Drug hypersensitivities: Which room for biological tests?

Department of Allergology and Clinical Immunology, University Clinic of Navarra, School of Medicine, University of Navarra, 31080 Pamplona, Spain.
European annals of allergy and clinical immunology 07/2005; 37(6):230-5.
Source: PubMed


Drug allergic reactions frequently represent a serious diagnostic problem. In this paper we summarise the most relevant data published in recent years on the diagnostic reliability of the in vitro techniques in drug allergy diagnosis. The lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) offers a sensitivity of 58% in the diagnosis of late allergic reactions to betalactams and 64.5% in the immediate allergic reactions. The basophil activation test and the antigen-specific sulphidoleukotriene determination have an acceptable diagnostic reliability in muscle relaxant drug-induced reactions and in betalactam allergy. BAT sensitivity in betalactam allergy was 50.7% and its specificity 93.3%, whereas CAP had a sensitivity of 36.7% and a specificity of 83.3%, and CAST, a sensitivity of 47.7% and a specificity of 83.3%. For NSAID hypersensitivity, BAT sensitivity was 63.3% and specificity 93.3%, CAST sensitivity was 38.3% and specificity 76.6%. BAT sensitivity in metamizol allergy was 42.3% and the specificity 100% and CAP was negative in all the 17 cases in which it was performed. The joint use of BAT and CAP (specific IgE) allows diagnosis of 65.2% of the betalactam allergic patients with a specificity of 83.3%. The combined use of CAST and BAT in metamizol allergy detects 76% of the cases and 76.9% when associating the skin tests. In NSAID hypersensitivity, the joint use of BAT and CAST does not increase the diagnostic reliability of BAT alone. BAT is a non-invasive useful technique in the in vitro diagnosis of betalactam and metamizol allergy, and NSAID hypersensitivity.

10 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinicians commonly encounter patients who report to have drug allergy. In a large part, such allergy corresponds to adverse drug reactions, which are not immune mediated. The incriminated drug need not always be avoided for further therapy. On the other hand, drug allergy may manifest in many unexpected clinical pictures and thus not be recognized. There is no single standardized diagnostic test to confirm the immune-mediated mechanism and to identify the causative drug. Therefore, immune-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions and their causative drugs have to be considered by the constellation of exposure, timing, and clinical features, including the pattern of organ manifestation. Prior experience with the drug is also an important feature. An allergologic workup with additional investigation may provide some help. Patients should be informed carefully about their drug allergy, whereby symptoms, drug that elicits reaction, modes of diagnosis of drug allergy, and possibly alternatives should be indicated in their allergy passport.
    The Medical clinics of North America 07/2010; 94(4):665-79, xv. DOI:10.1016/j.mcna.2010.03.006 · 2.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prior use of 'lymphocyte transformation test' (LTT) in Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) provided conflicting results, possibly dependent on sampling dates (acute vs. late). Evaluation of LTT in patients with SJS or TEN who reacted to lamotrigine (LTG). In a small subgroup we explored the possible role of regulatory T cells (T-reg). Acute phase samples (9) and post-recovery samples (14) from cases of SJS or TEN to LTG were provided by the RegiSCAR-study group. Controls were persons never exposed to LTG (12), patients exposed without reaction (6), and patients who developed a mild eruption to LTG (6). LTT was performed by measuring (3) H-thymidine incorporation after 3 days of incubation with phytohemmaglutinin, LTG (10 μg/mL) or medium. Stimulation index ≥ 2 was considered positive. In 16 cases LTT was redone after depletion of T-reg by fluorescence activated cell sorting. Positive LTT was observed in 3/6 cases of mild eruptions, 1/9 SJS/TEN-cases tested during the acute phase and 3/14 SJS/TEN-cases tested after recovery. We noted a very mild and nonsignificant trend for an increased response after depletion of T-reg in late samples from SJS or TEN patients. With the largest number of LTT performed in patients with SJS or TEN to a single drug, we confirmed that reactive cells are rarely detected in these reactions. Poor reactivity did not seem related to T-reg. Other in vitro assays than those testing proliferation should be evaluated, before raising the hypothesis that specific cells disappeared by undergoing apoptosis during the reaction.
    Clinical & Experimental Allergy 10/2011; 42(2):248-54. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2011.03875.x · 4.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Metamizol is a pyrazolone-derivative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that is commonly associated with hypersensitivity reactions. Some of these reactions are IgE-mediated and potentially severe, which limits the diagnosis based on oral drug challenge. We describe 6 selective metamizol hypersensitivity cases, regarding clinical evaluation and diagnosis management, with focus on the usefulness of skin tests and the cellular allergen stimulation test (CAST). All patients were female, aged 27 to 50 years old. All had immediate reactions after metamizol administration: 3 had anaphylaxis and 3 had urticaria and angioedema. Skin prick tests with metamizol were positive in 2 patients. Intradermal tests were positive in the remaining, all with 1/100 dilution, and elicited systemic reactions in 2 of them. CAST to metamizol was negative in all cases. The patients tolerated other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Skin tests proved to be a good diagnostic method to identify IgE-mediated metamizol allergy, although skin tests elicited systemic symptoms in some cases. Despite this being a small sample, our results showed a very low sensitivity for CAST which differs from data previously reported in the literature.
    European annals of allergy and clinical immunology 01/2012; 44(3):113-116.
Show more