Search

The expression of E-cadherin on Langerhans cells (LC) is required for adequate dendrite intercalation between epidermal keratinocytes. Upon disruption of epidermal homeostasis by tape stripping, E-cadherin competent LC extend dendrites reaching up to the epidermal surface, while E-cad deficient LC lack this ability., (© 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Immunology published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH.)

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic recurrent inflammatory skin disease with a bipolar age distribution in childhood, adolescence and middle adulthood. Up to 50% of AD patients show ocular involvement, which can be potentially sight threatening. Clinically, the majority of cases present with atopic blepharo(kerato)conjunctivitis or atopic keratoconjunctivitis (AKC); other clinical variants from this group of inflammatory ocular surface diseases are keratoconjunctivitis vernalis in childhood and adolescence and allergic conjunctivitis. In addition to the aforementioned blepharitis, keratitis and conjunctivitis, AD is also associated with eyelid involvement with subsequent eyelid malposition, limbal insufficiency with the development of pseudopterygia, (chronic) cicatrizing conjunctivitis with symblephara formation and fornix shortening, as well as ocular surface malignancies such as conjunctival intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and squamous cell carcinoma. In addition, an association with AD or AKC has been described for keratoconus. Whereas the therapy of AD in dermatology has made revolutionary advances in recent years through the use of biologicals, the primary use of these biologicals in ophthalmological complications is still very hesitant. Treatment here is often provided using topical steroids and calcineurin inhibitors. The following article summarises recent developments in basic and clinical dermatological research and discusses them in the context of current concepts for ophthalmological therapy., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interssenkonflikt besteht./The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Non-sedating H 1 -antihistamines (nsAH) are the most commonly used treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Many patients use them as on-demand (OD) therapy rather than a maintenance treatment. Here, we compared OD versus daily maintenance treatment with the nsAH rupatadine, assessed the efficacy of rupatadine updosing, and investigated potential long-term disease-modifying effects., Methods: This multicenter, randomized study consisted of 2 weeks of screening, 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, and 6 weeks of treatment-free follow-up (OD allowed). Adult patients were randomized to 10 mg rupatadine OD or 10 mg rupatadine daily. At Week 4, if patients did not have a complete response, they switched from 10 to 20 mg rupatadine daily or underwent sham updosing (patients on 10 mg rupatadine OD). The primary aim was to compare CSU disease activity at the end of follow-up between daily versus OD. Additionally, we assessed the efficacy of rupatadine updosing. Major outcomes were disease activity, CSU-related quality of life (QoL), and disease control., Results: At Week 4, disease activity and QoL significantly improved in daily versus OD-treated patients. Updosing of rupatadine did not improve the mean disease activity, but the number of complete responders increased during updosing from 5% to 22%. At the end of follow-up, the disease activity of patients treated OD versus daily was not significantly different., Conclusions: Daily rupatadine treatment significantly improved CSU disease activity and QoL during treatment versus OD treatment but not after discontinuation of rupatadine, indicating the benefits of a daily maintenance nsAH schedule., (© 2023 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Tumor-induced lymphangiogenesis is strongly associated with the formation of tumor metastasis. Therefore, the regulation of lymphangiogenesis offers a promising target in cancer therapy. Arsenic trioxide (ATO) is highly effective in the treatment of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). As ATO mediates anti-angiogenic effects on endothelial and tumor cells, we aimed to explore the impact of ATO on lymphangiogenesis in human lymphatic endothelial cells (LEC). The BrdU assay and flow cytometry analysis were used to evaluate the influence of ATO on the proliferation and cell cycle distribution of LECs. The lymphatic suppression effects of ATO were investigated in vitro using the lymphatic tube formation assay. The effects of ATO on apoptosis, mitochondrial membrane potential and endothelial cell receptors were investigated by Western blotting, ELISA, flow cytometry and qRT-PCR. The treatment of LECs with ATO attenuated cell proliferation, blocked tube formation and induced subG0/G1 arrest in LECs, thus suggesting enhanced apoptosis. Although subG0/G1 arrest was accompanied by the upregulation of p21 and p53, ATO treatment did not lead to visible cell cycle arrest in LECs. In addition, ATO caused apoptosis via the release of cytochrome c from mitochondria, activating caspases 3, 8 and 9; downregulating the anti-apoptotic proteins survivin, XIAP and cIAP-2; and upregulating the pro-apoptotic protein Fas. Furthermore, we observed that ATO inhibited the VEGF-induced proliferation of LECs, indicating that pro-survival VEGF/VEGFR signaling was affected by ATO treatment. Finally, we found that ATO inhibited the expression of the important endothelial cell receptors VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3, Tie-2 and Lyve-1. In conclusion, we demonstrate that ATO inhibits lymphangiogenesis by activating apoptotic pathways and inhibiting important endothelial cell receptors, which suggests that this drug should be further evaluated in the treatment of tumor-associated lymphangiogenesis.

Hymenoptera venom (HV) allergy can lead to life threatening conditions by specific IgE (sIgE)-mediated anaphylactic reactions. The knowledge about major allergens from venom of different clinically relevant species increased in the last decades, allowing the development of component-resolved diagnostics in which sIgE to single allergens is analysed. Despite these advances, the precise regions of the allergens that bind to IgE are only known for few HV allergens. The detailed characterization of IgE epitopes may provide valuable information to improve immunodiagnostic tests and to develop new therapeutic strategies using allergen-derived peptides or other targeted approaches. Epitope-resolved analysis is challenging, since the identification of conformational epitopes present in many allergens demands complex technologies for molecular analyses. Furthermore, functional analysis of the epitopeś interaction with their respective ligands is needed to distinguish epitopes that can activate the allergic immune response, from those that are recognized by irrelevant antibodies or T cell receptors from non-effector cells. In this review, we focus on the use of mapping and molecular targeting approaches for characterization of the epitopes of the major venom allergens of clinically relevant Hymenoptera species. The screening of the most relevant allergen peptides by epitope mapping could be helpful for the development of molecules that target major and immunodominant epitopes blocking the allergen induced cellular reactions as novel approach for the treatment of HV allergy., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The authors declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (© 2023 Fernandes, Spillner and Jakob.)

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 β-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., Competing Interests: The conflicts of interest were recorded using the AWMF portal interessenerklaerungonline.de, evaluated by the conflict of interest officer of the DGAKI (for details see the guideline report) and tabulated in accordance with the AWMF. The guideline report and conflict of interest table are available at www.awmf.org/leitlinien/. AbbreviationsAbbreviations.AAIAdrenaline auto-injectorABDWorking Group for Occupational and Environmental Dermatology e.V.AeDAMedical Association of German AllergologistsAITAllergen immunotherapyAWMFAssociation of the Scientific Medical SocietiesbSTBaseline serum tryptase concentrationCCDCross-reactive carbohydrate determinantsDDGGerman Society of DermatologyDELBIGerman Guideline Assessment ToolDGAKIGerman Society for Allergology and Clinical ImmunologyDGHNO-KHCGerman Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck SurgeryDGKJGerman Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent MedicineDGPGerman Respiratory SocietyEAACIEuropean Academy of Allergology and Clinical ImmunologyGPASociety for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental MedicineH1Histamine 1HBHoney beeHIVHuman immunodeficiency virusHVHymenoptera venomHVAHymenoptera venom allergyHVSHymenoptera venom sensitizationHV-sIgEHymenoptera venom-specific IgE antibodiesILInterleukinÖGAIAustrian Society for Allergy and ImmunologySARSystemic allergic reactionssIgESpecific IgE antibodiesVITVenom immunotherapyVVVespid venom Table 1.Participating organizations and delegated representatives. German Respiratory Society (DGP)Dr. Wolfgang Sieber Norbert K. MülleneisenGerman Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI)Prof. Dr. Margitta Worm Prof. Dr. Knut Brockow Univ.-Prof. Dr. Thilo Jakob Prof. Dr. Bettina Wedi Prof. Dr. Franziska RuëffGerman Society of Dermatology (DDG)Prof. Dr. Ulf Darsow Prof. Dr. Regina Treudler Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Pfützner Dr. Jörg FischerAustrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI)Prof. Dr. Wolfram Hötzenecker Priv.-Doz. Mag. Dr. Stefan WöhrlMedical Association of German Allergists (AeDA)Prof. Dr. Randolf Brehler Prof. Dr. Thomas Fuchs Univ.-Prof. Dr. Hans Merk Prof. Dr. Ludger KlimekGerman Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC)Priv.-Doz. Dr. Adam Chaker Priv.