% CD63+ basophils at a concentration of 4.5 µg/ml. Controls showed no positive results. In our group of PEG allergic patients, a concentration of 4.5 µg/ml BNT162B2 with a cutoff of 5% CD63+ basophils was the most suitable condition for identifying patients with a sensitization to PEG. Allergological work-up of PEG allergic patients including BAT with PEGylated lipid nanoparticles might play a role in the future when these substances will be used for other vaccines and cancer immunotherapies.

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.

Flow-based basophil activation test in immediate drug hypersensitivity. An EAACI task force position paper.

Diagnosing immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) can pose a significant challenge and there is an urgent need for safe and reliable tests. Evidence has emerged that the basophil activation test (BAT), an in vitro assay that mirrors the in vivo response, can be a complementary test for many drugs. In this position paper, members of Task Force (TF) "Basophil activation test in the evaluation of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions" from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) present the data from a survey about the use and utility of BAT in IDHRs in Europe. The survey results indicate that there is a great interest for using BAT especially for diagnosing IDHRs. However, there are still main needs, mainly in the standardization of the protocols. Subsequently consensus-based recommendations were formulated for: (i) Technical aspects of BAT in IDHRs including type of sample, management of drugs, flow cytometry protocols, interpretation of the results; and (ii) Drug-specific aspects that should be taken into account when performing BAT in relation to betalactams, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluoroquinolones, chlorhexidine, opioids, radio contrast media, chemotherapeutics, biological agents, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, COVID vaccine, and excipients. Moreover, aspects in the evaluation of pediatric population have also been considered. All this indicates that BAT offers the clinician and laboratory a complementary tool for a safe diagnostic for IDHRs, although its place in the diagnostic algorithm depends on the drug class and patient population (phenotype, geography, and age). The standardization of BAT is important for generalizing this method beyond the individual laboratory.

Performance Characteristics of Basophil Activation Tests for Diagnosing Penicillin Allergy: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of the global population identify themselves as penicillin allergic, yet 90% are not truly allergic and could safely tolerate penicillin. There is no simple way to identify these people. Current in vitro diagnostics include specific immunoglobulin E (with a sensitivity of 19% and specificity of 97%) and a basophil activation test (BAT) with undefined sensitivity and specificity. OBJECTIVE: To define the sensitivity and specificity of BAT in the diagnosis of penicillin allergy METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE from inception to April 2, 2023, for original studies evaluating the performance characteristics of BAT for penicillin allergy in adults. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias, assessment with QUADAS-2 tool, certainty assessment with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology were performed independently, in duplicate. Meta-analysis was performed using Reitsma methodology. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twelve used the same positive threshold giving a summary point sensitivity 51% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]46%-56%) and specificity 89% (95% CI 85%-93%). Significant risk of bias was identified owing to patient selection. GRADE certainty of evidence rated sensitivity very low due to imprecision and specificity as low. There was great heterogeneity in methods used. Use of 1,000 basophils per test did not improve performance above 500 basophils. CONCLUSIONS: BAT sensitivity is highly variable across studies and remains too low to be considered as a routine element of clinical practice. BAT specificity is not as good as specific immunoglobulin E in penicillin allergy diagnosis. Significant further work is required in this field before clinical application of BAT in routine practice.

Clinical validation of the basophil activation test in immediate hypersensitivity reactions to gadolinium-based contrast agents.

