Search

Simple Summary: Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) is a potentially life-threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction. In this study, data from 178 dogs with insect sting allergic reactions were analyzed and several risk factors for severe systemic reactions to Hymenoptera stings were identified. Furthermore, a significant number of dogs suffered subsequent systemic reactions to Hymenoptera stings, indicating that venom immunotherapy may be a valuable intervention to prevent future reactions. This study should raise the awareness of dog owners that Hymenoptera stings are associated with HVA and its possible consequences. Hymenoptera, which includes honeybees, wasps, bumblebees, and hornets, is an order of the class Insecta, whose venom can induce anaphylactic reactions in dogs. While several studies have investigated the natural histories and risk factors of Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) in humans, only limited information is available on canine patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify risk factors leading to severe systemic reactions (SSRs) and to explore the natural history of these patients. This was achieved with an inquiry into the case histories of 178 dogs that were stung by Hymenoptera and presented to the Vetsuisse Faculty Animal Hospital of the University of Zurich between 2018 and 2022. Dogs under two years old, dogs that weighed under 10 kg, purebred dogs, and dogs that were stung in the oral cavity were at a greater risk of developing SSRs. Almost two thirds of patients with SSRs experienced the same or worse symptoms after subsequent stings and >40% of patients with local reactions developed SSRs when stung again. Next to providing valuable clinical information about HVA in dogs, these findings strongly support the recommendation of venom immunotherapy (VIT) for patients with HVA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nina Hein,1 Conner Callaway,2 Devin Ford,2 John C Carlson1 1Ochsner Health System, Department of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, New Orleans, LA, USA; 2Tulane University, School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USACorrespondence: John C Carlson, Department of Pediatrics, Ochsner Health System, 1315 Jefferson Hwy, New Orleans, LA, 20121, USA, Tel +1-504-842-3900, Fax +1-504-842-5848, Email john.carlson@ochsner.org

Copyright of Polish Journal of Allergology / Alergologia Polska is the property of Termedia Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a well-established and efficient method of causative treatment for allergic rhinitis, asthma and insect venom allergy. Traditionally, a recent history of malignant neoplasm is regarded as a contraindication to AIT due to concerns that AIT might stimulate tumor growth. However, there are no data confirming that the silencing of the Th2 response affects prognosis in cancer. Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate frequency of malignant tumors in patients undergoing AIT and the association between AIT and cancer-related mortality. Patients and Methods: A group of 2577 patients with insect venom allergy undergoing AIT in 10 Polish allergology centers was screened in the Polish National Cancer Registry. Data on cancer type, diagnosis time and patients' survival were collected and compared with the general population. Results: In the study group, 86 cases of malignancies were found in 85 patients (3.3% of the group). The most common were breast (19 cases), lung (9 cases), skin (8 cases), colon and prostate cancers (5 cases each). There were 21 cases diagnosed before AIT, 38 during and 27 after completing AIT. Laplace's crude incidence rate was 159.5/100,000/year (general population rate: 260/100,000/year). During follow-up, 13 deaths related to cancer were revealed (15% of patients with cancer). Laplace's cancer mortality rate was 37.3/100,000/year (general population rate: 136.8/100,000/year). Conclusions: Malignancy was found in patients undergoing immunotherapy less often than in the general population. Patients with cancer diagnosed during or after AIT did not show a lower survival rate, which suggests that AIT does not affect the prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Changes in the cytokine profile from type 2 to type 1 together with the induction of regulatory cells are expected during hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT). The present study was aimed to investigate the changes in type 1, type 2, and regulatory cytokines induced by a Vespula spp. VIT in patients with anaphylaxis to Vespa velutina.Methods: Twenty consecutive patients with anaphylaxis due to Vespa velutina were treated with Vespula spp. VIT. Serum cytokines (IL-4, IL-5, IL-10, IL-13, and IFN-ɣ) were measured at baseline, 6, and 12 months after starting VIT. Results: A significant increase in serum IFN-y was detected after 6 and 12 months of VIT. An increase in serum IL-10 and a decrease in IL-5 were observed after 12 months. IL-4 was undetectable all along the study, and an unexpected increase of IL-13 was present at 12 months of treatment. Conclusion:Vespula spp. VIT seems to be able to induce a shift to type 1 cytokine production measured through IFN-y levels and IL-10 production after, at least, 6 and 12 months of VIT, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Allergen immunotherapy remains a widely recognized and widely used method for the treatment of selected allergic diseases. Currently, according to the European Academy Of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) guidelines, venom immunotherapy (VIT) may be considered for patients over 60. Nevertheless, no separate studies have confirmed the efficacy and safety of this therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term effectiveness of VIT against wasp allergens in an ultra-rush protocol for older patients compared to young patients. Methods: Among the 113 patients included in this study, 51 were older than 60 years (Group A), and 62 formed the control "young group" (age range: 18–35 years). All patients were desensitized to wasp venom using the ultra-rush protocol according to Muller and aqueous solutions of vaccines containing wasp venom. A basophil activation test (Basotest, Orpegen Pharma, Germany) and intracutaneous tests with dilutions of wasp allergen and specific IgE to extract wasp venom were performed at the start and after six months of VIT. The safety of VIT was assessed on the basis of the international Mueller scale. Results: One hundred and eleven patients with confirmed wasp allergies completed six months of VIT: 51 participants over 60 years of age (Group A) and 60 young people (Group B). No systemic adverse reactions were observed during the VIT induction phase. However, large local reactions were noted in 17% of older patients and 20% of young patients at a similar level (p > 0.05). During maintenance VIT, two mild grade I systemic reactions were confirmed in young patients. These symptoms resolved spontaneously. There were no such reactions in older patients. The effectiveness of VIT was tested using BAT. There was a statistically significant reduction in CD63 reactivity in 86% of patients in Group A, and a comparable and substantial decrease in 84% of young patients in Group B. According to the BAT test, the mean reductions in the area under the curve (AUC) after six months of VIT were significant (p < 0.05) and comparable between Groups A and B: −6.52 vs. 7.21. Conclusions: VIT against wasp venom is safe and effective in short-term observation, and is comparable to that used for young patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hymenoptera, which includes honeybees, wasps, bumblebees, and hornets, is an order of the class Insecta, whose venom can induce anaphylactic reactions in dogs. While several studies have investigated the natural histories and risk factors of Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) in humans, only limited information is available on canine patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify risk factors leading to severe systemic reactions (SSRs) and to explore the natural history of these patients. This was achieved with an inquiry into the case histories of 178 dogs that were stung by Hymenoptera and presented to the Vetsuisse Faculty Animal Hospital of the University of Zurich between 2018 and 2022. Dogs under two years old, dogs that weighed under 10 kg, purebred dogs, and dogs that were stung in the oral cavity were at a greater risk of developing SSRs. Almost two thirds of patients with SSRs experienced the same or worse symptoms after subsequent stings and >40% of patients with local reactions developed SSRs when stung again. Next to providing valuable clinical information about HVA in dogs, these findings strongly support the recommendation of venom immunotherapy (VIT) for patients with HVA.

