Detection of Sensitization Profiles with Cellular In Vitro Tests in Wheat Allergy Dependent on Augmentation Factors (WALDA).

Wheat allergy dependent on augmentation factors (WALDA) is the most common gluten allergy in adults. IgE-mediated sensitizations are directed towards ω5-gliadin but also to other wheat allergens. The value of the different in vitro cellular tests, namely the basophil activation test (BAT) and the active (aBHRA) and passive basophil histamine-release assays (pBHRA), in the detection of sensitization profiles beyond ω5-gliadin has not been compared. Therefore, 13 patients with challenge-confirmed, ω5-gliadin-positive WALDA and 11 healthy controls were enrolled. Specific IgE (sIgE), skin prick tests, BATs, aBHRA, and pBHRA were performed with allergen test solutions derived from wheat and other cereals, and results were analyzed and compared. This study reveals a distinct and highly individual reactivity of ω5-gliadin-positive WALDA patients to a range of wheat allergens beyond ω5-gliadin in cellular in vitro tests and SPT. In the BAT, for all tested allergens (gluten, high-molecular-weight glutenin subunits, α-amylase/trypsin inhibitors (ATIs), alcohol-free wheat beer, hydrolyzed wheat proteins (HWPs), rye gluten and secalins), basophil activation in patients was significantly higher than in controls (p = 0.004-p < 0.001). Similarly, significant histamine release was detected in the aBHRA for all test substances, exceeding the cut-off of 10 ng/mL in all tested allergens in 50% of patients. The dependency of tests on sIgE levels against ω5-gliadin differed; in the pBHRA, histamine release to any test substances could only be detected in patients with sIgE against ω5-gliadin ≥ 7.7 kU/L, whereas aBHRA also showed high reactivity in less sensitized patients. In most patients, reactivity to HWPs, ATIs, and rye allergens was observed. Additionally, alcohol-free wheat beer was first described as a promising test substance in ω5-gliadin-positive WALDA. Thus, BAT and aBHRA are valuable tools for the identification of sensitization profiles in WALDA.

Allergy to PEG (polyethylene glycol) - sensitivity of basophil activation test with COVID-19 mRNA-vaccine BNT162B2.

Basophil activation test (BAT) with COVID-19 mRNA vaccine seems particularly suitable for detecting sensitization to polyethylene glycol (PEG) in patients with PEG allergy. It was the aim of this study to determine the cutoffs for BAT using BNT162B2 (Comirnaty®) in a larger group of PEG allergic patients and controls. 10 PEG allergic patients and 10 controls were studied. BAT was performed using anti-CCR3 for basophil identification and anti-CD63 to assess basophil activation. Incubations with BNT162B2 at four different concentrations were performed. Basophil activation was significantly higher in PEG allergic patients compared to controls at the higher concentrations used. ROC curves showed best results with a sensitivity of 60% and specificity of 100% with a cutoff of 5% CD63+ basophils at a concentration of 4.5 µg/ml. Controls showed no positive results. In our group of PEG allergic patients, a concentration of 4.5 µg/ml BNT162B2 with a cutoff of 5% CD63+ basophils was the most suitable condition for identifying patients with a sensitization to PEG. Allergological work-up of PEG allergic patients including BAT with PEGylated lipid nanoparticles might play a role in the future when these substances will be used for other vaccines and cancer immunotherapies.

IgE and anaphylaxis specific to the carbohydrate alpha-gal depend on IL-4.

BACKGROUND: Alpha-gal (Galα1-3Galß1-4GlcNAc) is a carbohydrate with the potential to elicit fatal allergic reactions to mammalian meat and drugs of mammalian origin. This type of allergy is induced by tick bites, and therapeutic options for this skin-driven food allergy are limited to the avoidance of the allergen and treatment of symptoms. Thus, a better understanding of the immune mechanisms resulting in sensitization through the skin is crucial, especially in the case of a carbohydrate allergen for which underlying immune responses are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to establish a mouse model of alpha-gal allergy for in-depth immunologic analyses. METHODS: Alpha-galactosyltransferase 1-deficient mice devoid of alpha-gal glycosylations were sensitized with the alpha-gal-carrying self-protein mouse serum albumin by repetitive intracutaneous injections in combination with the adjuvant aluminum hydroxide. The role of basophils and IL-4 in sensitization was investigated by antibody-mediated depletion. RESULTS: Alpha-gal-sensitized mice displayed increased levels of alpha-gal-specific IgE and IgG1 and developed systemic anaphylaxis on challenge with both alpha-gal-containing glycoproteins and glycolipids. In accordance with alpha-gal-allergic patients, we detected elevated numbers of basophils at the site of sensitization as well as increased numbers of alpha-gal-specific B cells, germinal center B cells, and B cells of IgE and IgG1 isotypes in skin-draining lymph nodes. By depleting IL-4 during sensitization, we demonstrated for the first time that sensitization and elicitation of allergy to alpha-gal and correspondingly to a carbohydrate allergen is dependent on IL-4. CONCLUSION: These findings establish IL-4 as a potential target to interfere with alpha-gal allergy elicited by tick bites.

