Determining the role of basophil activation testing in reported type 1 allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics.

IF 3.1 Q2 ALLERGY Frontiers in allergy Pub Date : 2024-12-24 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/falgy.2024.1512875
Markus Reitmajer, Antonia Strauss, Christian Klinger, Maximiliane Maaß, Wolfgang E Kempf, Joerg Fischer, Manfred Kneilling, Sebastian Volc
{"title":"Determining the role of basophil activation testing in reported type 1 allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics.","authors":"Markus Reitmajer, Antonia Strauss, Christian Klinger, Maximiliane Maaß, Wolfgang E Kempf, Joerg Fischer, Manfred Kneilling, Sebastian Volc","doi":"10.3389/falgy.2024.1512875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics (BLA), especially to penicillin, is the most commonly reported drug allergy by patients. Alternative antibiotics can yield negative consequences, such as extended hospitalization days due to less efficacy and overall higher costs. The basophil activation test (BAT) is an <i>in vitro</i> assay, in which activation of an individual's own basophils is quantified by flow cytometry. It is an increasingly applied <i>in vitro</i> method in allergy testing that is also gaining traction in drug allergies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We correlated 37 BAT results with skin test results. The cohort exclusively included patients with suspected type I BLA allergy. In addition, we examined the concordance of these results with clinical symptoms reported in the BLA patients' medical histories.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>BLA-BAT revealed a high specificity of 92.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 66.7-98.6] but a low sensitivity of only 20.8% (95% CI 9.24-40.47) using BLA-skin tests as a comparator. Negative BLA-BAT in patients with a history of grade I anaphylaxis yielded doubt on the assumption of grading. The exclusion of grade I BLA anaphylaxis increased the sensitivity to 29.4% (95% CI 13.28-53.13) with a still high specificity of 85.7% (95% CI 48.69-97.43). When ImmunoCAP was available, we compared specific IgE and BAT results by using Cohens' kappa (κ) and revealed a moderate level of agreement (κ = 0.538, <i>p</i> = 0.029).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BAT reveals specific positive results exclusively in patients with cephalosporin anaphylaxis. However, these findings could not be generally confirmed in the heterogeneous group of BLA.</p>","PeriodicalId":73062,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in allergy","volume":"5 ","pages":"1512875"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11703728/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in allergy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/falgy.2024.1512875","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics (BLA), especially to penicillin, is the most commonly reported drug allergy by patients. Alternative antibiotics can yield negative consequences, such as extended hospitalization days due to less efficacy and overall higher costs. The basophil activation test (BAT) is an in vitro assay, in which activation of an individual's own basophils is quantified by flow cytometry. It is an increasingly applied in vitro method in allergy testing that is also gaining traction in drug allergies.

Methods: We correlated 37 BAT results with skin test results. The cohort exclusively included patients with suspected type I BLA allergy. In addition, we examined the concordance of these results with clinical symptoms reported in the BLA patients' medical histories.

Results: BLA-BAT revealed a high specificity of 92.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 66.7-98.6] but a low sensitivity of only 20.8% (95% CI 9.24-40.47) using BLA-skin tests as a comparator. Negative BLA-BAT in patients with a history of grade I anaphylaxis yielded doubt on the assumption of grading. The exclusion of grade I BLA anaphylaxis increased the sensitivity to 29.4% (95% CI 13.28-53.13) with a still high specificity of 85.7% (95% CI 48.69-97.43). When ImmunoCAP was available, we compared specific IgE and BAT results by using Cohens' kappa (κ) and revealed a moderate level of agreement (κ = 0.538, p = 0.029).

Conclusion: BAT reveals specific positive results exclusively in patients with cephalosporin anaphylaxis. However, these findings could not be generally confirmed in the heterogeneous group of BLA.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
确定嗜碱性粒细胞激活试验在报告的1型β -内酰胺类抗生素过敏中的作用。
背景:对-内酰胺类抗生素(BLA)的过敏,尤其是对青霉素的过敏,是患者最常报告的药物过敏。替代抗生素可能会产生负面后果,例如由于疗效较差而延长住院时间和总体费用较高。嗜碱性粒细胞活化试验(BAT)是一种体外试验,通过流式细胞术定量测定个体自身嗜碱性粒细胞的活化。它是一种越来越多地应用于过敏测试的体外方法,也在药物过敏中获得了牵引力。方法:将37例BAT结果与皮试结果进行对比分析。该队列仅包括疑似I型BLA过敏的患者。此外,我们检查了这些结果与BLA患者病史中报告的临床症状的一致性。结果:BLA-BAT显示出92.3%的高特异性[95%置信区间(CI) 66.7-98.6],但以bla -皮肤试验作为比较,其敏感性仅为20.8% (95% CI 9.24-40.47)。有I级过敏史的患者BLA-BAT阴性对分级假设产生怀疑。排除I级BLA过敏反应后,敏感性增加到29.4% (95% CI 13.28-53.13),特异性仍然很高,为85.7% (95% CI 48.69-97.43)。当免疫cap可用时,我们使用Cohens' kappa (κ)比较特异性IgE和BAT结果,结果显示中等水平的一致性(κ = 0.538, p = 0.029)。结论:BAT仅在头孢菌素过敏反应患者中显示特异性阳性结果。然而,这些发现在BLA异质组中不能得到普遍证实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Association of intestinal barrier impairment with symptom severity and washed microbiota transplantation outcomes in atopic dermatitis patients. Effect of low salicylate diet and blood salicylate level on the symptom control of chronic spontaneous urticaria. Quality of life is impaired in shrimp allergic adults and caregivers. Association between social phobia and allergic asthma in adolescents. Unravelling allergic rhinitis: exploring pathophysiology, advances in treatment, and future directions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1