Minimal agreement between basophil activation test and immunoassay in diagnosis of penicillin allergy.

INTRODUCTION: Basophil activation test (BAT) and immunoassays are the most widely used in vitro tests to diagnose IgE-mediated allergic reactions to penicillin. However, studies to determine if one test is interdependent from another are limited. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to measure the agreement between BAT and immunoassay in diagnosis of penicillin allergy. METHOD: BAT was performed using penicillin G (Pen G), penicillin V (Pen V), penicilloyl-polylysine (PPL), minor determinant mix (MDM), amoxicillin (Amx) and ampicillin (Amp) in 25 patients. Immunoassay of total IgE (tIgE) and specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies to Pen G, Pen V, Amx and Amp were quantified. Skin prick test (SPT) using PPL-MDM, Amx, Amp and Clavulanic acid were also performed. RESULTS: Minimal agreement was observed between BAT and immunoassay (k=0.25). Of two BAT-positive patients, one patient is positive to Amx (59.27%, SI=59) and Amp (82.32%, SI=82) but sIgE-negative to all drug tested. This patient is also SPT-positive to both drugs. Another patient is BAT-positive to Pen G (10.18%, SI=40), Pen V (25.07%, SI=100) and Amp (19.52%, SI=79). In sIgE immunoassay, four patients were sIgE-positive to at least one of the drugs tested. The sIgE level of three patients was between low and moderate and they were BAT-negative. One BAT-positive patient had a high level of sIgE antibodies (3.50-17.5kU/L) along with relatively high specific to total IgE ratio ≥0.002 (0.004-0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The agreement between BAT and immunoassay is minimal. Performing both tests provides little increase in the sensitivity of allergy diagnosis work-up for immediate reactions to penicillin.

The basophil activation test: a sensitive test in the diagnosis of allergic immediate hypersensitivity to pristinamycin.

Immediate hypersensitivity (IHS) reactions to macrolides and to macrolide-derived antibiotics like pristinamycin are uncommon. In this context, there is little data available to appreciate the true value of biological tools regarding the diagnosis of immediate allergy to pristinamycin. Here we assess the clinical usefulness of the basophil activation test (BAT) to differentiate allergic from nonallergic IHS to pristinamycin. Thirty-six patients were tested with skin tests as the gold standard and BAT. The BAT achieved a sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 100%, implying an absence of false positive results. Multicenter studies remain to be performed to better define the sensitivity, specificity and interlaboratory variation of BAT in the diagnosis of allergy to pristinamycin and macrolides.

The basophil activation test in immediate-type drug allergy.

Diagnosis of drug allergy involves first the recognition of sometimes unusual symptoms as drug allergy and, second, the identification of the eliciting drug. This is an often difficult task, as the clinical picture and underlying pathomechanisms are heterogeneous. In clinical routine, physicians frequently have to rely upon a suggestive history and eventual provocation tests, both having their specific limitations. For this reason both in vivo (skin tests) and in vitro tests are investigated intensively as tools to identify the disease-eliciting drug. One of the tests evaluated in drug allergy is the basophil activation test (BAT). Basophils with their high-affinity IgE receptors are easily accessible and therefore can be used as indicator cells for IgE-mediated reactions. Upon allergen challenge and cross-linking of membrane-bound IgE antibodies (via Fc-epsilon-RI) basophils up-regulate certain activation markers on their surface such as CD63 and CD203c, as well as intracellular markers (eg, phosphorylated p38MAPK). In BAT, these alterations can be detected rapidly on a single-cell basis by multicolor flow cytometry using specific monoclonal antibodies. Combining this technique with in vitro passive sensitization of donor basophils with patients' serum, one can prove the IgE dependence of a drug reaction. This article summarizes the authors' current experience with the BAT in the diagnostic management of immediate-type drug allergy mediated by drug-specific IgE antibodies.

Diagnosis of stinging insect allergy: utility of cellular in-vitro tests.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diagnosis of stinging insect allergy is based on a detailed history, venom skin tests, and detection of venom-specific IgE. As an additional diagnostic tool, basophil responsiveness to venom allergens has been shown to be helpful in selected patients. This review summarizes the current diagnostic procedures for stinging insect allergy and discusses the latest developments in cellular in-vitro tests. RECENT FINDINGS: Cellular assays have been evaluated in patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy. The diagnostic performance of the cellular mediator release test is similar to that of the flow cytometric basophil activation test (BAT), but the BAT has been the most intensively studied. BAT offers the possibility to assess basophil reactivity to allergens in their natural environment and to simultaneously analyze surface marker expression and intracellular signaling. It has been demonstrated that BAT represents a valuable additional diagnostic tool in selected patients when used in combination with other well established tests. A major limitation is the current lack of unified, standardized protocols. Flow cytometry offers huge possibilities to enhance knowledge of basophil functions. SUMMARY: The BAT may be used as an additional test to confirm the diagnosis of stinging insect allergy in selected patients, provided that it is performed by an experienced laboratory using a validated assay. Test results have to be interpreted by clinicians familiar with the methodological aspects. The utility of the BAT to confirm allergy diagnosis and to predict the risk of subsequent systemic reactions may be improved by combined analysis of multiple surface markers and intracellular signaling pathways.