-Doz. Dr. Sven BeckerSociety for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA)Dr. Sunhild Gernert Dr. Michael Gerstlauer Dr. Irena NeustädterArbeitsgemeinschaft für Berufs- und Umweltdermatologie e.V. (Association for Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, ABD)Prof. Dr. Andrea Bauer Prof. Dr. Christoph SkudlikGerman Society for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ)Dr. Lars Lange Prof. Dr. Eckhard Hamelmann Table 2.Recommendation strengths. StrengthSyntaxStrong recommendationShallWeak recommendationShouldOpen recommendationCan Table 3.Severity scale for the classification of anaphylactic reactions (according to Ring and Messmer) [7]*. GradeSkin#AbdomenRespiratory tractCardiovascular systemIItch Flush Urticaria Angioedema–––IIItch Flush Urticaria AngioedemaNausea CrampsRhinorrhea Hoarseness DyspneaTachycardia (increase of heart rate ≥ 20/minutes) Hypotension (decrease of systolic blood pressure ≥ 20 mmHg) ArrhythmiaIIIItch Flush Urticaria AngioedemaVomiting DefecationLaryngeal Edema Bronchospasm CyanosisShock Loss of consciousnessIVItch Flush Urticaria AngioedemaVomiting DefecationRespiratory arrestCardiac arrest #Generalized skin symptoms apart from the sting area; *Classification is based on the most severe symptoms encountered (none of the symptoms is obligatory). Box 1.Recommendations on the indication of allergological testing (skin test, IgE detection). Strength of consensus1. If there is a history of a general allergic reaction after a Hymenoptera sting, allergy testing shall be performed.Strong2. Without evidence of a general allergic reaction after Hymenoptera sting(s) („exclusion of insect venom allergy“), no diagnostic procedures should be undertaken.Majority3. If therapeutic consequences are unlikely because of only a mild systemic reaction limited to the skin, allergy testing should be avoided.Majority Table 4.Questionnaire for taking medical history in case of a systemic insect sting reaction. Insect venom allergy questionnaireDatePatient:       female □       male □Weight:       kgHeight:       cmSeverity of reaction1st sting2nd sting3rd stingSymptoms1st sting2nd sting3rd stingSting date (day/month/year)Itching all over the bodyInsectBeeHeat sensationVespulaRash all over the bodyOtherTingling in hands/feetCertainFace swellingUncertainRunny noseLocalization of the stingRedness of the eye conjunctivaInterval until symptom onset (min/h)Lump/tightness in the throatSite and circumstances of the eventCough irritationPhysical effort?Shortness of breathMental stress when reacting?NauseaDid the sting remain in the skin?VomitingOccupation?Urinary (stool) urgency/dischargeOutdoor activities?DizzinessLater tolerated stings?       Yes □       No □Feeling of weakness (circulatory disorder)Beekeeper?       Yes □       No □HeadacheIs there a beekeeper in the neighborhood?       Yes □       No □Unconsciousness (duration)OtherOtherHay fever □       Asthma □       Atopic eczema □Treatment: self/doctorComorbiditiesAdrenalineGlucocorticoidAntihistaminesIntravenous fluidsHospital admissionMedication at reaction (R) or currently (C)Intensive Care UnitRecovery after (hour(s)/day(s)/week(s))Information sheet handed out       Yes □       No □Emergency kit available       Yes □       No □Adrenaline auto-injector (trade name)Other medications: Table 5.Clues about the kind of insect causing the reaction [44]. BeeVespidRather “peaceful” (except at the hive)Rather “aggressive”, sting can also occur in “passing flight”.Main flying season spring to late summer(even on warm winter days!)Main flying season summer until late autumnAfter a sting, the stinger usually remains in the skinSting usually does not remain in the skin (exceptions are possible due to shearing, if the insect was trapped, for example)Occurrence mainly in the vicinity of bee hives, flowers, and cloverOccurrence mainly in the vicinity of food or garbage Table 6.Variables increasing exposure risk. (Hobby) beekeepers, family members and neighbors of beekeepersProfessions such as fruit or bakery seller, forestry worker, gardener, firefighter, farmer, roofer, construction workerIntensive practice of outdoor activities Box 2.Recommendations on the recording of risk factors. Strength of consensus4. Risk factors for an increased sting risk shall be obtained when taking the medical history.Strong5. The medical history shall capture possible risk factors for more severe anaphylaxis.Strong6. If a systemic allergic reaction has not only affected the skin, basic diagnosis for the detection of mastocytosis shall involve a skin inspection to detect mastocytosis of the skin and a determination of basal serum tryptase concentration.Consensus Box 3.Recommendations on the in-vitro diagnostics of sIgE against Hymenoptera venoms and their components. Strength of consensus7. A determination of specific IgE antibodies against bee and/or Vespula venom/components shall be performed; in case of a suspected sting reaction caused by other Hymenoptera, this determination shall be also directed against the corresponding other venom.Strong8. In the case of negative test results obtained shortly (less than 2 weeks) after the sting reaction, the tests shall be repeated (no sooner than 4 – 6 weeks after the sting reaction).Strong9. In case of double sensitization against whole bee and Vespula venom extract, or if an implausible result is suspected, testing of sIgE against recombinant components shall be performed.Strong Box 5.Recommendations on the determination of bST. Strength of consensus12. All patients with anaphylaxis (severity grade ≥ II) after a Hymenoptera sting shall have a determination of bST.Strong13. In case of elevated serum tryptase measured within 24 hours after the acute sting event, a control measurement shall be performed in the symptom-free interval.Strong14. If the bST concentration is permanently elevated (> 20 µg/L), further diagnostic measures shall be performed to clarify mastocytosis.Consensus Box 6.Recommendations on skin tests with Hymenoptera venoms. Strength of consensus15. If an unequivocal diagnosis is obtained by in-vitro diagnostics, a skin test can be omitted.Consensus16. The skin test can be performed as a titrated prick and/or intradermal test.Strong Box 7.Recommendation on sting provocation in adults. Strength of consensus17. Diagnostic sting provocations (before the start of VIT) or sting provocations after completion of VIT shall not be performed.Consensus Box 8.Recommendations on large local sting reactions. Strength of consensus18. Acute treatment can be symptomatic using non-sedating antihistamines, cooling compresses, topical and/or systemic glucocorticoids.Consensus19. Antibiotic therapy for the treatment of non-infectious lymphangitis or lymphadenopathy shall not be performed.Consensus Box 9.Recommendations for long-term care in patients with a history of a large local reaction. Strength of consensus20. VIT shall not be performed for large local reactions.Strong Table 9.Emergency medication for self-treatment in children and adults [43]. Adrenaline auto-injector for intramuscular application, weight-adapted:7.5 – 25 kg BW or 15 – 30 kg BW150 μg*25 – 50 kg BW or 30 – 50 kg BW300 μg*> 50 kg BW300 – 500# – 600# μg– H1 receptor-blocking antihistamine, according to patient age and preference, orally as liquid or (melting) tablet – The dose of the respective antihistamine can be increased off-label up to four times the single dose – For dimetinden drops, a weight-adapted dosage of the IV formulation can be recommended as an oral dose (Table 8)Glucocorticoid, according to patient age and preference, rectally or orally (as liquid or tablet) with 50 – 100 mg prednisolone equivalentIn case of known bronchial asthma or previous reaction with bronchospasm additionally β2-adrenoceptor agonist 2 puffsIf there is a history of laryngeal edema, additionally: inhaled adrenaline preparation with spray head for drug vial (to be specifically requested from pharmacist)Note: An emergency first aid kit should include an anaphylaxis passport with written instructions for use of the components. *According to the respective approval status for the prescribed autoinjector; BW = body weight; #not available in Austria; IV = intravenous. Table 11.Recommendations for prescribing AAIs in patients with insect venom allergy. Absolute indication– Children and adults with mastocytosis and/or elevated basal serum tryptase levels: before, during, and after completion of immunotherapy– Untreated children and adults with more than cutaneous/mucosal SAR (i.e., grade I anaphylaxis) and at high risk of re-exposure– During VIT: in children and adults with more than cutaneous/mucosal SARs (i.e., grade I anaphylaxis) when there are additional risk factors* for non-response to immunotherapy– After completion of regular VIT in children and adults presenting with more than cutaneous/mucosal SAR (i.e., grade I anaphylaxis) and if there are additional risk factors* for non-response to VIT.Relative indication– Long distance to medical care and/or high risk of exposure and/or impaired quality of life– After completion of regular VIT in children and adults with cutaneous/mucosal reactions (grade I) who are at increased risk of exposure and/or have had a short duration of immunotherapy (< 3 years)– Individual patient request*Risk factors in this context are severe insect venom anaphylaxis (grade III or IV), high risk of exposure (e.g., beekeeper), (repeated) systemic reaction under immunotherapy, mastocytosis, or elevated baseline serum tryptase above 20 µg/L . For adults, bee venom allergy is also considered a risk factor. Table 10.Patient information sheet “How to behave in the event of a sting”. – Keep calm! If attacked by bees or wasps, protect the head with arms or clothing. The retreat must not be hectic, but very slow. Insects release pheromones when stinging, which also motivate other insects to sting. Therefore, the sting site should be covered with the hand in the event of a sting.– Try to selectively inform bystanders about the sting event and its possible consequences.– Immediately remove any stinger remaining in the skin. When doing so, do not squeeze the sting apparatus with your fingers, but scrape it away to the side.Emergency medication in case of mild reactions limited to the skin:– If venom-specific immunotherapy has not yet been administered, oral medication is taken immediately after the sting, even in the absence of symptoms, according to the doctor‘s instructions: – Antihistamines – Steroids– After a successful allergen-specific immunotherapy*, medication should only be taken if, contrary to expectations, systemic symptoms do occur. For symptoms limited to the skin, oral medications are used first, and for more extensive reactions, the adrenaline auto-injector is used.Emergency measures in case of shortness of breath, swelling in the mouth/throat region or of circulatory problems:– Inject adrenaline laterally into the lateral thigh– In case of asthma, inhale 2 puffs of the emergency spray– Correct positioning (shortness of breath→ raised upper body, circulatory problems head-down position, unconsciousness→ stable side position)– Take oral medications only if swallowing is possible without problems– Alert an emergency doctor immediately!