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.

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.

Mast cell activation test: A new asset in the investigation of the chlorhexidine cross-sensitization profile.

BACKGROUND: Insights into the IgE cross-sensitization and possible cross-reactivity patterns of sera reactive to chlorhexidine (CHX) are still incomplete and are likely to benefit from a functional exploration using a passive mast cell activation test (pMAT). Therefore, we want to study whether the pMAT with CHX-specific IgE (sIgE) enables to depict effector cell degranulation in response to alexidine (ALX), octenidine (OCT) and/or polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) indicative of cross-reactivity between these compounds and CHX. METHODS: Serum of 10 CHX-allergic patients, nine individuals with an isolated sIgE CHX and five healthy controls were included. Human cultured mast cells (MCs) were, before and after sensitization, challenged with CHX, ALX, OCT or PHMB. Degranulation was measured via quantification of upregulation of CD63. RESULTS: Mast cell responsiveness to ALX and OCT was demonstrable with 4/10 and 3/10 of the sera of CHX-allergic patients respectively. Percentage of degranulation varied between 12 and 34% for ALX-reactive MCs and between 4 and 22% for OCT-reactive MCs. No reactivity to ALX or OCT was demonstrable when using sera obtained from individuals with an isolated sIgE CHX or from healthy controls. Unlike CHX, ALX and OCT, PHMB turned out to be a direct MC activator via occupation of MRGPRX2. PHMB-reactive sIgEs were demonstrable in some patients with an isolated sIgE CHX but were unable to trigger PHMB-induced degranulation in MRGPRX2 knockdown MCs. CONCLUSION: Mast cells constitute an attractive tool to explore cross-reactivity between structurally similar compounds. Along with the identification of safe alternatives for the individual patient, the pMAT can advance our insights into sIgE cross-reactivity patterns including assessment of molecules not yet approved for human use.

Mast cell activation tests by flow cytometry: A new diagnostic asset?

Since the late nineties, evidence has accumulated that flow-assisted basophil activation test (BAT) might be an accessible and reliable method to explore the mechanisms governing basophil degranulation and diagnostic allowing correct prediction of the clinical outcome following exposure to the offending allergen(s) and cross-reactive structures for different IgE-dependent allergies and particular forms of autoimmune urticaria. Although the BAT offers many advantages over mediator release tests, it is left with some weaknesses that hinder a wider application. It is preferable to perform the BAT analysis within 4 h of collection, and the technique does not advance diagnosis in patients with non-responsive cells. Besides, the BAT is difficult to standardize mainly because of the difficulty to perform large batch analyses that might span over several days. This article reviews the status of flow cytometric mast cell activation test (MAT) using passively sensitized mast cells (MCs) with patients' sera or plasma (henceforth indicated as passive MAT; pMAT) using both MC lines and cultured MCs in the diagnosis of IgE-dependent allergies. In addition, this paper provides guidance for generating human MCs from peripheral blood CD34+ progenitor cells (PBCMCs) and correct interpretation of flow cytometric analyses of activated and/or degranulating cells. With the recent recognition of the mas-related G protein-coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2) occupation as a putative mechanism of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs), we also speculate how direct activation of MCs (dMAT)-that is direct activation by MRGPRX2 agonists without prior passive sensitization-could advance paradigms for this novel endotype of IDHRs.

Mast cell activation test in chlorhexidine allergy: a proof of concept.

BACKGROUND: Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions are an increasing public health issue and a frequent cause of life-threatening anaphylaxis. Conventional confirmatory testing include skin tests and, for a few drugs, quantification of drug-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies. However, none of these tests are absolutely predictive for the clinical outcome, and can yield false-negative and false-positive results. We performed a proof-of-concept study to assess whether a mast cell activation test could improve diagnosis of IgE-mediated chlorhexidine hypersensitivity, a common cause of perioperative anaphylaxis. METHODS: Human mast cells were generated from CD34+ progenitor cells and sensitised with patients' sera to become IgE+ human mast cells (dMCIgE+), and then incubated with chlorhexidine to assess degranulation. We compared the diagnostic performance of this mast cell activation test with serum from patients with and without positive skin test and basophil activation test to chlorhexidine. RESULTS: In dMC sensitised with sera from patients with a positive skin test and basophil activation test to chlorhexidine showed drug-specific and concentration-dependent degranulation upon stimulation with chlorhexidine, determined by surface upregulation of the degranulation marker CD63. In contrast, dMC sensitised with sera from patients with a negative skin test and basophil activation test to chlorhexidine were unresponsive in the mast cell activation test. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the mast cell activation test can be used to diagnose IgE/FcεRI-dependent immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions. It also shows potential to assess the clinical relevance of drug-specific IgE antibodies in their ability to elicit mast cell degranulation, and therefore discriminate between allergy and sensitisation. Extended studies are required to verify whether this technique can be used in other causes of perioperative anaphylaxis.

Occupational cannabis exposure and allergy risks.

OBJECTIVES: Cannabis allergy has mainly been described following recreational use but some cases also point to cannabis sensitisation as a result of occupational exposure. As a consequence, little is known on the prevalence and clinical phenotype of occupational cannabis allergy. Therefore, this study aims to explore the allergy-associated health risks of occupational cannabis exposure in Belgian police force personnel. METHODS: 81 participants, active in the police force, reporting regular occupational cannabis exposure during the past 12 months, were included. History was combined with a standardised questionnaire on allergies and cannabis exposure.Basophil activation tests (BATs) with a crude cannabis extract and rCan s 3 were performed. In addition, specific (s)IgE rCan s 3 as well as sIgE to house dust mite, six pollen and three mould allergens were quantified. RESULTS: Although 42% of the participants reported respiratory and/or cutaneous symptoms on occupational cannabis exposure, all cannabis diagnostics were entirely negative, except one symptomatic case demonstrating a borderline result. Furthermore, there is no significant difference between the groups with and without symptoms on cannabis exposure in terms of allergenic sensitisations. CONCLUSIONS: The origins of the reported respiratory and cutaneous symptoms during cannabis exposure remain elusive but are probably due to non-immune reactions. It should be noted that the study was volunteer-based possibly reflecting an excessive number of symptomatic individuals. Nevertheless, as only one participant reported using fully protective gear, much improvement is needed for reducing the number of symptoms reported on duty, independent of their origin.