The Core Immunology of Allergy

 

Back to Basics: The Core Immunology of Allergy - A Critical Care Perspective

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Allergic reactions represent a significant challenge in critical care medicine, ranging from mild hypersensitivity to life-threatening anaphylaxis. Understanding the fundamental immunologic mechanisms underlying Type I (IgE-mediated) and Type IV (T-cell mediated) hypersensitivity reactions is crucial for optimal patient management in the intensive care unit.

Objective: This review revisits the core immunological principles of allergic reactions, providing mechanistic insights that inform clinical practice in critical care settings.

Methods: A comprehensive review of current literature on hypersensitivity mechanisms, with emphasis on clinical applications in critical care medicine.

Results: Type I hypersensitivity involves IgE-mediated mast cell and basophil degranulation, leading to immediate reactions ranging from urticaria to anaphylactic shock. Type IV hypersensitivity involves T-cell mediated delayed responses, including drug-induced skin reactions and organ-specific autoimmune phenomena. Understanding these mechanisms enables targeted therapeutic interventions and improved patient outcomes.

Conclusions: Mastery of fundamental allergic mechanisms enhances clinical decision-making in critical care, particularly in diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of severe hypersensitivity reactions.

Keywords: Hypersensitivity, Anaphylaxis, Immunology, Critical Care, IgE, T-cells

---

Introduction

Allergic reactions in the critical care setting present unique challenges that demand both rapid intervention and deep mechanistic understanding. While the Gell and Coombs classification system, first described in 1963, remains the cornerstone of hypersensitivity categorization, its clinical application in the intensive care unit (ICU) requires nuanced interpretation¹. This review focuses on Type I (immediate, IgE-mediated) and Type IV (delayed, T-cell mediated) hypersensitivity reactions, which together account for the majority of clinically significant allergic phenomena encountered in critical care practice.

The incidence of drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions in hospitalized patients ranges from 2-5%, with significantly higher rates observed in ICU populations due to polypharmacy, immune dysfunction, and increased exposure to potential allergens². Understanding the immunological basis of these reactions is not merely academic—it directly impacts patient survival, length of stay, and long-term outcomes.

---

Type I Hypersensitivity: The Immediate Threat

Mechanistic Foundation

Type I hypersensitivity reactions occur through a well-orchestrated immunological cascade initiated by IgE antibodies bound to high-affinity FcεRI receptors on mast cells and basophils³. This process involves two distinct phases: sensitization and re-exposure.

The Sensitization Phase

Initial allergen exposure triggers antigen-presenting cells (APCs), primarily dendritic cells, to process and present allergenic peptides via MHC class II molecules to naive CD4+ T cells. Under the influence of IL-4 and IL-13, these T cells differentiate into Th2 cells, which subsequently secrete cytokines (IL-4, IL-5, IL-13) that promote B cell class switching to IgE production⁴.

The newly synthesized IgE antibodies circulate and bind to FcεRI receptors on tissue mast cells and circulating basophils. This binding is remarkably stable, with IgE remaining bound for weeks to months, effectively "arming" these effector cells for future encounters with the specific allergen⁵.

The Effector Phase

Upon re-exposure, allergens cross-link surface-bound IgE antibodies, triggering rapid degranulation of mast cells and basophils. This process occurs within seconds to minutes and releases both preformed mediators and newly synthesized inflammatory compounds.

Preformed Mediators:

• Histamine: The primary mediator causing vasodilation, increased vascular permeability, smooth muscle contraction, and mucus secretion
• Tryptase: A protease that serves as a biomarker for mast cell activation and contributes to tissue remodeling
• Heparin: An anticoagulant that may contribute to bleeding complications in severe reactions
• Chemotactic factors: Including eosinophil chemotactic factor of anaphylaxis (ECF-A) and neutrophil chemotactic factor⁶

Newly Synthesized Mediators:

• Leukotrienes (LTC₄, LTD₄, LTE₄): Potent bronchoconstrictors and vasodilators, particularly important in respiratory manifestations
• Prostaglandins (PGD₂): Contribute to bronchoconstriction and vasodilation
• Platelet-activating factor (PAF): A potent mediator causing severe hypotension, bronchoconstriction, and increased vascular permeability⁷

Clinical Manifestations in Critical Care

The clinical spectrum of Type I reactions in the ICU ranges from localized urticaria to systemic anaphylaxis. Understanding the temporal progression and organ system involvement is crucial for timely intervention.

