Basophil activation in insect venom allergy: comparison of an established test using liquid reagents with a test using 5-color tubes with dried antibody reagents.

BACKGROUND: Flow cytometry-based basophil activation tests (BAT) have been performed with various modifications, differing in the use of distinct identification and activation markers. Established tests use liquid reagents while a new development involves the use of tubes with dried antibody reagents. The aim of this pilot study was to compare these two techniques in patients with insect venom allergy. METHODS: Seventeen patients with an insect venom allergy were included in the study. The established "BAT 1" utilizes conventional antibody solutions of anti-CCR3 for basophil identification and anti-CD63 to assess basophil activation, whereas "BAT 2" uses dried anti-CD45, anti-CD3, anti-CRTH2, anti-203c and anti-CD63 for identification and activation measurement of basophils. Negative and positive controls as well as incubations with honey bee venom and yellow jacket venom at three concentrations were performed. RESULTS: Seven patients had to be excluded due to low basophil counts, high values in negative controls or negative positive controls. For the remaining 10 patients the overall mean (± SD) difference in activated basophils between the two tests was 0.2 (± 12.2) %P. In a Bland-Altman plot, the limit of agreement (LoA) ranged from 24.0 to -23.7. In the qualitative evaluation (value below/above cut-off) Cohen's kappa was 0.77 indicating substantial agreement. BAT 2 took longer to perform than BAT 1 and was more expensive. CONCLUSION: The BAT 2 technique represents an interesting innovation, however, it was found to be less suitable compared to an established BAT for the routine diagnosis of insect venom allergies.

Hypersensitivity reactions to proton pump inhibitors. An EAACI position paper.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are invaluable therapeutic options in a variety of dyspeptic diseases. In addition to their well-known risk profile, PPI consumption is related to food and environmental allergies, dysbiosis, osteoporosis, as well as immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). The latter, although a rare event, around 1%-3%, due to the extraordinarily high rate of prescription and consumption of PPIs are related to a substantial risk. In this Position Paper, we provide clinicians with practical evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of HSRs to PPIs. Furthermore, the unmet needs proposed in the document aim to stimulate more in-depth investigations in the topic.

EAACI/ENDA position paper on drug provocation testing.

In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low-risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low-risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources.

Prevalence of hypersensitivity reactions in various forms of mastocytosis: A pilot study of 2485 adult patients with mastocytosis collected in the ECNM registry.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity reactions (HR) are common in mastocytosis. However, little is known about triggers and risk factors. The registry of the European Competence Network on Mastocytosis (ECNM) enables reliable studies in a larger cohort of mastocytosis patients. We assessed prevalence, triggers and risk factors of HR in adults with mastocytosis in the ECNM registry. METHODS: Data were collected in 27 ECNM centers. We analyzed potential triggers (Hymenoptera venoms, food, drug, inhalant and others) and risk factors at diagnosis and during follow-up. The study group consisted of 2485 adults with mastocytosis, 1379 women (55.5%) and 1106 men (44.5%). Median age was 48.2 years (range 18-91 years). RESULTS: Nine hundred and forty eight patients (38.1%) reported one or more HR`. Most common triggers were Hymenoptera venoms in cutaneous mastocytosis (CM) and indolent systemic mastocytosis (ISM), whereas in advanced SM (advSM), most common elicitors were drugs, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and penicillin. In multivariate analyses, tryptase level < 90 ng/mL, <15% infiltration by mast cells in bone marrow biopsy-sections, and diagnosis of ISM were identified as independent risk factors for HR. For drug-induced HR, prominent risk factors were advSM and high tryptase levels. New reactions were observed in 4.8% of all patients during 4 years follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: HR are mainly triggered by Hymenoptera venoms in patients with CM and ISM and by drugs in patients with advSM. Tryptase levels <90 ng/mL, mast cell bone marrow infiltration <15%, and WHO category ISM are predictors of HR. New HR occur in 4.8% of all patients within 4 years.