*Your allergist has confirmed that success of an allergen-specific immunotherapy is highly likely based on a tolerated sting provocation or field sting. Box 10.Recommendations on the emergency kit. Strength of consensus21. In patients with a history of a severity grade I reaction, and in the absence of other risk factors, the prescription of an AAI is not required. However, the AAI can be prescribed in special situations (e.g., high risk of exposure, long distance to medical care, limitation of quality of life).Consensus22. In patients with a history of anaphylaxis (grade II – IV) or of a severity grade I reaction in combination with a high risk of re-exposure, an emergency kit including an AAI shall be prescribed until allergy diagnosis and assessment are complete.Consensus23. After successful initiation of VIT and reaching the maintenance dose at the maintenance interval, the prescription of an AAI can be waived in patients with a history of a systemic sting reaction (severity grade I – II) and in the absence of other risk factors for VIT failure.Consensus24. After successful completion of VIT, the prescription of an AAI can be waived in patients with a history of a systemic sting reaction (severity grade I – II) and in the absence of other risk factors for VIT failure.Consensus25. Patients with grade III or IV anaphylaxis or patients who present with other risk factors for VIT failure shall carry an emergency kit with an AAI during and after VIT. Risk factors include: high risk of exposure (e.g., beekeepers), repeated SAR on immunotherapy, mast cell disease, and/or elevated basal serum tryptase (> 20 µg/L). For adults, bee venom allergy is also considered a risk factor.Consensus Box 11.Recommendation on ACE inhibitors. Recommendation on ACE inhibitorsStrength of consensus26. If there is no firm need for the use of ACE inhibitors and if their switching is straightforward, the drug may be replaced by another medication.Consensus Box 12.Recommendations on the indication of Hymenoptera VIT. Strength of consensus27. VIT shall be performed in patients with a history of an anaphylactic reaction of severity grade ≥ II according to Ring and Messmer, and with evidence of IgE-mediated sensitization to the culprit venom.Strong28. If there is increased exposure, if there are relevant risk factors for a particularly severe anaphylaxis, and/or if quality of life would be significantly impaired without VIT, VIT shall be performed even if there is only a history of an exclusively cutaneous SAR.Strong Table 12.Contraindications of VIT. Uncontrolled asthmaActive malignant neoplastic diseasesSevere active systemic autoimmune diseases and severe immunodeficienciesInsufficient complianceUntreated, chronic infection (e.g., active HIV, viral hepatitis) Box 19.Recommendation on sting provocation. Strength of consensus43. Sting provocation can be performed on a case-by-case basis to verify the success of therapy. Provocation shall only be performed in patients who have reached the planned maintenance dose and tolerate VIT.Strong Table 16.Variables associated with treatment failure/success [59]. Risk factors or predictors of treatment failure– Bee venom > Vespula venom– Repeated systemic allergic reactions while being on VIT– Mastocytosis, increased bSTProtective factors– Higher treatment dose (also double VIT)– Extended treatment time Box 20.Recommendations on the management of systemic allergic sting reactions while being on maintenance therapy. Strength of consensus44. If treatment failure is evident during ACE inhibitor therapy, discontinuation of the ACE inhibitor should be considered.Strong45. If there is evidence of overt therapeutic failure, maintenance venom dose shall be increased in adults to up to 200 µg or above (maximum 400 µg), and in children to up to 200 µg.Strong46. If protection cannot be established by increasing the maintenance dose and if there are co-factors for severe anaphylaxis, co-medication with an IgE antibody (omalizumab; off-label use) should be considered during the relevant insect flight period.Strong Figure 1.Apis mellifera (honey bee).Figure 2.Vespula germanica on ivy.Figure 3.Vespula vulgaris on a plum.Figure 4.Dolichovespula media on the earth.Figure 5.Dolichovespula saxonica.Figure 6.Polistes dominulus while drinking.Figure 7.Vespa crabro (hornet) on a leaf.Figure 8.Bombus hortorum (bumblebee).Figure 9.Stepwise diagnosis using whole venoms (bee venom (BV) and Vespula venom (VV)) and allergen components of bee venom (Api m) and Vespula venom (Ves v).Figure 10.Algorithm for the diagnosis of suspected Hymenoptera venom allergy. Table 7.Allergologically significant components of bee and Vespula venom (http://www.allergome.org). Apis melliferaVespula speciesApi m 1Phospholipase A2a#Ves v 1Phospholipase A1a#Api m 2Hyaluronidasea,b#Ves v 2Hyaluronidasea,bApi m 3Acid phosphatasea#Ves v 3Dipeptidyl peptidasea,b#Api m 4Melittinc#Ves v 5Antigen 5aApi m 5Dipeptidyl peptidasea,b#Ves v 6VitellogeninbApi m 6Protease inhibitorApi m 7CUB Serine ProteaseApi m 8CarboxylesteraseApi m 9Serine carboxypeptidaseApi m 10Icarapinea#Api m 11Gellée royal proteinApi m 12VitellogeninbaMajor allergen: More than 50% of the patients tested show sensitization to the allergen in question; bcross-reacting venom allergens. The sIgE reactivity against bee venom hyaluronidase can be interpreted as a marker for bee venom-specific sensitization. In contrast, sIgE reactivity against Vespula venom hyaluronidase is mainly based on reactivity against cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants; cresearch purposes; #IgE detection kits for single detection are commercially available (singleplex). Table 8.Measures to prevent Hymenoptera stings. – Repellents (chemical insect repellents) do not provide protection.– When being outdoors, avoid eating or drinking food, picking fruits or flowers, staying near waste baskets, trash cans, animal enclosures, or fallen fruit, and using perfume or scented cosmetics. Wash hands and wipe mouth after eating.– Do not drink from bottles or beverage cans, cover drinking glasses, use straws.– Do not scare insects away from food sources, especially not with hectic movements.– Keep skin largely covered by clothing (at least when gardening). Do not walk barefoot, or use open foot wear. When riding a motorcycle, wear gloves and motorcycle clothing close to the skin. Open bicycle helmets are to be provided with a net.– Be especially careful on days with hot and humid weather, as insects are aggressive during such weather.– Avoid wearing loose-fitting, light garments, e.g., loose skirts or dresses with dark colors; try to wear dresses with light colors.– Keep apartment windows closed during the day or secure them with insect nets. No light in the evening when windows are open, as hornets are nocturnal and then prefer to fly towards light sources.– Watch for hidden insects (especially in bed or shoes).– Beehives must be avoided. Nests near a permanent residence must be removed (by beekeeper or fire department).– Wasp traps or repellent sprays can be helpful.– When approached by insects or being near the nest, avoid hectic or flapping movements, pull back slowly! Nests must not be shaken. Do not breathe into a flight hole. Box 4.Recommendations on IgE determination against Hymenoptera venoms and their components. Strength of consensus10. If HVA requiring absolutely necessary treatment is suspected, and if results from IgE detection methods for venom components and whole venom and from skin tests are not conclusive, cellular tests can be performed.Consensus11. Determination of specific IgG antibodies to Hymenoptera venom should not be used to assess the need for treatment of HVA.Consensus Table 13.Schemes* for updosing to 100 µg insect venom. PeriodHymenoptera venom dose in µgDayHourUltra-rushRush (3 days)Cluster100.010.020.020.50.10.04110.080.041.5100.22200.40.082.5400.838023.544.0820100822041004068030802100WeekHour100.210.4200.812404185106207408809100*There are numerous modifications to these updosing schemes in which the maintenance dose of 100 µg can be reached in a shorter or longer time, and which contain even more or fewer intermediate steps. Table 14.Updosing schemes with aqueous Hymenoptera venom [according to Ruëff (scheme 1) or Bauer (scheme 2)] to > 100 µg). Scheme 1Scheme 2DayMinutesDose (µg)Dose (µg)10100100+302040+30306020150100+3020100+30303200 Table 15.Management of repeated systemic allergic reactions to Hymenoptera VIT. 1. Identification (and, where possible, elimination) of risk factors for SARs in VIT.   Drugs    Concomitant inhalant or food allergy    Chronic infection, other general diseases    Physical exertion on the day of injection   Optimization of drug therapy at the reacting organ (for example, an anti-obstructive therapy for asthmatic reactions).2. Adjunctive therapy with H1-blocking antihistamine3. Continued administration of the highest tolerated dose of HV for 3 months, then starting updosing again4. Pretreatment with an anti-IgE antibody (300 mg omalizumab; off-label use): e.g., 5, 3, and 1 week before resuming updosing (> 100 µg maintenance dose if necessary) and subsequent continuation every 4 weeks for 4 – 6 months [134].SAR = systemic allergic reactions; VIT = venom immunotherapy; HV = hymenoptera venom Box 13.Recommendations on contraindications of Hymenoptera VIT. Strength of consensus29. The use of β-blockers and ACE inhibitors are no contraindication of VIT. Patients should be informed about possible interactions.Consensus30. The following contraindications to VIT shall be respected: uncontrolled bronchial asthma, active malignant neoplastic disease, severe active systemic autoimmune disease and severe immunodeficiency (terminal AIDS), inadequate compliance, untreated chronic infection (e.g., active HIV, hepatitis C), pregnancy (for re-initiation)Strong31. In individual cases, VIT may be applied despite the presence of contraindications. This concept shall include a thorough weighing of the benefits and risks. Autoimmune diseases, severe cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases, and malignant diseases shall be optimally treated, shall be in remission before initiation of VIT, and shall be closely monitored during the course of VIT.Strong Box 15.Recommendations on venom selection for Hymenoptera VIT. Strength of consensus34. For VIT, that venom shall be used, which was the culprit venom according patient history and to the results of the allergological work-up.Strong35. If there is double sensitization, if the history of the patient is uncertain with regard to the culprit venom, and if the culprit venom cannot be determined even by additional diagnostic procedures, VIT with both venoms shall be performed.Strong36. If allergy to the venoms of bumblebees or hornets is certain, VIT shall be performed with the related, partly cross-reacting venoms of bees or wasps.Consensus Box 14.Recommendations on the practical implementation of Hymenoptera VIT. Strength of consensus32. The standard maintenance dose of VIT shall be 100 µg of Hymenoptera venom.Strong33. In case of bee venom allergy and increased risk of sting or risk of particularly severe anaphylaxis, starting VIT with a maintenance dose of 200 µg may be considered.Consensus Box 16.Recommendation on the maintenance therapy of Hymenoptera VIT. Strength of consensus37. The maintenance dose should be administered at 4-week intervals in the 1st year and, taking into account the manufacturer’s information, can be