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.

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.

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.

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).

Risk factors and indicators of severe systemic insect sting reactions.

Hymenoptera venom allergy ranks among the top three causes of anaphylaxis worldwide, and approximately one-quarter of sting-induced reactions are classified as severe. Fatal sting reactions are exceedingly rare, but certain factors may entail a considerably higher risk. Delayed administration of epinephrine and upright posture are situational risk factors which may determine an unfavorable outcome of the acute anaphylactic episode and should be addressed during individual patient education. Systemic mastocytosis and senior age are major, unmodifiable long-term risk factors and thus reinforce the indication for venom immunotherapy. Vespid venom allergy and male sex likewise augment the risk of severe or even fatal reactions. Further studies are required to assess the impact of specific cardiovascular comorbidities. Available data regarding potential effects of beta-blockers and/or ACE inhibitors in coexisting venom allergy are inconclusive and do not justify recommendations to discontinue guideline-directed antihypertensive treatment. The absence of urticaria/angioedema during sting-induced anaphylaxis is indicative of a severe reaction, serum tryptase elevation, and mast cell clonality. Determination of basal serum tryptase levels is an established diagnostic tool for risk assessment in Hymenoptera venom-allergic patients. Measurement of platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase activity represents a complementary approach but is not available for routine diagnostic use.

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.

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.

Medical Algorithms: Diagnosis and treatment of Hymenoptera venom allergy.

Diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) is straightforward in the majority of patients, but can be challenging in double positive and test negative patients. Test results sometimes can be confusing as patients with high skin test reactivity and high specific IgE (sIgE) levels are not at risk for severe systemic sting reactions (SSR), and conversely, patients with weakly positive or even negative tests can experience severe SSR. Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is safe, highly effective, and recommended in patients with moderate to severe SSR and in patients with SSR confined to generalized skin symptoms if quality of life is impaired.

Perspectives in allergen immunotherapy: 2019 and beyond.

The seventh "Future of the Allergists and Specific Immunotherapy (FASIT)" workshop held in 2019 provided a platform for global experts from academia, allergy clinics, regulatory authorities and industry to review current developments in the field of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Key domains of the meeting included the following: (a) Biomarkers for AIT and allergic asthma; (b) visions for the future of AIT; (c) progress and data for AIT in asthma and the updates of GINA and EAACI Asthma Guidelines (separated for house dust mite SCIT, SLIT tablets and SLIT drops; patient populations) including a review of clinically relevant endpoints in AIT studies in asthma; (d) regulatory prerequisites such as the "Therapy Allergen Ordinance" in Germany; (e) optimization of trial design in AIT clinical research; (f) challenges planning and conducting phase III (field) studies and the future role of Allergen Exposure Chambers (AEC) in AIT product development from the regulatory point of view. We report a summary of panel discussions of all six domains and highlight unmet needs and possible solutions for the future.

EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy: House dust mite-driven allergic asthma.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been in use for the treatment of allergic disease for more than 100 years. Asthma treatment relies mainly on corticosteroids and other controllers recommended to achieve and maintain asthma control, prevent exacerbations, and improve quality of life. AIT is underused in asthma, both in children and in adults. Notably, patients with allergic asthma not adequately controlled on pharmacotherapy (including biologics) represent an unmet health need. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has developed a clinical practice guideline providing evidence-based recommendations for the use of house dust mites (HDM) AIT as add-on treatment for HDM-driven allergic asthma. This guideline was developed by a multi-disciplinary working group using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. HDM AIT was separately evaluated by route of administration and children and adults: subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual AIT (SLIT), drops, and tablets. Recommendations were formulated for each. The important prerequisites for successful treatment with HDM AIT are (a) selection of patients most likely to respond to AIT and (b) use of allergen extracts and desensitization protocols of proven efficacy. To date, only AIT with HDM SLIT-tablet has demonstrated a robust effect in adults for critical end points (exacerbations, asthma control, and safety). Thus, it is recommended as an add-on to regular asthma therapy for adults with controlled or partially controlled HDM-driven allergic asthma (conditional recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). HDM SCIT is recommended for adults and children, and SLIT drops are recommended for children with controlled HDM-driven allergic asthma as the add-on to regular asthma therapy to decrease symptoms and medication needs (conditional recommendation, low-quality evidence).

EAACI guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: Prevention of allergy.

