Search

Background: The safety profile of venom immunotherapy (VIT) is a relevant issue, and considerable differences have been reported in the safety and efficacy of this treatment modality. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and ß-blockers during VIT. In a second analysis, we evaluated data on premedication and venom preparations and their association with systemic adverse events (AEs) during the up-dosing phase and the first year of the maintenance phase, as well as the outcome of field stings and sting challenges., Methods: Ours was an open, prospective, observational, multicenter study that recruited 1425 patients, of whom 1342 underwent VIT., Results: Premedication with oral antihistamines was taken by 52.1% of patients during up-dosing and 19.7% of patients during the maintenance phase. Antihistamines had no effect on the frequency of systemic AEs (P=.11), although large local reactions (LLRs) were less frequent (OR, 0.74; 95%CI, 0.58-0.96; P=.02). Aqueous preparations were preferred for up-dosing (73.0%), and depot preparations were used for the maintenance phase (64.5%). The type of venom preparation had no influence on the frequency of systemic AEs or on the effectiveness of VIT (P=.26 and P=.80, respectively), while LLRs were less frequent with depot preparations (P<.001)., Conclusions: Pretreatment with oral antihistamines during VIT significantly reduces the frequency of LLRs but not systemic AEs. All venom preparations were equally effective and did not differ in terms of the frequency of systemic AEs.

Background: The specificity of extract-based pollen allergy diagnosis is decreased due to cross-reactivity via cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs) or panallergens such as profilins or polcalcins. This study aimed to explore the prevalence of sensitization to seasonal extracts, CCDs, profilin and polcalcin and investigate the sensitivity and specificity of seasonal molecular allergy diagnosis (MAD) using commercially available test methods., Methods: 2948 patients were screened for specific immunoglobulin E to ash, birch, mugwort, ragweed and timothy grass pollen extracts and grouped according to the number of positive tests (1-5). 100 patients from each group and a control group were randomly selected to calculate the prevalence of CCD and panallergen sensitization. With 742 patients, sensitivity and specificity of MAD (Alt a 1, Fra/Ole e 1, Bet v 1, Phl p 1, Art v 1, and Amb a 1) was determined., Results: 1627 patients (55.2%) were positive to at least one, and 1002 patients (34.0%) were positive to multiple of the five pollen allergens investigated; 18.5% of the pollen-sensitized patients had sensitization to CCDs or panallergens. Specifically, sensitization to CCDs, profilins, and polcalcins was observed in 8.7%, 10.9%, and 2.9% of these patients, respectively. The sensitivity of MAD was high, with sensitivities between 96.2% and 100% using ImmunoCAP and 91.5% and 100% using ALEX 2 . Specificity was 100% for both assays., Conclusions: Due to cross-reactivity, about one-fifth of pollen-sensitized patients is at risk of misdiagnosis. However, MAD is sensitive, specific and helps to avoid misdiagnosis and select primary allergen sources for immunotherapy., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.)