EAACI guidelines on the diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy.

This European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guideline provides recommendations for diagnosing IgE-mediated food allergy and was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Food allergy diagnosis starts with an allergy-focused clinical history followed by tests to determine IgE sensitization, such as serum allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) and skin prick test (SPT), and the basophil activation test (BAT), if available. Evidence for IgE sensitization should be sought for any suspected foods. The diagnosis of allergy to some foods, such as peanut and cashew nut, is well supported by SPT and serum sIgE, whereas there are less data and the performance of these tests is poorer for other foods, such as wheat and soya. The measurement of sIgE to allergen components such as Ara h 2 from peanut, Cor a 14 from hazelnut and Ana o 3 from cashew can be useful to further support the diagnosis, especially in pollen-sensitized individuals. BAT to peanut and sesame can be used additionally. The reference standard for food allergy diagnosis is the oral food challenge (OFC). OFC should be performed in equivocal cases. For practical reasons, open challenges are suitable in most cases. Reassessment of food allergic children with allergy tests and/or OFCs periodically over time will enable reintroduction of food into the diet in the case of spontaneous acquisition of oral tolerance.

Basophil Activation Test in Double-Sensitized Patients With Hymenoptera Venom Allergy: Additional Benefit of Component-Resolved Diagnostics.

BACKGROUND: In Hymenoptera venom allergy serologically double-sensitized patients, it is often difficult to identify the culprit insect for venom immunotherapy (VIT). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if basophil activation tests (BATs) performed not only with venom extracts but additionally with single component-resolved diagnostics could differentiate between sensitized and allergic individuals and how the test results influenced the physicians' decision regarding VIT. METHODS: BATs were performed with bee and wasp venom extracts and with single components (Api m 1, Api m 10, Ves v 1, and Ves v 5) in 31 serologically double-sensitized patients. RESULTS: In 28 finally included individuals, 9 BATs were positive and 4 negative for both venoms. Fourteen of 28 BATs showed positive results for wasp venom alone. Two of 10 BATs positive for bee venom were only positive to Api m 1 and 1 of 28 BATs only to Api m 10, but not for whole bee venom extract. Five of 23 BATs positive for wasp venom were only positive for Ves v 5 but negative for wasp venom extract and Ves v 1. Finally, VIT with both insect venoms was recommended in 4 of 28 individuals, with wasp venom alone in 21 of 28 patients and with bee venom alone in 1 of 28. In 2 cases no VIT was recommended. CONCLUSIONS: BATs with Ves v 5, followed by Api m 1 and Api m 10, were helpful for the decision for VIT with the clinically relevant insect in 8 of 28 (28.6%) patients. A BAT with components should therefore be additionally carried out in cases with equivocal results.

EAACI Molecular Allergology User's Guide 2.0.

Since the discovery of immunoglobulin E (IgE) as a mediator of allergic diseases in 1967, our knowledge about the immunological mechanisms of IgE-mediated allergies has remarkably increased. In addition to understanding the immune response and clinical symptoms, allergy diagnosis and management depend strongly on the precise identification of the elicitors of the IgE-mediated allergic reaction. In the past four decades, innovations in bioscience and technology have facilitated the identification and production of well-defined, highly pure molecules for component-resolved diagnosis (CRD), allowing a personalized diagnosis and management of the allergic disease for individual patients. The first edition of the "EAACI Molecular Allergology User's Guide" (MAUG) in 2016 rapidly became a key reference for clinicians, scientists, and interested readers with a background in allergology, immunology, biology, and medicine. Nevertheless, the field of molecular allergology is moving fast, and after 6 years, a new EAACI Taskforce was established to provide an updated document. The Molecular Allergology User's Guide 2.0 summarizes state-of-the-art information on allergen molecules, their clinical relevance, and their application in diagnostic algorithms for clinical practice. It is designed for both, clinicians and scientists, guiding health care professionals through the overwhelming list of different allergen molecules available for testing. Further, it provides diagnostic algorithms on the clinical relevance of allergenic molecules and gives an overview of their biology, the basic mechanisms of test formats, and the application of tests to measure allergen exposure.