Targeting histamine receptor 4 in cholinergic urticaria with izuforant (LEO 152020): results from a phase IIa randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Cholinergic urticaria (CholU) is a common subtype of chronic inducible urticaria, where signs and symptoms (e.g. pruritic wheals and angioedema) are triggered by sweating due to physical exercise, passive warming and by other sweat-inducing situations. While guidelines recommend treatment with second-generation H1 antihistamines, approximately 90% of patients report uncontrolled disease. Targeting the histamine 4 receptor (H4R) has shown promise in preclinical/clinical studies of allergic/inflammatory diseases. Izuforant (LEO 152020) is a selective oral H4R antagonist with expected dual antipruritic and anti-inflammatory effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of izuforant in adults with CholU, a common type of chronic urticaria driven by histamine and characterized by high skin levels of H4R expression. METHODS: This was a phase IIa randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre crossover trial where patients with CholU with an inadequate response to ≥ 1 standard dose of H1 antihistamine received izuforant 100 mg twice daily or placebo (EUCTR2020-004961-38-DE; NCT04853992). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in Urticaria Activity Score. Exploratory endpoints included CholU activity score over 7 days, urticaria control test, Physician Global Assessment, patient global assessment of severity (PGA-S), provocation tests, Dermatology Life Quality Index and CholU quality of life (CholU-QoL). Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters, and serum biomarkers were assessed, as well as safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were randomized and included in the full analysis set; 18 completed treatment [mean (SD) age 29.5 (9.8) years; mean (SD) CholU duration 8.0 (6.3) years]. The primary and most of prespecified exploratory endpoints were not met; there were significant improvements in PGA-S for izuforant vs. placebo (P = 0.02), and nonsignificant improvements for other endpoints in quality of life and histamine skin prick test. All adverse events (AEs) experienced with izuforant were considered mild. The most frequently reported (> 1 patient) were nausea (three patients) and upper abdominal pain (two patients), occurring more frequently with izuforant vs. placebo (one patient each). There were no treatment-related serious AEs and no patient receiving izuforant discontinued the study. Treatment with izuforant did not cause downregulation of H4R. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to explore the role of H4R as a therapeutic target in urticaria. Targeting H4R with izuforant was well tolerated but did not demonstrate significant improvements vs. placebo in the primary endpoint and all but one prespecified exploratory endpoint in CholU.

Cholinergic urticaria (CholU) is a common subtype of an inflammatory skin condition called chronic inducible urticaria, where signs and symptoms (e.g. hives and swelling in the skin) are triggered by sweating caused by physical exercise, passive warming and other sweat-inducing situations. While guidelines recommend treatment with second-generation H1 antihistamines (a type of medication), approximately 90% of people with the condition report that these medications do not control the disease. Targeting the histamine 4 receptor (H4R) has shown promise in studies of allergic/inflammatory diseases. CholU is driven by histamine (a chemical released in the body) and characterized by high skin levels of H4R. Izuforant is a medication that may reduce itch and inflammation. In our study, which was carried out across multiple sites in Germany, we assessed the effects of izuforant 100 mg in 18 patients with CholU using a range of measures covering symptom control, disease severity, provocation response and quality of life. The primary endpoint (the main result measured at the end of the study to see if the treatment worked) was change from baseline in the post-provocation Urticaria Activity Score, where areas of skin were provoked and the time until common symptoms of CholU appeared (sweating and whealing (hives)) was measured. Overall, the primary endpoint and most of the exploratory endpoints were not met. There were significant improvements in patients' global assessment for izuforant versus placebo. This was the first study to explore the role of H4R as a therapeutic target in urticaria. Our findings suggest that targeting H4R with izuforant was well tolerated but did not demonstrate significant improvements versus placebo in the primary endpoint, and all but one prespecified exploratory endpoint in CholU.

Declining frequency of sensitization to fragrance mixes I and II: IVDK-data of the years 2012-2021.

BACKGROUND: EU Commission Regulation 2017/1410 prohibits using atranol and chloroatranol, the main allergens in Evernia prunastri (oakmoss), and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) in cosmetic products. Oakmoss absolute is contained in fragrance mix (FM) I and HICC in FM II which are patch tested as screening mixtures in the baseline series. OBJECTIVE: To describe the time trends of reaction frequencies to both FMs as well as to their components in FM-positive patients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2012-2021. RESULTS: Positive reactions to FM I (FM II) declined from 9.1% (4.7%) in 2012 to 4.6% (3.0%) in 2021. Full breakdown tests were performed in 24% (FM I) and 31% (FM II), respectively, of the mix-positive patients. From this data, frequencies of sensitization to the 14 single fragrances of FM I and FM II were calculated. For the majority, a decline was noted from 2012/2013 to 2020/2021, for oakmoss absolute 1.9%-0.8% and for HICC 1.8%-0.9%. CONCLUSION: EU Commission Regulation 2017/1410 was an effective measure. However, our data have some limitations, possibly causing underestimation of sensitization frequencies to fragrances.