Gadolinium based contrast agents (GBCAs) are safe compounds globally used in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, in last years it has been detected an increase of immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) to them. Diagnosis of IHRs to GBCAs is based on clinical symptoms, skin tests (STs) and drug provocation test (DPT). But DPTs are not without risks, thus it is important to implement an in vitro alternative method such as the basophil activation test (BAT). We described the clinical validation of the BAT using ROC curves from a control population formed by 40 healthy individuals without previous reactions to any contrast agents and 5 patients suffering from IHRs to GBCAs. Four patients presented IHRs to gadoteric acid (GA) as the culprit agent and another one to gadobutrol (G). Basophil reactivity was measured in percentage of CD63 expression and in stimulation index (SI). The optimal cut-off with the highest sensitivity (S) and specificity (E) for the GA was of 4.6% at 1:100 dilution (S = 80% and E = 85%; AUC = 0.880, p = 0.006). For the SI with GA, the cut-off of highest sensitivity and specificity was of 2.79 at 1:100 dilution (S = 80% and E = 100%; AUC = 0.920, p = 0.002). Sensitivity did not show differences between STs regarding the BAT (p < 0.05). Moreover, the BAT was able to detect one case with IHR to GA which had negative STs. Therefore, the BAT is a useful method in diagnosis of IHRs to GBCAs.

Basophil Activation Test Shows Poor Sensitivity in Immediate Amoxicillin Allergy.

BACKGROUND: In light of the pandemic of spurious penicillin allergy, correct diagnosis of amoxicillin (AX) allergy is of great importance. The diagnosis of immediate hypersensitivity reactions relies on skin tests and specific IgE, and although reliable, these are not absolutely predictive. Therefore, drug challenges are needed in some cases, which contain the risk of severe reactions. Safe in vitro diagnostics as an alternative for the drug challenge in the diagnostic workup of AX allergy would be more than welcome to fill this gap. In this respect, the basophil activation test (BAT) has shown potential, but its clinical reliability is doubtful. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the reliability of the BAT to AX and determining its exact place in the diagnostic algorithm of AX allergy. METHODS: BAT for AX was performed in 70 exposed control individuals and 66 patients diagnosed according to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines for AX allergy. Upregulation of both CD63 and CD203c was flow-cytometrically assessed. RESULTS: Analyses revealed that 1370 µmol/L and 685 µmol/L were the most discriminative stimulation concentrations for CD63 and CD203c upregulation, respectively, and a diagnostic threshold of 9% for positivity for both markers was identified. At these concentrations, sensitivity and specificity for CD63 upregulation were 13% and 100%, respectively, and for CD203c upregulation, 23% and 98%. CONCLUSIONS: BAT with dual analysis of CD63 and CD203c is of poor performance to document AX allergy. The sensitivity is too low to let it occupy a prominent role in the diagnostic algorithm.

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.

Basophil Activation Test Utility as a Diagnostic Tool in LTP Allergy.

Plant-food allergy is an increasing problem, with nonspecific lipid transfer proteins (nsLTPs) triggering mild/severe reactions. Pru p 3 is the major sensitizer in LTP food allergy (FA). However, in vivo and in vitro diagnosis is hampered by the need for differentiating between asymptomatic sensitization and allergy with clinical relevance. The basophil activation test (BAT) is an ex vivo method able to identify specific IgE related to the allergic response. Thus, we aimed to establish the value of BAT in a precise diagnosis of LTP-allergic patients. Ninety-two individuals with peach allergy sensitized to LTP, Pru p 3, were finally included, and 40.2% of them had symptoms to peanut (n = 37). In addition, 16 healthy subjects were recruited. BAT was performed with Pru p 3 and Ara h 9 (peanut LTP) at seven ten-fold concentrations, and was evaluated by flow cytometry, measuring the percentage of CD63 (%CD63+) and CD203c (%CD203chigh) cells, basophil allergen threshold sensitivity (CD-Sens), and area under the dose−response curve (AUC). Significant changes in BAT parameters (%CD63+ and %CD203chigh) were found between the controls and patients. However, comparisons for %CD63+, %CD203chigh, AUC, and CD-Sens showed similar levels among patients with different symptoms. An optimal cut-off was established from ROC curves, showing a significant positive percentage of BAT in patients compared to controls and great values of sensitivity (>87.5%) and specificity (>85%). In addition, BAT showed differences in LTP-allergic patients tolerant to peanut using its corresponding LTP, Ara h 9. BAT can be used as a potential diagnostic tool for identifying LTP allergy and for differentiating peanut tolerance, although neither reactivity nor sensitivity can distinguish the severity of the clinical symptoms.

The value of the basophil activation test in the evaluation of patients reporting allergic reactions to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

BACKGROUND: mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines have been reported to induce hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) in a small number of individuals. We aimed to evaluate the real-world incidence of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine HSR and to determine the value of the basophil activation test (BAT) in the allergological workup of patients reporting these reactions. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with a clinical history indicative of HSR to the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. The allergological workup included skin testing (STs) and BAT with polyethylene glycol (PEG) and the vaccine. In those with negative allergy assessments, the administration of the second dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was offered. RESULTS: Seventeen adults were included. Eleven cases (64.7%) tested negative in the allergological workup and tolerated the re-administration of the second dose of the vaccine and considered non-allergic. Six cases (35.3%) were considered allergic and classified into three groups: 2 subjects displayed positive STs and/or BAT to PEG (Group A), two individuals displayed positive BAT to the vaccine (Group B), and in 2 patients with moderate or severe reactions, the culprit was not identified, tested negative to STs and BAT to both PEG and vaccine (Group C). We further evaluated the value of BAT when the results were positive to the vaccine and negative to PEG by performing BAT in controls groups, finding positive BAT results in 50% of controls, all of them recovered from COVID-19 infection. In contrast, BAT was negative in patients who had not suffered from COVID-19 disease. CONCLUSIONS: BAT can be used as a potential diagnostic tool for confirming allergy to PEG excipient but not to the vaccine as a positive result in BAT may indicate a past COVID-19 infection instead of an allergy.

Diagnostic utility of the basophil activation test in natto-induced hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Natto (fermented soybeans)-induced hypersensitivity is characterized by delayed symptom onset that hampers diagnosis. We aimed to clarify the clinical utility of the basophil activation test (BAT) in the diagnosis of natto-induced hypersensitivity. METHODS: Five patients with a history of anaphylaxis and chronic urticaria suspected of natto-induced hypersensitivity and seven with chronic spontaneous urticaria clinically unrelated to natto were enrolled in the patient and control groups, respectively. The BAT was performed with two incubation times, 15 min and 1 h, in combination with various concentrations of natto-mucilage extract. RESULTS: In controls, CD203c levels in basophils remained low in the 15-min incubation but were significantly increased in the 1-h incubation. In the patient group, in the 15-min condition, basophil CD203c was significantly upregulated by natto mucilage but not by soybean vs controls (P = 0.001). Low concentrations of natto mucilage were sufficient to upregulate basophil CD203c in the anaphylaxis cases, but high concentrations were required to induce the same effect in the urticaria cases. Finally, the dose-dependent pattern of the BAT results differed significantly between the anaphylaxis and urticaria cases (P = 0.006). Thus, a strong background reaction was observed in the BAT with 1 h incubation; 15 min of incubation was sufficient to identify patients with natto-induced hypersensitivity and may distinguish the clinical phenotype of natto-induced hypersensitivity, i.e., anaphylaxis or urticaria. CONCLUSIONS: The BAT with a 15-min incubation period is useful in diagnosing natto-induced hypersensitivity.

What Basophil Testing Tells Us About CSU Patients - Results of the CORSA Study.

Basophil testing is the most effective single approach for diagnosing type-IIb autoimmune chronic spontaneous urticaria (TIIbaiCSU). A positive basophil test has been linked to long disease duration, higher disease activity, a poor response to antihistamines and omalizumab, and a better response to cyclosporine and fenebrutinib. As of now it is unclear what other features are connected to a positive basophil test in chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). We aimed to identify features of basophil test-positive CSU patients. We performed a cross-sectional study of 85 CSU patients. Basophil testing was done with the basophil activation test (BAT) and the basophil histamine release assay (BHRA). Data were analysed using SPSS: Student's t-test, Chi-square test, Odds Ratio, Spearman's correlation test. Of 85 CSU patients, 44% and 28% tested positive with the BAT and BHRA, respectively. These patients showed higher disease activity and impact, lower levels of disease control and total serum IgE, as well as higher rates of having a positive autologous serum skin test (ASST), angioedema, nocturnal symptoms, symptoms for >5 days/week, and thyroid autoantibodies. The ASST, by itself, was not a good predictor of basophil test results, but it predicted a positive basophil test in up to 100% of cases when combined with angioedema, thyroid autoantibodies or low IgE. In conclusion, a positive basophil test is linked to known features of TIIbaiCSU and novel characteristics including nocturnal symptoms. Further studies on basophil test-positive and -negative CSU patients can help to better understand CSU endotypes and to develop better management approaches.

Innovative robust basophil activation test using a novel gating strategy reliably diagnosing allergy with full automation.

BACKGROUND: Allergy is one of the most common chronic diseases in Europe. Therefore, an increased need for specific and sensitive diagnostic tests that truly detect allergy exists. This study aimed at establishing a highly specific high-throughput and automated basophil activation test (BAT) that proves the existence of an allergy with utmost probability. METHODS: BAT from 1104 samples was analyzed; a novel gating strategy with three antibodies (FcεRIα, CD203c, CD63) was established and compared with our published protocol (12 antibodies). Based on the novel gating strategy, storage conditions, automated measurement, and analyses using R (1376 samples out of 1389) were optimized to set up a high-throughput BAT. RESULTS: No differences in sensitivity and specificity were found between the novel three antibody (FcεRIα, CD203c, CD63) and the 12 antibody gating strategy or between automated and manually analyzed samples (saving up to 90% of labor time). The time frame for basophil activation measurement after blood donation has been extended considerably (whole blood storage ≤7 days (RT) and 17 days (4°C) prior to BAT preparation and measurement). Respective storage conditions were optimized for samples after stimulation, staining, and preparation (≤7 days (RT) and 28 days (4°C)). These achievements were confirmed by a nationwide ring trial showing robustness and applicability of our BAT on a variety of flow cytometers. CONCLUSION: Our considerable optimizations overcame the hurdles that until now prevented the BAT from being used as high-throughput allergy diagnostic test in routine laboratories and shall allow for collaborative studies between clinics and research centers.

Principles, potential, and limitations of ex vivo basophil activation by flow cytometry in allergology: A narrative review.

The major challenge of allergy diagnosis lies in the development of accessible and reliable diagnostics allowing correct prediction of the clinical outcome following exposure to the offending allergen(s) and cross-reactive structures. Since the late nineties, evidence has accumulated that flow-assisted analysis and quantification of ex vivo-activated basophils (according to the basophil activation test [BAT]) might meet this requirement for different IgE-dependent allergies and particular forms of autoimmune urticaria. Other so-called nondiagnostic applications of the BAT involve therapeutic monitoring, follow-up of natural histories, and identification of allergenic recognition sites. However, it has also become clear that appropriate use of the BAT necessitates knowledge about degranulation metrics and guidance to guarantee correct execution and interpretation of the results. Here, we have reviewed the most relevant applications and limitations of the BAT. Some personal statements and views about its perspectives are made.

Use of Humanized RBL Reporter Systems for the Detection of Allergen-Specific IgE Sensitization in Human Serum.

Determination of allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels in human blood samples is an important diagnostic technology for the assessment of allergic sensitization. The presence of specific IgE in human serum samples can be measured by sensitizing humanized rat basophil leukemia (RBL) cell lines with diluted serum and measuring cellular activation after challenge with the suspected allergens. This has been traditionally performed by measuring the levels of ß-hexosaminidase released upon RBL degranulation. Here, we describe the use of two recently developed humanized RBL reporter cell lines, which offer higher sensitivity and are amenable to high-throughput scale experiments.