Allergen immunotherapy of insect venom allergy: Almost 100 years old, but steadily updated.

llergen immunotherapy (AIT) with Hymenoptera venom (HV) shows high efficiency treating insect venom allergy, covering an almost 100-year-long history. Untreated patients with HV allergy can develop serious, potentially lethal sting reactions. Before starting AIT with HV, indication and contraindications, the presence of comorbidities and the intake of concomitant medications as well as individual risk factors have to be carefully evaluated. Application of HV-AIT entails an individually adapted procedure in case of undesired adverse events or initial failure to induce tolerance, as the final goal has to be the development of immunologic protection against anaphylactic sting reactions.

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.

Full-body blue light irradiation as treatment for atopic dermatitis: a randomized sham-controlled clinical trial (AD-Blue).

BACKGROUND: Visible blue light (wavelength 400-495 nm) is a promising new treatment option for both psoriasis and atopic dermatitis (AD). Whilst previous clinical trials featured various devices and blue light at a variety of wavelengths, none of these interventions were challenged in objective clinical criteria. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-seven patients diagnosed with AD were enrolled in AD-Blue, an international, prospective, double-blinded, three-armed (415 nm vs. 450 nm vs. sham control), randomized trial designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of prototype full-body blue light devices. RESULTS: Full-body irradiation with 450 nm blue light but not 415 nm had a significant impact on itch (Itch-VAS, -1.6 ± 2.3; p  =  0.023 vs. sham irradiation). PO-SCORAD values also decreased significantly in response to irradiation at 415 nm (-11.5 ± 18.4; p = 0.028 vs. sham irradiation). None of the other outcome measures (EASI, SCORAD, IGA, DLQI) changed significantly. No safety signals were observed. Evaluation of skin transcriptomes, cytokine levels in serum, and ELISpots from peripheral blood mononuclear cells isolated from a subset of patients revealed moderate decreases in IL-31 in response to irradiation with blue light. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its favorable safety profile and moderate reductions in itch and IL-31 levels, full-body blue light irradiation did not lead to an amelioration of any of the objective measures of AD.

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.

Perioperative pain management in dermatosurgery - current practice in Germany: Data analysis of a Germany-wide online survey among dermatosurgeons.

BACKGROUND: Adequate pain management should be part of the standard of care in surgical procedures. However, there is a paucity of data in the field of dermatosurgery. In a standardized online survey among dermatosurgeons working in Germany, the current practice of perioperative pain management was investigated. METHODS: Members of the German Society for Dermatosurgery (DGDC) and heads of dermatosurgical departments were asked to participate. Questions were related to practical implementation of perioperative pain management, pain documentation and personal sources of information on the topic. RESULTS: 116 questionnaires were analyzed. While prophylactic analgesia is rarely used, the vast majority (86%) reported the use of postoperative on-demand medication. The majority of surgeons do not have a fixed regimen. Mostly NSAIDs and occasionally low potency opioids are used. Pain is documented by the majority (59.1%) as free text. Personal experience (69%) and in-house standards (51%) are the most important factors in pain management. The use of guidelines (25%) plays a minor role. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative pain management in dermatosurgery is strongly influenced by personal experience and may vary depending on the surgery performed. Consensus-based standardized recommendations are lacking. For adequate perioperative analgesia, the development of demand-oriented pain concepts is desirable. This requires prospective studies that address the specific patient population and surgical procedures in dermatology.

Phase 3 Trial of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy in Toddlers with Peanut Allergy.

