International archives of allergy and immunology · 2011
Negativity of the basophil activation test in quinolone hypersensitivity: a breakthrough for provocation test decision-making.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rouzaire Paul, Nosbaum Audrey, Denis Laure, Bienvenu Françoise, Bérard Frédéric, Cozon Grégoire, Bienvenu Jacques
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Quinolone hypersensitivity reactions are being more frequently reported. Skin tests in investigations of patients are known to not be fully reliable. The provocation test thus remains the gold standard in the definitive diagnosis of allergy, despite the risks involved. The aim of this study was to evaluate basophil activation tests (BATs) in the diagnosis of immediate-type reactions to quinolones.
METHODS: Thirty-four patients who presented an immediate-type hypersensivity reaction less than an hour after quinolone administration were studied. The allergologic workup of these patients consisted of a careful clinical history, a skin test and a BAT with the culprit quinolone. If not contraindicated, and in the case of high probability of a nonallergic reaction, provocation tests were performed to assess the nonimmunologic nature of the hypersensitivity.
RESULTS: Among the 34 patients studied, 17 (50%) presented a negative BAT to the suspected quinolone, while the other 17 (50%) patients presented a positive BAT for quinolone at the time of their reaction. Among the 17 patients with negative BATs, 15 (2 of whom had had positive skin tests) had quinolone successfully reintroduced.
CONCLUSIONS: Our report suggests that the BAT, if negative for the culprit quinolone, is a valuable tool in the decision whether or not to perform provocation tests in patients with a history of immediate-type reaction to quinolones, in order to exclude an allergic reaction.
METHODS: Thirty-four patients who presented an immediate-type hypersensivity reaction less than an hour after quinolone administration were studied. The allergologic workup of these patients consisted of a careful clinical history, a skin test and a BAT with the culprit quinolone. If not contraindicated, and in the case of high probability of a nonallergic reaction, provocation tests were performed to assess the nonimmunologic nature of the hypersensitivity.
RESULTS: Among the 34 patients studied, 17 (50%) presented a negative BAT to the suspected quinolone, while the other 17 (50%) patients presented a positive BAT for quinolone at the time of their reaction. Among the 17 patients with negative BATs, 15 (2 of whom had had positive skin tests) had quinolone successfully reintroduced.
CONCLUSIONS: Our report suggests that the BAT, if negative for the culprit quinolone, is a valuable tool in the decision whether or not to perform provocation tests in patients with a history of immediate-type reaction to quinolones, in order to exclude an allergic reaction.