administered every 5 – 6 weeks from the 2nd year onwards, depending on the preparation used, and every 8 weeks from the 3rd year onwards if a depot preparation is used.Consensus Box 17.Recommendation on the reduction of side effects in Hymenoptera VIT. Strength of consensus38. A non-sedating antihistamine can be administered as a preventive measure during updosing, which can be continued in the further treatment if required. In case of reactions in the area of the injection site, local cooling measures shall be used.Consensus Box 18.Recommendations on the management of repeated systemic allergic adverse events in Hymenoptera VIT. Strength of consensus39. Possible risk factors of systemic side effects of VIT shall be identified and eliminated as appropriate.Majority40. Concomitant therapy with an H1-blocking antihistamine should be performed. The last tolerated dose should be continued for 3 months and, subsequently, a new updosing should be attempted.Consensus41. If risk factors for systemic side effects are present and cannot be eliminated, and if concomitant therapy with an H1-blocking antihistamine is not effective, concomitant treatment with an anti-IgE antibody (omalizumab; off-label use) should be performed.Majority42. If side effects continue to occur, the last maximum dose that was tolerated should be administered every 4 weeks for 5 years.Consensus Box 21.Recommendations on the duration of Hymenoptera VIT. Strength of consensus47. In the absence of risk factors described below (recommendations 48 and 49), VIT can be discontinued after 3 – 5 years, provided that maintenance therapy has been tolerated without recurrent anaphylactic side effects.Consensus48. Permanent VIT can be considered in patients with, among others, – established mastocytosis, – cardiovascular or respiratory arrest due to Hymenoptera stings – other specific individual constellations indicating an increased individual risk (e.g., hereditary α-tryptasemia)Strong49. If insect exposure time is greatly increased and unavoidable (e.g., occupational), VIT can be given to adults until the end of intensive contact.Consensus, (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Not available., Competing Interests: The information on interests was collected using the AWMF form of 2018 and assessed by Prof. Dr. Monika Raulf for a thematic relation to the guideline. Guideline-relevant lecturing or consulting activities for manufacturers of devices for allergy diagnosis were categorized as a low conflict of interest, and direct financial secondary interests (e.g., share ownership, patent) as a moderate/high conflict of interest. Low conflicts of interest resulted in abstention from voting. Strong conflicts of interest were not present. Protective factors counteracting conflict of interest bias were the pluralistic composition of the guideline group, structured consensus building under neutral moderation, discussion on interests, and handling of conflicts of interest at the beginning of each consensus meeting, and a public consultation version. Abbreviations.Abbreviations. ADRAdverse drug reactionAGEPAcute generalized exanthematous pustulosisAWMFGerman Association of the Scientific Medical SocietiesCOPDChronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseDGAKIGerman Society for Allergology and Clinical ImmunologyDRESSDrug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptomsINNInternational non-proprietary nameMPEMaculopapular exanthemNSAIDNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugsSJSStevens-Johnson syndromeTENToxic epidermal necrolysis Table 1.Definitions.Adverse drug reaction (ADR): A noxious and unintended reaction that occurs in addition to the intended effect of a drug, for which a causal relationship between the use of the drug and the adverse effect is suspected. ADRs can be both type A (pharmacological/toxic) and type B (hypersensitivity).Type A (“augmented” = pharmacological/toxic (on-target) drug effects): Disease manifestations due to dose-dependent predictable pharmacological/toxic effects of a drug at the recommended dose (examples: sedative effect of older antihistamines, hair loss due to cytostatics) or increased dosage (intoxication).Type B (“bizarre” = hypersensitivity (off-target) reactions): Individual, unpredictable clinical reaction to a drug, i.e., symptoms occur only in specially predisposed patients. Two forms can be distinguished:   –Drug allergy: Hypersensitivity is based on an immunological reaction (types I – IV according to Coombs and Gell).   –Non-allergic drug hypersensitivity: An allergic mechanism is not detectable. Previously, this type of reaction was further divided into:      –Drug intolerance: Typical symptoms of pharmacological action (toxicity) develop even at low doses that are usually tolerated.      –Drug idiosyncrasy: The symptoms differ from the pharmacological substance effect. In cases where the symptomatology of this form of hypersensitivity looked similar to an allergic reaction, the term pseudoallergy has also been used. Table 2.Time interval, clinic, and pathomechanism – three levels for classifying a drug hypersensitivity reaction. 1) Time reaction intervalsa) For those already sensitized   –Immediate reaction (“immediate”) immediate up to 60 minutes (in rare exceptions up to 6 hours)   –Delayed reaction (“non-immediate”) > 6 hours to several weeksb) In case of new sensitization under therapy   –Typical sensitization latency 7 – 10 days2) Clinical manifestationsa) Immediate reaction: E.g., flush, urticaria, angioedema, bronchospasm, anaphylaxis.b) Late reaction: Maculopapular exanthem (MPE), acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). Severe cutaneous drug reactions: Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS).c) Others: E.g., hepatitis, cytopenia, autoimmune diseases (e.g., lupus erythematosus, drug-induced linear IgA dermatosis)3) Pathomechanisma) Allergic hypersensitivity: Immediate type (type I according to Coombs and Gell, IgE mediated): typical manifestation, immediate-type symptoms (reaction time: 0 – 6 hours)b) Non-allergic hypersensitivity: Typical manifestation immediate-type symptoms (reaction time: 0 – 6 hours, rarely up to 12 hours)c) Allergic hypersensitivity: Delayed-type (type IV according to Coombs and Gell, T-cell mediated): typical manifestation delayed-type (reaction time: 24 – 72 hours, begin rarely after 6 – 24 hours).d) Other forms of immunologically mediated hypersensitivity (type II, type III according to Coombs and Gell, IgG, IgA, or IgM mediated): Cytopenias, serum sickness, immune complex vasculitis (vasculitis allergica); (reaction time: 24 hours or more).e) In case of new sensitization under therapy: Typical immunologic sensitization latency 5 – 7 days for types I –IV, with reaction latency of 1 –3 days). Onset of MPE after 7 –10 days. However, the reaction in SJS/TEN, DRESS may occur after weeks, that in autoimmune diseases (e.g., lupus erythematosus) after months, probably due to sensitization only after prolonged exposure (e.g., sensitization or triggering favored by cofactors). Table 3.Typical time interval between start of drug intake and first occurrence of reactions. Reaction patternTime intervalUrticaria, asthma, anaphylaxis≤ 1 hour, rarely up to 6 hours after start of exposureFixed drug exanthem ≤ 48 hours, rarely later after start of exposureMaculopapular drug exanthem4 – 14 days after start of exposure*AGEP1 –12 days after start of exposure**SJS/TEN4 – 28 days after start of exposure***DRESS2 – 8 weeks after start of exposureAGEP = acute exanthematous generalized pustulosis; SJS = Stevens-Johnson Syndrome; TEN = toxic epidermal necrolysis; DRESS = drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms. *In repeat reactions, time interval typically shortened compared to initial reaction. In maculopapular drug exanthem typically reaction after 1 – 4 days, in AGEP, SJS, TEN, DRESS typical time interval after repeat reactions not studied. **For antibiotics mostly 1 – 2 days, for other drugs often 7 – 12 days. ***Sometimes longer for allopurinol. Table 4.Important clinical and anamnestic information for the test plan. A) Clinical manifestation   – Documentation of clinical manifestations and/or organ systems involved: e.g., skin, airways, cardiovascular system, gastrointestinal tract, liver, kidney.   – Exact description of the clinical-morphological findings (especially in case of skin manifestations/mucosal reactions) additionally photo documentation   – General symptoms: Fever, reduced general condition   – Course of the reaction (onset of the reaction in temporal relation to the drug administration, duration of the reaction, morphological change of the reaction).   – Laboratory findings (e.g., blood count changes such as eosinophilia, thrombocytopenia; liver and kidney values; serum tryptase).   – If necessary, histological findings (especially in the case of blistering skin reactions)B) Other circumstances of the reaction   – Acute illness at the time of the reaction (e.g., concurrent infectious disease).   – Co-factors that may lower the threshold for an allergic or non-allergic reaction: stress, physical exertion, food intake, alcohol intake, UV exposure, menstruation.C) Documentation of drugs used in temporal relation to the reaction.   – Indication for drug use   – Trade name   – Mode of application   – Ingredients (active ingredients)   – Duration of application   – Dosage   – Tolerance after previous or during renewed applicationD) General history and findings   – Known hypersensitivity reactions (allergy passport)   – Similar reactions without drug application (e.g., natural latex allergy)   – Atopic diseases, food allergy   – Disposing diseases (e.g., asthma, nasal polyps, chronic urticaria, mastocytosis, infections, e.g., HIV, EBV)   – Other relevant past or current medical conditions (including somatoform or mental health conditions)   – Noxious agents: Nicotine, alcohol, drugs   – Current medication (long-term medication)E) Chronology of the hypersensitivity reaction   – Timing in relation to drug application   – First occurrence   – Course and resolution   – Therapeutic measures and responseF) Diagnosis and pathophysiological classification of the clinical reaction taking into account (see Table 1):   – Morphology and symptoms   – Time courseNote: In the case of multiple reactions, the information for each individual reaction is required. Table 5.Non-irritant skin test concentrations of commonly tested drugs [17]. Drug or classSkin prick testIntradermal test8Patch testBeta-lactam antibiotics   Benzylpenicilloyl-octa-L-lysine8.6 × 10-5 mol/L8.6 × 10-5 mol/LNA   Sodium benzylpenilloate1.5 × 10-3 mol/L1.5 × 10-3 mol/LNA   Benzylpenicillin10,000 UI/mL10,000 UI/mL5%   Amoxicillin20 mg/mL20 mg/mL5%   Ampicillin20 mg/mL20 mg/mL5%   Cephalosporins20 mg/mL1020 mg/mL105%Anticoagulants   Heparins1Undiluted81/10 dilutedUndiluted8   Heparinoids2Undiluted81/10 dilutedUndiluted8Platinum salts   Carboplatin10 mg/mL1 mg/mLNA   Oxaliplatin1 mg/mL0.1 mg/mLNA   Cisplatin1 mg/mL0.1 mg/mLNANSAID   Pyrazolone3Suspension90.1 – 1 mg/mL10%   Coxibe4Suspension910%   Other NSAIDs5Suspension90.1 – 1 mg/mL10%Biologics   Adalimumab50 mg/mL50 mg/mLUndiluted8   Etanercept25 mg/mL5 mg/mLNA   Infliximab10 mg/mL10 mg/mLNA   Omalizumab1.25 µg/mL1.25 µg/mLNAOther   Local anestheticsUndiluted81/10 dilutedUndiluted8   X-ray contrast agentUndiluted81/10 dilutedUndiluted8   Gadolinium chelatesUndiluted81/10 dilutedNA   Patent blueUndiluted1/10 dilutedNA   Methylene blueUndiluted1/100 dilutedNA   FluoresceinUndiluted81/10 dilutedUndiluted8   Proton pump inhibitors6Undiluted940 mg/mL10%   Anticonvulsants7NANA10%   Chlorhexidine digluconate5 mg/mL0.002 mg/mL1% 1Heparins: unfractionated heparin, nadroparin, dalteparin, enoxaparin; testing contraindicated in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. 