Grading System for Anaphylaxis

Grade I (Mild):

• Cutaneous symptoms: urticaria, angioedema, flushing
• Mild gastrointestinal symptoms: nausea, cramping

Grade II (Moderate):

• Measurable cardiovascular changes: tachycardia, hypotension
• Respiratory symptoms: dyspnea, wheeze
• Gastrointestinal involvement: vomiting, diarrhea

Grade III (Severe):

• Cardiovascular collapse: severe hypotension, arrhythmias
• Severe bronchospasm, respiratory failure
• Loss of consciousness

Grade IV (Cardiac arrest):

• Circulatory and/or respiratory arrest⁸

Pathophysiology of Cardiovascular Collapse

The cardiovascular manifestations of anaphylaxis result from multiple mechanisms operating simultaneously. Massive histamine release causes profound vasodilation and increased capillary permeability, leading to distributive shock with significant third-spacing of fluid. PAF contributes to myocardial depression and coronary artery constriction. Leukotrienes cause additional vasodilatation and negative inotropic effects⁹.

Pearl: Anaphylactic shock is primarily distributive but may have components of cardiogenic shock due to direct myocardial depression. This explains why some patients require both aggressive fluid resuscitation and inotropic support.

---

Type IV Hypersensitivity: The Delayed Challenge

Mechanistic Foundation

Type IV hypersensitivity, also known as delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH), is mediated by antigen-specific T lymphocytes rather than antibodies. This cell-mediated response typically manifests 24-72 hours after antigen exposure and involves complex interactions between T cells, macrophages, and other inflammatory cells¹⁰.

Sensitization and Memory Formation

Initial antigen exposure leads to processing by APCs, which present peptide fragments to naive CD4+ and CD8+ T cells via MHC class II and class I molecules, respectively. Depending on the cytokine milieu and co-stimulatory signals, CD4+ T cells differentiate into various effector subsets:

• Th1 cells: Secrete IFN-γ and TNF-α, activating macrophages and promoting cell-mediated immunity
• Th17 cells: Produce IL-17 and IL-22, recruiting neutrophils and promoting tissue inflammation
• CD8+ T cells: Differentiate into cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) capable of direct cellular cytotoxicity¹¹

Memory T cells formed during sensitization persist for years, enabling rapid response upon re-exposure.

Effector Mechanisms

Re-exposure to antigen triggers rapid activation and proliferation of memory T cells. Activated Th1 cells secrete cytokines that recruit and activate macrophages, creating inflammatory foci. These activated macrophages release numerous inflammatory mediators including:

• Reactive oxygen species (ROS): Causing direct tissue damage
• Proteases: Leading to extracellular matrix degradation
• Cytokines (IL-1β, TNF-α, IL-6): Amplifying the inflammatory response¹²

CD8+ T cells contribute through direct cytotoxicity via perforin/granzyme pathways and Fas/FasL interactions, leading to target cell apoptosis.

Clinical Manifestations in Critical Care

Drug-Induced Skin Reactions

Type IV reactions commonly manifest as cutaneous drug eruptions, ranging from mild maculopapular rashes to life-threatening conditions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN).

Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis: These severe cutaneous adverse reactions involve widespread keratinocyte apoptosis mediated by CD8+ T cells and natural killer (NK) cells. The process involves:

• Granulysin release from cytotoxic T cells, causing keratinocyte death
• FasL-mediated apoptosis
• Perforin/granzyme-induced cellular destruction¹³

Oyster: The distinction between SJS and TEN is based on the extent of epidermal detachment: SJS involves <10% of body surface area, TEN involves >30%, and SJS-TEN overlap involves 10-30%. This classification has prognostic implications, with TEN carrying mortality rates of 25-35%.

Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS)

DRESS syndrome represents a severe Type IV reaction characterized by:

• Extensive skin eruption with facial edema
• Lymphadenopathy
• Hematologic abnormalities (eosinophilia, atypical lymphocytes)
• Multiorgan involvement (hepatitis, nephritis, pneumonitis)¹⁴

The pathogenesis involves T-cell activation against drug-protein conjugates, often with concurrent viral reactivation (particularly HHV-6, EBV, CMV) that amplifies the immune response.

---

Diagnostic Approaches in Critical Care

Immediate Diagnosis of Type I Reactions

Clinical Recognition: The diagnosis of anaphylaxis is primarily clinical, based on characteristic symptoms and temporal relationship to allergen exposure. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) criteria provide a framework for diagnosis¹⁵.

Laboratory Markers:

• Serum tryptase: Elevated levels (>11.4 ng/mL) suggest mast cell activation. Peak levels occur 1-4 hours post-reaction and remain elevated for up to 24 hours
• Plasma histamine: Rapidly elevated but has a short half-life (15-20 minutes), limiting clinical utility
• 24-hour urinary metabolites: N-methylhistamine and prostaglandin D₂ metabolites provide retrospective evidence¹⁶

Hack: Obtain tryptase levels at presentation, 1-4 hours post-reaction, and 24 hours later. A rise and fall pattern strongly supports the diagnosis of anaphylaxis, while persistently elevated baseline levels may suggest systemic mastocytosis.

Diagnosis of Type IV Reactions

Histopathological Examination: Skin biopsy reveals characteristic features:

• Lymphocytic infiltration in dermis and epidermis
• Keratinocyte apoptosis
• Interface dermatitis
• Eosinophilic infiltration (in DRESS syndrome)¹⁷

Immunohistochemical Studies:

• CD3+ T cell predominance
• CD8+ T cells in epidermal compartment (SJS/TEN)
• Granulysin expression in cytotoxic cells

Patch Testing: Delayed reading (48-96 hours) may help identify causative agents in stable patients, though this is rarely performed in acute settings.

---

Therapeutic Interventions

Management of Type I Hypersensitivity

Immediate Management of Anaphylaxis

First-line therapy:

• Epinephrine: 0.3-0.5 mg intramuscularly (1:1000 dilution) or 0.1-0.5 mg intravenously (1:10,000 dilution) in severe cases
• High-flow oxygen: To address potential respiratory compromise
• Intravenous access: Large-bore peripheral access for fluid resuscitation

Second-line interventions:

• H₁ antihistamines: Diphenhydramine 25-50 mg IV
• H₂ antihistamines: Ranitidine 50 mg IV or famotidine 20 mg IV
• Corticosteroids: Methylprednisolone 125-250 mg IV (for biphasic reactions)
• Bronchodilators: Albuterol nebulizer for bronchospasm¹⁸

Advanced interventions for refractory cases:

• Glucagon: 1-5 mg IV bolus followed by infusion (particularly in patients on β-blockers)
• Vasopressin: 0.01-0.04 units/minute for refractory hypotension
• Methylene blue: 1-2 mg/kg IV for refractory shock (inhibits nitric oxide synthase)
• Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO): For severe cardiopulmonary failure¹⁹

Pearl: Epinephrine should be repeated every 5-15 minutes as needed. There is no absolute maximum dose in life-threatening anaphylaxis. Consider continuous epinephrine infusion (0.1-1 mcg/kg/min) for patients requiring multiple bolus doses.

Management of Biphasic Reactions

Biphasic anaphylaxis occurs in 5-20% of cases, with symptom recurrence 4-12 hours after apparent resolution. Risk factors include:

• Severe initial reaction
• Delayed epinephrine administration
• Unknown allergen
• History of asthma or atopy²⁰

Prevention strategy:

• Observation period of 8-24 hours based on severity
• Prophylactic corticosteroids
• Patient education regarding symptom recognition
• Epinephrine auto-injector prescription

Management of Type IV Hypersensitivity

Supportive Care

Wound care for SJS/TEN:

• Burn unit consultation for extensive cases
• Gentle debridement of necrotic tissue
• Non-adherent dressings
• Temperature and fluid balance management
• Nutritional support²¹

Immunosuppressive therapy: The evidence for specific immunosuppressive interventions remains controversial.

Corticosteroids:

• Traditional first-line therapy, though efficacy remains debated
• May increase infection risk and delay healing
• Consider high-dose pulse therapy (methylprednisolone 1-2 mg/kg/day) for severe cases

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG):

• Mechanism: Fas-Fas ligand blockade, reduced cytotoxic T-cell activity
• Dosing: 1 g/kg/day for 3 days or 0.4 g/kg/day for 5 days
• Best results when initiated early in disease course²²

Cyclosporine:

• Inhibits T-cell activation and cytokine production
• Dosing: 3-5 mg/kg/day divided twice daily
• Monitor renal function and drug levels

Plasmapheresis:

• Limited evidence but may be considered in severe cases
• Theoretical benefit through removal of inflammatory mediators and drug metabolites

Novel Therapeutic Approaches

TNF-α inhibitors:

• Etanercept has shown promise in small case series
• Mechanism: Inhibition of TNF-α mediated inflammation
• Consider in refractory cases²³

JAK inhibitors:

• Tofacitinib and other JAK inhibitors show promise
• Mechanism: Inhibition of cytokine signaling pathways
• Emerging evidence in severe cutaneous reactions

---

Clinical Pearls and Oysters

Pearls for Type I Hypersensitivity

1. Tryptase timing matters: Collect samples at presentation, 1-4 hours post-reaction, and at baseline (24 hours later) to establish the diagnosis and rule out mastocytosis.

2. β-blocker dilemma: Patients on β-blockers may have refractory anaphylaxis due to impaired response to epinephrine. Consider glucagon (1-5 mg IV) as it has positive inotropic and chronotropic effects independent of β-receptors.

3. ACE inhibitor paradox: ACE inhibitors may worsen anaphylaxis by preventing bradykinin degradation, leading to increased vascular permeability and angioedema. However, discontinuation during acute management is controversial.

4. Mast cell activation syndrome: Consider this diagnosis in patients with recurrent anaphylaxis-like episodes without clear triggers. Baseline tryptase >20 ng/mL or persistently elevated levels suggest this condition.

Oysters for Type I Hypersensitivity

1. Idiopathic anaphylaxis: Up to 30% of anaphylaxis cases have no identifiable trigger. These patients require comprehensive evaluation including assessment for mastocytosis and clonal mast cell disorders.

2. Exercise-induced anaphylaxis: May require specific food ingestion (food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis) or occur independently. Often underrecognized in athletic populations.

3. Seminal fluid anaphylaxis: Rare but potentially fatal condition in women allergic to proteins in seminal fluid. May be mistaken for other gynecological emergencies.

Pearls for Type IV Hypersensitivity

1. DRESS syndrome latency: Symptoms typically appear 2-8 weeks after drug initiation, making causality assessment challenging. Consider all medications started in this timeframe.

2. Viral reactivation in DRESS: HHV-6 reactivation occurs in >70% of cases and may contribute to symptom severity. Consider antiviral therapy in severe cases.

3. Organ involvement progression: Hepatitis is the most common organ involvement in DRESS, but myocarditis carries the highest mortality risk. Monitor ECG and cardiac enzymes closely.

Oysters for Type IV Hypersensitivity

1. Drug cross-reactivity: Aromatic anticonvulsants (phenytoin, carbamazepine, phenobarbital) show significant cross-reactivity. HLA-B*1502 screening is recommended before carbamazepine initiation in certain Asian populations.

