High burden of clonal mast cell disorders and hereditary α-tryptasemia in patients who need Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: In patients who require venom immunotherapy (VIT), there is a need to identify underlying mast cell (MC) disorders since these may affect the risk and severity of future sting reactions and the long-term effectiveness of VIT. METHODS: 1319 individuals with Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) who needed VIT from referral centers in Slovenia, Austria, Croatia, and Poland underwent examination for KIT p.D816V in peripheral blood leukocytes (PBL) using a highly sensitive PCR test and tryptase genotyping by digital droplet PCR. We also included 183 control individuals with large local reactions (LLRs) to Hymenoptera stings and with asymptomatic sensitization to Hymenoptera venoms. RESULTS: 285 of 1319 individuals recommended for VIT (21.6%) were positive for KIT p.D816V in PBL, preferably those who present with severe reaction (33.9% [n = 207 of 610] with Ring-Messmer grade 3-4 vs. 11% [n = 78 of 709] with Grade 1-2; p < .0001), whereas only 1.3% (n = 2 of 152) of controls with LLR and none with asymptomatic sensitization (n = 31) had KIT p.D816V. KIT p.D816V allelic burden was higher in those with severe reaction (median 0.018% [n = 207] in Grade 3-4 vs. 0.001% [n = 78] in Grade 1-2; p < .0001), and the majority had normal baseline serum tryptase levels (69% [n = 196 of 285]). All KIT p.D816V-positive individuals (n = 41) who underwent bone marrow (BM) biopsy were found to have underlying clonal diseases, principally BM mastocytosis. HαT was also associated with severe HVA and symptoms (p < .01), and remarkably, 31.0% (n = 31 of 100) were found to have concomitant KIT p.D816V. Concomitant HαT and KIT p.D816V showed an additive effect, and having both was associated with the highest risk for severe HVA, even higher than having either HαT or KIT p.D816V alone (OR = 3.8; p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: By employing prospective universal tryptase genotyping and examination for KIT p.D816V in PBL in large HVA populations, we have demonstrated a high burden of clonal MC disorders and HαT in patients who require VIT.

Allergy to stings and bites from rare or locally important arthropods: Worldwide distribution, available diagnostics and treatment.

Insect venom allergy is the most frequent cause of anaphylaxis in Europe and possibly worldwide. The majority of systemic allergic reactions after insect stings are caused by Hymenoptera, and among these, vespid genera induce most of the systemic sting reactions (SSR). Honey bees are the second leading cause of SSR. Depending on the global region, other Hymenoptera such as different ant genera are responsible for SSR. Widely distributed hornets and bumblebees or local vespid or bee genera rarely induce SSR. Hematophagous insects such as mosquitoes and horse flies usually cause (large) local reactions while SSR occasionally occur. This position paper aimed to identify either rare or locally important insects causing SSR as well as rarely occurring SSR after stings or bites of widely distributed insects. We summarized relevant venom or saliva allergens and intended to identify possible cross-reactivities between the insect allergens. Moreover, we aimed to locate diagnostic tests for research and routine diagnosis, which are sometimes only regionally available. Finally, we gathered information on available immunotherapies. Major allergens of most insects were identified, and cross-reactivity between insects was frequently observed. While some diagnostics and immunotherapies are locally available, standardized skin tests and immunotherapies are generally lacking in rare insect allergy.

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.

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.

Allergic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic-Clinical practical considerations: An European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology survey.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected health care systems unexpectedly. However, data focusing on practical considerations experienced by health care professionals (HCPs) providing care to allergic patients is scarce. METHODS: Under the framework of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), a panel of experts in the field of immunotherapy developed a 42-question online survey, to evaluate real-life consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in allergy practice. RESULTS: The respondents in the survey were 618. About 80% of HCPs indicated being significantly affected in their allergy practice. A face-to-face visit reduction was reported by 93% of HCPs and about a quarter completely interrupted diagnostic challenges. Patients with severe uncontrolled asthma (59%) and anaphylaxis (47%) were prioritized for in-person care. About 81% maintained an unaltered prescription of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in asthmatics. About 90% did not modify intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) in patients with allergic rhinitis. Nearly half of respondents kept biological prescriptions unmodified for asthma. About 50% of respondents kept their allergen immunotherapy (AIT) prescription patterns unchanged for respiratory allergies; 60% for insect venom allergies. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergies was initiated by 27%. About 20% kept carrying out up-dosing without modifications and 14% changed to more prolonged intervals. Telemedicine practice was increased. CONCLUSIONS: HCPs providing care to allergic patients were affected during the pandemic in diagnostic, management, and therapeutic approaches, including AIT for respiratory, insect-venom, and food allergies. Most HCPs maintained controller treatments for both asthma, and allergic rhinitis consistent with international recommendations, as well as biological agents in asthma. Remote tools are valuable in delivering allergy care.