SARS-CoV-2 and allergy - what have we learned after two and a half years?

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has significantly hampered the regular workflow for allergists and allergy departments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The purpose of this review is to highlight our own experiences on SARS-CoV-2 and allergy as well as to discuss findings from the literature. RESULTS: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is needed for protection against severe infection. Skin reactions may arise with SARS-CoV-2 infections. Short-term general immune reactions and skin reactions are also possible upon SARS-CoV-2 vaccination; however, they recur in only a proportion of patients during follow-up vaccinations. Initial reports of anaphylaxis after vaccination fueled public fear. On the other hand, more recent epidemiologic data do not show a substantially increased anaphylaxis risk compared with other vaccines. Fear-related reactions may be essential for many "anaphylaxis" reports. In Germany, the flow chart developed by Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI) and Robert-Koch-Institut (RKI) together with the allergological societies helps to care for patients with suspected "allergy history" safely and effectively. Through this, patients with increased risk of anaphylaxis to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and their ingredients (e.g., polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate 80) are identified. However, since only small amounts of these excipients are contained in mRNA vaccines, even some PEG-allergic patients can tolerate the vaccination. In Germany, an allergy test-guided procedure is recommended for high-risk patients, including an allergy history, prick tests, intradermal and basophil activation tests, and, if necessary, provocation tests. This also appears effective for anxiety reduction in patients with vaccination skepticism. To date, all of our patients have been able to be vaccinated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines without the occurrence of significant reactions. CONCLUSION: Many initial concerns about unexpected side effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have not been confirmed. The flowchart and, in the case of suspicion of hypersensitivity, an allergy test-guided risk assessment helps to reduce patients' fear of vaccination and enables safe vaccination.

Basophil Activation to Gluten and Non-Gluten Proteins in Wheat-Dependent Exercise-Induced Anaphylaxis.

Wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (WDEIA) is a cofactor-induced wheat allergy. Gluten proteins, especially ω5-gliadins, are known as major allergens, but partially hydrolyzed wheat proteins (HWPs) also play a role. Our study investigated the link between the molecular composition of gluten or HWP and allergenicity. Saline extracts of gluten (G), gluten with reduced content of ω5-gliadins (G-ω5), slightly treated HWPs (sHWPs), and extensively treated HWPs (eHWPs) were prepared as allergen test solutions and their allergenicity assessed using the skin prick test and basophil activation test (BAT) on twelve patients with WDEIA and ten controls. Complementary sodium dodecyl-sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and mass spectrometry (MS) analyses revealed that non-gluten proteins, mainly α-amylase/trypsin inhibitors (ATIs), were predominant in the allergen test solutions of G, G-ω5, and sHWPs. Only eHWPs contained gliadins and glutenins as major fraction. All allergen test solutions induced significantly higher %CD63+ basophils/anti-FcεRI ratios in patients compared with controls. BAT using sHWPs yielded 100% sensitivity and 83% specificity at optimal cut-off and may be useful as another tool in WDEIA diagnosis. Our findings indicate that non-gluten proteins carrying yet unidentified allergenic epitopes appear to be relevant in WDEIA. Further research is needed to clarify the role of nutritional ATIs in WDEIA and identify specific mechanisms of immune activation.

Do basophil activation tests help elucidate allergic reactions to the ingredients in COVID-19 vaccines?

The worldwide use of COVID-19 vaccines has shown that immediate allergic reactions to the ingredients are rare but should be clarified by means of an allergological work-up. This review aims to highlight the current state of knowledge and possible pathogenesis based on the literature published to date. In addition to recording a detailed history and performing skin tests, cellular tests (basophil activation or basophil histamine release test) by using the vaccines or modified compounds containing polyethylene glycol (PEG), rather than unmodified PEGs, have proven to be particularly helpful. Negative results with vaccines seem to indicate tolerance. Details of the performance of these cellular tests with different vaccines, PEGs of different molecular weights, other ingredients of the vaccines, as well as other PEGylated drugs, and the results in the context of COVID-19 vaccination of various working groups worldwide are summarized.