Background: There is controversy whether taking β-blockers or ACE inhibitors (ACEI) is a risk factor for more severe systemic insect sting reactions (SSR) and whether it increases the number or severity of adverse events (AE) during venom immunotherapy (VIT)., Methods: In this open, prospective, observational, multicenter trial, we recruited patients with a history of a SSR and indication for VIT. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate whether patients taking β-blockers or ACEI show more systemic AE during VIT compared to patients without such treatment., Results: In total, 1,425 patients were enrolled and VIT was performed in 1,342 patients. Of all patients included, 388 (27.2%) took antihypertensive (AHT) drugs (10.4% took β-blockers, 11.9% ACEI, 5.0% β-blockers and ACEI). Only 5.6% of patients under AHT treatment experienced systemic AE during VIT as compared with 7.4% of patients without these drugs (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.43-1.22, p = 0.25). The severity of the initial sting reaction was not affected by the intake of β-blockers or ACEI (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.89-1.46, p = 0.29). In total, 210 (17.7%) patients were re-stung during VIT and 191 (91.0%) tolerated the sting without systemic symptoms. Of the 19 patients with VIT treatment failure, 4 took β-blockers, none an ACEI., Conclusions: This trial provides robust evidence that taking β-blockers or ACEI does neither increase the frequency of systemic AE during VIT nor aggravate SSR. Moreover, results suggest that these drugs do not impair effectiveness of VIT. (Funded by Medical University of Graz, Austria; Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT04269629)., (© 2021 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Large local reactions (LLR) to Hymenoptera stings were considered as IgE-mediated late-phase inflammatory reactions. However, in older studies, most patients with LLR were skin test positive, but only around 50% had detectable sIgE determined by the RAST system., Methods: Data of 620 patients were evaluated retrospectively: 310 patients who suffered from LLR and 310 patients with previous systemic sting reactions (SSR). We aimed to clarify if sIgE can generally be detected by the CAP system in patients with LLR; sIgE levels and clinical parameters were compared between patients with LLR and SSR., Results: Positive sIgE levels were detected in 80.7% of patients with LLR, and in 95.2% of patients with SSR (p<0.001). Of the 310 patients with LLR, 80.6% had a LLR with a size of 10-20cm, whereas 19.4% had swellings >20cm, with a mean duration of seven days. In only 2.9% of patients, LLRs occurred after stings on the trunk, while 14.8% of SSR resulted from stings on this site (p<0.001). Similarly, LLR were also less frequent on the capillitium compared to SSR (8.1% versus 26.2%; p = 0.035)., Conclusions: LLR usually persisted over seven days and about one fifth of patients had swellings greater than 20cm. Contrary to SSR, LLR were less frequently observed on the capillitium and on the trunk. In most patients with LLR, sIgE could be detected. However, total IgE and sIgE levels to bee or vespid venom did not differ between patients with LLR and SSR., Competing Interests: We have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: GJ Sturm reports consulting and lecture fees from Novartis, Bencard, Stallergenes, HAL, Allergopharma and Mylan outside of the submitted work. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: Currently available tests are unable to distinguish between asymptomatic sensitization and clinically relevant Hymenoptera venom allergy. A reliable serological marker to monitor venom immunotherapy (VIT) does also not exist. Our aim was to find reliable serological markers to predict tolerance to bee and vespid stings., Methods: We included 77 asymptomatically sensitized subjects, 85 allergic patients with acute systemic sting reactions, and 61 allergic patients currently treated with VIT. Levels of sIgE and sIgG 4 to bee and vespid venom, rApi m 1, and rVes v 5 were measured immediately after allergic sting reactions or before sting challenges and 4 weeks later. All sting challenges were tolerated. The inhibitory activity was determined using BAT inhibition and ELIFAB assay., Results: Median sIgG 4 levels were 96-fold higher in VIT patients (P < .001) while sIgE/sIgG 4 ratios were consistently lower (P < .001). The ELIFAB assay was paralleled by low sIgE/sIgG 4 ratios in VIT patients, showing markedly higher allergen-blocking capacity (P < .001). An almost complete inhibition of the basophil response was seen in all patients treated with vespid venom, but not in those treated with bee venom. Four weeks after the sting, sIgE and sIgG 4 levels were increased in allergic and asymptomatically sensitized patients, but not in VIT patients., Conclusion: Immunological responses after stings varied in bee and vespid venom-allergic patients. In patients under VIT, sIgE and sIgG 4 remained completely stable after sting challenges. Monitoring VIT efficacy was only possible in vespid venom allergy, and the sIgG 4 threshold for rVes v 5 had the highest sensitivity to confirm tolerance. The BAT inhibition test was the most reliable tool to confirm tolerance on an individual basis., (© 2017 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

For many years, only the major allergen rApi m 1 has been available on the ImmunoCAP system for routine diagnosis of bee venom (BV) allergy. Now, there are five components available, and we aimed to detect the sensitivity and specificity of rApi m 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 in BV-allergic patients. We further evaluated the sensitivity of rApi m 1 and 2 of an alternative platform and investigated possible differences in the sensitization profile between monosensitization and clinically relevant double sensitization. Analysis of the whole panel of BV allergens of the CAP system still resulted in a lower sensitivity than analysis of the combination of rApi m 1 and 2 of the Immulite (71.6% vs 85.8%). Sensitization rate of rApi m 5 was more than doubled in double-sensitized patients, while there was no difference for rApi m 2. The benefit of the commercially available panel of BV components is questionable, due to the insufficient sensitivity and still unavailable important cross-reacting allergens., (© 2017 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)