Unraveling wasp sensitization in a patient with systemic mastocytosis by CAP-inhibition assay.

Systemic mastocytosis (SM) is a clonal mast cell disorder that can lead to potentially severe anaphylactic reactions. Hymenoptera sting is one of the most frequent triggers of anaphylaxis in these patients, and diagnosis of indolent SM (ISM) without skin involvement (ISMs) is not rare. In this subgroup of patients, venom immunotherapy (VIT) is an effective treatment decreasing subsequent systemic reactions, and lifelong administration is recommended. An individualized diagnosis is necessary to offer the most adequate VIT, and molecular diagnosis (MD) may be useful to discriminate between primary sensitization and cross-reactivity. Nevertheless, other techniques such as ImmunoCAP inhibition assays may be necessary to identify the genuine sensitization to offer the most suitable VIT. We present a male patient with an anaphylactic reaction following several wasp stings. The patient was diagnosed with ISM, and allergy to both Polistes dominula and Vespula sp venom was confirmed. In this scenario, MD did not discriminate between a genuine double sensitization and venom cross-reactivity between both vespids. Thus, CAP-inhibition assay was performed. This case indicated the importance of an accurate diagnosis of hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA). It also highlights the usefulness of CAP-inhibition assays when MD fails to distinguish between genuine double Polistes-Vespula sensitization and cross-reactivity.

Basophil activation test in Hymenoptera venom allergy.

Before starting venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT), systemic sting reactions to Hymenoptera venoms require allergological workup in order to prove an IgE-mediated reaction and to identify the culprit insect venom. In addition to skin tests and the determination of specific IgE antibodies, the basophil activation test (BAT) using flow cytometry has emerged as a powerful tool and sensitive marker for this purpose in recent years. BAT seems to have a better informative value in terms of clinical relevance compared to the other tests. In Hymenoptera venom allergies, BAT is particularly useful for the diagnosis of cases with unclear or contradictory history and sensitization profile. Its results are associated with adverse reactions during VIT and efficacy of VIT and therefore have a certain predictive value for side effects and treatment failure of VIT. In research, it is mainly used to characterize the allergenic components of Hymenoptera venoms. This review article focuses on these topics.

Risk Factors for Severe Sting Reactions and Side Effects During Venom Immunotherapy.

Understanding the risk factors leading to severe systemic sting reactions (SSRs) is crucial for initiating venom immunotherapy (VIT) and for educating affected individuals and their families. Some of these risk factors are well established, some are no longer considered risk factors, and some remain controversial. Well-established risk factors for severe SSRs include clonal mast cell disease, high baseline serum tryptase, and advanced age. The absence of skin symptoms and the rapid onset of symptoms are indicators of severe SSRs. Recent publications indicate that antihypertensive treatment and stings in the head and neck area are not risk factors for severe SSRs. VIT is the only available treatment that can potentially prevent further anaphylactic reactions. Although rare and generally manageable, individuals undergoing VIT may experience systemic adverse events (sAEs). More sAEs are expected in patients undergoing bee VIT compared with vespid VIT. The role of elevated baseline serum tryptase as a risk factor for sAEs remains debated, but if it is a factor, the risk is increased by only about 1.5-fold. Rapid updosing protocols, depending on the specific regimen, can also be associated with more sAEs. Severe initial SSRs, antihypertensive medication, high skin test reactivity, and high specific IgE levels are not risk factors for sAEs.

Venom Component Allergen IgE Measurement in the Diagnosis and Management of Insect Sting Allergy.