Allergies and COVID-19 vaccines: An ENDA/EAACI Position paper.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID-19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized. METHOD: Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre-vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, and literature was analysed. RESULTS: No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1-anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2-anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3-recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4-suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5-confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick-to-prick skin test with the left-over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated.

Experience with polyethylene glycol allergy-guided risk management for COVID-19 vaccine anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) may elicit anaphylaxis to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, and guidance for patients at risk is needed. METHODS: In retrospective patients with PEG allergy collected from 2006 till 2019, clinical, skin, and basophil activation test (BAT) characteristics discriminative for PEG allergy were analyzed and compared with the literature. In 421 prospective real-life patients asking for allergy workup for COVID-19 vaccine hypersensitivity in 2020/2021, risk assessment was performed and tolerance of the recommended vaccination approach was assessed. RESULTS: Ten patients with PEG allergy were found in the retrospective cohort. Patients reacted with immediate anaphylaxis (100%) not only to PEG-based laxatives/bowel preparations or injections, but also to cold medication, antiseptics, analgetics, or antibiotics. Skin tests ± BAT with PEG ± elicitors were positive in 10/10. Provocation tests were positive in 7/9 patients. From the prospective cohort, 370/421 patients self-reporting increased risk for vaccine allergy lacked criteria necessitating allergy workup and were recommended for routine vaccination. A total of 51/421 patients were tested, and three (6%) with PEG allergy were identified, whereas 48 patients remained negative in skin tests. Vaccination was recommended in all those patients. No hypersensitivity reactions were reported to vaccination including six PEG-allergic patients tolerating COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Taking a detailed history excluded PEG allergy in most referred patients and enabled direct safe vaccination. Immediate urticaria/anaphylaxis to typical elicitors identified patients requiring PEG allergy workup. Skin tests ± BAT identified PEG allergy and helped to select the vaccine and the vaccination approach. Even PEG-allergic patients can tolerate COVID-19 vaccines.

Personalized irradiation therapy for NMSC by rhenium-188 skin cancer therapy: a long-term retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to provide long-term clinical data about an innovative epidermal radioisotope therapy called Rhenium-SCT® (Skin Cancer Therapy) for non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), based on the use of the non-sealed beta emitter rhenium-188. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 52 NMSC patients with a mean age of 71.7 years were treated with rhenium-188 skin cancer therapy between the years 2005 and 2014. An acryl matrix containing rhenium-188 was applied on a plastic foil covering the tumor. The treatment time for reaching a radiation dose of 50 Gy was calculated by a software program. Patients' characteristics and clinical follow-up data were collected and retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Overall 55 lesions (32 BCC, 19 SCC, 2 M. Bowen and 2 extramammary Paget's disease (EMPD)) mainly in the head and neck region (72.3%) were treated. The average size of the irradiation area was 9.79 cm2 and the mean treatment time 46.35 min. All lesions showed a complete remission after a follow-up period between 3 and more than 12 months. No complications or other post-interventional problems were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Rhenium-SCT® is considered as an effective, rapid, safe, painless treatment mostly performed in a single therapeutic session, regardless of the shape complexity, anatomical site and number of lesions.

Characterization of New Allergens from the Venom of the European Paper Wasp Polistes dominula.

Discriminating Polistes dominula and Vespula spp. venom allergy is of growing importance worldwide, as systemic reactions to either species' sting can lead to severe outcomes. Administering the correct allergen-specific immunotherapy is therefore a prerequisite to ensure the safety and health of venom-allergic patients. Component-resolved diagnostics of Hymenoptera venom allergy might be improved by adding additional allergens to the diagnostic allergen panel. Therefore, three potential new allergens from P. dominula venom-immune responsive protein 30 (IRP30), vascular endothelial growth factor C (VEGF C) and phospholipase A2 (PLA2)-were cloned, recombinantly produced and biochemically characterized. Sera sIgE titers of Hymenoptera venom-allergic patients were measured in vitro to assess the allergenicity and potential cross-reactivity of the venom proteins. IRP30 and VEGF C were classified as minor allergens, as sensitization rates lay around 20-40%. About 50% of P. dominula venom-allergic patients had measurable sIgE titers directed against PLA2 from P. dominula venom. Interestingly, PLA2 was unable to activate basophils of allergic patients, questioning its role in the context of clinically relevant sensitization. Although the obtained results hint to a questionable benefit of the characterized P. dominula venom proteins for improved diagnosis of venom-allergic patients, they can contribute to a deeper understanding of the molecular mechanisms of Hymenoptera venoms and to the identification of factors that determine the allergenic potential of proteins.