2Heparinoids: danaparoid, fondaparinux. 3Pyrazolones: metamizole, propyphenazone, aminopyrine, phenazone, phenylbutazone. 4Coxibs: celecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib. 5Other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: e.g., aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, indomethacin, diclofenac, fenoprofen, meloxicam, mefenamic acid, nimesulide. 6For lasoprazole and rabeprazole no intravenous solution for intradermal test (IDT), only skin prick test. 7For severe reactions, first test with 1%. 8Use of commercially available solution for intravenous infusion or subcutaneous injection. 9Crushing of the tablet and preparation of a suspension with physiological saline solution. 10Only for cefepime 2 mg/mL each. NA = not applicable or no concentration recommended. Table 6.Selection of commercial tests for the determination of specific IgE antibodies against drugs in serum*. – Ampicilloyl1– Amoxicylloyl1– Cefaclor2– Chlorhexidine2– Gelatin (bovine)1 Galactoseα−1,3-galactose (α-gal)1,3– Insulin (Human) 1– Morphine2– Penicilloyl G1– Penicilloyl V1– Pholcodin2– Suxamethonium (succinylcholine) 2*When determining sIgE for drugs, attention must be paid to the validation of the test methods. CE certification requires at least five, FDA registration at least 30 positive patient sera, as well as studies on stability and reproducibility. If these criteria are not met, test reagents may be offered for research purposes. Here, particular attention should be paid to the quality of the deposited literature. In routine diagnostics, no determinations of sIgE should be performed against substances for which no IgE-mediated allergic reactions have been described so far. 1CE-certified and FDA-registered; 2CE-certified,3 α-gal, this is an IgE-reactive sugar epitope which is held responsible for anaphylactic reactions to cetuximab and infusion solutions containing gelatine. Figure 1.Diagnostic algorithm for suspected drug hypersensitivity [2]., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

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., (© 2023 The Authors. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The experimental fusion protein rFlaA:Betv1 was shown to efficiently suppress allergen-specific sensitization in mice. However, the detailed mechanism of rFlaA:Betv1-mediated immune modulation is not fully understood. In this study, we investigated the effect of rFlaA:Betv1 on naïve murine B cells., Methods: Immune modulating capacity of rFlaA:Betv1 was screened in IL-10 reporter mice. B cells were isolated from spleens of naïve C57Bl/6, TLR5 -/- , or MyD88 -/- mice, stimulated with rFlaA:Betv1 and controls, and monitored for the expression of the regulatory B cell markers CD1d, CD24, CD38, and surface IgM by flow cytometry. Secreted cytokines, antibodies, and reactivity of the induced antibodies were investigated by ELISA and intracellular flow cytometry. Suppressive capacity of rFlaA:Betv1-stimulated B cells was tested in mDC:CD4 + T cell:B cell triple cultures., Results: Upon in vivo application of rFlaA:Betv1 into IL-10-GFP reporter mice, CD19 + B cells were shown to produce anti-inflammatory IL-10, suggesting B cells to contribute to the immune-modulatory properties of rFlaA:Betv1. rFlaA:Betv1-induced IL-10 secretion was confirmed in human B cells isolated from buffy coats. In vitro stimulation of naïve murine B cells with rFlaA:Betv1 resulted in an mTOR- and MyD88-dependent production of IL-10 and rFlaA:Betv1 induced Bet v 1-reactive IgG production, which was not observed for IgA. rFlaA:Betv1-stimulated B cells formed a CD19 + CD24 + CD1d + IgM + CD38 + Breg subpopulation capable of suppressing Bet v 1-induced TH2 cytokine secretion in vitro., Conclusion: rFlaA:Betv1 can act as a thymus-independent B cell antigen, stimulating the mTOR- and MyD88-dependent differentiation of B cells displaying a regulatory phenotype, IL-10 secretion, antigen-binding antibody production, and a suppressive capacity in vitro., (© 2022 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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 T H 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., (© 2022 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Not available., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

In addition to the endocrine and paracrine systems, peripheral tissues such as gonads, skin, and adipose tissue are involved in the intracrine mechanisms responsible for the formation of sex steroids via the transformation of dehydroepiandrosterone and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEA/DHEAS) into potent androgenic and estrogenic hormones. Numerous studies have examined the relationship between overweight, central obesity, and plasma levels of DHEA and DHEAS. The sodium-dependent organic anion transporter Soat ( Slc10a6 ) is a plasma membrane uptake transporter for sulfated steroids. Significantly increased expression of Slc10a6 mRNA has been previously described in organs and tissues of lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-treated mice, including white adipose tissue. These findings suggest that Soat plays a role in the supply of steroids in peripheral target tissues. The present study aimed to investigate the expression of Soat in adipocytes and its role in adipogenesis. Soat expression was analyzed in mouse white intra-abdominal (WAT), subcutaneous (SAT), and brown (BAT) adipose tissue samples and in murine 3T3-L1 adipocytes. In addition, adipose tissue mass and size of the adipocytes were analyzed in wild-type and Slc10a6 -/- knockout mice. Soat expression was detected in mouse WAT, SAT, and BAT using immunofluorescence. The expression of Slc10a6 mRNA was significantly higher in 3T3-L1 adipocytes than that of preadipocytes and was significantly upregulated by exposure to lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Slc10a6 mRNA levels were also upregulated in the adipose tissue of LPS-treated mice. In Slc10a6 -/- knockout mice, adipocytes increased in size in the WAT and SAT of female mice and in the BAT of male mice, suggesting adipocyte hypertrophy. The serum levels of adiponectin, resistin, and leptin were comparable in wild-type and Slc10a6 -/- knockout mice. The treatment of 3T3-L1 adipocytes with DHEA significantly reduced lipid accumulation, while DHEAS did not have a significant effect. However, following LPS-induced Soat upregulation, DHEAS also significantly inhibited lipid accumulation in adipocytes. In conclusion, Soat-mediated import of DHEAS and other sulfated steroids could contribute to the complex pathways of sex steroid intracrinology in adipose tissues. Although in cell cultures the Soat-mediated uptake of DHEAS appears to reduce lipid accumulation, in Slc10a6 -/- knockout mice, the Soat deletion induced adipocyte hyperplasia through hitherto unknown mechanisms., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Karakus, Schmid, Leiting, Fühler, Schäffler, Jakob and Geyer.)

Background: Contact sensitizers may interfere with correct protein folding. Generation of un-/misfolded proteins can activate the IRE-1 or PERK signaling pathways initiating the unfolded protein response (UPR) and thereby determine inflammatory immune responses. We have analyzed the effect of sensitizers with different potencies on the induction of UPR activation/inhibition and the subsequent generation of a pro-inflammatory micromilieu in vitro as well as the effect of UPR modulation on the inflammatory response in the murine contact hypersensitivity (CHS) in vivo., Methods: Semi-quantitative and quantitative PCR, fluorescence microscopy, ELISA, NF-κB activation and translocation assays, DC/keratinocyte co-culture assay, FACS, and in vivo CHS experiments were performed., Results: Sensitizers and irritants activate IRE-1 and PERK in murine and human keratinocytes. Synergistic effects occur after combination of different weak sensitizers / addition of irritants. Moreover, tolerogenic dinitrothiocyanobenzene can be converted into a strong sensitizer by pre-activation of the UPR. Blocking UPR signaling results in decreased NF-κB activation and cytokine production in keratinocytes and in activation marker downregulation in a HaCaT/THP-1 co-culture. Interestingly, not only systemic but also topical application of UPR inhibitors abrogates CHS responses in vivo., Conclusion: These observations highlight an important role of the UPR in determination of the inflammatory response in vitro and in vivo further underlining the importance of tissue stress and damage responses in the development of ACD and provide mechanistically based concepts as a basis for the development of new therapeutic approaches to treat allergic contact dermatitis., (© 2021 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In this review, we outline and reflect on the important differences between allergen-specific immunotherapy for inhalant allergies (i.e., aeroallergens) and venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT), with a special focus on Venomil ® Bee and Wasp. Venomil ® is provided as a freeze-dried extract and a diluent to prepare a solution for injection for the treatment of patients with IgE-mediated allergies to bee and/or wasp venom and for evaluating the degree of sensitivity in a skin test. While the materials that make up the product have not changed, the suppliers of raw materials have changed over the years. Here, we consolidate relevant historical safety and efficacy studies that used products from shared manufacture supply profiles, i.e., products from Bayer or Hollister-Stier. We also consider the characterization and standardization of venom marker allergens, providing insights into manufacturing controls that have produced stable and consistent quality profiles over many years. Quality differences between products and their impacts on treatment outcomes have been a current topic of discussion and further research. Finally, we review the considerations surrounding the choice of depot adjuvant most suitable to augmenting VIT.