Accurate identification of allergy-eliciting stinging insect(s) is essential to ensuring effective management of Hymenoptera venom-allergic individuals with venom-specific immunotherapy. Diagnostic testing using whole-venom extracts with skin tests and serologic-based analyses remains the first level of discrimination for honeybee versus vespid venom sensitization in patients with a positive clinical history. As a second-level evaluation, serologic testing using molecular venom allergens can further discriminate genuine sensitization (honeybee venom: Api m 1, 3, 4, and 10 vs yellow jacket venom/Polistes dominula venom Ves v 1/Pol d 1 and Ves v 5/Pol d 5) from interspecies cross-reactivity (hyaluronidases [Api m 2, Ves v 2, and Pol d 2] and dipeptidyl peptidases IV [Api m 5, Ves v 3, and Pol d 3]). Clinical laboratories use a number of singleplex, oligoplex, and multiplex immunoassays that employ both extracted whole-venom and molecular venom allergens (highlighted earlier) for confirmation of allergic venom sensitization. Established quantitative singleplex autoanalyzers have general governmental regulatory clearance worldwide for venom-allergic patient testing with maximally achievable analytical sensitivity (0.1 kUA/L) and confirmed reproducibility (interassay coefficient of variation <10%). Emerging oligoplex and multiplex (fixed-panel) assays conserve on serum and are more cost-effective, but they need regulatory clearance in some countries and are prone to higher rates of detecting asymptomatic sensitization. Ultimately, the patient's clinical history, combined with proof of sensitization, is the final arbiter in the diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy.

Elderly Patients and Insect Venom Allergy: Are the Clinical Pictures and Immunological Parameters of Venom Allergy Age-Dependent?

Insect venom is one of the most common triggers of anaphylaxis in the elderly population. Venom immunotherapy (VIT) remains the only treatment for Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA). However, little is known about the differences in indication for VIT in the group of patients aged 60 years and older. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical and diagnostic differences of HVA in elderly patients. The study compared data from patients aged ≥ 60 (N = 132) to data from patients aged from 11 to 60 years (N = 750) in terms of HVA severity, comorbidities, and immunological parameters, namely, intradermal testing (IDT), specific IgE (sIgE) levels against extracts and major allergenic molecules, and serum tryptase level (sBT). The severity of systemic HVA (I-IV Müller scale) did not differ between adults and seniors. However, the severity of cardiovascular reactions (IV) increased with age, while the frequency of respiratory reactions (III) decreased. No differences were found in the immunological parameters of sensitization IDT, venom-specific IgE concentrations, or sIgE against Api m 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10 between patients below and above 60 or 65 years of age. Differences were noted for sIgE against Ves v1 and Ves v5; they were higher and lower, respectively, in seniors. In the seniors group, sBT levels were higher. Elevated tryptase levels, along with the aging process, can represent a risk factor within this age category. Nevertheless, advanced age does not influence the immunological parameters of immediate HVA reactions, nor does it impact the diagnosis of HVA.

LAD2 mast cell activation test associates with the reaction severity and diagnoses BAT nonresponders in Hymenoptera venom allergy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The usefulness of the mast cell activation test (MAT) in diagnosing patients with uninterpretable basophil activation test (BAT) caused by nonresponding basophils has not yet been addressed. It should be further evaluated if the results of MAT are associated with the severity of the allergic reaction. METHODS: We recruited 39 Hymenoptera venom allergic (HVA) patients, 22 non-sensitized controls, and 37 BAT nonresponding HVA patients. Specific IgE levels for honey bee venom (HBV), yellow jacket venom (YJV) and total IgEs were quantified using the Immulite system. BAT and MAT with LAD2 cells in response to HBV and YJV were performed. RESULTS: We first optimized the susceptibility of LAD2 cells to IgE-mediated degranulation in HVA and showed that prestimulation with IL-33 and IL-6 significantly increased the LAD2 cells´ responsiveness to allergen stimulation (P<0.01). LAD2 MAT results correlated with BAT results, and patients with severe sting reactions (Mueller grades IV or III) had a median 2-fold higher LAD2 MAT than the patients with nonsevere sting reactions (Mueller grades II, I or LLR) (P<0.05). Further, LAD2 MAT provided conclusive results in 54.1% (20 of 37) of HVA patients with nonresponding basophils in the BAT. CONCLUSION: The LAD2 MAT represents a new diagnostic tool for HVA patients with nonresponding basophils. Further, LAD2 MAT can identify patients at risk of severe sting reactions and thus can help guide recommendations for venom immunotherapy and improve the management of patients with HVA.

