Immunological differences between insect venom-allergic patients with and without immunotherapy and asymptomatically sensitized subjects.

BACKGROUND: Currently available tests are unable to distinguish between asymptomatic sensitization and clinically relevant Hymenoptera venom allergy. A reliable serological marker to monitor venom immunotherapy (VIT) does also not exist. Our aim was to find reliable serological markers to predict tolerance to bee and vespid stings. METHODS: We included 77 asymptomatically sensitized subjects, 85 allergic patients with acute systemic sting reactions, and 61 allergic patients currently treated with VIT. Levels of sIgE and sIgG4 to bee and vespid venom, rApi m 1, and rVes v 5 were measured immediately after allergic sting reactions or before sting challenges and 4 weeks later. All sting challenges were tolerated. The inhibitory activity was determined using BAT inhibition and ELIFAB assay. RESULTS: Median sIgG4 levels were 96-fold higher in VIT patients (P < .001) while sIgE/sIgG4 ratios were consistently lower (P < .001). The ELIFAB assay was paralleled by low sIgE/sIgG4 ratios in VIT patients, showing markedly higher allergen-blocking capacity (P < .001). An almost complete inhibition of the basophil response was seen in all patients treated with vespid venom, but not in those treated with bee venom. Four weeks after the sting, sIgE and sIgG4 levels were increased in allergic and asymptomatically sensitized patients, but not in VIT patients. CONCLUSION: Immunological responses after stings varied in bee and vespid venom-allergic patients. In patients under VIT, sIgE and sIgG4 remained completely stable after sting challenges. Monitoring VIT efficacy was only possible in vespid venom allergy, and the sIgG4 threshold for rVes v 5 had the highest sensitivity to confirm tolerance. The BAT inhibition test was the most reliable tool to confirm tolerance on an individual basis.

EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) is an allergic disorder of the nose and eyes affecting about a fifth of the general population. Symptoms of AR can be controlled with allergen avoidance measures and pharmacotherapy. However, many patients continue to have ongoing symptoms and an impaired quality of life; pharmacotherapy may also induce some side-effects. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only currently available treatment that targets the underlying pathophysiology, and it may have a disease-modifying effect. Either the subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes may be used. This Guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on AIT for AR and is part of the EAACI presidential project "EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy." It aims to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations and has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis. Its generation has followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included involvement of the full range of stakeholders. In general, broad evidence for the clinical efficacy of AIT for AR exists but a product-specific evaluation of evidence is recommended. In general, SCIT and SLIT are recommended for both seasonal and perennial AR for its short-term benefit. The strongest evidence for long-term benefit is documented for grass AIT (especially for the grass tablets) where long-term benefit is seen. To achieve long-term efficacy, it is recommended that a minimum of 3 years of therapy is used. Many gaps in the evidence base exist, particularly around long-term benefit and use in children.

EAACI guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: Hymenoptera venom allergy.

Hymenoptera venom allergy is a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction following a honeybee, vespid, or ant sting. Systemic-allergic sting reactions have been reported in up to 7.5% of adults and up to 3.4% of children. They can be mild and restricted to the skin or moderate to severe with a risk of life-threatening anaphylaxis. Patients should carry an emergency kit containing an adrenaline autoinjector, H1 -antihistamines, and corticosteroids depending on the severity of their previous sting reaction(s). The only treatment to prevent further systemic sting reactions is venom immunotherapy. This guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on Venom Immunotherapy as part of the EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy initiative. The guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of venom immunotherapy, has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis and produced using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included representation from a range of stakeholders. Venom immunotherapy is indicated in venom-allergic children and adults to prevent further moderate-to-severe systemic sting reactions. Venom immunotherapy is also recommended in adults with only generalized skin reactions as it results in significant improvements in quality of life compared to carrying an adrenaline autoinjector. This guideline aims to give practical advice on performing venom immunotherapy. Key sections cover general considerations before initiating venom immunotherapy, evidence-based clinical recommendations, risk factors for adverse events and for relapse of systemic sting reaction, and a summary of gaps in the evidence.

Questionable diagnostic benefit of the commercially available panel of bee venom components.