Detection of Sensitization Profiles with Cellular In Vitro Tests in Wheat Allergy Dependent on Augmentation Factors (WALDA).

Wheat allergy dependent on augmentation factors (WALDA) is the most common gluten allergy in adults. IgE-mediated sensitizations are directed towards ω5-gliadin but also to other wheat allergens. The value of the different in vitro cellular tests, namely the basophil activation test (BAT) and the active (aBHRA) and passive basophil histamine-release assays (pBHRA), in the detection of sensitization profiles beyond ω5-gliadin has not been compared. Therefore, 13 patients with challenge-confirmed, ω5-gliadin-positive WALDA and 11 healthy controls were enrolled. Specific IgE (sIgE), skin prick tests, BATs, aBHRA, and pBHRA were performed with allergen test solutions derived from wheat and other cereals, and results were analyzed and compared. This study reveals a distinct and highly individual reactivity of ω5-gliadin-positive WALDA patients to a range of wheat allergens beyond ω5-gliadin in cellular in vitro tests and SPT. In the BAT, for all tested allergens (gluten, high-molecular-weight glutenin subunits, α-amylase/trypsin inhibitors (ATIs), alcohol-free wheat beer, hydrolyzed wheat proteins (HWPs), rye gluten and secalins), basophil activation in patients was significantly higher than in controls (p = 0.004-p < 0.001). Similarly, significant histamine release was detected in the aBHRA for all test substances, exceeding the cut-off of 10 ng/mL in all tested allergens in 50% of patients. The dependency of tests on sIgE levels against ω5-gliadin differed; in the pBHRA, histamine release to any test substances could only be detected in patients with sIgE against ω5-gliadin ≥ 7.7 kU/L, whereas aBHRA also showed high reactivity in less sensitized patients. In most patients, reactivity to HWPs, ATIs, and rye allergens was observed. Additionally, alcohol-free wheat beer was first described as a promising test substance in ω5-gliadin-positive WALDA. Thus, BAT and aBHRA are valuable tools for the identification of sensitization profiles in WALDA.

Challenge-confirmed diagnosis restores quality of life in cofactor-dependent wheat allergy.

BACKGROUND: Food allergies including cofactor-dependent allergies such as cofactor-dependent wheat allergy (CDWA) decrease the quality of life (QOL) of patients. OBJECTIVE: To define the health-related QOL and fears in patients with CDWA and to evaluate the impact of diagnosis confirmation by oral challenge test (OCT). METHODS: Patients with CDWA diagnosed by clinical history, sensitization, and OCT were invited to participate. Clinical characteristics, patients' fears, self-perceived overall QOL, the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Adult Form score, and the risks and benefits of OCT were evaluated after the final diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 22 adults with CDWA (13 male, 9 female; mean age 53.5 years; median 5 years until diagnosis) were included. Specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels for gluten proteins were inversely correlated with the reaction threshold (P < .05). Higher reaction severity in the patients' histories correlated with increased basal serum tryptase levels (P = .003) and gluten and gliadin specific IgE (P < .05), but not to QOL. After the first allergic reaction, patients reported a drop in QOL (P < .001). Challenge-confirmed diagnosis and medical consultation could restore the patients' QOL (P < .05) and reduce their fear of further reactions (P < .01). No severe reactions occurred during OCT, which was rated as not stressful and highly beneficial. Compared with patients with CDWA diagnosed without OCT in the literature, health-related QOL was less impaired (mean Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Adult Form score 3.8), especially regarding the emotional impact (P < .001 vs existing literature). CONCLUSION: Until final diagnosis, patients with CDWA have a severe physical and psychological burden. OCT is a safe method to confirm the diagnosis, restore the patients' severely affected QOL, and reduce their fear of further reactions.

Clinical impact and proposed application of molecular markers, genetic variants, and cytogenetic analysis in mast cell neoplasms: Status 2022.