2. Allopurinol hypersensitivity: Strongly associated with HLA-B*5801 in Asian populations. Screening before initiation can prevent severe reactions.

3. Abacavir hypersensitivity: Nearly 100% association with HLA-B*5701. Genetic screening is now standard before HIV treatment initiation.

---

Practical Clinical Hacks

Emergency Department/ICU Quick Reference

The "FAST-MAST" Protocol for Anaphylaxis:

• Fast epinephrine (don't delay for IV access)
• Airway assessment and protection
• Supine positioning with leg elevation
• Tryptase level (draw early)
• Monitor for biphasic reaction
• Allergen identification and avoidance
• Steroid administration
• Time-based observation protocol

The "DRESS Code" for Type IV Recognition:

• Drug exposure 2-8 weeks prior
• Rash with facial involvement
• Eosinophilia >1000/μL or >10%
• Systemic involvement (liver, kidney, lung, heart)
• Swollen lymph nodes

Medication Selection Strategies

ICU Medications with High Allergic Potential:

1. Antibiotics: β-lactams, vancomycin, fluoroquinolones
2. Neuromuscular blocking agents: Rocuronium, succinylcholine
3. Radiocontrast agents: Iodinated contrast media
4. Blood products: Platelets, plasma, immunoglobulins
5. Proton pump inhibitors: Often overlooked as DRESS triggers

Cross-reactivity Patterns to Remember:

• Penicillin-cephalosporin: True cross-reactivity <5% for first-generation cephalosporins, negligible for third-generation
• Sulfonamide antibiotics vs. non-antibiotic sulfonamides: No true cross-reactivity; both reactions are T-cell mediated but to different epitopes
• Codeine-morphine: Cross-reactivity due to metabolic pathways, not structural similarity

---

Future Directions and Research

Precision Medicine Approaches

Pharmacogenomics: HLA typing is becoming standard for high-risk drug-HLA associations:

• HLA-B*5701: Abacavir hypersensitivity
• HLA-B*1502: Carbamazepine-induced SJS/TEN in Asians
• HLA-B*5801: Allopurinol severe cutaneous adverse reactions
• HLA-A*3101: Carbamazepine hypersensitivity in Europeans²⁴

Biomarker Development: Novel biomarkers under investigation include:

• microRNAs: Specific patterns associated with drug hypersensitivity
• Cytokine profiles: IL-22, IL-17, granulysin levels
• T-cell phenotyping: Flow cytometry-based activation markers

Therapeutic Innovations

Targeted Immunotherapy:

• Anti-IL-4/IL-13 therapy: Dupilumab shows promise in severe atopic conditions
• Anti-IgE therapy: Omalizumab for severe allergic asthma and chronic urticaria
• Complement inhibition: Eculizumab for refractory cases

Desensitization Protocols: Rapid drug desensitization protocols are being refined for critically ill patients who require specific medications despite documented allergies. These protocols involve graded exposure with intensive monitoring²⁵.

---

Conclusions

Understanding the immunological basis of Type I and Type IV hypersensitivity reactions is fundamental to excellent critical care practice. The mechanistic insights provided by decades of immunological research directly translate to improved patient care through better recognition, targeted therapy, and prevention strategies.

Key takeaways for the critical care practitioner include:

1. Early recognition saves lives: Both Type I and Type IV reactions can be fatal, but early recognition and appropriate intervention dramatically improve outcomes.

2. Mechanism-based therapy: Understanding whether a reaction is IgE-mediated or T-cell mediated guides specific therapeutic choices and monitoring strategies.

3. Prevention is paramount: Comprehensive allergy history, appropriate genetic screening when indicated, and careful medication selection prevent many severe reactions.

4. Continuous vigilance: Both immediate and delayed reactions require ongoing monitoring, with specific attention to biphasic reactions and progressive organ involvement.

As our understanding of allergic mechanisms continues to evolve, the integration of precision medicine approaches and novel therapeutic targets promises to further improve outcomes for critically ill patients with hypersensitivity reactions.