The basophil activation test differentiates between patients with wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis and control subjects using gluten and isolated gluten protein types.

BACKGROUND: Oral food challenge using gluten and cofactors is the gold standard to diagnose wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (WDEIA), but this procedure puts patients at risk of an anaphylactic reaction. Specific IgE to ω5-gliadins as major allergens and skin prick tests to wheat may yield negative results. Thus, we designed a proof-of-principle study to investigate the utility of the basophil activation test (BAT) for WDEIA diagnosis. METHODS: Different gluten protein types (GPT; α-, γ-, ω1,2- and ω5-gliadins, high-molecular-weight glutenin subunits [HMW-GS] and low-molecular-weight glutenin subunits [LMW-GS]) and gluten were used in different concentrations to measure basophil activation in 12 challenge-confirmed WDEIA patients and 10 control subjects. The results were compared to routine allergy diagnostics. Parameters analyzed include the percentage of CD63+ basophils, the ratio of %CD63+ basophils induced by GPT/gluten to %CD63+ basophils induced by anti-FcεRI antibody, area under the dose-response curve and test sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: GPT and gluten induced strong basophil activation for %CD63+ basophils and for %CD63+/anti-FcɛRI ratio in a dose-dependent manner in patients, but not in controls (p < 0.001, respectively). BAT performance differed from acceptable (0.73 for LMW-GS) to excellent (0.91 for ω5-gliadins) depending on the specific GPT as evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Patients showed individual sensitization profiles. After determination of the best cut-off points, ω5-gliadins and HMW-GS showed the best discrimination between patients and controls with a sensitivity/specificity of 100/70 and 75/100, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study shows the alternative role of BAT in better defining WDEIA and the causative wheat allergens. The best BAT parameters to distinguish WDEIA patients from controls were %CD63+ basophil values for ω5-gliadins and HMW-GS.

Management of anaphylaxis due to COVID-19 vaccines in the elderly.

Older adults, especially men and/or those with diabetes, hypertension, and/or obesity, are prone to severe COVID-19. In some countries, older adults, particularly those residing in nursing homes, have been prioritized to receive COVID-19 vaccines due to high risk of death. In very rare instances, the COVID-19 vaccines can induce anaphylaxis, and the management of anaphylaxis in older people should be considered carefully. An ARIA-EAACI-EuGMS (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma, European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and European Geriatric Medicine Society) Working Group has proposed some recommendations for older adults receiving the COVID-19 vaccines. Anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines is extremely rare (from 1 per 100,000 to 5 per million injections). Symptoms are similar in younger and older adults but they tend to be more severe in the older patients. Adrenaline is the mainstay treatment and should be readily available. A flowchart is proposed to manage anaphylaxis in the older patients.

Gelatin-Containing Vaccines for Varicella, Zoster, Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Induce Basophil Activation in Patients with Alpha-Gal Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) describes a new type I allergy entity to the carbohydrate epitope galactose-α-1,3-galactose (alpha-gal), which is mainly found in mammalian food products (e.g., beef, pork, and venison). Apart from meat products, alpha-gal can also be found in products containing gelatin of bovine or porcine origin. Recent case reports pointed to severe anaphylaxis in patients suffering from AGS after vaccination with vaccines containing hydrolyzed gelatin. It was the objective of this study to evaluate if basophil activation tests (BATs) performed with such vaccines were positive in patients with AGS. METHODS: BAT was performed with different dilutions of a gelatin-containing measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) live vaccine; an attenuated varicella (V) vaccine; an attenuated V-zoster (VZ) vaccine; a MMR live vaccine not containing gelatin (non-gelatin MMR vaccine) in 2 patients with confirmed AGS, 2 patients highly suspicious for AGS, and 2 healthy individuals without any previous medical history for allergies. RESULTS: All patients showed strongly positive results for all gelatin-containing vaccines (MMR vaccine, V vaccine, and VZ vaccine). Non-gelatin MMR vaccine was negative. The 2 healthy controls did not show any basophil activation. CONCLUSIONS: Gelatin-containing vaccines should be administered with caution or avoided in patients with AGS because of their high potential to activate basophils indicating a risk for anaphylaxis. Also, BAT is a useful additional tool when it comes to screening for potentially high-risk alpha-gal-containing drugs.