Drug hypersensitivity reactions: review of the state of the science for prediction and diagnosis.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are a type of adverse drug reaction that can occur with different classes of drugs and affect multiple organ systems and patient populations. DHRs can be classified as allergic or non-allergic based on the cellular mechanisms involved. Whereas non-allergic reactions rely mainly on the innate immune system, allergic reactions involve the generation of an adaptive immune response. Consequently, drug allergies are DHRs for which an immunological mechanism, with antibody and/or T cell, is demonstrated. Despite decades of research, methods to predict the potential for a new chemical entity to cause DHRs or to correctly attribute DHRs to a specific mechanism and a specific molecule are not well-established. This review will focus on allergic reactions induced by systemically administered low molecular weight (LMW) drugs with an emphasis on drug- and patient-specific factors that could influence the development of DHRs. Strategies for predicting and diagnosing DHRs, including potential tools based on the current state of the science, will also be discussed.

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.

S2k guideline diagnosis, prevention, and therapy of hand eczema.

The consensus-based guideline "Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of hand eczema (HE)" provides concrete instructions and recommendations for diagnosis, prevention, and therapy of HE based on an evidence- and consensus-based approach. The guideline was created based on the German guideline "Management von Handekzemen" from 2009 and the current guideline of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) "Guidelines for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of hand eczema" from 2022. The general goal of the guideline is to provide dermatologists and allergologists in practice and clinics with an accepted, evidence-based decision-making tool for selecting and conducting suitable and sufficient therapy for patients with hand eczema. The guideline is based on two Cochrane reviews of therapeutic and preventive interventions for HE. The remaining chapters were mainly developed and consented based on non-systematic literature research by the expert group. The expert group consisted of members of allergological and occupational dermatological professional associations and working groups, a patient representative, and methodologists. The proposals for recommendations and key statements were consented by using a nominal group process during a consensus conference on September 15, 2022. The structured consensus-building process was professionally moderated. This guideline is valid until February 22, 2028.

S3 Guideline Urticaria. Part 2: Treatment of urticaria - German-language adaptation of the international S3 guideline.

This publication is the second part of the German-language S3 guideline on urticaria. It covers the management of urticaria and should be used together with Part 1 of the guideline on classification and diagnosis. This publication was prepared according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system conditions in German-speaking countries. Chronic urticaria has a high impact on the quality of life and daily activities of patients. Therefore, if causal factors cannot be eliminated, effective symptomatic treatment is necessary. The recommended first-line treatment is to administer new generation, non-sedating H1 antihistamines. If the standard dose is not sufficiently effective, the dose should be increased up to fourfold. For patients who do not respond to this treatment, the second-line treatment in addition to antihistamines in the treatment algorithm is omalizumab and, if this treatment fails, ciclosporin. Other low-evidence therapeutic agents should only be used if all treatments in the treatment algorithm agreed upon by the guideline group fail. Both the benefit-risk profile and cost should be considered. Corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term treatment due to their inevitable severe side effects.

S3 Guideline Urticaria. Part 1: Classification and diagnosis of urticaria - German-language adaptation of the international S3 Guideline.

The lifetime prevalence of urticaria, a severe allergic disease, is almost 20%. It not only limits the quality of life of those affected, but also their general performance at work and in their daily activities. This publication is the first section of the Urticaria Guideline. It covers the classification and diagnosis of urticaria, taking into account the major advances in research into its causes, triggering factors and pathomechanisms. It also addresses strategies for the efficient diagnosis of the different subtypes of urticaria. This is crucial for individual, patient-oriented treatment, which is covered in the second part of the guideline, published separately. This German-language guideline was developed according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system characteristics in the German-speaking countries. This first part of the guideline describes the classification of urticaria, distinguishing spontaneously occurring wheals (hives) and angioedema from forms of urticaria with inducible symptoms. Urticaria is defined as sudden onset of wheals, angioedema, or both, but is to be distinguished from conditions in which wheals occur as a short-term symptom, such as anaphylaxis. The diagnosis is based on (a limited number of) laboratory tests, but especially on medical history. In addition, validated instruments are available to measure the severity, activity and course of the disease.

German S1 guideline: Contact dermatitis.

Contact dermatitis is an inflammation of the epidermis and dermis at the site of exposure triggered by external agents. The two main forms are irritant and allergic contact dermatitis, which cause significant health and socioeconomic costs in addition to a marked reduction in quality of life. The anamnesis and the clinical picture are decisive for the necessary diagnostic measures. The most accurate possible diagnostic classification of contact dermatitis by means of allergological testing is important for disease management, since not only classical eczema therapy but also avoidance of the exogenous triggering factors are of great importance here. The choice of therapy should be based on the acuity, clinical severity, morphology of the lesions and localization of the contact dermatitis. A combination of basic therapy, topical, physical, and systemic therapy adapted to the patient's needs is required, whereby not all forms of therapy must be carried out simultaneously but can be used in a varying manner. Primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention strategies aim at the recognition of the triggering noxae or allergens with subsequent contact avoidance or minimization. The present S1-guideline on contact dermatitis is primarily intended to provide dermatologists, allergologists and physicians working in allergology and occupational dermatology with a decision-making aid for the selection and implementation of suitable and sufficient diagnostics, therapy, and prevention.

Hypersensitivity to non-ß-lactam antibiotics.

