[Diagnosis of food allergy]. / Diagnostyka alergii pokarmowej.

Food allergy is most often linked to the type I allergic reaction, while IgE-dependent mechanism causes symptoms in only about 50% of patients. If symptoms are coming from other types of allergic reactions we do not have enough standardized diagnostic methods. The purpose of our review is to discuss the possibilities of diagnosis of food allergies. Regardless of the causal mechanism the interview has the most important role in the diagnosis, and the gold standard is a double blind placebo controlled food challenge. Additional tests that can be performed in suspected IgE-mediated reactions include: skin prick tests, specific IgE measurement, component-resolved diagnostics and in doubtful cases basophil activation test (BAT). Due to the fact that the spectrum of the symptoms of the type I food hypersensitivity can include potentially life-threatening reactions, diagnosis is often limited to in vitro assays. In these cases BAT may play an important role--in a recent publication, for the first time BAT reactivity reflected the allergy severity and BAT sensitivity reflected the threshold of response to allergen in an oral food challenge. Atopy patch tests are valuable diagnostic tool in suspected type IV food hypersensitivity, but due to the lack of standardization they are not used routinely. The cytotoxic test has been developed on the basis of the observations that leucopenia developing in the type II hypersensitivity reaction mechanism may be one of the symptoms of food allergy. Unfortunately its use is not justified in any method fulfill the criteria of controlled clinical trial. Food allergy can also develop in the type III hypersensitivity reaction, but there is lack of research supporting the role of IgG measurement in the detection of allergens responsible for symptoms. Each result of additional diagnostic tests before the introduction of food elimination should be confirmed in double-blind, placebo-controlled or open food challenge, because non proper diet is not only ineffective but also can be harmful.

[Usefulness of basophil activation test for the diagnosis of inhaled allergies]. / Uzytecznosc testu aktywacji bazofilów w diagnostyce alergii wziewnych.

Allergic diseases are important health problems. Medical history and results of additional tests play a crucial role in the diagnosis. Cytometric basophil activation test (BAT) is widely evaluated technique in inhaled, food, Hymenoptera venom and drugs allergy. The aim of our review is to systematize the available knowledge about possibilities of applying BAT, especially in the diagnosis of inhaled allergies. Basophil activation markers with proven sensitivity and specificity are CD63 and CD203c--each of them has its supporters and opponents among researchers. Use of the first one is more popular because of the direct relation of its appearance on the cell membrane of basophils with degranulation. The usefulness of BAT has been confirmed in the diagnosis of grass pollen, trees and house dust mites allergies in children and adults. BAT has a comparable to the routinely used tests sensitivity and higher (in most studies evaluated as 100%) specificity. The disadvantage of BAT that has been observed by some authors is "hyperreactivity" of basophils in atopic patients, leading to the appearance of false positives results. Basophil activation test seems to have a significant advantage over skin tests due to safety and lack of necessary to withdrawal antihistamines medications. Future research should focus on the use of BAT in diagnostically difficult cases and in monitoring of immunotherapy.

[Basophil activation test--a practical approach to diagnosis of common respiratory allergy]. / Test aktywacji bazofilów--praktyczne aspekty cytometrycznej diagnostyki alergii oddechowych.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of immediate allergy is based on clinical data, skin prick tests (SPT), and measurements of allergen-specific IgE (sIgE). Basophil activation test (BAT) can supplement these methods and obviate their disadvantages, and possibly replace allergen challenge tests, such as a nasal provocative test (NPT). In this study, we assessed the influence of different storage times on BAT results. Futhermore, we compared the results of SPT, sIgE and NPT against BAT for common aeroallergens. METHODS: BAT was performed in twelve patients with allergic rhinitis sensitized to birch pollen or mites 1, 4 and 24 hours after blood sampling. CD63 was used as an activation marker. Three serial 10-fold dilutions (1:1, 1:10, 100) of allergen extract were employed. The further 10 individuals allergic to mites undergone complete diagnostic evaluation including SPT, sIgE measurements, NPT and BAT. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the diagnostic techniques and tests conditions. RESULTS: Basophil activation expressed as stimulation index did not decline significantly up to 24h. Exposure to causal allergens resulted in a dose-dependent increase in expression of CD63 on peripheral blood basophils in tested individuals. We did not observed substantial differences in results of the investigated diagnostic methods determined by a ROC analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Flow-assisted diagnosis of common respiratory allergy relies upon allergen-induced activation of blood basophils can be a useful approach to determine the clinically relevant allergen in sensitized individuals. BAT with inhaled allergens can be performed within 24 hours after blood collecting into a tube with EDTA. Allergen suitable for NPT in appropriate dilutions is a good reagent for use in BAT.

[Life-threatening drug reactions in children]. / Zagrazajace, zyciu reakcje polekowe u dzieci.