For many years, only the major allergen rApi m 1 has been available on the ImmunoCAP system for routine diagnosis of bee venom (BV) allergy. Now, there are five components available, and we aimed to detect the sensitivity and specificity of rApi m 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 in BV-allergic patients. We further evaluated the sensitivity of rApi m 1 and 2 of an alternative platform and investigated possible differences in the sensitization profile between monosensitization and clinically relevant double sensitization. Analysis of the whole panel of BV allergens of the CAP system still resulted in a lower sensitivity than analysis of the combination of rApi m 1 and 2 of the Immulite (71.6% vs 85.8%). Sensitization rate of rApi m 5 was more than doubled in double-sensitized patients, while there was no difference for rApi m 2. The benefit of the commercially available panel of BV components is questionable, due to the insufficient sensitivity and still unavailable important cross-reacting allergens.

Allergen immunotherapy for insect venom allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of insect venom allergy. To inform this process, we sought to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of insect venom allergy. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review, which involved searching 15 international biomedical databases for published and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened and critically appraised using established instruments. Data were descriptively summarized and, where possible, meta-analysed. RESULTS: Our searches identified a total of 16 950 potentially eligible studies; of which, 17 satisfied our inclusion criteria. The available evidence was limited both in volume and in quality, but suggested that venom immunotherapy (VIT) could substantially reduce the risk of subsequent severe systemic sting reactions (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.03-0.26); meta-analysis showed that it also improved disease-specific quality of life (risk difference = 1.41, 95% CI 1.04-1.79). Adverse effects were experienced in both the build-up and maintenance phases, but most were mild with no fatalities being reported. The very limited evidence found on modelling cost-effectiveness suggested that VIT was likely to be cost-effective in those at high risk of repeated systemic sting reactions and/or impaired quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The limited available evidence suggested that VIT is effective in reducing severe subsequent systemic sting reactions and in improving disease-specific quality of life. VIT proved to be safe and no fatalities were recorded in the studies included in this review. The cost-effectiveness of VIT needs to be established.

Self-medication of anaphylactic reactions due to Hymenoptera stings-an EAACI Task Force Consensus Statement.

An anaphylactic reaction due to a Hymenoptera sting is a clinical emergency, and patients, their caregivers as well as all healthcare professionals should be familiar with its recognition and acute management. This consensus report has been prepared by a European expert panel of the EAACI Interest Group of Insect Venom Hypersensitivity. It is targeted at allergists, clinical immunologists, internal medicine specialists, pediatricians, general practitioners, emergency department doctors, and any other healthcare professional involved. The aim was to report the scientific evidence on self-medication of anaphylactic reactions due to Hymenoptera stings, to inform healthcare staff about appropriate patient self-management of sting reactions, to propose indications for the prescription of an adrenaline auto-injector (AAI), and to discuss other forms of medication. First-line treatment for Hymenoptera sting anaphylaxis is intramuscular adrenaline. Prescription of AAIs is mandatory in the case of venom-allergic patients who suffer from mast cell diseases or with an elevated baseline serum tryptase level and in untreated patients with a history of a systemic reaction involving at least two different organ systems. AAI prescription should also be considered in other specific situations before, during, and after stopping venom immunotherapy.

Anaphylaxis with clonal mast cells in normal looking skin - a new entity?

BACKGROUND: Patients with elevated basal tryptase (sBT) >15 µg/l and anaphylaxis may have an underlying mastocytosis. A monoclonal mast cell activation syndrome with aberrant mast cells (MC) at extracutaneous sites has been described in patients with severe hypotension or anaphylaxis. METHODS: As MC in patients with elevated sBT might be altered in the skin as well, we studied MC in normal neck skin in anaphylaxis and urticaria patients with elevated sBT. RESULTS: A mean of 93.1 (SD 19.1) MC/mm² was counted in normal neck skin in 14 patients with anaphylaxis, 84.0 (SD 13.6) in seven patients with urticaria, 142.0 (SD 24.0) in two patients with eczema, 124.4 (SD 43.2) in five patients with systemic mastocytosis (SM) in comparison with autopsy skin (39.1 MC/mm², SD 12.4). In five of 14 (35.7%) of the anaphylaxis and three of five (60%) SM patients more than 25% of MC were spindle shaped and expressed CD25 antigen. CONCLUSIONS: We could show for the first time that the normal skin can harbour clonal MC in anaphylaxis patients. Analogous to the criteria for mastocytosis, we suggest a skin score criteria including an elevated number of MC, spindle shape, CD25 expression, c-Kit mutation and sBT values >20 µg/l. In patients with anaphylaxis and elevated sBT, skin should be biopsied and, as with the approach for mastocytosis diagnosis in the bone marrow, MC should be analysed for their number, clonality and c-Kit mutation. This approach should be confirmed in further studies. Patients with aberrant skin MC should be handled as mastocytosis patients.