Mast cell neoplasms are an emerging challenge in the fields of internal medicine, allergy, immunology, dermatology, laboratory medicine, and pathology. In this review, we discuss the current standards for the diagnosis and prognostication of mast cell neoplasms with special reference to clinically relevant germline and somatic gene variants. In patients with cutaneous mastocytosis or with indolent systemic mastocytosis (SM), various KIT-activating mutations act as key molecular drivers of the disease. In adults, KIT p.D816V is by far the most prevalent driver, whereas other KIT mutants are detected in nearly 40% of children. In advanced SM, including aggressive SM, SM with an associated hematological neoplasm, and mast cell leukemia, additional somatic mutations in other genes, such as SRSF2, JAK2, RUNX1, ASXL1, or RAS, may be detected. These drivers are more frequently detected in SM with an associated hematological neoplasm, particularly in male patients. Recently, hereditary alpha-tryptasemia has been identified as a genetic trait more prevalent in SM compared with healthy controls. Moreover, hereditary alpha-tryptasemia is more frequent in patients with SM with Hymenoptera venom allergy and severe mediator-related symptoms than in patients with SM without symptoms. On the basis of this knowledge, we propose a diagnostic algorithm in which genetic markers are applied together with clinical and histopathologic criteria to establish the diagnosis and prognosis in SM.

Cutaneous reactions following COVID-19 vaccination assessed by dermatologists: a single-institutional study in Germany.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cutaneous reactions following COVID-19 vaccination have been frequently described, whereas larger case series by dermatologists are lacking. This study assesses SARS-CoV-2 vaccination-associated skin reactions, severity, treatment, course, eliciting vaccines, allergy test results and tolerance to revaccination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Single-institutional, non-interventional study of dermatologists assessing cutaneous manifestations in 83 patients in Germany. RESULTS: 93 reactions were presented. Manifestations clustered into immediate (n = 51, 54.8%) and delayed hypersensitivity reactions (n = 10, 10.8%), chronic inflammatory skin diseases (n = 13, 14.0%), reactivation of latent herpes virus infection (pityriasis rosea/herpes zoster; n = 9; 9.7%) and others (n = 10, 10.8%). Vaccination was associated with new (76.3%) - mostly hypersensitivity reactions - or exacerbation of known skin diseases (23.7%), in this case predominantly chronic inflammatory skin diseases. Reactions occurred primarily within the first week (72.8%) and after first vaccination (62.0%). Treatment was required in 83.9% and hospitalization in 19.4%. In 48.8% revaccination led to recurrence of the same reactions. Disease was ongoing at last consultation in 22.6%, primarily in chronic inflammatory skin diseases. Allergy tests were performed in 15 patients (18.1%) and resulted negative. CONCLUSIONS: It can be assumed that vaccination may trigger immune activation-related reactions especially in those patients predisposed to develop respective skin diseases.

Wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis: subtypes, diagnosis, and management.

Wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (WDEIA) is an IgE-mediated food allergy with allergic symptoms ranging from intermittent urticaria to severe anaphylaxis that occurs when wheat ingestion is combined with augmenting cofactors such as exercise, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or alcohol. In most cases, patients are identified by sensitization to ω5-gliadins in the gluten fraction of wheat. ω5-gliadin-negative subtypes of WDEIA are often difficult to diagnose and may be caused by Tri a 14 (wheat lipid transfer protein), after percutaneous sensitization with hydrolyzed wheat proteins, or, in rare cases, by cross-reactivity to grass pollen. Diagnosis is established based on the patients' history in combination with serum IgE profile, skin testing, basophil activation tests, and challenge tests with cofactors. Individual dietary counselling remains the central pillar in the management of WDEIA patients. A completely wheat-free diet is a possible option. However, this appears to promote tolerance less than continued regular consumption of gluten-containing cereals in the absence of cofactors. All patients should have an emergency set for self-treatment including an adrenaline autoinjector and receive adequate instruction. More data are needed on sublingual immunotherapy for WDEIA, a potentially promising therapeutic prospect. This article provides an overview of current knowledge on the diagnosis and management of WDEIA including an optimized challenge protocol using wheat gluten and cofactors.

S3 Guideline Urticaria. Part 1: Classification and diagnosis of urticaria - German-language adaptation of the international S3 Guideline.

The lifetime prevalence of urticaria, a severe allergic disease, is almost 20%. It not only limits the quality of life of those affected, but also their general performance at work and in their daily activities. This publication is the first section of the Urticaria Guideline. It covers the classification and diagnosis of urticaria, taking into account the major advances in research into its causes, triggering factors and pathomechanisms. It also addresses strategies for the efficient diagnosis of the different subtypes of urticaria. This is crucial for individual, patient-oriented treatment, which is covered in the second part of the guideline, published separately. This German-language guideline was developed according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system characteristics in the German-speaking countries. This first part of the guideline describes the classification of urticaria, distinguishing spontaneously occurring wheals (hives) and angioedema from forms of urticaria with inducible symptoms. Urticaria is defined as sudden onset of wheals, angioedema, or both, but is to be distinguished from conditions in which wheals occur as a short-term symptom, such as anaphylaxis. The diagnosis is based on (a limited number of) laboratory tests, but especially on medical history. In addition, validated instruments are available to measure the severity, activity and course of the disease.

