Performance Characteristics of Basophil Activation Tests for Diagnosing Penicillin Allergy : A Meta-Analysis
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved..
BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of the global population identify themselves as penicillin allergic, yet 90% are not truly allergic and could safely tolerate penicillin. There is no simple way to identify these people. Current in vitro diagnostics include specific immunoglobulin E (with a sensitivity of 19% and specificity of 97%) and a basophil activation test (BAT) with undefined sensitivity and specificity.
OBJECTIVE: To define the sensitivity and specificity of BAT in the diagnosis of penicillin allergy METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE from inception to April 2, 2023, for original studies evaluating the performance characteristics of BAT for penicillin allergy in adults. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias, assessment with QUADAS-2 tool, certainty assessment with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology were performed independently, in duplicate. Meta-analysis was performed using Reitsma methodology.
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twelve used the same positive threshold giving a summary point sensitivity 51% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]46%-56%) and specificity 89% (95% CI 85%-93%). Significant risk of bias was identified owing to patient selection. GRADE certainty of evidence rated sensitivity very low due to imprecision and specificity as low. There was great heterogeneity in methods used. Use of 1,000 basophils per test did not improve performance above 500 basophils.
CONCLUSIONS: BAT sensitivity is highly variable across studies and remains too low to be considered as a routine element of clinical practice. BAT specificity is not as good as specific immunoglobulin E in penicillin allergy diagnosis. Significant further work is required in this field before clinical application of BAT in routine practice.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:12 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice - 12(2024), 3 vom: 15. März, Seite 714-723.e5 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Bennett, Miriam R [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
37341-29-0 |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 11.03.2024 Date Revised 11.03.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.jaip.2023.11.004 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM364318309 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM364318309 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240311231941.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.jaip.2023.11.004 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1323.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM364318309 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)37940090 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S2213-2198(23)01208-4 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Bennett, Miriam R |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Performance Characteristics of Basophil Activation Tests for Diagnosing Penicillin Allergy |b A Meta-Analysis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 11.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 11.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of the global population identify themselves as penicillin allergic, yet 90% are not truly allergic and could safely tolerate penicillin. There is no simple way to identify these people. Current in vitro diagnostics include specific immunoglobulin E (with a sensitivity of 19% and specificity of 97%) and a basophil activation test (BAT) with undefined sensitivity and specificity | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVE: To define the sensitivity and specificity of BAT in the diagnosis of penicillin allergy METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE from inception to April 2, 2023, for original studies evaluating the performance characteristics of BAT for penicillin allergy in adults. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias, assessment with QUADAS-2 tool, certainty assessment with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology were performed independently, in duplicate. Meta-analysis was performed using Reitsma methodology | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Twenty-two studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twelve used the same positive threshold giving a summary point sensitivity 51% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]46%-56%) and specificity 89% (95% CI 85%-93%). Significant risk of bias was identified owing to patient selection. GRADE certainty of evidence rated sensitivity very low due to imprecision and specificity as low. There was great heterogeneity in methods used. Use of 1,000 basophils per test did not improve performance above 500 basophils | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: BAT sensitivity is highly variable across studies and remains too low to be considered as a routine element of clinical practice. BAT specificity is not as good as specific immunoglobulin E in penicillin allergy diagnosis. Significant further work is required in this field before clinical application of BAT in routine practice | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Meta-Analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Allergy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Basophil activation test | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Drug hypersensitivity | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Penicillin | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Immunoglobulin E |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a 37341-29-0 |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Penicillins |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mathioudakis, Alexander G |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wu, Jiakai |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Chu, Michael M H |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tontini, Chiara |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Thomas, Iason |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Simpson, Angela |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice |d 2013 |g 12(2024), 3 vom: 15. März, Seite 714-723.e5 |w (DE-627)NLM227247523 |x 2213-2201 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:12 |g year:2024 |g number:3 |g day:15 |g month:03 |g pages:714-723.e5 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2023.11.004 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 12 |j 2024 |e 3 |b 15 |c 03 |h 714-723.e5 | ||