A study aimed to examine the connection between the basophil activation test (BAT) and the rhinitis severity in individuals with local respiratory allergy.
In individuals with local and dual allergic rhinitis, basophil activation test can be a valuable biomarker of the severity of rhinitis and also aids in the diagnosis of local respiratory allergies.
A study aimed to examine the connection between the basophil activation test (BAT) and the rhinitis severity in individuals with local respiratory allergy.
Prospective analysis of 84 rhinitis subjects (thirty-four allergic rhinitis [AR], twenty-six dual allergic rhinitis [DAR], sixteen local allergic rhinitis [LAR], and eight non-allergic rhinitis [NAR]), and eleven healthy non-atopic controls (HC) was conducted. BAT was carried out using olive pollen (OP), grass pollen (GP), Alternaria alternata (AA), and/or Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (DP). Data on the clinical and demographic aspects were gathered.
According to the clinical phenotype, BAT exhibited a distinct diagnosis rating, with positive findings in 50%, 80%, and 91% of subjects with LAR, DAR, and AR, and negative results in 91% and 75% of subjects with HC and NAR. BAT was positive to DP in 40% of LAR and 47% of DAR subjects, to AA in 40% of LAR and 50% of DAR subjects, and to GP and OP in 67% of LAR subjects when it came to local allergen sensitization.
In terms of local sensitizations, DAR persons had larger percentages of peripheral basophils that expressed CD63 following allergen stimulation (%CD63) than LAR people. In both LAR and DAR, rhinitis severity and %CD63 were shown to be positively correlated (r=0.777 and r=0.748, respectively). Systematic sensitizations showed no association.
BAT can be a useful measure of the severity of rhinitis and may assist in the identification of local respiratory allergies in those with LAR and DAR.
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Correlation between the basophil activation test and the severity of rhinitis in local respiratory allergy
Almudena Testera Montes et al.
Comments (0)