S3 Guideline Urticaria. Part 2: Treatment of urticaria - German-language adaptation of the international S3 guideline.

This publication is the second part of the German-language S3 guideline on urticaria. It covers the management of urticaria and should be used together with Part 1 of the guideline on classification and diagnosis. This publication was prepared according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system conditions in German-speaking countries. Chronic urticaria has a high impact on the quality of life and daily activities of patients. Therefore, if causal factors cannot be eliminated, effective symptomatic treatment is necessary. The recommended first-line treatment is to administer new generation, non-sedating H1 antihistamines. If the standard dose is not sufficiently effective, the dose should be increased up to fourfold. For patients who do not respond to this treatment, the second-line treatment in addition to antihistamines in the treatment algorithm is omalizumab and, if this treatment fails, ciclosporin. Other low-evidence therapeutic agents should only be used if all treatments in the treatment algorithm agreed upon by the guideline group fail. Both the benefit-risk profile and cost should be considered. Corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term treatment due to their inevitable severe side effects.

Do basophil activation tests help elucidate allergic reactions to the ingredients in COVID-19 vaccines?

The worldwide use of COVID-19 vaccines has shown that immediate allergic reactions to the ingredients are rare but should be clarified by means of an allergological work-up. This review aims to highlight the current state of knowledge and possible pathogenesis based on the literature published to date. In addition to recording a detailed history and performing skin tests, cellular tests (basophil activation or basophil histamine release test) by using the vaccines or modified compounds containing polyethylene glycol (PEG), rather than unmodified PEGs, have proven to be particularly helpful. Negative results with vaccines seem to indicate tolerance. Details of the performance of these cellular tests with different vaccines, PEGs of different molecular weights, other ingredients of the vaccines, as well as other PEGylated drugs, and the results in the context of COVID-19 vaccination of various working groups worldwide are summarized.

Experience with polyethylene glycol allergy-guided risk management for COVID-19 vaccine anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) may elicit anaphylaxis to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, and guidance for patients at risk is needed. METHODS: In retrospective patients with PEG allergy collected from 2006 till 2019, clinical, skin, and basophil activation test (BAT) characteristics discriminative for PEG allergy were analyzed and compared with the literature. In 421 prospective real-life patients asking for allergy workup for COVID-19 vaccine hypersensitivity in 2020/2021, risk assessment was performed and tolerance of the recommended vaccination approach was assessed. RESULTS: Ten patients with PEG allergy were found in the retrospective cohort. Patients reacted with immediate anaphylaxis (100%) not only to PEG-based laxatives/bowel preparations or injections, but also to cold medication, antiseptics, analgetics, or antibiotics. Skin tests ± BAT with PEG ± elicitors were positive in 10/10. Provocation tests were positive in 7/9 patients. From the prospective cohort, 370/421 patients self-reporting increased risk for vaccine allergy lacked criteria necessitating allergy workup and were recommended for routine vaccination. A total of 51/421 patients were tested, and three (6%) with PEG allergy were identified, whereas 48 patients remained negative in skin tests. Vaccination was recommended in all those patients. No hypersensitivity reactions were reported to vaccination including six PEG-allergic patients tolerating COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Taking a detailed history excluded PEG allergy in most referred patients and enabled direct safe vaccination. Immediate urticaria/anaphylaxis to typical elicitors identified patients requiring PEG allergy workup. Skin tests ± BAT identified PEG allergy and helped to select the vaccine and the vaccination approach. Even PEG-allergic patients can tolerate COVID-19 vaccines.