Allergic diseases are common and frequently coexist. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a disease-modifying treatment for IgE-mediated allergic disease with effects beyond cessation of AIT that may include important preventive effects. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) has developed a clinical practice guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations for AIT for the prevention of (i) development of allergic comorbidities in those with established allergic diseases, (ii) development of first allergic condition, and (iii) allergic sensitization. This guideline has been developed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) framework, which involved a multidisciplinary expert working group, a systematic review of the underpinning evidence, and external peer-review of draft recommendations. Our key recommendation is that a 3-year course of subcutaneous or sublingual AIT can be recommended for children and adolescents with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR) triggered by grass/birch pollen allergy to prevent asthma for up to 2 years post-AIT in addition to its sustained effect on AR symptoms and medication. Some trial data even suggest a preventive effect on asthma symptoms and medication more than 2 years post-AIT. We need more evidence concerning AIT for prevention in individuals with AR triggered by house dust mites or other allergens and for the prevention of allergic sensitization, the first allergic disease, or for the prevention of allergic comorbidities in those with other allergic conditions. Evidence for the preventive potential of AIT as disease-modifying treatment exists but there is an urgent need for more high-quality clinical trials.

Phosphoinositide-dependent protein kinase 1 (PDK1) mediates potent inhibitory effects on eosinophils.

Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2 ) protects against allergic responses via binding to prostanoid receptor EP4, which inhibits eosinophil migration in a PI3K/PKC-dependent fashion. The phosphoinositide-dependent protein kinase 1 (PDK1) is known to act as a downstream effector in PI3K signaling and has been implicated in the regulation of neutrophil migration. Thus, here we elucidate whether PDK1 mediates inhibitory effects of E-type prostanoid receptor 4 (EP4) receptors on eosinophil function. Therefore, eosinophils were isolated from human peripheral blood or differentiated from mouse BM. PDK1 signaling was investigated in shape change, chemotaxis, CD11b, respiratory burst, and Ca(2+) mobilization assays. The specific PDK1 inhibitors BX-912 and GSK2334470 prevented the inhibition by prostaglandin E2 and the EP4 agonist ONO-AE1-329. Depending on the cellular function, PDK1 seemed to act through PI3K-dependent or PI3K-independent mechanisms. Stimulation of EP4 receptors caused PDK1 phosphorylation at Ser396 and induced PI3K-dependent nuclear translocation of PDK1. EP4-induced inhibition of shape change and chemotaxis was effectively reversed by the Akt inhibitor triciribine. In support of this finding, ONO-AE1-329 induced a PI3K/PDK1-dependent increase in Akt phosphorylation. In conclusion, our data illustrate a critical role for PDK1 in transducing inhibitory signals on eosinophil effector function. Thus, our results suggest that PDK1 might serve as a novel therapeutic target in diseases involving eosinophilic inflammation.

Sensitization to Hymenoptera venoms is common, but systemic sting reactions are rare.

BACKGROUND: Sensitization to Hymenoptera venom without systemic sting reactions (SSRs) is commonly observed in the general population. Clinical relevance for a future sting has not yet been investigated. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the effect of these debatable sensitizations with deliberate sting challenges and to monitor serologic changes for up to 2 years. METHODS: One hundred thirty-one challenges with bees and wasps were performed in 94 subjects with a hitherto irrelevant sensitization. The clinical outcome was recorded, and results of specific IgE (sIgE) determinations, skin tests, and basophil activation tests were correlated to the sting reaction. sIgE levels were monitored in reactors and nonreactors after 3 hours, 1 week, 4 weeks, and 1 year. RESULTS: Only 5 (5.3%) patients had SSRs, but 41 (43.6%) had large local reactions (LLRs) after the sting. Compared with the general population, there was a 9.5-fold higher risk for LLRs but not for SSRs. Three hours after the sting, sIgE levels slightly decreased, but none of the 94 subjects' results turned negative. After 1 week, sIgE levels already increased, increasing up to 3.5-fold (range, 0.2- to 34.0-fold) baseline levels after 4 weeks. To assess the clinical relevance of this increase, we randomly selected 18 patients for a re-sting. Again, 50% had an LLR, but none had an SSR. CONCLUSION: Although sensitization to Hymenoptera venoms was common, the risk of SSRs in sensitized subjects was low in our study. The sIgE level increase after the sting was not an indicator for conversion into symptomatic sensitization. Currently available tests were not able to distinguish between asymptomatic sensitization, LLRs, and SSRs.