Revealing clinically relevant specific IgE sensitization patterns in Hymenoptera venom allergy with dimension reduction and clustering.

Background: Immunoglobulin E (IgE) blood tests are used to detect sensitizations and potential allergies. Recent studies suggest that specific IgE sensitization patterns due to molecular interactions affect an individual's risk of developing allergic symptoms. Objective: The aim of this study was to reveal specific IgE sensitization patterns and investigate their clinical implications in Hymenoptera venom allergy. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 257 hunters or fishers with self-filled surveys on previous Hymenoptera stings were analyzed. Blood samples were taken to determine Hymenoptera IgE sensitization levels. Using dimensionality reduction and clustering, specific IgE for 10 Hymenoptera venom allergens were evaluated for clinical relevance. Results: Three clusters were unmasked using novel dimensionality reduction and clustering methods solely based on specific IgE levels to Hymenoptera venom allergens. These clusters show different characteristics regarding previous systemic reactions to Hymenoptera stings. Conclusion: Our study was able to unmask non-linear sensitization patterns for specific IgE tests in Hymenoptera venom allergy. We were able to derive risk clusters for anaphylactic reactions following hymenoptera stings and pinpoint relevant allergens (rApi m 10, rVes v 1, whole bee, and wasp venom) for clustering.

Stinging insect identification in children with Hymenoptera venom allergy and their parents.

Introduction: The treatment of Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) is based among others on the proper identification of the culprit insect. Aim: To assess the accuracy in identifying stinging insects by children with HVA and their parents. Material and methods: Participants were recruited from a paediatric medical centre. The data on their demographics, sting history and ability of insect identification (based on pictures) were obtained using a questionnaire. The study sample consisted of 102 children with HVA and their parents as well as 98 children without HVA and their parents. Results: The rates of subjects correctly identifying insects in the groups were 91.2%, 92.5%, 78.8%, 82.4%, respectively. When compared to children with HVA, those without HVA were less likely to correctly identify the bee, bumblebee and hoverfly. In this group, the correct identification of the wasp was more common among children living in the countryside. The correct identification of the bee and bumblebee by children without HVA was more common among children living in the city. Conclusions: Some children with HVA and their parents cannot correctly identify stinging insects despite previous life-threatening allergic reactions. The ability to identify stinging insects may depend on the HVA diagnosis and place of residence.

Basophil Activation Test in Double-Sensitized Patients With Hymenoptera Venom Allergy: Additional Benefit of Component-Resolved Diagnostics.

BACKGROUND: In Hymenoptera venom allergy serologically double-sensitized patients, it is often difficult to identify the culprit insect for venom immunotherapy (VIT). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if basophil activation tests (BATs) performed not only with venom extracts but additionally with single component-resolved diagnostics could differentiate between sensitized and allergic individuals and how the test results influenced the physicians' decision regarding VIT. METHODS: BATs were performed with bee and wasp venom extracts and with single components (Api m 1, Api m 10, Ves v 1, and Ves v 5) in 31 serologically double-sensitized patients. RESULTS: In 28 finally included individuals, 9 BATs were positive and 4 negative for both venoms. Fourteen of 28 BATs showed positive results for wasp venom alone. Two of 10 BATs positive for bee venom were only positive to Api m 1 and 1 of 28 BATs only to Api m 10, but not for whole bee venom extract. Five of 23 BATs positive for wasp venom were only positive for Ves v 5 but negative for wasp venom extract and Ves v 1. Finally, VIT with both insect venoms was recommended in 4 of 28 individuals, with wasp venom alone in 21 of 28 patients and with bee venom alone in 1 of 28. In 2 cases no VIT was recommended. CONCLUSIONS: BATs with Ves v 5, followed by Api m 1 and Api m 10, were helpful for the decision for VIT with the clinically relevant insect in 8 of 28 (28.6%) patients. A BAT with components should therefore be additionally carried out in cases with equivocal results.

Hymenoptera Venom Allergy and Anaphylaxis.

