Involvement of autologous myeloid dendritic cells in the evaluation of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to betalactams.

BACKGROUND: Amoxicillin (AX) and clavulanic acid (CLV) are the betalactam antibiotics (BLs) most used to treat bacterial infections, although they can trigger immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs). The maturation analysis of monocyte-derived dendritic cells (moDCs) and their capacity to induce proliferative response of lymphocytes are useful to test the sensitisation to a drug, although without optimal sensitivity. Nevertheless, this can be improved using directly isolated DCs such as myeloid DCs (mDCs). METHODS: mDCs and moDCs were obtained from 28 allergic patients (AP), 14 to AX, 14 to CLV and from 10 healthy controls (HC). The expression of CCR7, CD40, CD80, CD83, and CD86 was analysed after stimulation with both BLs. We measured the capacity of these pre-primed DCs to induce drug-specific activation of different lymphocyte subpopulations, CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, CD4+Th1, and CD4+Th2, by flow cytometry. RESULTS: Higher expression of CCR7, CD40, CD80, CD83, and CD86 was observed on mDCs compared to moDCs from AP after stimulating with the culprit BL. Similarly, mDCs induced higher proliferative response, mainly of CD4+Th2 cells, compared to moDCs, reaching up to 67% of positive results with AX, whereas of only 25% with CLV. CONCLUSIONS: mDCs from selective AP efficiently recognise the culprit drug which trigger the IDHR. mDCs also trigger proliferation of lymphocytes, mainly those with a Th2 cytokine pattern, although these responses depend on the nature of the drug, mimicking the patient's reaction.

Synthetic antigenic determinants of clavulanic acid induce dendritic cell maturation and specific T cell proliferation in patients with immediate hypersensitivity reactions.

BACKGROUND: Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) to clavulanic acid (CLV) have increased in the last decades due to a higher consumption alongside amoxicillin (AX). Due to its chemical instability, diagnostic procedures to evaluate IDHRs to CLV are difficult, and current in vitro assays do not have an optimal sensitivity. The inclusion of the specific metabolites after CLV degradation, which are efficiently recognised by the immune system, could help to improve sensitivity of in vitro tests. METHODS: Recognition by dendritic cells (DCs) of CLV and the synthetic analogues of two of its hypothesised antigenic determinants (ADs) was evaluated by flow cytometry in 27 allergic patients (AP) and healthy controls (HC). Their ability to trigger the proliferation of T cells was also analysed by flow cytometry. RESULTS: The inclusion of synthetic analogues of CLV ADs, significantly increased the expression of maturation markers on DCs from AP compared to HC. A different recognition pattern could be observed with each AD, and, therefore, the inclusion of both ADs achieves an improved sensitivity. The addition of synthetic ADs analogues increased the proliferative response of CD4+ Th2 compared to the addition of native CLV. The combination of results from both ADs increased the sensitivity of proliferative assays from 19% to 65% with a specificity higher than 90%. CONCLUSIONS: Synthetic ADs from CLV are efficiently recognised by DCs with ability to activate CD4+ Th2 cells from AP. The combination of analogues from both ADs, significantly increased the sensitivity of DC maturation and T-cell proliferation compared to native CLV.

Diagnostic workup including CD203c-based basophil activation test in immediate hypersensitivity due to metronidazole and ornidazole and evaluation of cross-reactivity in between.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the diagnostic approaches for immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) due to 5-nitroimidazole antibiotics. The aim was to evaluate the usefulness of in vivo tests and basophil activation test (BAT) for the diagnosis of IHRs due to metronidazole and ornidazole and to determine possible cross-reactivity in between. METHODS: Forty-nine patients with a clear history of IHRs due to these drugs and 20 healthy subjects who were known to tolerate these drugs were included. Skin tests (STs) and single-blind placebo-controlled drug provocation tests (SBPCDPTs) were performed with both drugs whereas BAT was applied only with the culprit drug. RESULTS: The most and least common reaction types were urticaria/angioedema (34.7%) and anaphylaxis (14.3%), respectively. SBPCDPTs were positive in 15 out of 47 patients, and only 7 had positive STs. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of STs for metronidazole/ornidazole were 33.3%/16.6%, 94.2%/97.3%, 60%/50%, and 84.6%/88.1%, respectively. BAT was positive in 12 out of 15 patients and negative in 10 control subjects, giving a sensitivity rate of 71.4% (CI, 29.0%-96.3%) for metronidazole and 83.3% (CI, 35.8%-99.5%) for ornidazole. The optimal concentration of both drugs for BAT was determined as 5 mg/mL. No cross-reactivity among two drugs was observed according to in vivo tests. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that SBPCDPT and BAT are both useful diagnostic tools for IHRs due to 5-nitroimidazole antibiotics and can be used as supplementary to each other. No cross-reactivity between metronidazole and ornidazole in IHRs exists.