Adverse drug reactions in children are serious public health problem. The overall incidence of ADRs is estimated at about 9.5% in hospitalized children and about 1.5% for outpatient children. ADRs have very diverse manifestations from minor skin rashes to potentially life-threatening severe skin reactions such as: acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis and anaphylactic reactions. The aim of the study was to analyze the results of ADRs monitoring with particular regard to life-threatening reactions in the pediatric population in Poland. We analyzed spontaneous reports of ADRs in Poland in patients aged 0-18 years in the period 01.01.2004-31.03.2013. Each reported case was evaluated and classified by a clinical pharmacologist and an allergologist. Analysis of the data showed the occurrence of ADR in 846 pediatric patients including one case of Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and 90 (10.6% ADR) drug reactions classified as anaphylactic reactions (44 responses (5.2% ADR)) and non-immune anaphylaxis (46 responses (5.4% ADR)). Classes of drugs most frequently causing anaphylactic reactions were: anti-inflammatory and antipyretic (31%), antibiotics (19%) and drugs used in anesthesia (16%). The substances most commonly causing anaphylactic reactions/non-immune anaphylaxis were: paracetamol and lidocaine (with 8 responses). The most common clinical manifestations of ADRs are skin reactions (402 responses, 47.5%). Acute drug reactions in the pediatric population may have life-threatening clinical manifestations. Drugs that most commonly cause anaphylaxis are: anti-inflammatory/ antipyretic drugs (acetaminophen, aspirin, ibuprofen), antibiotics (cephalosporins, amoxicillin, sulfonamides), local anesthetics (lidocaine). Early diagnosis of allergy and choice of safe product can prevent life-threatening drug reactions.

Eosinophilic reaction in nasal cytology in patients sensitive to perennial and seasonal allergens.

Nasal exfoliative cytology is a complementary tool in diagnostics of allergic (AR) and non-allergic (NAR) rhinitis. The aim of the study was to determine the usefulness of the nasal cytology in patients sensitive to common inhalant allergens with positive SPT(+) and negative SPT(-) (Skin Prick Tests) depending on the symptoms of intermittent and persistent rhinitis. The study was performed in a group of 285 patients treated in the Department of Allergology University Hospital in Krakow, suspected on AR in 2008-2010. The patients were made a smear test of inferior nasal concha. The samples were stained using the eosin-hematoxylin method and examined under a light microscope (1000x). Patients were divided into two groups: SPT(+) (144 patients) and SPT(-) (141 patients). Depending on the percentage of obtained eosinophils each group was divided into three subgroups: 0-2%, 3-20%, >20%. In the most percentage of patients with 3-20% of eosinophils in nasal cytology were found, in both studied groups (SPT)(+) and (SPT)(-), while the highest percentage of eosinophils (> 20%) was observed in the bigger group of patients with SPT(+), than with SPT(-). The number of patients with eosinophils > 20% in the SPT(+) group was higher in patients with persistent symptoms (NS differences), while in the SPT(-) group, the number of patients with intermittent symptoms in the subgroup > 20% of eosinophils statistically prevailed (p<0.001). The mean percentage of eosinophils in both groups was comparable, while the statistically significant differences were found considering the distinguished subgroups. In intermittent SPT(+) group the most sensitizing allergens were pollen grains (birch or grass pollen), while the patients with persistent AR symptoms were mainly sensitive the house dust mites. The mean percentage of eosinophils in an exfoliative cytology correlated significantly with allergic rhinitis symptoms and SPT results, the most evident relationship was found between higher level of eosinophils and the patients with confirmed AR diagnosis on the basis of positive SPT, manifesting the intermittent symptoms.

Comparison of the basophil activation test versus the nasal provocation test in establishing eligibility for specific immunotherapy.

INTRODUCTION    Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the most common atopic disease. Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is the only effective treatment method for AR. In uncertain diagnostic cases, before establishing eligibility for SIT, nasal provocation tests (NPTs) should be performed. However, there are numerous contraindications to performing NPTs, and there is ongoing search for an alternative in vitro method. OBJECTIVES    The aim of the study was to determine whether a specific in vitro provocation, that is, the basophil activation test (BAT), may replace a specific in vivo provocation, that is, the NPT, in establishing patient's eligibility for SIT. PATIENTS AND METHODS    The study included 30 patients with AR caused by allergy to house dust mite or birch pollen, referred for SIT. The assessment of basophil activation by measuring CD63 antigen expression was performed using the Flow2 CAST test. Basophils were stimulated with allergen preparation (concentrations of 5000, 500, and 50 standardized biological units) used in NPTs. BAT results were expressed as stimulation index (SI) and basophil reactivity (BR). RESULTS    Allergen concentrations of 500 and 50 SBU proved to be appropriate for basophil stimulation. Median SI and BR were higher for positive NPT results than for negative NPT results (P <0.001). Sensitivity for SI and BR was in the range from 83% to 100%; specificity, from 78% to 89%; positive predictive value, from 75% to 87%; and negative predictive value, from 89% to 100%. We observed a high correlation of the analyzed parameters for the allergen concentrations of 500 and 50 SBU (range, 0.58-0.74; P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS    If there are contraindications to performing the NPT, BAT may be regarded as an alternative in establishing patients' eligibility for SIT. The optimal concentrations of allergen preparations are 500 and 50 SBU. Both SI and BR are good indicators of basophil activation.