Isotype-specific binding patterns of serum antibodies to multiple conformational epitopes of Bet v 1.

BACKGROUND: Birch pollen is an important elicitor of respiratory allergy. The major allergen, Bet v 1, binds IgE exclusively via conformational epitopes. OBJECTIVE: We identified Bet v 1-specific epitope repertoires of IgE and IgG from birch pollen-allergic and nonallergic subjects. METHODS: Chimeric proteins were created by grafting individual epitope-sized, contiguous surface patches of Bet v 1 onto a nonallergenic structural homolog and expressed in Escherichia coli. Binding of IgE, IgG1, and IgG4 from sera of 30 birch pollen-allergic and 11 nonallergic subjects to Bet v 1, 13 chimeric proteins, and 4 bacterial Bet v 1 homologs were measured by ELISA. The proportion of epitope-specific in-total Bet v 1-specific IgE and the cross-reactivity of Bet v 1-specific IgE with bacterial homologs were determined by competitive ELISA. RESULTS: Thirteen soluble, correctly folded chimeric proteins were produced. IgE from 27 of 30 birch pollen-allergic patients bound to 1 to 12 chimeric proteins (median, 4.0), with patient-specific patterns evident. Three chimeras binding IgE from the majority of sera were identified, the grafted patches of which overlapped with previously published epitopes. Patterns of IgG1 and IgG4 binding to the chimeric proteins did not correspond to the binding patterns of IgE. Sera of 19 of 30 birch pollen-allergic patients contained low amounts of IgE to bacterial homologs. Bacterial proteins were able to partially inhibit IgE binding to Bet v 1. CONCLUSION: Epitopes recognized by Bet v 1-specific antibodies from birch pollen-allergic patients are specific to each patient and differ between IgE, IgG1, and IgG4.

Unusual Reactions to Hymenoptera Stings: Current Knowledge and Unmet Needs in the Pediatric Population.

Hymenoptera stings are generally well-tolerated and usually cause limited local reactions, characterized by self-resolving erythema and edema associated with pain. However, Hymenoptera stings can induce immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. In addition to these manifestations, unusual reactions to Hymenoptera stings have been reported. The latter are defined as unusual because of their atypical characteristics. They may differ from classical hypersensitivity reactions due to the stings' particular localization and the unusual involvement of one or more specific organs. Although unusual reactions to Hymenoptera stings are infrequent, it is essential for clinicians to know the possible related clinical manifestations. Here, we review the available literature and propose a diagnostic and management algorithm. At present, there are no defined guidelines for most of the unusual reactions to Hymenoptera stings, which should be managed in a tailored way according to the specifical clinical manifestations presented by the patients. Further studies are needed to better define these conditions and the underlying pathogenetic mechanisms to improve the diagnostic and therapeutic approach.

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).

Placebo effects in allergen immunotherapy-An EAACI Task Force Position Paper.

The placebo (Latin "I will please") effect commonly occurs in clinical trials. The psychological and physiological factors associated with patients' expectations about a treatment's positive and negative effects have yet to be well characterized, although a functional prefrontal cortex and intense bidirectional communication between the central nervous system and the immune system appear to be prerequisites for a placebo effect. The use of placebo raises certain ethical issues, especially if patients in a placebo group are denied an effective treatment for a long period of time. The placebo effect appears to be relatively large (up to 77%, relative to pretreatment scores) in controlled clinical trials of allergen immunotherapy (AIT), such as the pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) randomized clinical trials currently required by regulatory authorities worldwide. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) therefore initiated a Task Force, in order to better understand the placebo effect in AIT and its specific role in comorbidities, blinding issues, adherence, measurement time points, variability and the natural course of the disease. In this Position Paper, the EAACI Task Force highlights several important topics regarding the placebo effect in AIT such as a) regulatory aspects, b) neuroimmunological and psychological mechanisms, c) placebo effect sizes in AIT trials, d) methodological limitations in AIT trial design and e) potential solutions in future AIT trial design. In conclusion, this Position Paper aims to examine the methodological problem of placebo in AIT from different aspects and also to highlight unmet needs and possible solutions for future trials.

