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.

Guideline on allergen immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases: S2K Guideline of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), Society of Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), Austrian Society of Allergology and Immunology (ÖGAI), Swiss Society for Allergology and Immunology (SSAI), German Dermatological Society (DDG), German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), Society of Pediatric Pulmonology (GPP), German Respiratory Society (DGP), German Professional Association of Otolaryngologists (BVHNO), German Association of Paediatric and Adolescent Care Specialists (BVKJ), Federal Association of Pneumologists, Sleep and Respiratory Physicians (BdP), Professional Association of German Dermatologists (BVDD).

Not available.

Allergen immunotherapy in the current COVID-19 pandemic: A position paper of AeDA, ARIA, EAACI, DGAKI and GPA: Position paper of the German ARIA GroupA in cooperation with the Austrian ARIA GroupB, the Swiss ARIA GroupC, German Society for Applied Allergology (AEDA)D, German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI)E, Society for Pediatric Allergology (GPA)F in cooperation with AG Clinical Immunology, Allergology and Environmental Medicine of the DGHNO-KHCG and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)H.

No abstract available.

ImmunoCAP cellulose displays cross-reactive carbohydrate determinant (CCD) epitopes and can cause false-positive test results in patients with high anti-CCD IgE antibody levels.

BACKGROUND: Cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs) in plants and insect venoms are a common cause of irrelevant positive test results during in vitro allergy diagnosis. We observed that some CCD-positive sera show nonspecific IgE binding even with CCD-free recombinant allergens when using the Phadia ImmunoCAP platform. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether cellulose used as an allergen carrier in ImmunoCAP harbors residual N-glycans, causing nonspecific background binding in CCD-positive sera. METHODS: IgE binding to 6 samples of blank ImmunoCAPs coupled to either streptavidin (SA-CAP-1 or 2) or nonallergenic maltose-binding protein (MBP; MBP-CAP-1 to 4) and binding to a panel of 4 recombinant allergens were compared in CCD-positive sera before and after inhibition with a CCD inhibitor (MUXF3-human serum albumin). RESULTS: Of 52 CCD-positive sera (bromelain, 1.01-59.6 kilounits of antigen per liter [kUA/L]) tested on SA-CAP-1, 35 (67%) showed IgE binding of greater than 0.35 kUA/L (0.41-4.22 kUA/L). Among those with anti-CCD IgE levels of greater than 7.0 kUA/L, 90% (26/29) were positive. IgE binding to SA-CAP-1 correlated with IgE binding to bromelain (r = 0.68) and was completely abolished by serum preincubation with the CCD inhibitor (n = 15). Binding scores with SA-CAP-2 and MBP-CAP-1 to MBP-CAP-4 were generally lower but strongly correlated with those of SA-CAP-1 and bromelain. IgE reactivity of 10 CCD-positive sera (14.0-52.5 kUA/L) with the recombinant allergens rPhl p 12, rFel d 1, rAra h 2, and rPru p 3 was positive to at least 1 allergen in 8 of 10 (0.36-1.63 kUA/L) and borderline in 2 of 10 (0.21-0.25 kUA/L). Binding correlated with antibody binding to bromelain (r = 0.61) and to all blank ImmunoCAPs (r > 0.90) and could be completely blocked by the CCD inhibitor. Overall, mean background binding to cellulose CCDs corresponded to 2% to 3% of the reactivity seen with bromelain. CONCLUSIONS: Cellulose used as a solid-phase allergen carrier can contain varying amounts of CCDs sufficient to cause false-positive test results up to 2 kUA/L with nonglycosylated recombinant allergens in patients with high levels of anti-CCD IgE antibodies.

Frequent occurrence of T cell-mediated late reactions revealed by atopy patch testing with hypoallergenic rBet v 1 fragments.

BACKGROUND: Late allergic reactions are common in the course of allergen-specific immunotherapy and even occur with allergy vaccines with reduced IgE reactivity. OBJECTIVE: We sought to study atopy patch test (APT) reactions and T-cell responses to the recombinant birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 and recombinant hypoallergenic T-cell epitope-containing Bet v 1 fragments in patients with birch pollen allergy with and without atopic dermatitis (AD). METHODS: A clinical study was conducted in 15 patients with birch pollen allergy with AD (group 1), 5 patients with birch pollen allergy without AD (group 2), 5 allergic patients without birch pollen allergy (group 3), and 5 nonallergic subjects (group 4) by performing skin prick tests and APTs with rBet v 1 and hypoallergenic rBet v 1 fragments. T-cell, cutaneous lymphocyte antigen (CLA)(+) and CCR4(+) T-cell and cytokine responses were studied by thymidine uptake, carboxyfluorescein diacetate succinimidyl ester staining, and Luminex technology, respectively. RESULTS: rBet v 1 and hypoallergenic rBet v 1 fragments induced APT reactions in not only most of the patients with birch pollen allergy with AD (11/15) but also in most of those without AD (4/5). Patients with birch pollen allergy with AD had higher Bet v 1-specific proliferation of CLA(+) and CCR4(+) T cells compared with patients with birch pollen allergy without AD. There were no differences in Bet v 1-specific CLA(+) and CCR4(+) proliferation and cytokine secretion in patients with and without APT reactions. CONCLUSION: Hypoallergenic rBet v 1 fragments induce T cell-dependent late reactions not only in patients with birch pollen allergy with AD but also in those without AD, which can be determined based on APT results but not based on in vitro parameters.

Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases: S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto- Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Pneumology (GPP), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the German Association of ENT Surgeons (BV-HNO), the Professional Federation of Paediatricians and Youth Doctors (BVKJ), the Federal Association of Pulmonologists (BDP) and the German Dermatologists Association (BVDD).

The present guideline (S2k) on allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) was established by the German, Austrian and Swiss professional associations for allergy in consensus with the scientific specialist societies and professional associations in the fields of otolaryngology, dermatology and venereology, pediatric and adolescent medicine, pneumology as well as a German patient organization (German Allergy and Asthma Association; Deutscher Allergie- und Asthmabund, DAAB) according to the criteria of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, AWMF). AIT is a therapy with disease-modifying effects. By administering allergen extracts, specific blocking antibodies, toler-ance-inducing cells and mediators are activated. These prevent further exacerbation of the allergen-triggered immune response, block the specific immune response and attenuate the inflammatory response in tissue. Products for SCIT or SLIT cannot be compared at present due to their heterogeneous composition, nor can allergen concentrations given by different manufacturers be compared meaningfully due to the varying methods used to measure their active ingredients. Non-modified allergens are used for SCIT in the form of aqueous or physically adsorbed (depot) extracts, as well as chemically modified allergens (allergoids) as depot extracts. Allergen extracts for SLIT are used in the form of aqueous solutions or tablets. The clinical efficacy of AIT is measured using various scores as primary and secondary study endpoints. The EMA stipulates combined symptom and medication scores as primary endpoint. A harmonization of clinical endpoints, e. g., by using the combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS) recommended by the EAACI, is desirable in the future in order to permit the comparison of results from different studies. The current CONSORT recommendations from the ARIA/GA2LEN group specify standards for the evaluation, presentation and publication of study results. According to the Therapy allergen ordinance (TAV), preparations containing common allergen sources (pollen from grasses, birch, alder, hazel, house dust mites, as well as bee and wasp venom) need a marketing authorization in Germany. During the marketing authorization process, these preparations are examined regarding quality, safety and efficacy. In the opinion of the authors, authorized allergen preparations with documented efficacy and safety, or preparations tradeable under the TAV for which efficacy and safety have already been documented in clinical trials meeting WAO or EMA standards, should be preferentially used. Individual formulations (NPP) enable the prescription of rare allergen sources (e.g., pollen from ash, mugwort or ambrosia, mold Alternaria, animal allergens) for specific immunotherapy. Mixing these allergens with TAV allergens is not permitted. Allergic rhinitis and its associated co-morbidities (e. g., bronchial asthma) generate substantial direct and indirect costs. Treatment options, in particular AIT, are therefore evaluated using cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. From a long-term perspective, AIT is considered to be significantly more cost effective in allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma than pharmacotherapy, but is heavily dependent on patient compliance. Meta-analyses provide unequivocal evidence of the efficacy of SCIT and SLIT for certain allergen sources and age groups. Data from controlled studies differ in terms of scope, quality and dosing regimens and require product-specific evaluation. Therefore, evaluating individual preparations according to clearly defined criteria is recommended. A broad transfer of the efficacy of certain preparations to all preparations administered in the same way is not endorsed. The website of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (www.dgaki.de/leitlinien/s2k-leitlinie-sit; DGAKI: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie) provides tables with specific information on available products for AIT in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The tables contain the number of clinical studies per product in adults and children, the year of market authorization, underlying scoring systems, number of randomized and analyzed subjects and the method of evaluation (ITT, FAS, PP), separately given for grass pollen, birch pollen and house dust mite allergens, and the status of approval for the conduct of clinical studies with these products. Strong evidence of the efficacy of SCIT in pollen allergy-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in adulthood is well-documented in numerous trials and, in childhood and adolescence, in a few trials. Efficacy in house dust mite allergy is documented by a number of controlled trials in adults and few controlled trials in children. Only a few controlled trials, independent of age, are available for mold allergy (in particular Alternaria). With regard to animal dander allergies (primarily to cat allergens), only small studies, some with methodological deficiencies are available. Only a moderate and inconsistent therapeutic effect in atopic dermatitis has been observed in the quite heterogeneous studies conducted to date. SCIT has been well investigated for individual preparations in controlled bronchial asthma as defined by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2007 and intermittent and mild persistent asthma (GINA 2005) and it is recommended as a treatment option, in addition to allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy, provided there is a clear causal link between respiratory symptoms and the relevant allergen. The efficacy of SLIT in grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is extensively documented in adults and children, whilst its efficacy in tree pollen allergy has only been shown in adults. New controlled trials (some with high patient numbers) on house dust mite allergy provide evidence of efficacy of SLIT in adults. Compared with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, there are only few studies on the efficacy of SLIT in allergic asthma. In this context, newer studies show an efficacy for SLIT on asthma symptoms in the subgroup of grass pollen allergic children, adolescents and adults with asthma and efficacy in primary house dust mite allergy-induced asthma in adolescents aged from 14 years and in adults. Aspects of secondary prevention, in particular the reduction of new sensitizations and reduced asthma risk, are important rationales for choosing to initiate treatment early in childhood and adolescence. In this context, those products for which the appropriate effects have been demonstrated should be considered. SCIT or SLIT with pollen or mite allergens can be performed in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis using allergen extracts that have been proven to be effective in at least one double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPC) study. At present, clinical trials are underway for the indication in asthma due to house dust mite allergy, some of the results of which have already been published, whilst others are still awaited (see the DGAKI table "Approved/potentially completed studies" via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit (according to www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu)). When establishing the indication for AIT, factors that favour clinical efficacy should be taken into consideration. Differences between SCIT and SLIT are to be considered primarily in terms of contraindications. In individual cases, AIT may be justifiably indicated despite the presence of contraindications. SCIT injections and the initiation of SLIT are performed by a physician experienced in this type of treatment and who is able to administer emergency treatment in the case of an allergic reaction. Patients must be fully informed about the procedure and risks of possible adverse events, and the details of this process must be documented (see "Treatment information sheet"; available as a handout via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit). Treatment should be performed according to the manufacturer's product information leaflet. In cases where AIT is to be performed or continued by a different physician to the one who established the indication, close cooperation is required in order to ensure that treatment is implemented consistently and at low risk. In general, it is recommended that SCIT and SLIT should only be performed using preparations for which adequate proof of efficacy is available from clinical trials. Treatment adherence among AIT patients is lower than assumed by physicians, irrespective of the form of administration. Clearly, adherence is of vital importance for treatment success. Improving AIT adherence is one of the most important future goals, in order to ensure efficacy of the therapy. Severe, potentially life-threatening systemic reactions during SCIT are possible, but - providing all safety measures are adhered to - these events are very rare. Most adverse events are mild to moderate and can be treated well. Dose-dependent adverse local reactions occur frequently in the mouth and throat in SLIT. Systemic reactions have been described in SLIT, but are seen far less often than with SCIT. In terms of anaphylaxis and other severe systemic reactions, SLIT has a better safety profile than SCIT. The risk and effects of adverse systemic reactions in the setting of AIT can be effectively reduced by training of personnel, adhering to safety standards and prompt use of emergency measures, including early administration of i. m. epinephrine. Details on the acute management of anaphylactic reactions can be found in the current S2 guideline on anaphylaxis issued by the AWMF (S2-AWMF-LL Registry Number 061-025). AIT is undergoing some innovative developments in many areas (e. g., allergen characterization, new administration routes, adjuvants, faster and safer dose escalation protocols), some of which are already beinginvestigated in clinical trials. Cite this as Pfaar O, Bachert C, Bufe A, Buhl R, Ebner C, Eng P, Friedrichs F, Fuchs T, Hamelmann E, Hartwig-Bade D, Hering T, Huttegger I, Jung K, Klimek L, Kopp MV, Merk H, Rabe U, Saloga J, Schmid-Grendelmeier P, Schuster A, Schwerk N, Sitter H, Umpfenbach U, Wedi B, Wöhrl S, Worm M, Kleine-Tebbe J. Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases - S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Pneumology (GPP), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the German Association of ENT Surgeons (BV-HNO), the Professional Federation of Paediatricians and Youth Doctors (BVKJ), the Federal Association of Pulmonologists (BDP) and the German Dermatologists Association (BVDD). Allergo J Int 2014;23:282-319.

Malignancy and specific allergen immunotherapy: the results of a case series.

BACKGROUND: Specific immunotherapy with allergen is the only causative treatment for IgE-mediated allergies such as stinging insect allergy or hay fever and works by the induction of blocking antibodies and regulatory T lymphocytes. OBJECTIVE: Does a hypothetical obstruction of tumor surveillance presupposing the induction of regulatory T cells really justify detaining immunotherapy to oncologic patients as suggested by recent guidelines? METHODS: We report 6 patients (4 female, 2 male) suffering or having suffered from stage 1 cancer (4 melanomas, 1 lung cancer, 1 breast cancer) and concomitant IgE-mediated allergy. Four of them had a history of severe anaphylactic reactions to the insect yellow jacket, the 5th suffered from allergic rhinoconjunctivitis to dust mites, and the 6th to grass/rye pollen. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2010, subcutaneous immunotherapy was safely performed in 5 patients without signs of tumor reactivation. The cancer in 2 of them was diagnosed immediately after specific immunotherapy had been initiated and in another 2 the active cancer phase had already finished years before; the 5th suffered from a relapse around the time of the initiation of immunotherapy. At the time of the writing of the manuscript, 4 of them had already concluded 3 years of treatment, another one almost 1 year. The melanoma in the 6th patient was diagnosed 5 months after reaching the maintenance dose. Immunotherapy with grass/rye pollen was aborted in this patient based on current guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Specific immunotherapy was safely administered in patients suffering concomitantly from IgE-mediated allergy and lower stage cancer.