Real-life evaluation of molecular multiplex IgE test methods in the diagnosis of pollen associated food allergy.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of food allergies is challenging, as combining information from specific IgE (sIgE)-sensitization pattern and skin prick tests (SPTs) with clinical history is necessary for a personalized management of allergic patients. The aim of this study was to compare two molecular tests, the ImmunoCAP ISAC (ISAC) and the Allergy Explorer, version 2 (ALEX2 ) in the context of pollen food syndrome (PFS) diagnosis in a real-life scenario, to assess the benefit of multiplex testing in PFS patients. METHODS: Diagnosis of food allergy was performed in 53 patients. Allergen-sIgE concentrations were measured with ISAC and ALEX2 . Results for sIgE were statistically compared with each other, with SPT results and with clinical presentation of the patients. RESULTS: Using ISAC as reference test for sIgE measurements, the average sensitivity of ALEX2 for PR-10 allergens was 83.2% and the average specificity 88.0%. If only low sIgE concentrations were included, the sensitivity was 60.8% and the specificity 91.1%. Apple and hazelnut sensitizations were confirmed in most patients by concordance of sIgE and SPT results. Significant correlations were shown between clinical symptoms and Mal d 1- and Gly m 4-sIgE levels measured by both tests and for Cor a 1-sIgE levels measured by ALEX2 . In eight patients, profilin related symptoms were supported by Hev b 8-sensitization. CONCLUSION: Multiplex testing is beneficial to understand patient-specific individual sensitization profiles and to providing personalized management recommendations. In the future, custom-designed test kits might enable reducing costs of multiplex testing for specific patient groups without compromising the diagnostic value.

Management of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Systemic allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. In this study we assessed the management and outcome of suspected SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hypersensitivity. METHODS: Totally, 334 individuals underwent an allergy work up regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (group A: 115 individuals suspected to be at increased risk for vaccine-related reactions before vaccination and group B: 219 patients with reactions after COVID vaccination). The large majority of the SPT/IDT with the vaccines were negative; however, we identified in 14.1% (n = 47) a possible sensitization to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and/or its ingredients defined as one positive skin test. Of the 219 individuals (group B) who experienced symptoms suspicious for a hypersensitivity reaction after vaccination, 214 were reported after the first vaccination with a mRNA vaccine (157 mRNA (Comirnaty®, 38 Spikevax®) and 18 with a vector vaccine (Vaxzevria®), 5 cases were after the second vaccination. RESULTS: The symptom profile in group B was as follows: skin symptoms occurred in 115 cases (n = 59 angioedema, n = 50 generalized urticaria and n = 23 erythema/flush. Seventy individuals had cardiovascular, 53 respiratory and 17 gastrointestinal symptoms. Of the overall 334 individuals, 78 patients tolerated (re)-vaccination (out of skin test positive/negative 7/19 from group A and 17/35 from group B). CONCLUSION: Proven IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is extremely rare and not increased in comparison with reported hypersensitivity to other vaccines. The value of skin tests is unclear and nonspecific reactions, in particular when intradermal testing is applied, should be considered.

EAACI Biologicals Guidelines-Omalizumab for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria in adults and in the paediatric population 12-17 years old.

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) imposes a significant burden on patients, families and healthcare systems. Management is difficult, due to disease heterogeneity and insufficient efficacy of classical drugs such as H1 R-antihistamines. Better understanding of the mechanisms has enabled a stratified approach to the management of CSU, supporting the use of targeted treatment with omalizumab. However, many practical issues including selection of responders, the definition of response, strategies to enhance the responder rate, the duration of treatment and its regimen (in the clinic or home-based) and its cost-effectiveness still require further clarification. The EAACI Guidelines on the use of omalizumab in CSU follow the GRADE approach in formulating recommendations for each outcome. In addition, future therapeutic approaches and perspectives as well as research priorities are discussed.

EAACI guidelines: Anaphylaxis (2021 update).

Anaphylaxis is a clinical emergency which all healthcare professionals need to be able to recognize and manage. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Anaphylaxis multidisciplinary Task Force has updated the 2014 guideline. The guideline was developed using the AGREE II framework and the GRADE approach. The evidence was systematically reviewed and recommendations were created by weighing up benefits and harms. The guideline was peer-reviewed by external experts and reviewed in a public consultation. The use of clinical criteria to identify anaphylaxis is suggested with blood sampling for the later measurement of tryptase. The prompt use of intramuscular adrenaline as first-line management is recommended with the availability of adrenaline autoinjectors to patients in the community. Pharmacokinetic data should be provided for adrenaline autoinjector devices. Structured, comprehensive training for people at risk of anaphylaxis is recommended. Simulation training and visual prompts for healthcare professionals are suggested to improve the management of anaphylaxis. It is suggested that school policies reflect anaphylaxis guidelines. The evidence for the management of anaphylaxis remains mostly at a very low level. There is an urgent need to prioritize clinical trials with the potential to improve the management of patients at risk of anaphylaxis.

Allergies and COVID-19 vaccines: An ENDA/EAACI Position paper.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID-19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized. METHOD: Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre-vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, and literature was analysed. RESULTS: No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1-anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2-anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3-recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4-suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5-confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick-to-prick skin test with the left-over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated.