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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Allergies and COVID-19 vaccines: An ENDA/EAACI Position paper.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID-19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized. METHOD: Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre-vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, and literature was analysed. RESULTS: No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1-anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2-anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3-recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4-suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5-confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick-to-prick skin test with the left-over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated.

Single-dose prolonged drug provocation test, without previous skin testing, is safe for diagnosing children with mild non-immediate reactions to beta-lactams.

INTRODUCTION: Mild non-immediate reactions (NIRs) to beta-lactams (BLs) are the most frequent manifestation of drug allergy in children. The diagnostic approach is complex as the utility of skin tests (STs) and lymphocyte transformation tests (LTTs) is controversial. Drug provocation test (DPT) is the gold standard, although no standardized protocols exist. We aimed to investigate the utility of DPT in a unique dose without previous STs, and LTTs in the diagnosis of NIRs to BLs in children. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated children 0-14 years old referred to the Regional University Hospital of Málaga during 2017-2020 reporting NIRs to BLs. We performed a DPT with a unique dose followed by regular treatment at home. If positive, STs and LTTs were done after the reaction had disappeared. RESULTS: We included 194 children, having 24 (12.4%) a positive DPT. The main culprit was AX (70.1%) followed by AX-clavulanic acid (CLV) (26.8%) and the main symptoms maculopapular exanthema (MPE) (49.5%) and delayed-urticaria (48.5%). A decrease (p = 0.013) in the interval of days between drug administration and onset of symptoms was observed in positive DPT compared with the original reaction (3.5 vs 6 days), with no differences in the overall percentage of MPE and delayed-appearing urticaria (p = 0.551). No severe reactions occurred during DPT. Moreover, STs were positive in 13.33% and LTTs in 52.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Single-dose DPT without previous STs is a safe and useful way to assess NIRs to BLs in children. LTT has shown to be useful, confirming a T-cell mechanism involved in these reactions.

Dendritic cells inclusion and cell-subset assessment improve flow-cytometry-based proliferation test in non-immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions.

BACKGROUND: Lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) has been widely used to evaluate non-immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (NIDHRs). However, the lack of standardization and the low sensitivity have limited its routine diagnostic use. The drug presentation by dendritic cells (DCs) and the assessment of proliferation on effector cells have shown promising results. Flow-cytometry-based methods can help apply these improvements. We aimed to assess the added value of using drug-primed-DCs and the determination of the proliferative response of different lymphocyte subpopulations in NIDHRs. METHODS: Patients with confirmed NIDHR were evaluated by both conventional (C-LTT) and with drug-primed-DCs LTT (dDC-LTT)analysing the proliferative response in T cells and other effector cell subpopulations by using the fluorescent molecule, carboxyfluorescein diacetate succinimidyl ester (CFSE). RESULTS: The C-LTT showed a significantly lower sensitivity (29.4%) compared with dDC-LTT (61.8%), which was confirmed analysing each particular clinical entity: SJS-TEN (62.5% vs 87.5%), MPE (15% vs 47.4%) and AGEP (33% vs 80%). When including the effector cell subpopulations involved in each clinical entity, CD3+ +CD4+ Th 1 or CD3+ +NK cells in SJS-TEN, CD3+ +CD4+ Th 1+NK cells in MPE and CD3+ +NK cells in AGEP, we could significantly increase the sensitivity of the in vitro test to 100%, 68.4% and 100%, respectively, with an overall sensitivity of 87% and 85% of specificity in NIDHR. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a flow-cytometry-based test, DCs as drug presenting cells, and focusing on effector cell subpopulations for each clinical entity significantly improved the drug-specific proliferative response in NIDHRs with a unique cellular in vitro test.

Food-dependent NSAID-induced hypersensitivity (FDNIH) reactions: Unraveling the clinical features and risk factors.

