The basophil activation test (BAT) has become a pervasive test for allergic response through the development of flow cytometry, discovery of activation markers such as CD63 and unique markers identifying basophil granulocytes. Basophil activation test measures basophil response to allergen cross-linking IgE on between 150 and 2000 basophil granulocytes in <0.1 ml fresh blood. Dichotomous activation is assessed as the fraction of reacting basophils. In addition to clinical history, skin prick test, and specific IgE determination, BAT can be a part of the diagnostic evaluation of patients with food-, insect venom-, and drug allergy and chronic urticaria. It may be helpful in determining the clinically relevant allergen. Basophil sensitivity may be used to monitor patients on allergen immunotherapy, anti-IgE treatment or in the natural resolution of allergy. Basophil activation test may use fewer resources and be more reproducible than challenge testing. As it is less stressful for the patient and avoids severe allergic reactions, BAT ought to precede challenge testing. An important next step is to standardize BAT and make it available in diagnostic laboratories. The nature of basophil activation as an ex vivo challenge makes it a multifaceted and promising tool for the allergist. In this EAACI task force position paper, we provide an overview of the practical and technical details as well as the clinical utility of BAT in diagnosis and management of allergic diseases.

Currently, testing for immunoglobulin E (IgE) sensitization is the cornerstone of diagnostic evaluation in suspected allergic conditions. This review provides a thorough and updated critical appraisal of the most frequently used diagnostic tests, both in vivo and in vitro. It discusses skin tests, challenges, and serological and cellular in vitro tests, and provides an overview of indications, advantages and disadvantages of each in conditions such as respiratory, food, venom, drug, and occupational allergy. Skin prick testing remains the first line approach in most instances; the added value of serum specific IgE to whole allergen extracts or components, as well as the role of basophil activation tests, is evaluated. Unproven, non-validated, diagnostic tests are also discussed. Throughout the review, the reader must bear in mind the relevance of differentiating between sensitization and allergy; the latter entails not only allergic sensitization, but also clinically relevant symptoms triggered by the culprit allergen.

Anaesthesiologists administer several drugs while providing general anaesthesia. Many of these drugs can elicit adverse drug reactions that fall apart into two major types. First, reactions that are usually dose-dependent and related to the pharmacological properties of the drug and/or its metabolites. Second, reactions that are unrelated to the drug's pharmacological characteristics and that are less dose-dependent. These reactions comprise drug intolerance, idiosyncratic reactions and drug-induced immune-mediated allergic and nonimmune-mediated so-called pseudo-allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. The terms anaphylactic and anaphylactoid, however, have been used inconsistently in the literature. Therefore, the nomenclature task force set up by the European Academy of Allergy and Immunology (EAACI) has proposed that anaphylactic-type reactions should be reclassified into allergic anaphylaxis and nonallergic anaphylaxis. Allergic anaphylaxis being further subdivided in IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated reactions (1).The exact prevalence of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia is difficult to ascertain. The estimated overall frequency has been reported to vary between 1 in 3500 and 1 in 13 000 procedures in French series (2, 3) and between 1 in 10 000 and 1 in 20 000 in an Australian study (4). The clinical manifestation of these reactions is not infrequently an almost immediate generalized response with bronchospasm and hypotension. The degree of severity varies and does not allow differentiation between an IgE-mediated or non-IgE mediated reaction resulting from nonspecific mediator release (5). The mortality from these reactions is in the range from 3 to 6%, and an additional 2% of patients experience significant residual brain damage (4).Diagnosis of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia is not always straightforward. It can be hampered as a broad spectrum of different drugs can elicit heterogeneous allergic and nonallergic reactions with distinct and sometimes unclear pathological mechanisms. Problems are certainly compounded as multiple drugs need to be administered during general anaesthesia. In addition, nonanaesthesia related drugs or procedures (e.g. disinfection) are sometimes administered/performed in the perioperative period and can also be the cause of an allergic reaction.In addition, none of the available diagnostic tests demonstrates absolute accuracy. False-positive test Correct management of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia requires a multidisciplinary approach with prompt recognition and treatment of the acute event by the attending anaesthesiologist, and subsequent determination of the responsible agent(s) with strict avoidance of subsequent administration of all incriminated and/or cross-reacting compounds.However, correct identification of the causative compound(s) and safe alternatives is not always straightforward and, too often, not done.This review is not intended to discuss acute management of anaesthesia-related anaphylaxis but summarizes the major causes of anaphylaxis during anaesthesia and the di...

Perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions are rare. Subsequent allergy investigation is complicated by multiple simultaneous drug exposures, the use of drugs with potent effects and the many differential diagnoses to hypersensitivity in the perioperative setting. The approach to the investigation of these complex reactions is not standardized, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that collaboration between experts in the field of allergy/immunology/dermatology and anaesthesiology is needed to provide the best possible care for these patients. The EAACI task force behind this position paper has therefore combined the expertise of allergists, immunologists and anaesthesiologists. The aims of this position paper were to provide recommendations for the investigation of immediate-type perioperative hypersensitivity reactions and to provide practical information that can assist clinicians in planning and carrying out investigations. | 1873GARVEY Et Al.

For the diagnosis of allergy, cellular basophil activation tests (BAT), e.g. histamine or sulfidoleukotriene release tests, have long been introduced, but the expression of basophil activation markers such as CD63 and CD203c detected by flow cytometry has attracted more recent attention. A recent opinion paper in this Journal has stressed not only the potential but also the possible pitfalls of flow-cytometric BAT. We have applied clinical validation of various BAT in various ways for several years, and our experience shows that these new technologies have more potentials and perspectives than pitfalls. A comprehensive review of clinically validated studies on allergy to aeroallergens, insect venoms, latex, food allergens and drugs, e.g. myorelaxants, β-lactams, pyrazolones and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, as well as chronic urticaria shows clearly that even with different protocols, reproducible and meaningful results can be obtained. Although the available technologies may still be optimized and better standardized, there are no serious reasons to deprive allergic patients of clinically indicated BAT, which can be performed reliably by any laboratory with allergy and flow-cytometric capacity and expertise.

Suspected perioperative allergic reactions are rare but can be life-threatening. The diagnosis is difficult to make in the perioperative setting, but prompt recognition and correct treatment is necessary to ensure a good outcome. A group of 26 international experts in perioperative allergy (anaesthesiologists, allergists, and immunologists) contributed to a modified Delphi consensus process, which covered areas such as differential diagnosis, management during and after anaphylaxis, allergy investigations, and plans for a subsequent anaesthetic. They were asked to rank the appropriateness of statements related to the immediate management of suspected perioperative allergic reactions. Statements were selected to represent areas where there is a lack of consensus in existing guidelines, such as dosing of epinephrine and fluids, the management of impending cardiac arrest, and reactions refractory to standard treatment. The results of the modified Delphi consensus process have been included in the recommendations on the management of suspected perioperative allergic reactions. This paper provides anaesthetists with an overview of relevant knowledge on the immediate and postoperative management of suspected perioperative allergic reactions based on current literature and expert opinion. In addition, it provides practical advice and recommendations in areas where consensus has been lacking in existing guidelines.

Patients monoallergic to NRL or birch pollen showed no sensitization to bromelain-type CCD or profilin. Sensitization to profilin and/or bromelain-type CCD, caused by pollen (timothy grass, mugwort) or hymenoptera venom allergens, can elicit false-positive IgE antibodies against NRL and apple.

The diagnosis of allergic reactions in clinical practice rests upon both clinical history and the demonstration of specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE), either in the serum or via skin tests. However, for various reasons, identification of the offending allergen(s) is not always possible. Moreover, not all allergies are IgE-mediated. In an attempt to find reliable methods to investigate hypersensitivity reactions, histamine and sulfidoleukotriene release tests have long been introduced. However, relatively few comprehensive quality reports have been published so far. Upon challenge with a specific allergen, basophils not only secrete quantifiable bioactive mediators but also upregulate the expression of different markers which can be detected efficiently by flow cytometry using specific monoclonal antibodies. This review addresses the principals, particular technical aspects and pitfalls as well as the clinical and research applications of flow-assisted analysis of in vitro activated basophils q