Hymenoptera stings can induce allergic and occasionally fatal reactions, and are responsible for significant morbidity and deterioration in health-related quality of life. The diagnostic work-up must consider the medical history of patients, in the context of venom allergy epidemiology and Hymenoptera taxonomy, and the clinical manifestations of the reactions, to channel the available in vivo and in vitro tests towards the most accurate diagnosis and the consequent appropriate management, also considering the risk profile of the patients on a precision-medicine approach. All these aspects are covered by this work that aims at providing an up-to-date review to increase the awareness of this topic among interested stakeholders, like healthcare professionals and political decision makers, who can contribute to the proper immediate and long-term management of venom allergy and anaphylaxis.

Potential and limitations of epitope mapping and molecular targeting in Hymenoptera venom allergy.

Hymenoptera venom (HV) allergy can lead to life threatening conditions by specific IgE (sIgE)-mediated anaphylactic reactions. The knowledge about major allergens from venom of different clinically relevant species increased in the last decades, allowing the development of component-resolved diagnostics in which sIgE to single allergens is analysed. Despite these advances, the precise regions of the allergens that bind to IgE are only known for few HV allergens. The detailed characterization of IgE epitopes may provide valuable information to improve immunodiagnostic tests and to develop new therapeutic strategies using allergen-derived peptides or other targeted approaches. Epitope-resolved analysis is challenging, since the identification of conformational epitopes present in many allergens demands complex technologies for molecular analyses. Furthermore, functional analysis of the epitopes interaction with their respective ligands is needed to distinguish epitopes that can activate the allergic immune response, from those that are recognized by irrelevant antibodies or T cell receptors from non-effector cells. In this review, we focus on the use of mapping and molecular targeting approaches for characterization of the epitopes of the major venom allergens of clinically relevant Hymenoptera species. The screening of the most relevant allergen peptides by epitope mapping could be helpful for the development of molecules that target major and immunodominant epitopes blocking the allergen induced cellular reactions as novel approach for the treatment of HV allergy.

Adverse reactions in venom immunotherapy protocols: conventional versus ultra-rush.

BACKGROUND: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is an effective treatment in the patients at high risk of anaphylaxis or life-threatening systemic reactions due to Hymenoptera venom allergy. But, systemic and large local reactions can be observed, especially during the build-up phase of VIT. We evaluated the safety of conventional and ultra-rush build-up protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two protocols in 71 patients (39 conventional and 32 ultra-rush protocols) with honeybee and wasp venom allergy were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were diagnosed and selected for VIT according to the criteria established by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. The severity of systemic reactions was evaluated according to the criteria of Mueller. RESULTS: Build-up phases were tolerated in 66.2% (n = 47) without any reaction. Allergic adverse reactions were observed in 33.8% (n = 24): large local reactions 22.5% (n = 16) and systemic reactions 11.3% (n = 8). There was no significant difference in the number of adverse reactions comparing patients receiving conventional and ultra-rush protocol. In addition, no association was found between allergic adverse reactions and the following factors: sex, previous systemic sting reactions, honeybee and wasp venom extract. CONCLUSION: We found that both protocols were tolerated in patients with honeybee and wasp venom allergy. Ultra-rush protocol will be preferred for patients and clinicians because of its advantages in terms of time and costs.KEY MESSAGESVIT is the only curative treatment method that reduces the risk of severe reactions after a bee sting and improves the quality of life in patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy.Ultra-rush VIT protocol has advantages such as few injection and time savings.Both ultra-rush and conventional VIT are safe treatments to prevent potentially life-threatening reactions in patients with honeybee and wasp venom allergy.

Diagnosis of Hymenoptera Venom Allergy: State of the Art, Challenges, and Perspectives.

Hymenoptera venom allergy is the most common cause of anaphylaxis in adults and the second-most frequent in children. The proper diagnosis of this life-threatening allergy remains a challenge. This review focuses on the current knowledge regarding diagnostics of Hymenoptera venom allergy. The paper includes a brief description of the representatives of Hymenoptera order and the composition of their venoms. Then, diagnostic tests for allergy to Hymenoptera venom are described. Common diagnostic problems, especially double positivity in tests for IgE antibodies specific to honeybee and wasp venom, are also discussed. Special attention is paid to the search for new diagnostic capabilities using modern methodologies. Multidimensional molecular analysis offers an opportunity to characterize changes in body fluids associated with Hymenoptera venom allergy and yields a unique insight into the cell status. Despite recent developments in the diagnostics of Hymenoptera venom allergy, new testing methodologies are still needed to answer questions and doubts we have.