Most allergic reactions to antibiotics are caused by ß-lactam antibiotics; however non-ß-lactam antibiotics are also capable of causing both immediate allergic reactions as well as late-type reactions to these drugs. This is especially true for fluoroquinolones and sulfonamides. Of these, the combination of sulfamethoxazole with trimethoprim (Cotrimoxazol, e.g., Bactrim) is most important. However, there are certain types of reactions to non-ß-lactam antibiotics that are not associated with ß-lactam antibiotics. These include photosensitivity to sulfonamides, tetracyclines, and fluoroquinolones as well as different patterns of drug metabolism and associations with HLA alleles that may influence their prevalence. This review is focused on recent findings regarding the pathogenesis of allergic reactions to non-ß-lactam antibiotics.

Management of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis: Diagnostic consideration of sensitization to non-frequent pollen allergens.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of pollen allergies is mainly based on test allergens for skin prick testing. In the minimum battery of test inhalant allergens recommended by the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network 10 pollen allergens are included. Complementary other pollen allergens may need to be considered; however, respective awareness may not always be granted. Furthermore, at least in Germany, the situation may be even more complicated by the fact that test allergens need regulatory approval. A decline in commercially available test allergens may result in a diagnostic gap regarding patients with non-frequent allergies. How many patients with non-frequent pollen allergies would be affected by this gap? The data presented here partly answer this question. METHODS: The study consisted of a descriptive and an analytical part. In the descriptive part, sensitization to frequent pollen allergens (alder, hazel, birch, sweet grasses; according to the German Therapy Allergen Ordinance) and to respective non-frequent pollen allergens (cypress, Japanese cedar, ash, plane tree, olive, Bermuda grass, wall pellitory, plantain, goosefoot, mugwort, ragweed, and saltwort) was measured in adult patients with physician-diagnosed allergic rhinitis from two German federal states, namely North-Rhine Westphalia (n = 360) and Bavaria (n = 339), using skin prick testing and/or ISAC technology. Furthermore, respective regional pollen data were assessed. In the analytical part, sensitization data were correlated with each other and with anamnestic data on symptom periods. RESULTS: Sensitization to frequent pollen allergens ranged from 45% (sIgE to Aln g 1/Alder, NRW) to 72% (prick test reactivity to birch, NRW). Sensitization to non-frequent pollen allergens ranged from 0% (sIgE to Amb a 1/ragweed, NRW) to 41% (prick test reactivity to olive, Bavaria). Sensitization data partly correlated with each other and in connection with symptom periods showed a partly similar seasonal pattern as pollen data. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitization to non-frequent pollen allergens have to be considered when examining patients with respective seasonal symptoms, and test (and respective therapy) allergens for non-frequent pollen allergies need to be available. Further prerequisites for adequate patient management would be a nationwide pollen monitoring system giving continuous pollen data and a systematic sensitization monitoring at patient level.

White paper on peanut allergy - part 1: Epidemiology, burden of disease, health economic aspects.

Peanuts are Leguminosae, commonly known as the legume or pea family, and peanut allergy is among the most common food allergies and the most common cause of fatal food reactions and anaphylaxis. The prevalence of peanut allergy increased 3.5-fold over the past two decades reaching 1.4-2% in Europe and the United States. The reasons for this increase in prevalence are likely multifaceted. Sensitization via the skin appears to be associated with the development of peanut allergy and atopic eczema in infancy is associated with a high risk of developing peanut allergy. Until recently, the only possible management strategy for peanut allergy was strict allergen avoidance and emergency treatment including adrenaline auto-injector in cases of accidental exposure and reaction. This paper discusses the various factors that impact the risks of peanut allergy and the burden of self-management on peanut-allergic children and their caregivers.

Upregulation of CCL7, CCL20, CXCL2, IL-1ß, IL-6 and MMP-9 in Skin Samples of PCB Exposed Individuals-A Preliminary Study.

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are well known immunotoxic and carcinogenic compounds. Although cutaneous symptoms are the hallmark of exposure to these compounds, exact pathophysiologic mechanisms are not well understood. We took skin biopsies from moderately high PCB exposed workers (n = 25) after an informed consent and investigated the expression of immunological markers such as CCL-7, CCL-20, CXCL2, IL-1ß and IL-6, as well as the matrix metalloproteinase MMP-9, EPGN and NRF2 by RT-qPCR, and compared expression levels with plasma PCB levels. Statistical analyses showed a significant correlation between CCL-20, CXCL2, IL-6, IL-1ß, CCL-7 and MMP-9 and PCB serum levels. EPGN and NRF2 were not correlated to PCB levels in the blood. We found a significant correlation of genes involved in autoimmune, auto-inflammatory and carcinogenesis in skin samples of PCB exposed individuals with elevated plasma PCB levels. Confirmation of these findings needs to be performed in bigger study groups and larger gen-sets, including multiple housekeeping genes. Further study needs to be performed to see whether a chronical exposure to these and similar compounds can cause higher incidence of malignancies and inflammatory disease.

Immunologically relevant aspects of the new COVID-19 vaccines-an ÖGAI (Austrian Society for Allergology and Immunology) and AeDA (German Society for Applied Allergology) position paper.

BACKGROUND: The vaccines against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) approved in the European Union represent a decisive step in the fight against the pandemic. The application of these available vaccines to patients with pre-existing immunological conditions leads to a multitude of questions regarding efficacy, side effects and the necessary patient information. RESULTS: This review article provides insight into mechanisms of action of the currently available severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines and summarises the current state of science as well as expert recommendations regarding tolerability of the vaccines. In addition, the potential to develop protective immune responses is determined. A special focus is given on patients under immunosuppression or in treatment with immunomodulatory drugs. Special groups of the population such as children, pregnant women and the elderly are also considered. CONCLUSION: Despite the need for a patient-specific risk-benefit assessment, the consensus among experts is that patients with immunological diseases in particular benefit from the induced immune protection after COVID-19 vaccination and do not have an increased risk of side effects.