Clinical contraindications to allergen immunotherapy: an EAACI position paper.

Clinical indications for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in respiratory and Hymenoptera venom allergy are well established; however, clinical contraindications to AIT are not always well documented. There are some discrepancies when classifying clinical contraindications for different forms of AIT as 'absolute' or 'relative'. EAACI Task Force on 'Contraindications to AIT' was created to evaluate and review current literature on clinical contraindications, and to update recommendations for both sublingual and subcutaneous AIT for respiratory and venom immunotherapy. An extensive review of the literature was performed on the use of AIT in asthma, autoimmune disorders, malignant neoplasias, cardiovascular diseases, acquired immunodeficiencies and other chronic diseases (including mental disorders), in patients treated with ß-blockers, ACE inhibitors or monoamine oxidase inhibitors, in children under 5 years of age, during pregnancy and in patients with poor compliance. Each topic was addressed by the following three questions: (1) Are there any negative effects of AIT on this concomitant condition/disease? (2) Are more frequent or more severe AIT-related side-effects expected? and (3) Is AIT expected to be less efficacious? The evidence, for the evaluation of these clinical conditions as contraindications, was limited, and most of the conclusions were based on case reports. Based on an extended literature research, recommendations for each medical condition assessed are provided. The final decision on the administration of AIT should be based on individual evaluation of any medical condition and a risk/benefit assessment for each patient.

Simultaneous intradermal testing with hymenoptera venoms is safe and more efficient than sequential testing.

BACKGROUND: According to current guidelines, skin testing for hymenoptera venom allergy should be performed in a stepwise manner, maintaining 15- to 20-min intervals between the injections of venom. Given the long-winded procedure of sequential skin testing, we retrospectively explored the safety of simultaneous intradermal testing. METHODS: Four hundred and seventy-eight consecutive patients with a convincing history of an anaphylactic reaction after a hymenoptera sting were tested. All venom concentrations (0.02 ml of 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, and 1.0 µg/ml of honey bee and wasp venom) were administered simultaneously to the skin. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy-two (98.7%) patients tolerated the simultaneous intradermal test without any side-effects. Only three subjects (0.6%) had a presumed allergic reaction during the test; another three reactions were considered vasovagal. CONCLUSION: Our skin test protocol with four simultaneously injected concentrations of two hymenoptera venoms is safe and permits the investigator to draw rapid conclusions about the individual's sensitization pattern.

Determination of sIgE to rPhl p 1 is sufficient to diagnose grass pollen allergy.

BACKGROUND: New diagnostic tools such as the basophil activation test (BAT) and component-resolved diagnosis (CRD) are promising for Hymenoptera venom or food allergy. A clear benefit for inhalant allergens has not yet been shown. Our aim was to compare new and established tests for grass pollen allergy. METHODS: Forty-nine patients with grass pollen allergy and 47 controls were prospectively enrolled in the study. A symptom score was calculated for each patient. Conjunctival provocation tests (CPT), skin prick tests (SPT), BAT, and sIgE determination including CRD were performed. Sensitivity and specificity were compared and results were correlated with the symptom score. RESULTS: Single determination of sIgE to rPhl p 1 showed the best balance between sensitivity (98%) and specificity (92%). Use of additional components, such as rPhl p 2 and 5, did not increase sensitivity. Generally, sensitivity of tests was high: SPT 100%, ISAC-112 100%, sIgE to timothy grass 98%, BAT 98%, ISAC-103 84%, and CPT 83%. Specificity ranged from 79% (SPT) to 96% (CPT). All test results and calculated values (e.g. ratio sIgE/tIgE) did not correlate with symptom severity. Asymptomatic sensitization to timothy grass in controls was rare in the CAP (11%) and predominantly due to Phl p 1 sensitization. CONCLUSION: rPhl p 1 was sufficient to diagnose grass pollen allergy, and sIgE patterns were the same in symptomatically and asymptomatically sensitized subjects. The testing of multiple components was of minor importance, and no test correlated with symptom severity.