Non-IgE-Mediated Immediate Drug-Induced Hypersensitivity Reactions.

Immediate drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions (IDHSRs) have conventionally been attributed to an immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated mechanism. Nevertheless, it has now been acknowledged that IDHSRs can also occur independently of IgE involvement. Non-IgE-mediated IDHSRs encompass the activation of effector cells, both mast cell-dependent and -independent and the initiation of inflammatory pathways through immunogenic and nonimmunogenic mechanisms. The IDHSRs involve inflammatory mediators beyond histamine, including the platelet-activating factor, which activates multiple cell types, including smooth muscle, endothelium, and MC, and evidence supports its importance in IgE-mediated reactions in humans. Clinically, distinguishing IgE from non-IgE mechanisms is crucial for future treatment strategies, including drug(s) restriction, readministration approaches, and pretreatment considerations. However, this presents significant challenges because certain drugs can trigger both mechanisms, and their presentations can appear similarly, ranging from mild to life-threatening symptoms. Thus, history alone is often inadequate for differentiation, and skin tests lack a standardized approach. Moreover, drug-specific IgE immunoassays have favorable specificity but low sensitivity, and the usefulness of the basophil activation test remains debatable. Lastly, no biomarker reliably differentiates between both mechanisms. Whereas non-IgE-mediated mechanisms likely predominate in IDHSRs, reclassifying most drug-related IDHSRs as non-IgE-mediated, with suggested prevention through dose administration adjustments, is premature and risky. Therefore, continued research and validated diagnostic tests are crucial to improving our capacity to distinguish between these mechanisms, ultimately enhancing patient care.

Diagnostic Value of Oral Provocation Tests in Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions Induced by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and Paracetamol.

Oral drug provocation tests (DPT) are the basic diagnostic tool for the detection of hypersensitivity to non-opioid analgesics and for selecting a safe alternative for a patient. They are of great practical importance due to their common use, but the data on the follow-up of patients after negative DPT are still very scarce. We examined the further fate of 164 such adult patients after negative NSAID or paracetamol tests and analyzed which excipients in the studied drugs they could be exposed to after the diagnostic workup. A structured medical interview was performed 32.9 months (mean) after the provocation tests. Of the 164 patients, 131 (79.9%) retook the tested drug and 12 developed another hypersensitivity reaction, giving the estimated negative predictive value of 90.8%. These reactions were induced by acetylsalicylic acid, paracetamol, meloxicam, and diclofenac, and were clinically similar to the initial ones (most commonly urticaria and angioedema). There are 93 generics of these drugs on the local market, containing a total of 33 excipients for which hypersensitivity reactions have been reported. All available generics contain such excipients. Thirty-one patients (20.1%) did not take the previously tested drug again, most often because it was not needed or because they were afraid of another reaction. DPT with analgesics has a high diagnostic performance. A minority of patients had relapsed after reexposure. One of the underestimated reasons for this may be drug excipients provoking a reaction, so it is advisable to use exactly the same medical product that has been negatively tested. Many patients avoid reexposure to a given drug, despite negative tests, therefore very reliable patient education in connection with DPT is highly needed.

Basophil Activation Experiments in Immediate Drug Hypersensitivity: More Than a Diagnostic Aid.

BACKGROUND: Correct diagnosis of immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) can pose a significant challenge, mainly because of the absence of reliable in vitro tests, uncertainties associated with skin testing, and incomplete understanding of the underlying mechanisms. AIM: To summarize and hypothesize on the potential of basophil activation test (BAT) as a safe aid to explore the mechanistic endotypes of IDHR, to identify antibody recognition sites, and to monitor drug desensitization. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the keywords "allergy, basophil activation, CD63, CD203c, diagnosis, drugs, hypersensitivity, flow cytometry"; this was complemented by the authors' own expertise. RESULTS: At present BAT has mainly been employed as a diagnostic aid. However, evidence is emerging that the technique might also deepen our insights in immune (allergic) and nonimmune (nonallergic) mechanistic processes of IDHR. It is anticipated that BAT might also benefit the identification of antibody recognition sites and benefit our understandings of desensitization strategies. CONCLUSION: Although the nondiagnostic application of BAT in IDHR is still in its infancy, with increasing employment, we can expect the technique to become a valuable asset to study many domains of IDHR that remain poorly understood.