Diagnostic performance of lymphocyte transformation test and flow cytometry in the identification of culprit drugs in organ-specific serious adverse drug reactions.

IF 1.9 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Diagnosis Pub Date : 2025-10-31 eCollection Date: 2026-08-01 DOI:10.1515/dx-2025-0077
Carmen Ruiz-Fernández, Ibtissam Akatbach-Bousaid, Olga Rogozina, Susana Martín-López, Miguel Álvarez Montero, Ramon Pardo Puras, Zoraida Del Solar Moreno, Fiorela C Dueñas López, Mikel Urroz Elizalde, Ana Martínez Feito, Miguel González-Muñoz, Elena Ramírez
{"title":"Diagnostic performance of lymphocyte transformation test and flow cytometry in the identification of culprit drugs in organ-specific serious adverse drug reactions.","authors":"Carmen Ruiz-Fernández, Ibtissam Akatbach-Bousaid, Olga Rogozina, Susana Martín-López, Miguel Álvarez Montero, Ramon Pardo Puras, Zoraida Del Solar Moreno, Fiorela C Dueñas López, Mikel Urroz Elizalde, Ana Martínez Feito, Miguel González-Muñoz, Elena Ramírez","doi":"10.1515/dx-2025-0077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs) require robust causality assessment methods. Identifying the culprit drug relies on clinical history, causality algorithms, and <i>in vitro</i> tests. The lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) is widely used, but flow cytometry has been proposed as an alternative due to LTT's limitations. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of LTT and CD69 upregulation on T lymphocytes by flow cytometry.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 148 patients (150 SADRs) with at least a \"possible\" algorithmic causality score (≥4) were assessed using LTT and flow cytometry. Twenty-five healthy individuals served as negative controls. Over 98 % of cases were organ-specific reactions, with drug-induced liver injury being most frequent (52.6 %), and systemic antibiotics the most implicated drug group (29.7 %).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>400 suspected drugs were analyzed. LTT and flow cytometry were positive in 43 and 30 % of patients, respectively. For cases with an algorithmic score≥6, sensitivity increased to 50 % for LTT and 33 % for flow cytometry. Sensitivity varied by reaction type (LTT: 17-47 %; flow cytometry: 20-38 %) and drug group (LTT: 17-86 %; flow cytometry: 18-50 %). Combining both tests improved sensitivity to 50-63 % by reaction type and 50-100 % by drug group. An algorithmic score≥6 combined with both tests further increased overall sensitivity to 70 %.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings show the added value of integrating multiple <i>in vitro</i> diagnostic approaches with causality algorithms to improve culprit drug identification in organ-specific SADRs. Future studies are needed to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":11273,"journal":{"name":"Diagnosis","volume":" ","pages":"492-501"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2025-0077","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Serious adverse drug reactions (SADRs) require robust causality assessment methods. Identifying the culprit drug relies on clinical history, causality algorithms, and in vitro tests. The lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) is widely used, but flow cytometry has been proposed as an alternative due to LTT's limitations. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of LTT and CD69 upregulation on T lymphocytes by flow cytometry.

Methods: A total of 148 patients (150 SADRs) with at least a "possible" algorithmic causality score (≥4) were assessed using LTT and flow cytometry. Twenty-five healthy individuals served as negative controls. Over 98 % of cases were organ-specific reactions, with drug-induced liver injury being most frequent (52.6 %), and systemic antibiotics the most implicated drug group (29.7 %).

Results: 400 suspected drugs were analyzed. LTT and flow cytometry were positive in 43 and 30 % of patients, respectively. For cases with an algorithmic score≥6, sensitivity increased to 50 % for LTT and 33 % for flow cytometry. Sensitivity varied by reaction type (LTT: 17-47 %; flow cytometry: 20-38 %) and drug group (LTT: 17-86 %; flow cytometry: 18-50 %). Combining both tests improved sensitivity to 50-63 % by reaction type and 50-100 % by drug group. An algorithmic score≥6 combined with both tests further increased overall sensitivity to 70 %.

Conclusions: These findings show the added value of integrating multiple in vitro diagnostic approaches with causality algorithms to improve culprit drug identification in organ-specific SADRs. Future studies are needed to validate these findings.

淋巴细胞转化试验和流式细胞术在器官特异性严重药物不良反应元凶药物鉴别中的诊断价值。
目的:严重药物不良反应(SADRs)需要可靠的因果关系评估方法。确定罪魁祸首药物依赖于临床病史、因果关系算法和体外试验。淋巴细胞转化试验(LTT)被广泛使用,但由于LTT的局限性,流式细胞术被提出作为一种替代方法。本研究通过流式细胞术评估LTT和CD69上调对T淋巴细胞的诊断作用。方法:采用LTT和流式细胞术对至少具有“可能”算法因果关系评分(≥4)的148例患者(150例sadr)进行评估。25名健康个体作为阴性对照。超过98% %的病例是器官特异性反应,药物性肝损伤最常见(52.6% %),全身性抗生素是最受影响的药物组(29.7% %)。结果:共检出疑似药物400种。LTT和流式细胞术分别为43%和30% %的患者呈阳性。对于算法评分≥6的病例,LTT的敏感性增加到50 %,流式细胞术的敏感性增加到33 %。敏感性因反应类型(LTT: 17-47 %;流式细胞术:20-38 %)和药物组(LTT: 17-86 %;流式细胞术:18-50 %)而异。结合两种试验,对反应类型的敏感性为50-63 %,对药物组的敏感性为50-100 %。算法评分≥6,结合两种测试,进一步将总体敏感性提高到70 %。结论:这些发现表明,将多种体外诊断方法与因果关系算法相结合,可以提高器官特异性SADRs的罪魁祸首药物识别。需要进一步的研究来验证这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Diagnosis
Diagnosis MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Diagnosis focuses on how diagnosis can be advanced, how it is taught, and how and why it can fail, leading to diagnostic errors. The journal welcomes both fundamental and applied works, improvement initiatives, opinions, and debates to encourage new thinking on improving this critical aspect of healthcare quality.  Topics: -Factors that promote diagnostic quality and safety -Clinical reasoning -Diagnostic errors in medicine -The factors that contribute to diagnostic error: human factors, cognitive issues, and system-related breakdowns -Improving the value of diagnosis – eliminating waste and unnecessary testing -How culture and removing blame promote awareness of diagnostic errors -Training and education related to clinical reasoning and diagnostic skills -Advances in laboratory testing and imaging that improve diagnostic capability -Local, national and international initiatives to reduce diagnostic error
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书