The Lights and the Shadows of Controlled Sting Challenge With Hymenoptera.

Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT) is effective for protecting individuals with systemic allergic reactions caused by Hymenoptera stings. The need for a tool that shows the degree of protection afforded by VIT and the lack of useful biomarkers have made the sting challenge test (SCT) the gold standard for this disorder, although its use has both lights and shadows. SCT with Hymenoptera involves causing a real sting in a patient diagnosed with allergy to the venom of the stinging insect and who is undergoing treatment with specific immunotherapy. In Spain, SCT is included in the list of services offered by some hospitals and forms part of their daily clinical practice. This review aims to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of this test and to describe the standardized procedure and necessary resources, based on the experience of a group of Spanish experts and a review of the literature.

Basophil activation test as alternative method to CAP-inhibition in patients with double sensitization to vespid venoms.

Most patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) to vespid venoms present double sensitization by specific IgE (sIgE)-mediated cross-reactivity. Thus, it is mandatory could discriminate between a true double and primary sensitization to implement an accurate venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT). To date, CAP-inhibition is the reference method in the diagnosis of cross-reactivity in double sensitized patients to vespid venoms, being the results obtained with the component resolved diagnostics (CRD) conflicting. For this, we have studied in a cohort of double sensitized patients to Vespula vulgaris (VV) and Polistes dominulus (PD) venoms (n = 40) the diagnostic accuracy of CRD using the CAP-inhibition as reference method, as well as to investigate whether basophil activation test (BAT) is an alternative method for inconclusive results obtained by CAP-inhibition. CAP-inhibition showed a sensitivity of 59.46 % in view of the indeterminate results; most patients had true double sensitization (54.5 %), followed by single sensitization to PD (27.27 %) and VV (18.18 %) venoms. CRD based on rVes v 5/rPol d 5 (or vice versa) ratio as well as whole extracts I3/I77 (or vice versa) ratio (specific IgE-I3 to VV/specific IgE-I77 to PD) showed a low diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.504, p = 0.974; AUC = 0.35, p = 0.235; respectively). BAT was determined in parallel with CAP-inhibition in 12 patients, presented higher sensitivity than CAP-inhibition (p = 0.021) and a positive agreement of 71.43 %. Likewise it was able to identify 100% of inconclusive results, showing a specificity of 83.3 %. Therefore, CRD is not a suitable method to distinguish monosensitization and BAT appears to be an appropriate method resolving indeterminate results from the gold standard method.

Allergen Content of Therapeutic Preparations for Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy of European Paper Wasp Venom Allergy.

Allergy to Polistes dominula (European paper wasp) venom is of particular relevance in Southern Europe, potentially becoming a threat in other regions in the near future, and can be effectively cured by venom immunotherapy (VIT). As allergen content in extracts may vary and have an impact on diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, the aim was to compare five therapeutic preparations for VIT of P. dominula venom allergy available in Spain. Products from five different suppliers were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and LC-MS/MS and compared with a reference venom sample. Three products with P. dominula venom and one product with a venom mixture of American Polistes species showed a comparable band pattern in SDS-PAGE as the reference sample and the bands of the major allergens phospholipase A1 and antigen 5 were assignable. The other product, which consists of a mixture of American Polistes species, exhibited the typical band pattern in one, but not in another sample from a second batch. All annotated P. dominula allergens were detected at comparable levels in LC-MS/MS analysis of products containing P. dominula venom. Due to a lack of genomic information on the American Polistes species, the remaining products were not analyzed by this method. The major Polistes allergens were present in comparable amounts in the majority, but not in all investigated samples of venom preparations for VIT of P. dominula venom allergy.