The basophil activation test in the diagnosis of allergy: technical issues and critical factors.

BACKGROUND: The basophil activation test (BAT) is a widely validated and reliable tool especially for the diagnosis of hymenoptera venom allergy. Nevertheless, several pitfalls have to be considered and outcomes may differ because of diverse in-house protocols and commercially available kits. We aimed to identify the factors that may influence results of the CD63-based BAT. METHODS: Basophil responses to monoclonal anti-IgE (clone E124.2.8) and bee and wasp venom were determined by BAT based on CD63. The effect of stimulating factors such as, IL-3, cytochalasin B and prewarming of the samples was investigated. Furthermore, we compared two different flow cytometer systems and evaluated the influence of storage time, different staining protocols and anti-allergic drugs on the test results. RESULTS: Interleukin-3 enhanced the reactivity of basophils at 300 pM, but not at 75 and 150 pM. Prewarming of samples and reagents did not affect basophil reactivity. CD63 expression assayed after storage time of up to 48 h showed that basophil reactivity already started to decline after 4 h. Basophils stained with HLA-DR-PC5 and CD123-PE antibodies gated as HLA-DR(neg)/CD123(pos) cells showed the highest reactivity. No effect on test outcomes was observed at therapeutic doses of dimetindene and desloratadine. Finally, slight differences in the percentage of activated basophils, depending on the cytometer system used, were found. CONCLUSION: Basophil activation test should be performed as early as possible after taking the blood sample, preferably within 4 h. In contrast to the skin test, BAT can be performed in patients undergoing treatment with antihistamines. For reasons of multiple influencing factors, BAT should be performed only at validated laboratories.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug hypersensitivity syndrome. A multicenter study. I. Clinical findings and in vitro diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: We present the results obtained from the largest series of in vitro diagnostic tests ever reported in patients with clinically validated hypersensitivity to acetylsalicylic acid (ASA)/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) compared with various categories of controls tolerating ASA/NSAIDs. This multicenter study, which was performed within the framework of the European Network for Drug Allergy (ENDA) group, showed that the basophil activation test (BAT), particularly when used with the 3 NSAIDs aspirin (ASA), diclofenac (DIC), and naproxen (NAP), allows us to confirm the diagnosis of NSAID hypersensitivity syndrome. The results of the cellular allergen stimulation test (CAST) frequently correlate with those of the BAT, although not always. An unexpected finding was that basophil activation by NSAIDs is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon restricted to clinically hypersensitive patients, but that it also occurs in a dose-related manner in some NSAID-tolerant control individuals.Therefore, NSAID hypersensitivity appears as a shift in the normal pharmacological response to NSAIDs. These findings allow us to formulate a new rational hypothesis about the mechanism of NSAID hypersensitivity syndrome, a mechanism that most authors continue to describe as "unknown." METHODS: We enrolled 152 patients with a history of hypersensitivity to NSAIDs and 136 control participants in 11 different centers between spring 2003 and spring 2006. Flowcytometric BAT was performed. RESULTS: The most noteworthy results of our study were that 57% of 140 patients presented very clear-cut positive BAT results to multiple NSAIDs, and 16% were entirely negative. In about 27% of cases, positive results were obtained with 1 or 2 concentrations of a single NSAID. There is clearly a correlation between the results of BAT and CAST. CONCLUSIONS: BAT seems particularly indicated in patients with a clinical history of NSAID intolerance, and in whom a provocation test is not advisable for ethical, clinical, or other reasons. Clear-cut positive results can be considered as confirming a history of NSAID hypersensitivity, although negative results may not exclude it.