BACKGROUND: No approved treatment for peanut allergy exists for children younger than 4 years of age, and the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch in toddlers with peanut allergy are unknown. METHODS: We conducted this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy confirmed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Patients who had an eliciting dose (the dose necessary to elicit an allergic reaction) of 300 mg or less of peanut protein were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive epicutaneous immunotherapy delivered by means of a peanut patch (intervention group) or to receive placebo administered daily for 12 months. The primary end point was a treatment response as measured by the eliciting dose of peanut protein at 12 months. Safety was assessed according to the occurrence of adverse events during the use of the peanut patch or placebo. RESULTS: Of the 362 patients who underwent randomization, 84.8% completed the trial. The primary efficacy end point result was observed in 67.0% of children in the intervention group as compared with 33.5% of those in the placebo group (risk difference, 33.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 22.4 to 44.5; P<0.001). Adverse events that occurred during the use of the intervention or placebo, irrespective of relatedness, were observed in 100% of the patients in the intervention group and 99.2% in the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 8.6% of the patients in the intervention group and 2.5% of those in the placebo group; anaphylaxis occurred in 7.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 0.4% of patients in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. Treatment-related anaphylaxis occurred in 1.6% in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy, epicutaneous immunotherapy for 12 months was superior to placebo in desensitizing children to peanuts and increasing the peanut dose that triggered allergic symptoms. (Funded by DBV Technologies; EPITOPE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03211247.).

We are memory: B-cell responses in allergy and tolerance.

The significance of B-cell memory in sustaining IgE-mediated allergies but also ensuring the development of long-term allergen tolerance has remained enigmatic. However, well-thought murine and human studies have begun to shed more light on this highly disputed subject. The present mini review highlights important aspects, like the involvement of IgG1 memory B cells, the meaning of low- or high-affinity IgE antibody production, the impact of allergen immunotherapy, or the relevance of local memory established by ectopic lymphoid structures. Based on recent findings, future investigations should lead to deeper knowledge and the development of improved therapies treating allergic individuals.

Isolation of Lymphocytes from Human Skin and Murine Tissues: A Rapid and Epitope-Preserving Approach.

Tissue-resident immune cells have been shown to play an important role in skin health and disease. However, owing to limited access to human skin samples and time-consuming, technically demanding protocols, the characterization of tissue-derived cells remains challenging. For this reason, blood-derived leukocytes are frequently used as a surrogate specimen, although they do not necessarily reflect local immune responses in the skin. Therefore, we aimed to establish a rapid protocol to isolate a sufficient number of viable immune cells from 4-mm skin biopsies that can be directly used for a deeper characterization such as comprehensive phenotyping and functional studies of T cells. In this optimized protocol, only two enzymes, type IV collagenase and DNase I, were used to achieve both the highest possible cellular yield and marker preservation of leukocytes stained for multicolor flow cytometry. We further report that the optimized protocol may be used in the same manner for murine skin and mucosa. In summary, this study allows a rapid acquisition of lymphocytes from human or mouse skin suitable for comprehensive analysis of lymphocyte subpopulations, for disease surveillance, and for identification of potential therapeutic targets or other downstream applications.

The role of IgG1 and IgG4 as dominant IgE-blocking antibodies shifts during allergen immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The induction of allergen-specific IgE-blocking antibodies is a hallmark of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). The inhibitory bioactivity has largely been attributed to IgG4; however, our recent studies indicated the dominance of IgG1 early in AIT. OBJECTIVES: Here, the IgE-blocking activity and avidity of allergen-specific IgG1 and IgG4 antibodies were monitored throughout 3 years of treatment. METHODS: Serum samples from 24 patients were collected before and regularly during AIT with birch pollen. Bet v 1-specific IgG1 and IgG4 levels were determined by ELISA and ImmunoCAP, respectively. Unmodified and IgG1- or IgG4-depleted samples were compared for their inhibition of Bet v 1-induced basophil activation. The stability of Bet v 1-antibody complexes was compared by ELISA and by surface plasmon resonance. RESULTS: Bet v 1-specific IgG1 and IgG4 levels peaked at 12 and 24 months of AIT, respectively. Serological IgE-blocking peaked at 6 months and remained high thereafter. In the first year of therapy, depletion of IgG1 clearly diminished the inhibition of basophil activation while the absence of IgG4 hardly reduced IgE-blocking. Then, IgG4 became the main inhibitory isotype in most individuals. Both isotypes displayed high avidity to Bet v 1 ab initio of AIT, which did not increase during treatment. Bet v 1-IgG1 complexes were enduringly more stable than Bet v 1-IgG4 complexes were. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of the constant avidity of AIT-induced allergen-specific IgG1 and IgG4 antibodies, their dominance in IgE-blocking shifted in the course of treatment. The blocking activity of allergen-specific IgG1 should not be underestimated, particularly early in AIT.

