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

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

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

Not available.

Identification and Purification of Novel Low-Molecular-Weight Lupine Allergens as Components for Personalized Diagnostics.

Lupine flour is a valuable food due to its favorable nutritional properties. In spite of its allergenic potential, its use is increasing. Three lupine species, Lupinus angustifolius, L. luteus, and L. albus are relevant for human nutrition. The aim of this study is to clarify whether the species differ with regard to their allergen composition and whether anaphylaxis marker allergens could be identified in lupine. Patients with the following characteristics were included: lupine allergy, suspected lupine allergy, lupine sensitization only, and peanut allergy. Lupine sensitization was detected via CAP-FEIA (ImmunoCAP) and skin prick test. Protein, DNA and expressed sequence tag (EST) databases were queried for lupine proteins homologous to already known legume allergens. Different extraction methods applied on seeds from all species were examined by SDS-PAGE and screened by immunoblotting for IgE-binding proteins. The extracts underwent different and successive chromatography methods. Low-molecular-weight components were purified and investigated for IgE-reactivity. Proteomics revealed a molecular diversity of the three species, which was confirmed when investigated for IgE-reactivity. Three new allergens, L. albus profilin, L. angustifolius and L. luteus lipid transfer protein (LTP), were identified. LTP as a potential marker allergen for severity is a valuable additional candidate for molecular allergy diagnostic tests.

Allergen Recognition Patterns in Walnut Allergy Are Age Dependent and Correlate with the Severity of Allergic Reactions.

BACKGROUND: Walnut is an important elicitor of food allergy in children and adults with a high rate of severe reactions. Multicenter studies using a common clinical protocol and a comprehensive allergen are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To investigate potential correlations between molecular sensitization patterns and clinical characteristics of walnut-allergic patients. METHODS: A total of 91 walnut-allergic subjects and 24 tolerant controls from Switzerland, Germany, and Spain were included. Walnut allergy was established by food challenge in all but anaphylactic subjects. Specific IgE (sIgE) to walnut extract, rJug r 1 (2S albumin), rJug r 3 (nonspecific lipid transfer protein 1), nJug r 4 (11S globulin), rJug r 5 (PR-10 protein), 2 vicilin fractions, profiling, and cross-reactive carbohydrate determinant was determined by ImmunoCAP. A threshold of 0.10 kUA/L was used for positivity. RESULTS: Sensitivity of sIgE to walnut extract was 87% and increased to 96% for the sum of all walnut components. sIgE to walnut extract and all walnut components, except rJug r 5, was significantly higher in patients younger than 14 years at inclusion. Stratification by age at onset of walnut allergy led to similar results. All patients younger than 14 years had severe reactions, whereas 38% of patients 14 years or older were mild reactors. Severe reactors (n = 70) had higher sIgE levels than did mild reactors (n = 21) to walnut extract (P < .0001), rJug r 1 (P < .0001), nJug r 4 (P = .0003), and both vicilin fractions (P < .0001), but not to Jug r 3 and Jug r 5. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitization to walnut storage proteins is acquired in childhood and correlates with severe reactions. sIgE levels to storage proteins Jug r 1 and Jug r 4 and vicilin fractions, but not to nonspecific lipid transfer protein and PR-10 proteins, correlate with systemic reactions to walnut.

Guideline for the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions: S2K-Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) and the German Dermatological Society (DDG) in collaboration with the Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the German Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the Austrian Society for Allergology and Immunology (ÖGAI), the German Academy of Allergology and Environmental Medicine (DAAU), the German Center for Documentation of Severe Skin Reactions and the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Products (BfArM).

Drug hypersensitivity reactions are unpredictable adverse drug reactions. They manifest either within 1-6 h following drug intake (immediate reactions) with mild to life-threatening symptoms of anaphylaxis, or several hours to days later (delayed reactions), primarily as exanthematous eruptions. It is not always possible to detect involvement of the immune system (allergy). Waiving diagnostic tests can result in severe reactions on renewed exposure on the one hand, and to unjustified treatment restrictions on the other. With this guideline, experts from various specialist societies and institutions have formulated recommendations and an algorithm for the diagnosis of allergies. The key principles of diagnosing allergic/hypersensitivity drug reactions are presented. Where possible, the objective is to perform allergy diagnostics within 4 weeks-6 months following the reaction. A clinical classification of symptoms based on the morphology and time course of the reaction is required in order to plan a diagnostic work-up. In the case of typical symptoms of a drug hypersensitivity reaction and unequivocal findings from validated skin and/or laboratory tests, a reaction can be attributed to a trigger with sufficient confidence. However, skin and laboratory tests are often negative or insufficiently reliable. In such cases, controlled provocation testing is required to clarify drug reactions. This method is reliable and safe when attention is paid to indications and contraindications and performed under appropriate medical supervision. The results of the overall assessment are discussed with the patient and documented in an "allergy passport" in order to ensure targeted avoidance in the future and allow the use of alternative drugs where possible.