Contraindications to immunotherapy: a global approach.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations on contraindications to allergen immunotherapy (AIT) have been independently developed by National and International Societies/Academies. AIT contraindications are mainly based on case reports, case-series, or experts' opinion, while evidence-based information is limited. The aim of the present review was to describe existing guidelines on contraindications to AIT and to highlight differences between them. MAIN BODY: An extended review of the literature regarding contraindications to AIT for respiratory allergy and venom hypersensitivity was performed. Furthermore, Societies and Academies registered in the World Allergy Organization and EAACI databases, were asked for additional information. Only AIT guidelines published under official auspicies were included. A large heterogeneity among the various recommendations on contraindications was registered. Common contraindications to most of the guidelines were: lack of adherence, pregnancy before the start of AIT, the use of beta-blockers, certain age groups, uncontrolled asthma, autoimmune diseases and malignancies. CONCLUSION: As new data arise, revisions might soon be needed allowing AIT in the cases of patients treated with ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers, in elderly patients and in patients with concomitant autoimmune diseases and neoplasias in remission. The decision to prescribe AIT is always tailor-made, balancing risk vs benefit. Creating globally accepted guidelines would help Allergologists in their decision making.

Influence of total IgE levels on the severity of sting reactions in Hymenoptera venom allergy.

BACKGROUND: Detection of specific IgE for Hymenoptera venoms and skin tests are well established diagnostic tools for the diagnosis of insect venom hypersensitivity. The aim of our study was to analyze the effect of total IgE levels on the outcome of generalized anaphylactic reactions after a Hymenoptera sting. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty patients allergic to bee, wasp, or European hornet venom were included in the study. Their specific and total IgE levels, serum tryptase levels, skin tests, and sting history were analyzed. RESULTS: In patients with mild reactions (grade I, generalized skin symptoms) we observed higher total IgE levels (248.0 kU/l) compared to patients with moderate reactions (grade II, moderate pulmonary, cardiovascular, or gastrointestinal symptoms; 75.2 kU/l) and severe reactions (grade III, bronchoconstriction, emesis, anaphylactic shock, or loss of consciousness; 56.5 kU/l; P < 0.001). Accordingly, 25% of the patients with low levels of total IgE (<50 kU/l), but no individual with total IgE levels >250 kU/l, developed loss of consciousness (P = 0.001). Additionally, specific IgE levels were related to total IgE levels: Specific IgE levels increased from 1.6 to 7.1 kU/l in patients with low (<50 kU/l) and high (>250 kU/l) total IgE levels, respectively (P < 0.001). Specific IgE levels correlated inversely to the clinical reaction grades, however, this trend was not statistically significant (P = 0.083). CONCLUSION: Patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy and high levels (>250 kU/l) of total IgE, predominantly develop grade I and grade II reactions and appear to be protected from grade III reactions. However, this hypothesis should be confirmed by extended studies with sting challenges.

The CD63 basophil activation test in Hymenoptera venom allergy: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The basophil activation test (BAT), which relies on flow cytometric quantitation of the allergen-induced up-regulation of the granule-associated marker CD63 in peripheral blood basophils, has been suggested to be a useful approach in detecting responsiveness to allergens. The purpose of this study was to establish the usefulness of the BAT with regard to the clinical history and current diagnostic tools in Hymenoptera venom allergy using a prospective study design. METHODS: Fifty-seven consecutive patients allergic to Hymenoptera venom as defined by a systemic reaction after an insect sting, and 30 age- and sex-matched control subjects with a negative history were included. The degree and nature of sensitization was confirmed by skin testing, specific immunoglobulin E (IgE), serum tryptase levels and BAT. In the nonallergic control group only analysis of specific IgE and BAT were performed. Correlation of BAT, skin test and specific IgE, respectively, with the clinical history in the allergic group was termed as sensitivity and in the control group as specificity. RESULTS: Twenty one of 23 (91.3%) bee venom allergic patients and 29 of 34 (85.3%) patients allergic to wasp and hornet venom tested positive in BAT. The overall sensitivity of BAT, specific IgE and skin tests were 87.7, 91.2 and 93.0%, respectively. The overall specificities were 86.7% for BAT and 66.7% for specific IgE. No correlation between the severity of clinical symptoms and the magnitude of basophil activation was observed. CONCLUSION: The BAT seems to be an appropriate method to identify patients allergic to bee or wasp venom with a comparable sensitivity to standard diagnostic regimens. The higher specificity of BAT as compared with specific IgE makes this test a useful tool in the diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy.