Molecular allergy diagnosis is sensitive and avoids misdiagnosis in patients sensitized to seasonal allergens.

BACKGROUND: The specificity of extract-based pollen allergy diagnosis is decreased due to cross-reactivity via cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs) or panallergens such as profilins or polcalcins. This study aimed to explore the prevalence of sensitization to seasonal extracts, CCDs, profilin and polcalcin and investigate the sensitivity and specificity of seasonal molecular allergy diagnosis (MAD) using commercially available test methods. METHODS: 2948 patients were screened for specific immunoglobulin E to ash, birch, mugwort, ragweed and timothy grass pollen extracts and grouped according to the number of positive tests (1-5). 100 patients from each group and a control group were randomly selected to calculate the prevalence of CCD and panallergen sensitization. With 742 patients, sensitivity and specificity of MAD (Alt a 1, Fra/Ole e 1, Bet v 1, Phl p 1, Art v 1, and Amb a 1) was determined. RESULTS: 1627 patients (55.2%) were positive to at least one, and 1002 patients (34.0%) were positive to multiple of the five pollen allergens investigated; 18.5% of the pollen-sensitized patients had sensitization to CCDs or panallergens. Specifically, sensitization to CCDs, profilins, and polcalcins was observed in 8.7%, 10.9%, and 2.9% of these patients, respectively. The sensitivity of MAD was high, with sensitivities between 96.2% and 100% using ImmunoCAP and 91.5% and 100% using ALEX2 . Specificity was 100% for both assays. CONCLUSIONS: Due to cross-reactivity, about one-fifth of pollen-sensitized patients is at risk of misdiagnosis. However, MAD is sensitive, specific and helps to avoid misdiagnosis and select primary allergen sources for immunotherapy.

ß-blockers and ACE inhibitors are not a risk factor for severe systemic sting reactions and adverse events during venom immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy whether taking ß-blockers or ACE inhibitors (ACEI) is a risk factor for more severe systemic insect sting reactions (SSR) and whether it increases the number or severity of adverse events (AE) during venom immunotherapy (VIT). METHODS: In this open, prospective, observational, multicenter trial, we recruited patients with a history of a SSR and indication for VIT. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate whether patients taking ß-blockers or ACEI show more systemic AE during VIT compared to patients without such treatment. RESULTS: In total, 1,425 patients were enrolled and VIT was performed in 1,342 patients. Of all patients included, 388 (27.2%) took antihypertensive (AHT) drugs (10.4% took ß-blockers, 11.9% ACEI, 5.0% ß-blockers and ACEI). Only 5.6% of patients under AHT treatment experienced systemic AE during VIT as compared with 7.4% of patients without these drugs (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.43-1.22, p = 0.25). The severity of the initial sting reaction was not affected by the intake of ß-blockers or ACEI (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.89-1.46, p = 0.29). In total, 210 (17.7%) patients were re-stung during VIT and 191 (91.0%) tolerated the sting without systemic symptoms. Of the 19 patients with VIT treatment failure, 4 took ß-blockers, none an ACEI. CONCLUSIONS: This trial provides robust evidence that taking ß-blockers or ACEI does neither increase the frequency of systemic AE during VIT nor aggravate SSR. Moreover, results suggest that these drugs do not impair effectiveness of VIT. (Funded by Medical University of Graz, Austria; Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT04269629).

Large local reactions and systemic reactions to insect stings: Similarities and differences.

BACKGROUND: Large local reactions (LLR) to Hymenoptera stings were considered as IgE-mediated late-phase inflammatory reactions. However, in older studies, most patients with LLR were skin test positive, but only around 50% had detectable sIgE determined by the RAST system. METHODS: Data of 620 patients were evaluated retrospectively: 310 patients who suffered from LLR and 310 patients with previous systemic sting reactions (SSR). We aimed to clarify if sIgE can generally be detected by the CAP system in patients with LLR; sIgE levels and clinical parameters were compared between patients with LLR and SSR. RESULTS: Positive sIgE levels were detected in 80.7% of patients with LLR, and in 95.2% of patients with SSR (p<0.001). Of the 310 patients with LLR, 80.6% had a LLR with a size of 10-20cm, whereas 19.4% had swellings >20cm, with a mean duration of seven days. In only 2.9% of patients, LLRs occurred after stings on the trunk, while 14.8% of SSR resulted from stings on this site (p<0.001). Similarly, LLR were also less frequent on the capillitium compared to SSR (8.1% versus 26.2%; p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: LLR usually persisted over seven days and about one fifth of patients had swellings greater than 20cm. Contrary to SSR, LLR were less frequently observed on the capillitium and on the trunk. In most patients with LLR, sIgE could be detected. However, total IgE and sIgE levels to bee or vespid venom did not differ between patients with LLR and SSR.