Purpose: Patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) have an increased risk for comorbid autoimmune diseases. In this retrospective multicenter study of CSU patients, we evaluated clinical and laboratory features of CSU associated with a higher risk of comorbid autoimmune diseases., Methods: We analyzed records of CSU patients (n = 1,199) for a history or presence of autoimmune diseases. Patients were diagnosed with type IIb autoimmune CSU (aiCSU) if all 3 tests were positive: autologous serum skin test (ASST), basophil histamine release assay (BHRA) and/or basophil activation test (BAT), and IgG autoantibodies against FcεRIα/IgE detected by immunoassay., Results: Twenty-eight percent of CSU patients had at least 1 autoimmune disease. The most prevalent autoimmune diseases were Hashimoto's thyroiditis (HT) (≥ 21%) and vitiligo (2%). Two percent of CSU patients had ≥ 2 autoimmune diseases, most frequently HT plus vitiligo. Comorbid autoimmune diseases, in patients with CSU, were associated with female sex, a family history of autoimmune diseases, and higher rates of hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism ( P < 0.001). Presence of autoimmune diseases was linked to aiCSU ( P = 0.02). The risks of having autoimmune diseases were 1.7, 2.9 and 3.3 times higher for CSU patients with a positive ASST, BHRA and BAT, respectively. In CSU patients, markers for autoimmune diseases, antinuclear antibodies and/or IgG anti-thyroid antibodies were associated with non-response to omalizumab treatment ( P = 0.013)., Conclusions: In CSU, autoimmune diseases are common and linked to type IIb autoimmune CSU. Our results suggest that physicians assess and monitor all adult patients with CSU for signs and symptoms of common autoimmune diseases, especially HT and vitiligo., Competing Interests: Pavel Kolkhir: is or recently was a speaker for Novartis and Roche. No relevant conflicts of interest in relation to this work., (Copyright © 2021 The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology · The Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease.)

An expert workshop in collaboration of the German Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) and the Japanese Society of Allergy (JSA) provided a platform for key opinion leaders of both countries aimed to join expertise and to highlight current developments and achievements in allergy research. Key domains of the meeting included the following seven main sections and related subchapters: 1) basic immunology, 2) bronchial asthma, 3) prevention of allergic diseases, 4) food allergy and anaphylaxis, 5) atopic dermatitis, 6) venom allergy, and 7) upper airway diseases. This report provides a summary of panel discussions of all seven domains and highlights unmet needs and project possibilities of enhanced collaborations of scientific projects., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically disrupts health care around the globe. The impact of the pandemic on chronic urticaria (CU) and its management are largely unknown., Aim: To understand how CU patients are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; how specialists alter CU patient management; and the course of CU in patients with COVID-19., Materials and Methods: Our cross-sectional, international, questionnaire-based, multicenter UCARE COVID-CU study assessed the impact of the pandemic on patient consultations, remote treatment, changes in medications, and clinical consequences., Results: The COVID-19 pandemic severely impairs CU patient care, with less than 50% of the weekly numbers of patients treated as compared to before the pandemic. Reduced patient referrals and clinic hours were the major reasons. Almost half of responding UCARE physicians were involved in COVID-19 patient care, which negatively impacted on the care of urticaria patients. The rate of face-to-face consultations decreased by 62%, from 90% to less than half, whereas the rate of remote consultations increased by more than 600%, from one in 10 to more than two thirds. Cyclosporine and systemic corticosteroids, but not antihistamines or omalizumab, are used less during the pandemic. CU does not affect the course of COVID-19, but COVID-19 results in CU exacerbation in one of three patients, with higher rates in patients with severe COVID-19., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic brings major changes and challenges for CU patients and their physicians. The long-term consequences of these changes, especially the increased use of remote consultations, require careful evaluation., (© 2020 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Venom-induced anaphylaxis (VIA) is a common, potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity reaction associated with (1) a specific symptom profile, 2) specific cofactors, and 3) specific management. Identifying the differences in phenotypes of anaphylaxis is crucial for future management guidelines and development of a personalized medicine approach., Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the phenotype and risk factors of VIA., Methods: Using data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry (12,874 cases), we identified 3,612 patients with VIA and analyzed their cases in comparison with sex- and age-matched anaphylaxis cases triggered by other elicitors (non-VIA cases [n = 3,605])., Results: VIA more frequently involved more than 3 organ systems and was associated with cardiovascular symptoms. The absence of skin symptoms during anaphylaxis was correlated with baseline serum tryptase level and was associated with an increased risk of a severe reaction. Intramuscular or intravenous epinephrine was administered significantly less often in VIA, in particular, in patients without a history of anaphylaxis. A baseline serum tryptase level within the upper normal range (8-11.5 ng/mL) was more frequently associated with severe anaphylaxis., Conclusion: Using a large cohort of VIA cases, we have validated that patients with intermediate baseline serum tryptase levels (8-11 ng/mL) and without skin involvement have a higher risk of severe VIA. Patients receiving β-blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors had a higher risk of developing severe cardiovascular symptoms (including cardiac arrest) in VIA and non-VIA cases. Patients experiencing VIA received epinephrine less frequently than did cases with non-VIA., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. All rights reserved.)

Not available., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Severe allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. Single severe reactions have occurred worldwide after vaccination with the new mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. PEG2000 is discussed as a possible trigger. We provide guidance on risk assessment regarding COVID-19 vaccination in patients with allergic diseases and suggest a standardized, resource-oriented diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Reports of severe allergic reactions in the context of COVID-19 vaccination can be made via www.anaphylaxie.net using an online questionnaire., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Two employees of the National Health Service (NHS) in England developed severe allergic reactions following administration of BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). The British SmPC for the BNT162b2 vaccine already includes reference to a contraindication for use in individuals who have had an allergic reaction to the vaccine or any of its components. As a precautionary measure, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued interim guidance to the NHS not to vaccinate in principle in "patients with severe allergies". Allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare, but vaccine components are known to cause allergic reactions. BNT162b2 is a vaccine based on an mRNA embedded in lipid nanoparticles and blended with other substances to enable its transport into the cells. In the pivotal phase III clinical trial, the BNT162b2 vaccine was generally well tolerated, but this large clinical trial, used to support vaccine approval by the MHRA and US Food and Drug Administration, excluded individuals with a "history of a severe adverse reaction related to the vaccine and/or a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to a component of the study medication". Vaccines are recognized as one of the most effective public health interventions. This repeated administration of a foreign protein (antigen) necessitates a careful allergological history before each application and diagnostic clarification and a risk-benefit assessment before each injection. Severe allergic reactions to vaccines are rare but can be life-threatening, and it is prudent to raise awareness of this hazard among vaccination teams and to take adequate precautions while more experience is gained with this new vaccine., Competing Interests: Conflict of interestL. Klimek reports grants and personal fees from Allergopharma, grants and personal fees from MEDA/Mylan, personal fees from HAL Allergie, personal fees from ALK Abelló, grants and personal fees from LETI Pharma, grants and personal fees from Stallergenes, grants from Quintiles, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, grants from ASIT biotech, grants from Lofarma, personal fees from Allergy Therapeut., grants from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from GSK, grants from Inmunotek, personal fees from Cassella med, personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work; and Membership: AeDA, DGHNO, Deutsche Akademie für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie, HNO-BV, GPA, EAACI. K. Hartmann has received research funding from Euroimmun and Thermofisher and consultancy or lecture fees from Allergopharma, ALK-Abelló, Blueprint, Deciphera, Menarini, Novartis and Takeda. J. Ring reports personal fees from Mylan, personal fees from Allergika, outside the submitted work. A. Chaker reports grants and other from Allergopharma, grants and other from ALK Abello, grants and other from Bencard/Allergen Therapeutics, grants and other from ASIT Biotech, other from Lofarma, grants and other from GSK, grants and other from Novartis, grants and other from LETI, grants and other from Roche, grants and other from Zeller, other from Sanofi Genzyme, grants from European Institute of Technology, grants and other from AstraZeneca, grants and other from Immunotek, outside the submitted work; in addition, Dr. Chaker has a patent A ratio of immune cells as prognostic indicator of therapeutic success in allergen-specific immunotherapy: 17 177 681.8 licensed to none. M. Wagenmann has received fees for advice, lectures or research support from the following companies in the past 3 years: ALK-Abelló, Allergopharma, AstraZeneca, Bencard Allergie, Genzyme, GSK, HAL Allergie, Infectopharm, LETI Pharma, MEDA Pharma, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Aventis, Stallergenes, Teva—all outside of the present work. T. Ankermann has received fees and accommodation and travel expenses for lectures and publications from the following companies and institutions: Abbvie, Aimmune, Allergopharma, Chiesi, Infectopharm, Novartis, UKSH Academy, RG, Springer publishing house, Scientific publishing company, GPP e. V, GPA e. V., nappa e. V., ÖGKJ e. V. Dr. Ankermann has received fees for advisory boards from Boehringer Ingelheim, Aimmune, and fees for safety board from Allergopharma, all outside of the present work. C. Vogelberg has received lecture fees or consultant fees or travel and accommodation costs from: ALK, Allergopharma, Aimmune, DBV, LETI, Novartis, Stallergenes, HAL, Bencard, Sanofi, Aimmune, GPA e. V., APPA e. V. all outside of the present work. T. Werfel reports grants and/or fees from AbbVie, ALK Abello, Almirall, Astellas, Bencard, Galderma, Janssen/JNJ, Leo Pharma, Leti, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, Stallergen, all outside of the present work. A. Bauer reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, Leo Pharma, Sanofi/Regeneron, Shire/Takeda, Genentech, outside the submitted work. T. Zuberbier reports personal fees and/or fees for talk from Bayer Health Care, FAES, Novartis, Henkel, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, ALK, Almirall, Astellas, Bencard, Berlin Chemie, HAL, Leti, Meda, Menarini, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, Stallergenes, Takeda, Teva, UCB, Kryolan, L’Oréal outside the submitted work. T. Jakob reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from ALK-Abello, personal fees and non-financial support from Allergy Therapeutics/Bencard, personal fees from Allergopharma, personal fees from Thermo Fisher, outside the submitted work. M. Worm reports honorarium for advisory boards and lecture activities from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, DBV Technologies S.A, Stallergenes GmbH, HAL Allergie GmbH, Bencard Allergie GmbH, Allergopharma GmbH & Co. KG, ALK-Abelló Arzneimittel GmbH, Mylan Germany GmbH, Leo Pharma GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Aimmune Therapeutics UK Limited, Actelion Pharmaceuticals Deutschland GmbH, Novartis AG, Biotest AG, AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, outside the submitted work. N. Novak, E. Hamelmann, C. Taube, H. Merk, U. Rabe, K. Jung, W. Schlenter, W. Wehrmann, S. Becker, N. Mülleneisen, K. Nemat, W. Czech, H. Wrede, R. Brehler, T. Fuchs, S. M. Schmidt and M. Gerstlauer declare that they have no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Background: For the preventive treatment of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) an unprecedented global research effort studied the safety and efficacy of new vaccine platforms that have not been previously used in humans. Less than one year after the discovery of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral sequence, these vaccines were approved for use in the European Union (EU) as well as in numerous other countries and mass vaccination efforts began. The so far in the EU approved mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 are based on similar lipid-based nanoparticle carrier technologies; however, the lipid components differ. Severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination are very rare adverse events but have drawn attention due to potentially lethal outcomes and have triggered a high degree of uncertainty., Methods: Current knowledge on anaphylactic reactions to vaccines and specifically the new mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was compiled using a literature search in Medline, PubMed, as well as the national and international study and guideline registries, the Cochrane Library, and the Internet, with special reference to official websites of the World Health Organization (WHO), US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Robert Koch Institute (RKI), and Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI)., Results: Based on the international literature and previous experience, recommendations for prophylaxis, diagnosis and therapy of these allergic reactions are given by a panel of experts., Conclusion: Allergy testing is not necessary for the vast majority of allergic patients prior to COVID-19 vaccination with currently licensed vaccines. In case of allergic/anaphylactic reactions after vaccination, allergy workup is recommended, as it is for a small potential risk population prior to the first vaccination. Evaluation and approval of diagnostic tests should be done for this purpose., Competing Interests: Conflict of interestL. Klimek reports grants and/or personal fees from Allergopharma, MEDA/Mylan, HAL Allergie, ALK Abelló, LETI Pharma, Stallergenes, Quintiles, Sanofi, ASIT Biotech, Lofarma, Allergy Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, GSK, Inmunotek, Cassella med and Novartis, outside of the submitted work; and memberships in the following organizations: AeDA, DGHNO, German Academy for Allergology and Clinical Immunology, ENT-BV, GPA, EAACI. L. Klimek is editor in chief of Allergo Journal International. R. Brehler reports fees and/or research support from ALK, Allergopharma, Bencard, HAL, Leti, Stallergenes, Astra Zeneca, GSK, MedUpdate, Novartis, BiotechTools, Genentech and Circassia, outside of the submitted work. W. Pfützner reports grants and/or personal fees and/or non-financial support from ALK-Abello, Biomay, Cilag-Janssen, Lilly, Novartis and Thermo Fisher outside of the submitted work. T. Zuberbier reports grants and/or personal fees from AstraZeneca, AbbVie, ALK, Almirall, Astellas, Bayer Health Care, Bencard, Berlin Chemie, FAES, HAL, Leti, Meda, Menarini, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Stallergenes, Takeda, Teva, UCB, Henkel, Kryolan and L’Oréal outside of the submitted work; and the following organizational affiliations: Member of the committee: WHO initiative “Allergic Rhinitis and its Effects on Asthma” (ARIA), Board member: German Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), Chairman of the Board: Foundation of the European Center for Allergy Research (ECARF), President: Global European Network on Allergy and Asthma (GA2LEN), Member: Committee on Allergy Diagnosis and Molecular Allergology, World Allergy Organization (WAO). K. Hartmann has received research grants outside of the present work from Euroimmun and Thermofisher as well as consulting or lecture fees from Allergopharma, ALK-Abelló, Blueprint, Deciphera, Menarini, Novartis and Takeda. T. Jakob reports grants and/or personal fees and/or non-financial support from Novartis, ALK-Abello, Allergy Therapeutics/Bencard, Allergopharma, and Thermo Fisher outside of the submitted work. T. Jakob is editor in chief of Allergo Journal International. N. Novak reports grants and/or personal fees from Alk Abelló, HAL Allergy, Stallergenes Geer, Leti Pharma, Novartis, Leo Pharma, Abbvie, Sanofi Genzmye, Lofarma and Bencard Allergy Therapeutics, outside of the submitted work. J. Ring reports fees from Mylan and Allergika outside of the submitted work. T. Ankermann received fees outside the submitted work from the following companies and organizations: Abbvie, Allergopharma, Chiesi, Infectopharm, Novartis, UKSH Akademie, RG, Springer Verlag, Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, GPP eV, GPA eV, nappa eV and ÖGKJ eV and is an advisory agent active for Boehringer Ingelheim, Aimmune and Allergopharma. S. Schmidt reports grants and/or personal fees and/or non-financial support from Allergopharma, ALK, Bencard, Gilead, Mundipharma, Novartis, Vertex, HAL, Sanofi, Olympus, Infectopharm, Pari and Pfizer outside of the submitted work. V. Mahler The positions stated in this work represent the personal views of the author as an expert in the field of allergology and must not be understood or cited as the view of the Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedical Medicines, the European Medicines Agency or one of its Committees or working groups. There are no conflicts of interest. M. Worm reports fees for consulting and lecture activities from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, DBV Technologies SA, Stallergenes GmbH, HAL Allergie GmbH, Bencard Allergie GmbH, Allergopharma GmbH & Co. KG, ALK-Abelló Arzneimittel GmbH, Mylan Germany GmbH, Leo Pharma GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Aimmune Therapeutics UK Limited, Actelion Pharmaceuticals Deutschland GmbH, Novartis AG, Biotest AG, AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Lilly Deutschland GmbH, outside of the submitted work. K.-C. Bergmann, H. Merk, E. Hamelmann, E. Untersmayr, W. Hötzenecker, E. Jensen-Jarolim and K. Brockow declare that they have no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interestConflict-of-interest declarations are tabulated—in addition to the guideline report—on the corresponding AWMF website for the S2 guideline on “Acute Therapy and Management of Anaphylaxis—Update 2020” and can be accessed there (www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/061-025.html).

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interestL. Lange reports fees for consulting from Aimmune, DBV Technologies, and Nestlé. L. Lange reports fees for lectures from Aimmune, DBV Technologies, Nestlé und Nutricia. L. Klimek reports grants and/or personal fees from Allergopharma, MEDA/Mylan, HAL Allergie, ALK Abelló, LETI Pharma, Stallergenes, Quintiles, Sanofi, ASIT biotech, Lofarma, Allergy Therapeut., AstraZeneca, GSK, Inmunotek, Cassella med, and Novartis, outside the submitted work; and Membership: AeDA, DGHNO, Deutsche Akademie für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie, HNO-BV, GPA, EAACI. L. Klimek is the editor in chief of the Allergo Journal and Allergo Journal International in which this manuscript will be published. K. Beyer reports grants and/or personal fees from Danone/Nutricia/Milupa, DBV, Hipp, Hycor, Infectopharm, Jenapharma, Mylan/Meda, Nestle, Novartis, ThermoFisher, Aimmune, Bencard, and ALK, outside the submitted work. N. Novak reports grants and/or personal fees from Alk Abello, HAL Allergy, Stallergenes Geer, Leti Pharma, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Leo Pharma, Abbvie, and Blueprint, outside the submitted work. H. Merk reports personal fees and/or grants from Meda, Stallergenes, Sanofi, Bayer, BMS, and J&J, during the conduct of the study. T. Jakob reports grants, personal fees and/or non-financial support from Novartis, ALK-Abello, Allergy Therapeutics/Bencard, Allergopharma, and Thermo Fisher, outside the submitted work. T. Jakob is the coeditor in chief of the Allergo Journal and Allergo Journal International in which this manuscript will be published. T. Ankermann reports personal fees from Aimmune, during the conduct of the study. K. Blümchen, E. Hamelmann, A. Bauer, U. Rabe, K. Jung, W. Schlenter, J. Ring, A. Chaker, W. Wehrmann, S. Becker, N. Mülleneisen, K. Nemat, W. Czech, H. Wrede, R. Brehler, T. Fuchs, S.M. Schmidt, M. Gerstlauer, T. Zuberbier, T. Spindler and C. Vogelberg declare that they have no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interestConflict of interest statements—in addition to the guideline report—can be found in tabular form and accessed on the AWMF website for the S2k guideline on “acute therapy and management of anaphylaxis: 2020 update” (www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/061-025.html).

Background: Chronic urticaria (CU) is a common disease which represents a considerable burden for many patients. The current urticaria guideline describes the evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of CU. In addition, however, questions often arise in everyday practice that are not addressed by the guideline., Methods: In May 2020, a digital meeting with German urticaria experts was held, in which practical aspects of CU treatment were discussed and supporting aids for everyday clinical treatment formulated. The resulting advice in this document focus on practical questions and the available literature and experiences of the participants., Results: The diagnosis of CU can be made in a short time by means of a thorough anamnesis, a physical examination, and a basic laboratory chemical diagnosis. For this purpose, practical recommendations for everyday practice are given in this paper. An extended diagnosis is only indicated in a few cases and should always be carried out in parallel with an effective therapy. In general, CU should always be treated in the same way, regardless of whether wheals, angioedema or both occur. Symptomatic therapy should be carried out according to the treatment steps recommended by the guidelines. This publication provides practical advice on issues in everyday practice, such as the procedure in the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the cardiac risk under higher dosed H1 antihistamines, the self-administration of omalizumab as well as vaccination under omalizumab therapy. In addition to treatment recommendations, topics such as documentation in the practice and family planning with urticaria will be discussed., Discussion: These supporting treatment recommendations serve as an addendum to the current CU guideline and provide support in dealing with CU patients in everyday practice. The aim is to ensure that patients suffering from CU achieve complete freedom of symptoms with the help of an optimal therapy., Supplementary Information: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40629-021-00162-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users., Competing Interests: Conflict of interestA. Bauer received fees for lectures and advisory boards of Novartis, Biofrontera, Shire/Takeda and Leo Pharma as well as research support from Novartis during the last three years. She has been involved in clinical trials with drugs from Novartis, Lilly, Regeneron, Sanofi, Leo Pharma, and Genetec. H. Dickel received fees from Novartis for lectures and advisory boards. He is also involved as PI in clinical studies with preparations from Novartis and Leo Pharma. T. Jakob has received fees for lectures and advisory boards from Novartis, ALK-Abéllo, Allergopharma, Bencard, Thermo Fischer and Celegene, as well as research support from Novartis and ALK-Abéllo. He is also a member of the extended board of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology and editor of the Allergo Journal and Allergo Journal International. A. Kleinheinz received financial support from Novartis, LEO, Sanofi, Galderma, Abbvie, Janssen, Medac, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Genentech, GSK, Lilly, Parexel, Pfizer and proinnovera as a speaker and for participation in clinicial studies. U. Lippert received fees for lectures or advisory boards lasting several hours in the last three years from Novartis, Shire/Takeda, ALK-Abéllo, Meda Pharma GmbH and Sanofi. She received research grants and consulting fees from Novartis and travel expenses from Novartis and Shire/Takeda. She has also been involved as LKP and PI in clinical trials with preparations from Regeneron, Sanofi and Novartis. M. Metz received fees as speaker and/or consultant for Amgen, Aralez, argenx, Moxie, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi and Uriach. S. Schliemann is an investigator in studies by Novartis Pharma GmbH, Sanofi GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company Limited, LEO Pharma GmbH, Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique, has received lecture fees from Novartis Pharma GmbH, Sanofi GmbH, LEO Pharma GmbH and HAL Allergy GmbH and research support from Novartis Pharma GmbH. U. Schwichtenberg: AbbVie Deutschland GmbH, Almirall Hermal GmbH, Amgen, Beiersdorf Derma Medical GmbH, Celgene GmbH, Dermapharm GmbH, Janssen Cilag GmbH, Johnson & Johnson GmbH, LEO Pharma GmbH, L’Oréal GmbH, MEDA Pharma GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH, MSD SHARP & DOHME GmbH, Novartis Pharma GmbH, and Pfizer GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH—fees for lectures, advisory boards, study participation, Medical Project Design GmbH Shareholder and Managing Director, Professional Association of German Dermatologists Bremen State Chairman, Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Bremen Member of the Assembly of Representatives and Chairman of the Honorarium Distribution Scale Committee, Member of the Finance Committee. P. Staubach is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for and/or has received research funding from AbbVie, Allergika, Almirall, Amgen, Beiersdorf, Biocryst, Biogen Idec, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, CSL-Behring, Eli-Lilly, Galderma, Hexal, Janssen, Klosterfrau, LEO-Pharma, LETI-Pharma, L’Oreal, Novartis, Octapharma, Pfizer, Pflüger, Pharming, Regeneron, Shire, Takeda, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme und UCB Pharma. E. Valesky has received honours for lectures and consultancy work for the companies Novartis, Bencard, Alk-Abello, JUZO, Kreussler and Sigvaris over the last three years. N. Wagner received fees for lectures or advisory boards lasting several hours in the last three years from Novartis, Shire/Takeda, ALK-Abéllo, Allergopharma, Abbvie, as well as research support from Novartis. In addition, she was involved as PI in clinical trials with Novartis products. B. Wedi received fees for lectures or advisory boards lasting several hours over the last three years from Novartis, Shire/Takeda, ALK-Abéllo, Bencard, CSL-Behring, HAL-Allergy and Leo Pharma as well as research support from Shire/Takeda. She has also been involved as LKP or PI in clinical trials with Novartis products. M. Maurer is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for and/or has received research funding from Allakos, Amgen, Aralez, ArgenX, AstraZeneca, Celldex, Centogene, CSL Behring, FAES, Genentech, GIInnovation, Innate Pharma, Kyowa Kirin, Leo Pharma, Lilly, Menarini, Moxie, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi/Regeneron, Third HarmonicBio, UCB, and Uriach., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Background: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases has faced major challenges. Recommendations for "social distancing" and the fear of patients becoming infected during a visit to a medical facility have led to a drastic decrease in personal doctor-patient contacts. This affects both acute care and treatment of the chronically ill. The immune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection is so far only insufficiently understood and could be altered in a favorable or unfavorable way by therapy with monoclonal antibodies. There is currently no evidence for an increased risk of a severe COVID-19 course in allergic patients. Many patients are under ongoing therapy with biologicals that inhibit type 2 immune responses via various mechanisms. There is uncertainty about possible immunological interactions and potential risks of these biologicals in the case of an infection with SARS-CoV-2., Materials and Methods: A selective literature search was carried out in PubMed, Livivo, and the internet to cover the past 10 years (May 2010 - April 2020). Additionally, the current German-language publications were analyzed. Based on these data, the present position paper provides recommendations for the biological treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic., Results: In order to maintain in-office consultation services, a safe treatment environment must be created that is adapted to the pandemic situation. To date, there is a lack of reliable study data on the care for patients with complex respiratory, atopic, and allergic diseases in times of an imminent infection risk from SARS-CoV-2. Type-2-dominant immune reactions, as they are frequently seen in allergic patients, could influence various phases of COVID-19, e.g., by slowing down the immune reactions. Theoretically, this could have an unfavorable effect in the early phase of a SARS-Cov-2 infection, but also a positive effect during a cytokine storm in the later phase of severe courses. However, since there is currently no evidence for this, all data from patients treated with a biological directed against type 2 immune reactions who develop COVID-19 should be collected in registries, and their disease courses documented in order to be able to provide experience-based instructions in the future., Conclusion: The use of biologicals for the treatment of bronchial asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and spontaneous urticaria should be continued as usual in patients without suspected infection or proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. If available, it is recommended to prefer a formulation for self-application and to offer telemedical monitoring. Treatment should aim at the best possible control of difficult-to-control allergic and atopic diseases using adequate rescue and add-on therapy and should avoid the need for systemic glucocorticosteroids. If SARS-CoV-2 infection is proven or reasonably suspected, the therapy should be determined by weighing the benefits and risks individually for the patient in question, and the patient should be involved in the decision-making. It should be kept in mind that the potential effects of biologicals on the immune response in COVID-19 are currently not known. Telemedical offers are particularly desirable for the acute consultation needs of suitable patients., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Purpose of Review: Stings of Hymenoptera of the superfamily Vespoidea such as yellow jackets, paper wasps or stinging ants are common triggers for severe and even fatal allergic reactions. Antigen 5 allergens are potent allergens in the majority of these venoms with major importance for diagnosis and therapy. Reviewed here are the characteristics of antigen 5 allergens, their role in component-resolved diagnostics as well as current limitations of the available diagnostics for proper therapeutic decisions., Recent Findings: Antigens 5 are proteins of unknown function in Hymenoptera venoms with high allergenic potency. They represent key elements in component-resolved diagnosis to discriminate between honeybee and vespid venom allergy. However, due to their pronounced cross-reactivity, there are remaining diagnostic and therapeutic challenges that have to be addressed. Antigens 5 are highly relevant venom allergens of the Vespoidea superfamily. Although their use in component-resolved diagnosis facilitates dissection of cross-reactivity and primary allergy in double sensitization to honeybee and vespid venom, new diagnostic concepts are needed to discriminate between allergies to different vespid species.