BAT and MAT for diagnosis of peanut allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Basophil activation test (BAT) or the mast cell activation test (MAT) are two in vitro tests that are currently being studied in food allergy as diagnostic tools as an alternative to oral food challenges (OFCs). We conducted a meta-analysis on BAT and MAT, assessing their specificity and sensitivity in diagnosing peanut allergy. Six databases were searched for studies on patients suspected of having peanut allergy. Studies using BAT or MAT to peanut extract and/or component as diagnostic tools with results given in percentage of CD63 activation were included in this meta-analysis. Study quality was evaluated with the QUADAS-2 tool. On the 11 studies identified, eight focused exclusively on children, while three included a mixed population of adults and children. Only one study provided data on MAT, precluding us from conducting a statistical analysis. The diagnostic accuracy of BAT was higher when stimulated with peanut extract rather than Ara h 2 with a pooled specificity of 96% (95% CI: 0.89-0.98) and sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.74-0.93). The sensitivity and specificity of BATs in discriminating between allergic and sensitized patients were studied as well, with pooled analysis revealing a sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.74; 0.93) and a specificity of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94, 0.98). BATs, when stimulated with peanut extracts, exhibit a satisfactory sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of peanut allergy and can help to discriminate between allergic individuals and those only sensitized to peanuts. More investigations on the potential for MATs diagnostic methods are warranted.

Evaluation of the passive mast cell activation test for identifying allergens in perioperative anaphylaxis: a study protocol for a prospective diagnostic accuracy study.

INTRODUCTION: Perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) can lead to significant complications. Therefore, accurate identification of allergens for POA patients is critical to ensure the safety of future surgical and anaesthetic procedures. Existing perioperative allergen detection methods face challenges in sensitivity and specificity. The passive mast cell activation test (pMAT) has recently emerged as a potential diagnostic tool. Our study aims to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of pMAT for identifying perioperative allergens, with a focus on non-depolarising neuromuscular blocking agents, the most common culprits of POA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective diagnostic accuracy study will measure the diagnostic accuracy of pMAT in POA patients. Participants will undergo skin testing (ST), basophil activation testing (BAT) and pMAT. The diagnostic validity of pMAT will be assessed based on the results of ST and BAT. The assessment of diagnostic accuracy will include sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and false-positive and false-negative rates while measurement of the consistency rate will assess reliability. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of China-Japan Friendship Hospital (2023-KY-247). Results will be disseminated through academic presentations and peer-reviewed journal publications and will provide valuable scientific data and some new insights into the diagnostic accuracy of pMAT.

Specific IgE and Basophil Activation Test by Microarray: A Promising Tool for Diagnosis of Platinum Compound Hypersensitivity Reactions.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to platinum-based compounds (PCs) are on the rise, and their personalized and safe management is essential to enable first-line treatment for these cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of the basophil activation test by flow cytometry (BAT-FC) and the newly developed sIgE-microarray and BAT-microarray in diagnosing IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to PCs. A total of 24 patients with DHRs to PCs (20 oxaliplatin and four carboplatin) were evaluated: thirteen patients were diagnosed as allergic with positive skin tests (STs) or drug provocation tests (DPTs), six patients were diagnosed as non-allergic with negative STs and DPTs, and five patients were classified as suspected allergic because DPTs could not be performed. In addition, four carboplatin-tolerant patients were included as controls. The BAT-FC was positive in 2 of 13 allergic patients, with a sensitivity of 15.4% and specificity of 100%. However, the sIgE- and BAT-microarray were positive in 11 of 13 DHR patients, giving a sensitivity of over 84.6% and a specificity of 90%. Except for one patient, all samples from the non-allergic and control groups were negative for sIgE- and BAT-microarray. Our experience indicated that the sIgE- and BAT-microarray could be helpful in the endophenotyping of IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions to PCs and may provide an advance in decision making for drug provocation testing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Validation of the NUT CRACKER Diagnostic Algorithm and Prediction for Cashew and Pistachio Co-Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Because of the high cross-sensitization among tree nuts, the NUT CRACKER (Nut Co-reactivity-Acquiring Knowledge for Elimination Recommendations) study proposed a diagnostic algorithm to minimize the number of required oral food challenges (OFCs). OBJECTIVE: To validate the algorithm for cashew and pistachio allergy and determine markers for allergic severity. METHODS: Patients (n = 125) with a median age of 7.8 (interquartile range, 5.9-11.2) years with suspected tree nut allergy were evaluated prospectively with decision tree points on the basis of skin prick test (SPT), basophil activation test (BAT), and knowledge of the coincidence of allergies. Validation of allergic status was determined by OFC. Markers of clinical severity were evaluated using the combined original and prospective cohort (n = 187) in relationship to SPT, BAT, and Ana o 3-sIgE. RESULTS: Reactivity to cashew in SPT, BAT, and Ana o 3-sIgE and the incidence of abdominal pain on challenge were significantly higher in dual-allergic cashew/pistachio patients (n = 82) versus single cashew allergic patients (n = 18) (P = .001). All 3 diagnostic tests showed significant inverse correlation with log10 reaction doses for positive cashew OFC. The algorithm reduced overall the total number of OFCs by 72.0%, with a positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 93.0% and 99.0%, respectively. Cashew false-positives were observed primarily in hazelnut-allergic patients (P = .026). In this population, Ana o 3-specific IgE could diagnose cashew allergy with a sensitivity of more than 90% and a specificity of more than 95%. CONCLUSIONS: The NUT CRACKER diagnostic algorithm was validated and reduced the number of diagnostic OFCs required. Markers for severity phenotypes may guide oral immunotherapy protocols, improving the risk/benefit ratio for patients.

Basophil activation test as predictor of severity and threshold of allergic reactions to egg.

BACKGROUND: Identifying patients at risk of severe allergic reactions and/or low threshold of reactivity is very important, particularly for staple foods like egg. METHODS: One hundred and fifty children underwent double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) to baked egg (BE), skin prick testing and blood collection for serology and basophil activation test (BAT). Patients who passed BE DBPCFC underwent loosely cooked egg (LCE) DBPCFC. Severity of allergic reactions was classified following Practall guidelines and threshold dose was determined during DBPCFC. RESULTS: Sixty out of 150 (40%) children reacted to BE and 16 out of 77 (21%) to LCE on DBPCFC. Considering DBPCFC to BE, 23 children (38%) had severe reactions and 33 (55%) reacted to 0.13 g or less of egg protein (low threshold group). Two children (2 out of 16 = 12%) had severe reactions to LCE. Demographic, clinical and most immunological features were not significantly different between severe/non-severe BE reactors or low/high threshold groups. Severe BE reactors had higher ovomucoid-sIgE (p = .009) and higher BAT to BE (p = .001). Patients with lower threshold to BE had higher IgE-specific activity (p = .027) and BAT to egg (p = .007) but lower severity score (p = .008). Optimal cut-offs for ovomucoid-sIgE had 100% sensitivity, 35% specificity and 60% accuracy and for BAT 76% sensitivity, 74% specificity and 75% accuracy to identify BE severe reactors. Optimal cut-offs for specific activity had 70% sensitivity, 68% specificity and 69% accuracy and for BAT 70% sensitivity, 72% specificity and 71% accuracy to identify low threshold patients. CONCLUSIONS: BAT was the best biomarker to predict severity and threshold of allergic reactions to BE and can be useful when making decisions about management of egg allergy.

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.

Combining avidin with CD63 improves basophil activation test accuracy in classifying peanut allergy.

BACKGROUND: Conventional basophil activation tests (BATs) measure basophil activation by the increased expression of CD63. Previously, fluorophore-labeled avidin, a positively-charged molecule, was found to bind to activated basophils, which tend to expose negatively charged granule constituents during degranulation. This study further compares avidin versus CD63 as basophil activation biomarkers in classifying peanut allergy. METHODS: Seventy subjects with either a peanut allergy (N = 47), a food allergy other than peanut (N = 6), or no food allergy (N = 17) were evaluated. We conducted BATs in response to seven peanut extract (PE) concentrations (0.01-10,000 ng/mL) and four control conditions (no stimulant, anti-IgE, fMLP (N-formylmethionine-leucyl-phenylalanine), and anti-FcεRI). We measured avidin binding and CD63 expression on basophils with flow cytometry. We evaluated logistic regression and XGBoost models for peanut allergy classification and feature identification. RESULTS: Avidin binding was correlated with CD63 expression. Both markers discriminated between subjects with and without a peanut allergy. Although small by percentage, an avidin+ /CD63- cell subset was found in all allergic subjects tested, indicating that the combination of avidin and CD63 could allow a more comprehensive identification of activated basophils. Indeed, we obtained the best classification accuracy (97.8% sensitivity, 96.7% specificity) by combining avidin and CD63 across seven PE doses. Similar accuracy was obtained by combining PE dose of 10,000 ng/mL for avidin and PE doses of 10 and 100 ng/mL for CD63. CONCLUSIONS: Avidin and CD63 are reliable BAT activation markers associated with degranulation. Their combination enhances the identification of activated basophils and improves the classification accuracy of peanut allergy.

Feast for thought: A comprehensive review of food allergy 2021-2023.

A review of the latest publications in food allergy over the past couple of years confirmed that food allergy is a major public health concern, affecting about 8% of children and 10% of adults in developed countries. The prevalence of food allergy varies around the world, with the increase being driven mainly by environmental factors, possibly together with genetic susceptibility to environmental changes. A precise diagnosis of food allergy is extremely important. Both new tests (eg, the basophil activation test) and improved optimization of information provided by existing tests (eg, the skin prick test and measurement of specific IgE level) can contribute to improving the accuracy and patients' comfort of food allergy diagnosis. Understanding the underlying immune mechanisms is fundamental to designing allergen-specific treatments that can be safe and effective in the long term. New discoveries of the immune response to food allergens, including T-cell and B-cell responses, have emerged. Novel therapeutic approaches are being trialed at various stages of development as attempts to allow for more active intervention to treat food allergy. Prevention is key to reducing the increase in prevalence. Early introduction of allergenic foods seems to be the most effective intervention, but others are being studied, and will, it is hoped, lead to modification of the epidemiologic trajectory of food allergy over time.

Case of Polyethylene Glycol Allergy Confirmed with Basophil Activation Test and Oral Challenge Successfully Immunized with SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine.

Polyethylene glycols (PEG) or macrogols are polymers of ethylene oxide widely used in drugs either as active substances or, more commonly, as excipients. We report a Caucasian 32-year-old woman with referred anaphylaxis almost instantly after oral intake of a macrogol-containing laxative. Despite an anaphylactic reaction, the patient showed negative results for both the skin test and specific IgE to monomer, while the basophil activation test and oral challenge were positive. The patient was later successfully vaccinated with a polysorbate 80-containing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine following an additional work-up. As a result, the inactive form of PEG cannot be fully diagnosed, and it is considered a "hidden" allergen. Allergens like polysorbates need special consideration due to their possible cross-reactivity by their specific derivatives.