Diagnosis and treatment of Hymenoptera venom allergy: S2k Guideline of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in collaboration with the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Berufs- und Umweltdermatologie e.V. (ABD), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNOKC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), German Respiratory Society (DGP), and the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI).

Hymenoptera venom (HV) is injected into the skin during a sting by Hymenoptera such as bees or wasps. Some components of HV are potential allergens and can cause large local and/or systemic allergic reactions (SAR) in sensitized individuals. During their lifetime, ~ 3% of the general population will develop SAR following a Hymenoptera sting. This guideline presents the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to SAR following Hymenoptera stings. Symptomatic therapy is usually required after a severe local reaction, but specific diagnosis or allergen immunotherapy (AIT) with HV (VIT) is not necessary. When taking a patient's medical history after SAR, clinicians should discuss possible risk factors for more frequent stings and more severe anaphylactic reactions. The most important risk factors for more severe SAR are mast cell disease and, especially in children, uncontrolled asthma. Therefore, if the SAR extends beyond the skin (according to the Ring and Messmer classification: grade > I), the baseline serum tryptase concentration shall be measured and the skin shall be examined for possible mastocytosis. The medical history should also include questions specific to asthma symptoms. To demonstrate sensitization to HV, allergists shall determine concentrations of specific IgE antibodies (sIgE) to bee and/or vespid venoms, their constituents and other venoms as appropriate. If the results are negative less than 2 weeks after the sting, the tests shall be repeated (at least 4 - 6 weeks after the sting). If only sIgE to the total venom extracts have been determined, if there is double sensitization, or if the results are implausible, allergists shall determine sIgE to the different venom components. Skin testing may be omitted if in-vitro methods have provided a definitive diagnosis. If neither laboratory diagnosis nor skin testing has led to conclusive results, additional cellular testing can be performed. Therapy for HV allergy includes prophylaxis of reexposure, patient self treatment measures (including use of rescue medication) in the event of re-stings, and VIT. Following a grade I SAR and in the absence of other risk factors for repeated sting exposure or more severe anaphylaxis, it is not necessary to prescribe an adrenaline auto-injector (AAI) or to administer VIT. Under certain conditions, VIT can be administered even in the presence of previous grade I anaphylaxis, e.g., if there are additional risk factors or if quality of life would be reduced without VIT. Physicians should be aware of the contraindications to VIT, although they can be overridden in justified individual cases after weighing benefits and risks. The use of ß-blockers and ACE inhibitors is not a contraindication to VIT. Patients should be informed about possible interactions. For VIT, the venom extract shall be used that, according to the patient's history and the results of the allergy diagnostics, was the trigger of the disease. If, in the case of double sensitization and an unclear history regarding the trigger, it is not possible to determine the culprit venom even with additional diagnostic procedures, VIT shall be performed with both venom extracts. The standard maintenance dose of VIT is 100 µg HV. In adult patients with bee venom allergy and an increased risk of sting exposure or particularly severe anaphylaxis, a maintenance dose of 200 µg can be considered from the start of VIT. Administration of a non-sedating H1-blocking antihistamine can be considered to reduce side effects. The maintenance dose should be given at 4-weekly intervals during the first year and, following the manufacturer's instructions, every 5 - 6 weeks from the second year, depending on the preparation used; if a depot preparation is used, the interval can be extended to 8 weeks from the third year onwards. If significant recurrent systemic reactions occur during VIT, clinicians shall identify and as possible eliminate co-factors that promote these reactions. If this is not possible or if there are no such co-factors, if prophylactic administration of an H1-blocking antihistamine is not effective, and if a higher dose of VIT has not led to tolerability of VIT, physicians should should consider additional treatment with an anti IgE antibody such as omalizumab as off lable use. For practical reasons, only a small number of patients are able to undergo sting challenge tests to check the success of the therapy, which requires in-hospital monitoring and emergency standby. To perform such a provocation test, patients must have tolerated VIT at the planned maintenance dose. In the event of treatment failure while on treatment with an ACE inhibitor, physicians should consider discontinuing the ACE inhibitor. In the absence of tolerance induction, physicians shall increase the maintenance dose (200 µg to a maximum of 400 µg in adults, maximum of 200 µg HV in children). If increasing the maintenance dose does not provide adequate protection and there are risk factors for a severe anaphylactic reaction, physicians should consider a co-medication based on an anti-IgE antibody (omalizumab; off-label use) during the insect flight season. In patients without specific risk factors, VIT can be discontinued after 3 - 5 years if maintenance therapy has been tolerated without recurrent anaphylactic events. Prolonged or permanent VIT can be considered in patients with mastocytosis, a history of cardiovascular or respiratory arrest due to Hymenoptera sting (severity grade IV), or other specific constellations associated with an increased individual risk of recurrent and/or severe SAR (e.g., hereditary α-tryptasemia). In cases of strongly increased, unavoidable insect exposure, adults may receive VIT until the end of intense contact. The prescription of an AAI can be omitted in patients with a history of SAR grade I and II when the maintenance dose of VIT has been reached and tolerated, provided that there are no additional risk factors. The same holds true once the VIT has been terminated after the regular treatment period. Patients with a history of SAR grade ≥ III reaction, or grade II reaction combined with additional factors that increase the risk of non response or repeated severe sting reactions, should carry an emergency kit, including an AAI, during VIT and after regular termination of the VIT.

