Correspondence to “Diagnosis of immediate reactions to amoxicillin: Comparison of basophil activation markers <scp>CD63</scp> and <scp>CD203c</scp> in a prospective study”

Elst, Jessy; Poorten, Marie-Line M. van der; Toscano, Alessandro; Gasse, Athina L. Van; Mertens, Christel; Beyens, Michiel; Hagendorens, Margo M.; Ebo, Didier G.; Sabato, Vito

doi:10.1111/all.15686

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is not in line with the recommendations of a 2015 position paper, recently updated, 12 on BAT's clinical utility, suggesting to treat non‐interpretable invalid BAT results from non‐responding patients as false negatives to calculate the test performances 53 . As argued elsewhere, 17,54 complete BAT non‐responders, i.e., cases with basophils not responsive to stimulation with the positive control and allergen, should not be discarded when assessing the overall test performance. Furthermore, as the LAD2‐pMAT was not tested in parallel with alternative MCs (i.e., cultured primary hMCs, other human MC lines) in the Santos et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Mast cell versus basophil activation test in allergy: Current status

Ebo,

Bahri,

Tontini

et al. 2024

Clin Experimental Allergy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past two decades, we witnessed the evolution of the basophil activation test (BAT) from mainly research applications to a potential complementary diagnostic tool to document IgE‐dependent allergies. However, BAT presents some technical weaknesses. Around 10%–15% of tested patients are non‐responders, BAT can be negative immediately post‐reaction and the use of fresh basophils, ideally analysed within 4 h of collection, restricts the number of tests that can be performed per sample. The need for fresh basophils is especially limiting when conducting batch analyses and interlaboratory comparisons to harmonize BAT methodology. These limitations significantly hinder the wider application of BAT and urge the development of alternative testing, such as the mast cell activation test (MAT). The essential difference between BAT and MAT is the heterogeneity of the starting material used to perform the assays. Mast cells are tissue‐resident, so cannot be easily accessed. Current alternative sources for functional studies are generating primary human mast cells, differentiated from donor progenitor cells, or using immortalized mast cell lines. Hence, the methodological approaches for MAT are not only vastly different from BAT, but also different among MAT protocols. This review summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of BAT and MAT assays, dedicating special attention to elucidating the key differences between the cellular sources used and provides an overview of studies hitherto performed comparing BAT and MAT in the diagnosis of IgE‐mediated food and drug allergies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%