BACKGROUND: In up to 70%-80% of patients with a suspected non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug hypersensitivity (NSAIDH), challenge tests with the culprit drug yield negative results. On the other hand, there could be a NSAIDH overdiagnosis when anaphylaxis is the clinical manifestation. We hypothesize that some negative NSAID challenge tests and an overdiagnosis of NSAIDH occur in patients with food-dependent NSAID-induced hypersensitivity (FDNIH). METHODS: We studied 328 patients with a suspected acute NSAIDH. FDNIH was diagnosed in patients meeting all the following: (1) tolerance to the food ingested more temporally closed before the reaction, later the episode, (2) respiratory or cutaneous symptoms or anaphylaxis related to NSAID, (3) positive skin prick test to foods and/or specific IgE to food allergens (Pru p 3, Tri a 19, Pen a 1) involved in the reaction, and (4) negative oral provocation test to the culprit NSAID. RESULTS: 199 patients (60%) were diagnosed with NSAIDH and 52 (16%) with FDNIH. Pru p 3 was involved in 44 cases (84.6%) and Tri a 19 in 6 cases (11%). FDNIH subjects were younger (p < .001), with a higher prevalence of rhinitis (p < .001) and previous food allergy (p < .001), together with a higher proportion of subjects sensitized to pollens (p < .001) and foods (p < .001). Using just four variables (Pru p 3 sensitization, Tri a 19 sensitization, anaphylaxis, and any NSAID different from pyrazolones), 95.3% of cases were correctly classified, with a sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 96%. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of FDNIH should be included in the diagnostic workup of NSAIDH.

Advances and novel developments in drug hypersensitivity diagnosis.

A correct diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) is very important for both the patient and health system. However, DHRs diagnosis is complex, time consuming, requires trained personnel, is not standardized for many drugs, involves procedures not exempt of risk, and in most cases lacks standardized in vivo and in vitro tests. Thus, there is an urgent need for improving the different approaches to diagnose patients with suspected DHRs. In this review, we have analyzed the advances performed in immediate and nonimmediate DHRs diagnosis during the last two years and obtained several conclusions: the significant heterogeneity in current practice among centers illustrates the need to re-evaluate, update, and standardize in vivo tests and protocols for the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected drug allergy. Regarding in vitro tests, the latest studies have focused on increasing their sensitivity or on establishing the sensitivity and specificity for the tests performed with new drugs. There seems to be a consensus about combining in vivo and in vitro tests as the best way to increase the diagnostic accuracy.

Progress in understanding hypersensitivity reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the medications most commonly used for treating pain and inflammation, are the main triggers of drug hypersensitivity reactions. The latest classification of NSAIDs hypersensitivity by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) differentiates between cross-hypersensitivity reactions (CRs), associated with COX-1 inhibition, and selective reactions, associated with immunological mechanisms. Three phenotypes fill into the first group: NSAIDs-exacerbated respiratory disease, NSAIDs-exacerbated cutaneous disease and NSAIDs-induced urticaria/angioedema. Two phenotypes fill into the second one: single-NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema/anaphylaxis and single-NSAID-induced delayed reactions. Diagnosis of NSAIDs hypersensitivity is hampered by different factors, including the lack of validated in vitro biomarkers and the uselessness of skin tests. The advances achieved over recent years recommend a re-evaluation of the EAACI classification, as it does not consider other phenotypes such as blended reactions (coexistence of cutaneous and respiratory symptoms) or food-dependent NSAID-induced anaphylaxis. In addition, it does not regard the natural evolution of phenotypes and their potential interconversion, the development of tolerance over time or the role of atopy. Here, we address these topics. A state of the art on the underlying mechanisms and on the approaches for biomarkers discovery is also provided, including genetic studies and available information on transcriptomics and metabolomics.

Diagnosis and management of the drug hypersensitivity reactions in Coronavirus disease 19: An EAACI Position Paper.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a respiratory tract infection caused by a novel human coronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, leads to a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations ranging from asymptomatic cases to patients with mild and severe symptoms, with or without pneumonia. Given the huge influence caused by the overwhelming COVID-19 pandemic affecting over three million people worldwide, a wide spectrum of drugs is considered for the treatment in the concept of repurposing and off-label use. There is no knowledge about the diagnosis and clinical management of the drug hypersensitivity reactions that can potentially occur during the disease. This review brings together all the published information about the diagnosis and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions due to current and candidate off-label drugs and highlights relevant recommendations. Furthermore, it gathers all the dermatologic manifestations reported during the disease for guiding the clinicians to establish a better differential diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions in the course of the disease.