Structural and functional analyses of antibodies specific for modified core N-glycans suggest a role in TH 2 responses.

BACKGROUND: Immune responses to N-glycan structures from allergens and parasites are often associated with pronounced, high affinity IgE reactivities. Cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs) are constituted by modified N-glycan core structures and represent the most frequently recognized epitopes in allergic immune responses. Although recently accepted as potentially allergenic epitopes, the biological and clinical relevance as well as structural and functional characteristics of CCD-specific antibodies remain elusive. METHODS: In order to gain structural insights into the recognition of CCDs, two specific antibody fragments were isolated from a leporid immune repertoire library and converted into human/leporid IgE and IgG formats. The antibody formats were assessed by ELISA and surface plasmon resonance, structural and functional analyses were performed by X-ray crystallography, mediator release, and ELIFAB assays. RESULTS: The recombinant IgE exhibited highly specific interactions with different types of CCDs on numerous CCD-carrying glycoproteins. Crystal structures of two CCD-specific antibodies, one of which in complex with a CCD-derived disaccharide emphasize that mechanisms of core glycan epitope recognition are as specific as those governing protein epitope recognition. The rIgE triggered immediate cellular responses via FcεRI cross-linking and mediated facilitated antigen presentation by binding of IgE/antigen complexes to CD23, a process that also could be blocked by IgG of allergic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence for the relevance of N-glycan recognition in TH 2 responses and corroborates that IgE and IgG antibodies to ubiquitous carbohydrate epitopes can be equivalent to those directed against proteinaceous epitopes with implications for diagnostic and immunotherapeutic concepts.

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.

Anaphylaxis to drug excipients.

In addition to the therapeutic agent, drugs contain excipients such as stabilizers, preservatives, solubilizers, or dyes, some of which are identical to additives in foods. Anaphylaxis to these excipients is probably an underestimated problem. After the first descriptions of anaphylactic reactions to drug excipients appeared more than 30 years ago, the number of corresponding reports has increased significantly over the years. However, a diagnostic gap exists in the clarification of drug allergic reactions when the index product is not known and/or is not available for testing. In the present work, individual excipients are presented as examples for which publications on anaphylaxis are available. Furthermore, the options of allergological testing both in vivo and in vitro are discussed. The pathogenesis of such reactions is still unresolved in many cases, and current concepts are briefly presented in the conclusion. With increasing knowledge about anaphylaxis to drug excipients, it is assumed that these can then be recognized more often and diagnostically clarified.

Management of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Systemic allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. In this study we assessed the management and outcome of suspected SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hypersensitivity. METHODS: Totally, 334 individuals underwent an allergy work up regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (group A: 115 individuals suspected to be at increased risk for vaccine-related reactions before vaccination and group B: 219 patients with reactions after COVID vaccination). The large majority of the SPT/IDT with the vaccines were negative; however, we identified in 14.1% (n = 47) a possible sensitization to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and/or its ingredients defined as one positive skin test. Of the 219 individuals (group B) who experienced symptoms suspicious for a hypersensitivity reaction after vaccination, 214 were reported after the first vaccination with a mRNA vaccine (157 mRNA (Comirnaty®, 38 Spikevax®) and 18 with a vector vaccine (Vaxzevria®), 5 cases were after the second vaccination. RESULTS: The symptom profile in group B was as follows: skin symptoms occurred in 115 cases (n = 59 angioedema, n = 50 generalized urticaria and n = 23 erythema/flush. Seventy individuals had cardiovascular, 53 respiratory and 17 gastrointestinal symptoms. Of the overall 334 individuals, 78 patients tolerated (re)-vaccination (out of skin test positive/negative 7/19 from group A and 17/35 from group B). CONCLUSION: Proven IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is extremely rare and not increased in comparison with reported hypersensitivity to other vaccines. The value of skin tests is unclear and nonspecific reactions, in particular when intradermal testing is applied, should be considered.