RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
Not available.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The persistently high prevalence of allergic diseases in Western industrial nations and the limited possibilities of causal therapy make evidence-based recommendations for primary prevention necessary. METHODS: The recommendations of the S3 guideline Allergy Prevention, published in its last version in 2014, were revised and consulted on the basis of a current systematic literature search. The evidence search was conducted for the period 06/2013 - 11/2020 in the electronic databases Cochrane and MEDLINE, as well as in the reference lists of current reviews and through references from experts. The literature found was screened in two filtering processes, first by title and abstract, and the remaining papers were screened in the full text for relevance. The studies included after this were sorted by level of evidence, and the study quality was indicated in terms of potential bias (low/high). The revised recommendations were formally agreed and consented upon with the participation of representatives of the relevant professional societies and (self-help) organizations (nominal group process). Of 5,681 hits, 286 studies were included and assessed. RESULTS: Recommendations on maternal nutrition during pregnancy and breastfeeding as well as on infant nutrition in the first months of life again play an important role in the updated guideline: Many of the previous recommendations were confirmed by the current data. It was specified that breastfeeding should be exclusive for the first 4 - 6 months after birth, if possible, and that breastfeeding should continue with the introduction of complementary foods. A new recommendation is that supplementary feeding of cow's milk-based formula should be avoided in the first days of life if the mother wishes to breastfeed. Furthermore, it was determined that the evidence for a clear recommendation for hydrolyzed infant formula in non-breastfed infants at risk is currently no longer sufficient. It is therefore currently recommended to check whether an infant formula with proven efficacy in allergy prevention studies is available until the introduction of complementary feeding. Finally, based on the EAACI guideline, recommendations were made for the prevention of chicken egg allergy by introducing and regularly giving thoroughly heated (e.g., baked or hard-boiled) but not "raw" chicken egg (also no scrambled egg) with the complementary food. The recommendation to introduce peanut in complementary feeding was formulated cautiously for the German-speaking countries: In families who usually consume peanut, the regular administration of peanut-containing foods in age-appropriate form (e.g., peanut butter) with the complementary diet can be considered for the primary prevention of peanut allergy in infants with atopic dermatitis (AD). Before introduction, a clinically relevant peanut allergy must be ruled out, especially in infants with moderate to severe AD. There is still insufficient evidence for an allergy-preventive efficacy of prebiotics or probiotics, vitamin D, or other vitamins in the form of supplements so that recommendations against their supplementation were adopted for the first time in the current guideline. Biodiversity plays an important role in the development of immunological tolerance to environmental and food allergens: there is clear evidence that growing up on a farm is associated with a lower risk of developing asthma and allergic diseases. This is associated with early non-specific immune stimulation due to, among other things, the greater microbial biodiversity of house dust in this habitat. This aspect is also reflected in the recommendations on animal husbandry, on which a differentiated statement was made: In families without a recognizable increased allergy risk, pet keeping with cats or dogs should not generally be restricted. Families with an increased allergy risk or with children with already existing AD should not acquire a new cat - in contrast, however, dog ownership should not be discouraged. Interventions to reduce exposure to dust mite allergens in the home, such as the use of mite allergen-proof mattress covers ("encasings"), should be restricted to patients with already proven specific sensitization against house dust mite allergen. Children born by caesarean section have a slightly increased risk of asthma - this should be taken into account when advising on mode of delivery outside of emergency situations. Recent work also supports the recommendations on air pollutants: Active and passive exposure to tobacco smoke increase the risk of allergies, especially asthma, and should therefore be avoided. Exposure to nitrogen oxides, ozone, and small particles (PM 2.5) is associated with an increased risk, especially for asthma. Therefore, exposure to emissions of nitrogen oxides, ozone, and small particles (PM 2.5) should be kept low. The authors of this guideline are unanimously in favor of enacting appropriate regulations to minimize these air pollutants. There is no evidence that vaccinations increase the risk of allergies, but conversely there is evidence that vaccinations can reduce the risk of allergies. All children, including children at risk, should be vaccinated according to the current recommendations of the national public health institutes, also for reasons of allergy prevention. CONCLUSION: The consensus of recommendations in this guideline is based on an extensive evidence base. The update of the guideline enables evidence-based and up-to-date recommendations for the prevention of allergic diseases including asthma and atopic dermatitis.
RESUMEN
Two employees of the National Health Service (NHS) in England developed severe allergic reactions following administration of BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). The British SmPC for the BNT162b2 vaccine already includes reference to a contraindication for use in individuals who have had an allergic reaction to the vaccine or any of its components. As a precautionary measure, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued interim guidance to the NHS not to vaccinate in principle in "patients with severe allergies". Allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare, but vaccine components are known to cause allergic reactions. BNT162b2 is a vaccine based on an mRNA embedded in lipid nanoparticles and blended with other substances to enable its transport into the cells. In the pivotal phase III clinical trial, the BNT162b2 vaccine was generally well tolerated, but this large clinical trial, used to support vaccine approval by the MHRA and US Food and Drug Administration, excluded individuals with a "history of a severe adverse reaction related to the vaccine and/or a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to a component of the study medication". Vaccines are recognized as one of the most effective public health interventions. This repeated administration of a foreign protein (antigen) necessitates a careful allergological history before each application and diagnostic clarification and a risk-benefit assessment before each injection. Severe allergic reactions to vaccines are rare but can be life-threatening, and it is prudent to raise awareness of this hazard among vaccination teams and to take adequate precautions while more experience is gained with this new vaccine.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Although 5-grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy has a good safety profile in controlled clinical trials, additional safety information among pediatric patients in a real-world setting would be useful. OBJECTIVE: To further document the safety of 5-grass tablet among children aged 5 to 9 years with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). METHODS: This multicenter, observational study included allergy immunotherapy-naïve 5- to 9-year-old children with grass pollen-induced ARC prescribed with 5-grass tablet daily (3-day dose escalation to 300 index of reactivity [IR]). Patients were followed up daily for safety and tolerability over the first 30 treatment days. Adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Three hundred seven children (mean age, 7.1 years) were enrolled. Fifty-eight percent were confirmed as polysensitized, and 36% had mild-to-moderate asthma. Of 307 patients, 233 (76%) reported AEs, and 173/307 (56%) reported ADRs, most frequently mild application-site reactions (throat irritation, oral pruritus, oral paresthesia). Sixteen of 307 (5.2%) patients withdrew because of ADRs. In 143 of 173 (83%) patients, ADRs first occurred within 1 week of starting treatment. More than half of the ADRs lasted less than 2 days, and ADRs resolved spontaneously in 161 of 173 (93%) patients. Recurrences of ADRs were reported in 45 of 173 (26%) patients and were also mainly application-site reactions. No notable differences were found in ADRs related to whether patients had asthma at inclusion. Neither epinephrine use nor admission to intensive care unit was reported. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of 5-grass tablet in pediatric ARC patients aged 5 to 9 years was consistent with safety findings in older patients, most ADRs being at the application site and mild to moderate. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02295969; EUPAS registration number: 8104.