Guideline for allergological diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions: S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in cooperation with the German Dermatological Society (DDG), the Association of German Allergologists (ÄDA), the German Society for Pediatric Allergology (GPA), the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG), the German Society for Pneumology (DGP), the German Society of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, the Austrian Society of Allergology and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Austrian Society of Dermatology and Venereology (ÖGDV), the German Academy of Allergology and Environmental Medicine (DAAU), and the German Documentation Center for Severe Skin Reactions (dZh).

Not available.

Allergy screening with extract-based skin prick tests demonstrates higher sensitivity over in vitro molecular allergy testing.

BACKGROUND: As extract-based skin testing as well as in vitro tests for major allergens have their own advantages, both procedures are usually performed in routine settings. In times of shortages in medical staff and supplies, we asked ourselves, how many patients would be underdiagnosed, if only one test could be used. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis, we investigated a cohort of 2646 patients seen by a single physician in a large Austrian outpatient allergy clinic in 2018. Only patients with an allergen source-specific history and pairs of extract-based skin prick (SPT) and in vitro molecular allergy tests to major allergens were included. RESULTS: For all tested allergen sources, sensitivity was higher for SPT than for sIgE-based molecular allergy testing. Concerning 1006 birch pollen-allergic patients, 791 (78.6%) had positive results with both tests, while 153 (15.2%) only with the SPT and 62 (6.2%) only with the sIgE to Bet v1. The other allergen sources showed similar results: For house dust mite 816/1120 (72.9%), grass pollen 1077/1416 (76.1%) and cat 433/622 (69.6%) remained test-positive with both procedures, whereas in 276 (24.6%), 224 (15.8%) and 173 (27.8%) times only the SPT and 28 (2.5%), 115 (8.1%) and 16 (2.6%) times only the sIgE to Der p1/2/23, Phl p1/5 and Fel d1 showed a positive result. Each comparison was statistically significant (each p < 0.0001, Chi-squared test). CONCLUSIONS: Screening for allergy with major molecular allergens has lower sensitivity when compared with extract-based skin tests. A combination of both is required for an optimal sensitivity.

Guideline on allergen immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases: S2K Guideline of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), Society of Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), Austrian Society of Allergology and Immunology (ÖGAI), Swiss Society for Allergology and Immunology (SSAI), German Dermatological Society (DDG), German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), Society of Pediatric Pulmonology (GPP), German Respiratory Society (DGP), German Professional Association of Otolaryngologists (BVHNO), German Association of Paediatric and Adolescent Care Specialists (BVKJ), Federal Association of Pneumologists, Sleep and Respiratory Physicians (BdP), Professional Association of German Dermatologists (BVDD).

Not available.

Answers to burning questions for clinical allergologists related to the new COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Along with the newly approved vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), first reports of allergic or intolerance reactions were published. Subsequently, questions arose whether these vaccines pose an increased risk for intolerance reactions and whether allergic patients may be at higher risk for this. RESULTS: Allergic reactions following COVID-19 vaccinations have been reported, but mostly of mild severity and at normal (Moderna®) or only slightly increased frequency (BioNTech/Pfizer®) compared to established conventional vaccines. The risk of allergic reaction to the newly licensed vector vaccines (AstraZeneca®, Johnson&Johnson®) cannot be conclusively assessed yet, but also appears to be low. There is currently no evidence that patients with allergic diseases (atopic patients) react more frequently or more severely to these vaccines. It is currently assumed that intolerance reactions of the immediate-type are either type I allergic (IgE-mediated) reactions or occur via complement activation (CARPA, "complement activation-related pseudoallergy"). Polyethylene glycol (PEG) or polysorbate, which are present as stabilizers in the vaccines, are suspected as triggers for this. CONCLUSION: The data available so far do not show a significantly increased risk of immediate-type allergic reactions in atopic persons. In almost all cases, atopic patients can be vaccinated without problems. Standardized follow-up tests after suspected allergic reactions or CARPA-mediated reactions are currently limited.

Molecular sensitization patterns in animal allergy: Relationship with clinical relevance and pet ownership.

BACKGROUND: In vitro diagnosis using single molecules is increasingly complementing conventional extract-based diagnosis. We explored in routine patients with animal allergy to what extent molecules can explain polysensitization and identify primary sensitizers and how individual IgE patterns correlate with previous pet ownership and clinical relevance. METHODS: Serum samples from 294 children and adults with suspect allergic rhino-conjunctivitis or asthma and a positive skin prick test to cat, dog and/or horse were tested by ImmunoCAP for IgE antibodies against eleven different allergens from cat (Fel d 1,2,4,7), dog (Can f 1,2,3,4,5,6) and horse (Equ c 1). RESULTS: Patients monosensitized to cat (40.8%) or dog (6.1%) showed simple IgE patterns dominated by Fel d 1 (93%) and Can f 5 (67%), respectively. Double-sensitization to cat+dog (25.9%), cat+horse (5.4%) and polysensitization (20.7%) was associated with an increasing prevalence of the cross-reactive lipocalins Fel d 4/Can f 6/Equ c 1 and Fel d 7/Can f 1. While these lipocalins were not reliable markers for genuine sensitization per se, comparison of sIgE levels may give a clue on the primary sensitizer. Sensitizations to dog appeared to result from cross-reactivity with cat in 48%, with half of these sensitizations lacking clinical relevance. Individual sensitization patterns strongly mirrored current or previous pet ownership with the exception of Fel d 1 which regularly caused sensitization also in non-owners. CONCLUSIONS: Allergen components can reasonably illuminate the molecular basis of animal (poly)sensitization in the majority of patients and are helpful in distinguishing between primary sensitization and sometimes less relevant cross-reactivity.

Drug-specific history, skin and in vitro tests can reduce the need for drug provocation tests in betalactam-hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Many patients report questionable drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) to betalactam antibiotics. A workup is required for objectivation. Direct drug provocation tests (DPTs) omitting a prior allergy workup are increasingly recommended as the primary diagnostic approach. However, apart from the risk of severe side effects, DPTs often are a scarce resource in overloaded healthcare-systems. We investigated how many cases can be solved by drug-specific history, drug-specific IgE, and skin tests obviating the need for DPT. METHODS: We conducted a chart review in a retrospective cohort of 932 patients in an allergy outpatient centre from 2016 to 2017. Patients had been submitted to drug-specific history and specific IgE-, skin prick-, intradermal- and patch-tests with early and late readings with a series of penicillins and cephalosporins but DPTs were no option. RESULTS: Overall, positive in vitro and/or skin tests were found in 96/932 (10.3%) patients. Drug-specific IgE was detected in 40/932 (4.3%) patients, 61/787 (7.8%) patients had positive skin tests. In vitro tests to Pencillin V showed the highest rate of positivity 24/479 (5.0%) and early readings of ampicillin the highest amongst the skin tests (3/49, 6.1%). Immediate skin tests were more often positive than delayed ones (75:45). The combination of all parameters including drug-specific history solved 346/932 (37.1%) cases while 586/932 (62.9%) remained unresolved. Self-reported DHR could be less often confirmed in females and young children (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Testing with betalactams applying simple, cheap, and safe skin and blood tests can solve a third of DHR-cases on a high throughput scale.

Allergen immunotherapy in the current COVID-19 pandemic: A position paper of AeDA, ARIA, EAACI, DGAKI and GPA: Position paper of the German ARIA GroupA in cooperation with the Austrian ARIA GroupB, the Swiss ARIA GroupC, German Society for Applied Allergology (AEDA)D, German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI)E, Society for Pediatric Allergology (GPA)F in cooperation with AG Clinical Immunology, Allergology and Environmental Medicine of the DGHNO-KHCG and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)H.

No abstract available.

Mast Cell Biology at Molecular Level: a Comprehensive Review.

Mast cells (MCs) are portions of the innate and adaptive immune system derived from bone marrow (BM) progenitors that are rich in cytoplasmic granules. MC maturation, phenotype, and function are determined by their microenvironment. MCs accumulate at inflammatory sites associated with atopy, wound healing, and malignancies. They interact with the external environment and are predominantly located in close proximity of blood vessels and sensory nerves. MCs are key initiators and modulators of allergic, anaphylactic, and other inflammatory reactions, by induction of vasodilation, promoting of vascular permeability, recruitment of inflammatory cells, facilitation of adaptive immune responses, and modulation of angiogenesis, and fibrosis. They express a wide range of receptors, e.g., for IgE (FcεRI), IgG (FcγR), stem cell factor (SCF) (KIT receptor or CD117), complement (including C5aR), and cytokines, that upon activation trigger various signaling pathways. The final consequence of such ligand receptor-based activation of MCs is the release of a broad array of mediators which are classified in three categories. While some mediators are preformed and remain stored in granules such as heparin, histamine, and enzymes mainly chymase and tryptase, others are de novo synthesized only after activation including LTB4, LTD4, PDG2, and PAF, and the cytokines IL-10, IL-8, IL-5, IL-3, IL-1, GM-CSF, TGF-ß, VEGF, and TNF-α. Depending on the stimulus, MCs calibrate their pattern of mediator release, modulate the amplification of allergic inflammation, and are involved in the resolution of the immune responses. Here, we review recent findings and reports that help to understand the MC biology, pathology, and physiology of diseases with MC involvement.

Avoiding chemotherapy prescribing errors: Analysis and innovative strategies.

BACKGROUND: At Freiburg University Medical Center, chemotherapy prescriptions are processed via a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) tool and clinically checked by a designated chemotherapy surveillance team. Any error detected is reported instantly, corrected, and prospectively recorded. The objective of the current study was to gain insight into the causes, potential consequences, and future preventability of chemotherapy prescribing errors. METHODS: A detailed analysis of 18,823 consecutive antineoplastic orders placed in 2013 through 2014 was performed. In cooperation with information technology (IT) specialists, the intercepted errors were analyzed for effective future prevention using IT measures. Potential error consequences were determined by case discussions between pharmacists and physicians. RESULTS: Within 24 months, a total of 406 chemotherapy prescribing errors were intercepted that affected 375 (2%) of the total orders. Errors were classified as clinically relevant in 279 of the chemotherapy orders (1.5%). In these cases, reduced therapeutic efficacy (0.44%), the need for increased monitoring (0.48%), prolonged hospital stay (0.55%), and fatality (0.02%) were avoided as potential consequences. The most efficient conventional measures for error prevention comprised checking the order history and patient's medical record, and a detailed knowledge of chemotherapy protocols. Of all the errors analyzed, 61% would be avoided through further software development. The improvements identified are implemented through a validated next-generation CPOE tool. CONCLUSIONS: The upgraded CPOE tool can be shared across other hospitals to raise safety standards and spread potential benefits across a wider patient population. The current analysis also highlighted that approximately 30% to 40% of errors cannot be avoided electronically. Therefore, pharmacovigilance initiatives remain indispensable.

Tropomyosins in mosquito and house dust mite cross-react at the humoral and cellular level.

BACKGROUND: Aedes aegypti and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus contain important allergens including cross-reactive tropomyosins. However, the functional and clinical relevance of their cross-reactivity is still debated. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the humoral and cellular cross-reactivity of recombinant Aed a 10.01, Aed a 10.02 and Der p 10. METHODS: Sera from 15 Austrian house dust mite-allergic, Der p 10-sensitized individuals were tested for IgE reactivity to recombinant tropomyosins in ELISA, inhibition ELISA and basophil activation tests. BALB/c mice were immunized with Aed a 10.01 or Aed a 10.02, and their sera were assessed for reactivity to all tropomyosins. Splenocytes were stimulated with all tropomyosins and synthetic peptides representing the amino acid sequence of Aed a 10.01. RESULTS: IgE antibodies of Der p 10-sensitized patients cross-reacted with both tropomyosins from A. aegypti. Aed a 10.01 was a more potent inhibitor of IgE binding to Der p 10 and a stronger activator of basophils sensitized with Der p 10-specific IgE than Aed a 10.02. Murine antibodies raised against Aed a 10.01 and Aed a 10.02 cross-reacted with Der p 10. Aed a 10.01-specific antibody showed stronger cross-reactivity with Der p 10 than Aed a 10.02-specific antibody. Splenocytes from both groups of mice proliferated similarly to all tropomyosins. Five cross-reactive T cell-activating regions were identified. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Tropomyosins from D. pteronyssinus and A. aegypti show humoral and cellular cross-reactivity, involving 5 potential T cell-activating regions. The more pronounced cross-reactivity of Aed a 10.01 and Der p 10 matched the higher sequence similarity of both proteins.