---

References

1. Gell PG, Coombs RR. Clinical Aspects of Immunology. 1st ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1963.

2. Thong BY, Tan TC. Epidemiology and risk factors for drug allergy. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;71(5):684-700.

3. Kraft S, Kinet JP. New developments in FcεRI regulation, function and inhibition. Nat Rev Immunol. 2007;7(5):365-378.

4. Paul WE, Zhu J. How are TH2-type immune responses initiated and amplified? Nat Rev Immunol. 2010;10(4):225-235.

5. Platts-Mills TA. The role of immunoglobulin E in allergy and asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;164(8 Pt 2):S1-5.

6. Metcalfe DD, Baram D, Mekori YA. Mast cells. Physiol Rev. 1997;77(4):1033-1079.

7. Ishizaka T, Ishizaka K. Biology of immunoglobulin E. Molecular basis of reaginic hypersensitivity. Prog Allergy. 1975;19:60-121.

8. Brown SG. Clinical features and severity grading of anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;114(2):371-376.

9. Finkelman FD. Anaphylaxis: lessons from mouse models. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;120(3):506-515.

10. Pichler WJ. Delayed drug hypersensitivity reactions. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(8):683-693.

11. Naisbitt DJ, Farrell J, Wong G, et al. Characterization of drug-specific T cells in lamotrigine hypersensitivity. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003;111(6):1393-1403.

12. Abbas AK, Murphy KM, Sher A. Functional diversity of helper T lymphocytes. Nature. 1996;383(6603):787-793.

13. Chung WH, Hung SI, Hong HS, et al. Medical genetics: a marker for Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Nature. 2004;428(6982):486.

14. Kardaun SH, Sidoroff A, Valeyrie-Allanore L, et al. Variability in the clinical pattern of cutaneous side-effects of drugs with systemic symptoms: does a DRESS syndrome really exist? Br J Dermatol. 2007;156(3):609-611.

15. Sampson HA, Muñoz-Furlong A, Campbell RL, et al. Second symposium on the definition and management of anaphylaxis: summary report--Second National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network symposium. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;117(2):391-397.

16. Schwartz LB. Diagnostic value of tryptase in anaphylaxis and mastocytosis. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2006;26(3):451-463.

17. Roujeau JC, Stern RS. Severe adverse cutaneous reactions to drugs. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(19):1272-1285.

18. Lieberman P, Nicklas RA, Oppenheimer J, et al. The diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis practice parameter: 2010 update. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126(3):477-480.

19. Yanagawa Y, Morita K, Sugiura T, et al. Cutaneous drug eruption induced by methylprednisolone sodium succinate. Am J Emerg Med. 2000;18(3):337-338.

20. Ellis AK, Day JH. Incidence and characteristics of biphasic anaphylaxis: a prospective evaluation of 103 patients. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2007;98(1):64-69.

21. Mockenhaupt M. Severe drug-induced skin reactions: clinical pattern, diagnostics and therapy. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2009;7(2):142-160.

22. Prins C, Kerdel FA, Padilla RS, et al. Treatment of toxic epidermal necrolysis with high-dose intravenous immunoglobulins: multicenter retrospective analysis of 48 consecutive cases. Arch Dermatol. 2003;139(1):26-32.

23. Wojtkiewicz A, Wysocki M, Fortuna J, et al. Beneficial and rapid effect of infliximab on the course of toxic epidermal necrolysis. Acta Derm Venereol. 2008;88(6):613-614.

24. Phillips EJ, Sukasem C, Whirl-Carrillo M, et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium Guideline for HLA Genotype and Use of Carbamazepine and Oxcarbazepine: 2017 Update. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017;103(4):574-581.

25. Castells MC, Tennant NM, Sloane DE, et al. Hypersensitivity reactions to chemotherapy: outcomes and safety of rapid desensitization in 413 cases. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;122(3):574-580.

---

Disclosure Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Funding

No specific funding was received for this work.