Polymorphisms in CEP68 gene associated with risk of immediate selective reactions to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the main triggers of drug hypersensitivity reactions. Such reactions can be pharmacologically or immunologically mediated, but in both cases individual susceptibility can be influenced by genetic factors. Polymorphisms in centrosomal protein of 68 kDa (CEP68) have been associated with pharmacologically mediated NSAIDs reactions. Here, we evaluated this gene in immunologically mediated single-NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema or anaphylaxis (SNIUAA) by analyzing 52 single nucleotide polymorphisms in CEP68 in 176 patients and 363 NSAIDs-tolerant controls. Two intronic variants (rs2241160 and rs2241161) were significantly associated with an increased risk of SNIUAA, suggesting CEP68 to be a key player in both types of NSAIDs hypersensitivity. However, we found no overlap with genetic variants previously associated with pharmacologically mediated hypersensitivity, pointing to a complex role for this gene and its potential use in the development of biomarkers of clinical utility to diagnose patients at risk of these reactions and to differentiate entities.

Expression of the Tim3-galectin-9 axis is altered in drug-induced maculopapular exanthema.

BACKGROUND: Drug-induced maculopapular exanthemas (MPEs) are mediated by Th1 CD4+ T cells. One of the mechanisms of control of Th1 cells in homeostasis is the interaction between the checkpoint inhibitor Tim3 and its physiological ligand galectin-9 (Gal9). Disorders affecting this axis may be responsible for various autoimmune and immunological diseases. The aim of this study was to determinate the influence of the Tim3-Gal9 axis on the development of MPE induced by drugs. METHODS: Frequencies of different cell subsets and the expression of Tim3 and Gal9 were measured in peripheral blood by flow cytometry and in skin biopsies by immunohistochemistry. Gal9 expression was assessed by RT-qPCR; its release was measured by multiplex assay. The effects of blocking or enhancing the Tim3-Gal9 axis on monocyte-derived dendritic cell (moDC) maturation and T-cell proliferation were determined by flow cytometry. RESULTS: The expression of Tim3 was significantly reduced in peripheral blood Th1 cells and in the skin of MPE patients vs controls. Gal9 expression and release were significantly reduced in patient peripheral blood and moDCs, respectively. The addition of exogenous Gal9 significantly reduced Tim3+ Th1 proliferation, although Treg proliferation increased. CONCLUSION: This study showed the involvement of the Tim3-Gal9 axis in MPE. The reduced expression of Tim3 in Th1 cells together with the impaired expression of Gal9 in PBMCs and DCs appears to have a role in the development of the disease. The potential of Gal9 to suppress Th1 and enhance Treg proliferation makes it a promising tool for treating these reactions.

Eicosanoid mediator profiles in different phenotypes of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced urticaria.

BACKGROUND: The role of arachidonic acid metabolites in NSAID-induced hypersensitivity has been studied in depth for NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD) and NSAID-exacerbated cutaneous disease (NECD). However, no information is available for NSAID-induced urticarial/angioedema (NIUA), despite it being the most frequent clinical entity induced by NSAID hypersensitivity. We evaluated changes in leukotriene and prostaglandin metabolites for NIUA patients, using patients with NECD and single-NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema or anaphylaxis (SNIUAA) for comparison. METHODS: Urine samples were taken from patients with confirmed NSAID-induced urticaria and healthy controls, at baseline and at various time intervals after ASA administration. Eicosanoid measurement was performed using high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. RESULTS: No differences were found between groups at baseline. Following ASA administration, LTE4 and 9α,11ß-PGF2 levels were increased in both NIUA and NECD patients compared to baseline, rising initially, before decreasing toward initial levels. In addition, the levels of these metabolites were higher in NIUA and NECD when compared with the SNIUAA and control groups after ASA administration. No changes were found with respect to baseline values for SNIUAA and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: We present for the first time data regarding the role of COX-1 inhibition in NIUA. Patients with this entity show a similar pattern eicosanoid levels following ASA challenge to those with NECD. Further studies will help ascertain the cell populations involved and the underlying molecular mechanisms.