NSAID hypersensitivity - recommendations for diagnostic work up and patient management.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions (ADR) to analgesics (i.e., non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug hypersensitivity, NSAID-HS) are one of the most common ADR, affecting approximately 1.6% of all patients. Despite the fact that they are common, they still pose a diagnostic challenge. METHODS: This article is an overview of selected scientific articles and is based on research in PubMed, specialist databases, and guidelines. RESULTS: Approximately 80% of side effects are pharmacologically predictable and are classified as type A reactions, such as abdominal pain and bleeding events. More advanced diagnostic investigations are not useful in such cases. Type B reactions, which account for the remaining 20%, are subdivided into the far more frequent cross-reactive, non-immunological NSAID-HS (acronyms NERD [NSAID exacerbated respiratory disease], NECD [NSAID exacerbated cutaneous disease], NIUA [NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema]) and the much rarer true drug allergies of type I and IV (acronyms SNIUAA [single NSAID-induced urticara/angioedema or anaphylaxis] and SNIDR [single NSAID-induced delayed reaction]). The two latter are not cross-reactive and all other NSAIDs are generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic work-up begins with a detailed patient's history. Skin tests are only useful in SNIDR and SNIUAA, while in vitro tests are helpful merely in exceptional cases. In general, the diagnosis can only be confirmed by provocation testing, when required. Although cross-reactivity is usually present, provocation testing is often able to find an alternative, tolerable analgesic. Individual patient management usually enables a solution to be found for most patients.

Mastocytosis: from a Molecular Point of View.

Mast cells (MCs) are physiologically activated by binding of stem cell factor (SCF) to the extracellular domains of the Kit receptor. This binding increases the proliferation and prolongs the survival of normal mature MCs, as well as intensifies the release of mediators. In mastocytosis, somatic mutations of the coding Kit gene cause autocrine dysregulation and lead to constitutive KIT activation even in the absence of its ligand SCF. Clinical symptoms are caused by MC-mediator release and/or infiltration of MCs into tissues. Aberrant KIT activation may result in increased production of MCs in the skin and extracutaneous organs. Depending on the affected organ(s), the disease can be divided into cutaneous mastocytosis (CM), systemic mastocytosis (SM), and localized MC tumors. The updated classification of WHO discriminates between several distinct subvariants of CM and SM. While the prognosis in CM and indolent SM (ISM) is excellent with (almost) normal life expectancy, the prognosis in aggressive SM (ASM) and MC leukemia (MCL) is dismal. The symptoms may comprise urticaria, angioedema, flush, pruritus, abdominal pain, diarrhea, hypotension, syncope, and musculoskeletal pain and are the results of MC infiltration and mediator release into target organs, i.e., the skin, gastrointestinal tract, liver, spleen, lymph nodes, and bone marrow. Mastocytosis differs from a lot of other hematological disorders because its pathology is not only based on the lack of normal function of a specific pathway or of a specific cell type but additionally is a proliferative disease. Currently available treatments of mastocytosis include symptomatic, antimediator and cytoreductive targeted therapies.

Efficacy and safety of 4 months of sublingual immunotherapy with recombinant Mal d 1 and Bet v 1 in patients with birch pollen-related apple allergy.

BACKGROUND: Birch pollen-related apple allergy is among the most prevalent food allergies in adolescent/adult subjects and mainly results from sensitization to the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 and subsequent cross-reaction with the apple protein Mal d 1. However, specific immunotherapy with birch pollen has inconsistent effects on apple allergy. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with 2 formulations containing either rMal d 1 or rBet v 1 on birch pollen-related apple allergy. METHODS: Sixty participants with birch pollen-related apple allergy were randomized to daily sublingual application of placebo (n = 20) or 25 µg of rMal d 1 (n = 20) or rBet v 1 (n = 20) for 16 weeks. Adverse events were regularly recorded. Sublingual challenges with standardized doses of rMal d 1, skin prick tests with recombinant allergens, and measurements of allergen-specific IgE and IgG4 antibodies were performed before and after treatment. RESULTS: Both formulations caused comparable, mainly local adverse events. No systemic reactions occurred. Compared with the placebo and rBet v 1-treated groups, SLIT with rMal d 1 reduced rMal d 1-induced oral symptoms (P = .001 and P = .038) accompanied by longitudinally reduced rMal d 1-specific cutaneous reactions (P = .022) and enhanced IgG4/IgE ratios (P = .012). SLIT with rBet v 1 neither improved the clinical reactivity to rMal d 1 nor enhanced rMal d 1-specific IgG4/IgE ratios. Participants receiving placebo showed no allergen-specific changes. CONCLUSION: Sublingual treatment with a recombinant food allergen was safe and clinically effective, as determined by using standardized challenges. We present a promising approach for the effective treatment of birch pollen-related apple allergy.