Following the first description of hypersensitivity reaction to aspirin (ASA) by Hirschberg in 1902, several types of hypersensitivity reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been described. The NSAIDs-induced hypersensitivity reactions involve different mechanisms and present a wide range of clinical manifestations from anaphylaxis AbstractNonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are responsible for 21-25% of reported adverse drug events which include immunological and nonimmunological hypersensitivity reactions. This study presents up-to-date information on pathomechanisms, clinical spectrum, diagnostic tools and management of hypersensitivity reactions to NSAIDs. Clinically, NSAID hypersensitivity is particularly manifested by bronchial asthma, rhinosinusitis, anaphylaxis or urticaria and variety of late cutaneous and organ-specific reactions. Diagnosis of hypersensitivity to a NSAID includes understanding of the underlying mechanism and is necessary for prevention and management. A stepwise approach to the diagnosis of hypersensitivity to NSAIDs is proposed, including clinical history, in vitro testing and/ or provocation test with a culprit or alternative drug depending on the type of the reaction. The diagnostic process should result in providing the patient with written information both on forbidden and on alternative drugs.

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.

Hypersensitivity reactions to betalactams (BLs) are classified as immediate or nonimmediate. The former usually appear within 1 h of drug‐intake and are mediated by specific IgE‐antibodies. Nonimmediate reactions are those occurring more than 1 h after drug‐intake, and they can be T‐cell mediated. The diagnostic evaluation of allergic reactions to BLs has changed over the last 5 years, for several reasons. Major and minor determinants are no longer commercially available for skin testing in many countries. In immediate allergic reactions, the sensitivity of skin testing and immunoassays is decreasing and new in vitro methods, such as the basophil activation test, are gaining importance for diagnosis. For nonimmediate reactions, skin testing appears to be less sensitive than previous results, although more studies need to be carried out in this direction. Nevertheless, the drug provocation test is still necessary for diagnosis.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions can occur with most drugs, are unpredictable, may affect any organ or system, and range widely in clinical severity from mild pruritus to anaphylaxis. In most cases, the suspected drug is avoided in the future. However, for certain patients, the particular drug may be essential for optimal therapy. Under these circumstances, desensitization may be performed. Drug desensitization is defined as the induction of a temporary state of tolerance of a compound responsible for a hypersensitivity reaction. It is performed by administering increasing doses of the medication concerned over a short period of time (from several hours to a few days) until the total cumulative therapeutic dose is achieved and tolerated. It is a high-risk procedure used only in patients in whom alternatives are less effective or not available after a positive risk/benefit analysis. Desensitization protocols have been developed and are used in patients with allergic reactions to antibiotics (mainly penicillin), insulins, sulfonamides, chemotherapeutic and biologic agents, and many other drugs. Desensitization is mainly performed in IgE-mediated reactions, but also in reactions where drug-specific IgE have not been demonstrated. Desensitization induces a temporary tolerant state, which can only be maintained by continuous administration of the medication. Thus, for treatments like chemotherapy, which have an average interval of 4 weeks between cycles, the procedure must be repeated for every new course. In this paper, some background information on rapid desensitization procedures is provided. We define the drugs and drug reactions indicated for such procedures, describe the possible mechanism of action, and discuss the indications and contraindications. The data should serve as background information for a database (accessible via the EAACI-homepage) with standardized protocols for rapid desensitization for antibiotics, chemotherapeutic agents, monoclonal antibodies/fusion proteins, and other drugs.

Hypersensitivity reactions to betalactams (BLs) are classified as immediate or nonimmediate. The former usually appear within 1 h of drug-intake and are mediated by specific IgE-antibodies. Nonimmediate reactions are those occurring more than 1 h after drug-intake, and they can be T-cell mediated. The diagnostic evaluation of allergic reactions to BLs has changed over the last 5 years, for several reasons. Major and minor determinants are no longer commercially available for skin testing in many countries. In immediate allergic reactions, the sensitivity of skin testing and immunoassays is decreasing and new in vitro methods, such as the basophil activation test, are gaining importance for diagnosis. For nonimmediate reactions, skin testing appears to be less sensitive than previous results, although more studies need to be carried out in this direction. Nevertheless, the drug provocation test is still necessary for diagnosis.

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.

The basophil activation test is a particularly useful technique in the diagnosis of patients with IgE-mediated allergy to betalactams and allows the identification of 50% of patients. Used in conjunction with CAP, it allows the identification of 65.5% of such patients.

No abstract