# Comparison of basophil activation testing and component-resolved diagnosis in patients with cross-reactive intradermal results after anaphylactic reactions to hymenoptera venom

## TL;DR

This study compares two diagnostic tests for Hymenoptera venom allergy to determine their effectiveness in identifying the specific venom causing allergic reactions.

## Contribution

The study demonstrates that combining basophil activation testing and component-resolved diagnostics improves diagnostic accuracy in patients with multiple venom sensitizations.

## Key findings

- Intradermal testing showed 83.3% triple-positive and 16.7% double-positive reactions.
- CRD identified 58.4% triple-positive and 41.6% double-positive cases.
- BAT results showed 50% double-positive and 25% single-positive patients.

## Abstract

Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) is a significant cause of anaphylaxis, with a broad spectrum of symptoms. Accurate diagnosis is critical for selecting appropriate venom immunotherapy (VIT), yet multiple sensitizations complicate the identification of the culprit Hymenoptera. Component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) and the basophil activation test (BAT) are emerging approaches that may enhance the precision of HVA diagnosis. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the BAT and CRD tests in patients with reaction to more than one type of Hymenoptera in intradermal test. Following 12 patient’s report-based determination of the Hymenoptera types, Intradermal testing with venom extracts from honey bees, paper wasps, and yellow jackets was performed. CRD was conducted using recombinant allergens for each venom, and BAT was performed to assess basophil activation using venom extracts. The intradermal test indicated 10 triple-positive reactions (83.3%) and 2 double-positive reactions (16.7%). In addition, 7 (58.4%) individuals were triple-positive and 5 (41.6%) were double-positive in the CRD test. The BAT had 6 (50.0%) double-positive individuals and 3 (25.0%) single-positive patients. The diagnostic complexity in patients with multi-sensitivity to Hymenoptera venoms is highlighted by the results. While CRD provides a more specific identification of allergenic components, valuable information is offered by the BAT, especially when the clinical diagnosis is uncertain. As a result, relying just on one test seems to have limited diagnostic capabilities and it is more efficient to use many diagnostic tests in order to get a thorough evaluation.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-025-18601-x.