Basophil activation test should be performed as early as possible after taking the blood sample, preferably within 4 h. In contrast to the skin test, BAT can be performed in patients undergoing treatment with antihistamines. For reasons of multiple influencing factors, BAT should be performed only at validated laboratories.

No abstract

Background:The basophil activation test (BAT) based on CD203c upregulation has been validated as a reliable tool for the diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergies. Nevertheless, CD203c-based BAT is hardly comparable with that of CD63-based tests, as the mechanisms of CD203c versus CD63 induction differ considerably. The aim of the present study was to identify potent influencing factors of the CD203c-based BAT and to emphasize differences between CD63 and CD203c detection.Methods: CD203c-based BAT was determined in 82 healthy controls and in 79 allergic patients. The effects of interleukin (IL)-3 and degranulation enhancing substances were investigated and compared with CD63 upregulation. Furthermore, the influence of different storage conditions and incubation times was evaluated and the impact of antiallergic drugs on the test results was assessed.Results: CD203c and CD63 expression was rapidly upregulated reaching a maximum after 20-30 min. Basophil CD203c upregulation assayed after storage times up to 48 h declined already after 4 h. IL-3 treatment increased CD203c and CD63 baseline levels and decreased basophil CD203c responses in a dose-dependent manner. In contrast, cytochalasin B and latrunculin B did not affect CD203c responses but decreased CD63-based BAT. Finally, therapeutic concentrations of dimetindene and desloratadine did not affect CD203c upregulation.Conclusion: CD203c-based basophil activation test should be performed preferentially within 4 h after taking the blood samples. Priming and degranulation-enhancing factors are not required for CD203c-based BAT. In contrast to skin testing, CD203c-based BAT can be performed in patients undergoing antiallergic treatment.

BackgroundDouble sensitization (DS) to bee and vespid venom is frequently observed in the diagnosis of hymenoptera venom allergy, but clinically relevant DS is rare. Therefore it is sophisticated to choose the relevant venom for specific immunotherapy and overtreatment with both venoms may occur. We aimed to compare currently available routine diagnostic tests as well as experimental tests to identify the most accurate diagnostic tool.Methods117 patients with a history of a bee or vespid allergy were included in the study. Initially, IgE determination by the ImmunoCAP, by the Immulite, and by the ADVIA Centaur, as well as the intradermal test (IDT) and the basophil activation test (BAT) were performed. In 72 CAP double positive patients, individual IgE patterns were determined by western blot inhibition and component resolved diagnosis (CRD) with rApi m 1, nVes v 1, and nVes v 5.ResultsAmong 117 patients, DS was observed in 63.7% by the Immulite, in 61.5% by the CAP, in 47.9% by the IDT, in 20.5% by the ADVIA, and in 17.1% by the BAT. In CAP double positive patients, western blot inhibition revealed CCD-based DS in 50.8%, and the CRD showed 41.7% of patients with true DS. Generally, agreement between the tests was only fair and inconsistent results were common.ConclusionBAT, CRD, and ADVIA showed a low rate of DS. However, the rate of DS is higher than expected by personal history, indicating that the matter of clinical relevance is still not solved even by novel tests. Furthermore, the lack of agreement between these tests makes it difficult to distinguish between bee and vespid venom allergy. At present, no routinely employed test can be regarded as gold standard to find the clinically relevant sensitization.

Oral provocation with 75 mg of liquid histamine failed to reproduce histamine-associated single symptoms in many patients. One may suggest that histamine-intolerant subjects reacted with different organs on different occasions. As a consequence, reproducibility of single symptoms alone may not be appropriate to diagnose histamine-intolerance whereas a global symptom score could be more appropriate. The fact, that the intake of DAO capsules compared to placebo led to a statistically significant reduction of total symptom scores, may indirectly point in the same direction.