Healthcare provision for insect venom allergy patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The population prevalence of insect venom allergy ranges between 3-5%, and it can lead to potentially life-threatening allergic reactions. Patients who have experienced a systemic allergic reaction following an insect sting should be referred to an allergy specialist for diagnosis and treatment. Due to the widespread reduction in outpatient and inpatient care capacities in recent months as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the various allergy specialized centers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have taken different measures to ensure that patients with insect venom allergy will continue to receive optimal allergy care. A recent data analysis from the various centers revealed that there has been a major reduction in newly initiated insect venom immunotherapy (a 48.5% decline from March-June 2019 compared to March-June 2020: data from various centers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland). The present article proposes defined organizational measures (e.g., telephone and video appointments, rearranging waiting areas and implementing hygiene measures and social distancing rules at stable patient numbers) and medical measures (collaboration with practice-based physicians with regard to primary diagnostics, rapid COVID-19 testing, continuing already-initiated insect venom immunotherapy in the outpatient setting by making use of the maximal permitted injection intervals, prompt initiation of insect venom immunotherapy during the summer season, and, where necessary, using outpatient regimens particularly out of season) for the care of insect venom allergy patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

EAACI Allergen Immunotherapy User's Guide.

Allergen immunotherapy is a cornerstone in the treatment of allergic children. The clinical efficiency relies on a well-defined immunologic mechanism promoting regulatory T cells and downplaying the immune response induced by allergens. Clinical indications have been well documented for respiratory allergy in the presence of rhinitis and/or allergic asthma, to pollens and dust mites. Patients who have had an anaphylactic reaction to hymenoptera venom are also good candidates for allergen immunotherapy. Administration of allergen is currently mostly either by subcutaneous injections or by sublingual administration. Both methods have been extensively studied and have pros and cons. Specifically in children, the choice of the method of administration according to the patient's profile is important. Although allergen immunotherapy is widely used, there is a need for improvement. More particularly, biomarkers for prediction of the success of the treatments are needed. The strength and efficiency of the immune response may also be boosted by the use of better adjuvants. Finally, novel formulations might be more efficient and might improve the patient's adherence to the treatment. This user's guide reviews current knowledge and aims to provide clinical guidance to healthcare professionals taking care of children undergoing allergen immunotherapy.

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.

Apolipoprotein A-IV acts as an endogenous anti-inflammatory protein and is reduced in treatment-naïve allergic patients and allergen-challenged mice.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies pointed to a crucial role for apolipoproteins in the pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases. However, the role of apolipoprotein-IV (ApoA-IV) in allergic inflammation has not been addressed thoroughly thus far. OBJECTIVE: Here, we explored the anti-inflammatory effects and underlying signaling pathways of ApoA-IV on eosinophil effector function in vitro and in vivo. METHODS: Migratory responsiveness, Ca2+ -flux and apoptosis of human peripheral blood eosinophils were assessed in vitro. Allergen-driven airway inflammation was assessed in a mouse model of acute house dust mite-induced asthma. ApoA-IV serum levels were determined by ELISA. RESULTS: Recombinant ApoA-IV potently inhibited eosinophil responsiveness in vitro as measured by Ca2+ -flux, shape change, integrin (CD11b) expression, and chemotaxis. The underlying molecular mechanism involved the activation of Rev-ErbA-α and induced a PI3K/PDK1/PKA-dependent signaling cascade. Systemic application of ApoA-IV prevented airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) and airway eosinophilia in mice following allergen challenge. ApoA-IV levels were decreased in serum from allergic patients compared to healthy controls. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that ApoA-IV is an endogenous anti-inflammatory protein that potently suppresses effector cell functions in eosinophils. Thus, exogenously applied ApoA-IV may represent a novel pharmacological approach for the treatment of allergic inflammation and other eosinophil-driven disorders.