Introduction: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) and adrenaline autoinjector (AAI) are important therapies in venom anaphylaxis. Adherence to VIT and AAI in patients with venom allergy has been evaluated in a few studies; however, solid data are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate VIT and AAI retrieval rates in patients with venom allergy with a special focus on adherence to treatment. Adherence was compared to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with inhalant allergens. Methods: This was a retrospective study among patients registered for allergen immunotherapy at the Allergy Center, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014. Data on purchased immunotherapy and AAI were obtained from the Danish National Health Service Prescription Database. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze if allergen, age, sex, mastocytosis, and treatment site affected adherence. Results: The 3-year adherence to VIT was 92.4% (244/264) compared to 87.4% (215/246) in SCIT with inhalant allergens, and the 5-year adherence to VIT was 84.1% (222/264) compared to 74.8% (184/246) in SCIT with inhalant allergens (p = 0.045). Females treated with VIT were more adherent than males (p = 0.45 [3-year], p = 0.008 [5-year]), whereas allergen, age, mastocytosis, or treatment site did not significantly affect adherence. Only 28.6% of patients (12/42) purchased an AAI after premature termination of VIT. Conclusion: In this register-based study, we found that the 3- and 5-year adherences to VIT and SCIT with inhalant allergens are at the upper end of the spectrum hitherto reported. Patients' 5-year adherence to VIT was higher than patients' 5-year adherence to SCIT with inhalant allergens. If VIT was prematurely terminated, less than 1/3 would have purchased an AAI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Hymenoptera venom allergy is second most common cause of anaphylaxis in childhood. Currenty, the only causal therapy that can induce tolerance is venom immunotherapy (VIT). Aim: In our work, we focused on the analysis of selected clinical and laboratory characteristics in a group of pediatric patients with hymenoptera venom allergy treated with VIT. Material and methods: We created a prospective study in which we gradually included 20 pediatric patients (13 boys, 7 girls), which fulfilled indication criteria for VIT. Data were collected from 2015 to 2022. We defined the basic characteristics of the set, we focused on the overall tolerance of treatment in pediatric patients and the occurance of adverse effects during VIT administration, we also performed blood sampling to determine the dynamics of immunological laboratory parameters in precisely determined time intervals. Results: The mean age was 11 ± 4,37 years, with the mean age of firts systemic reactions after the hymenoptera sting 9,15 ± 3,58 years. Of the 20 enrolled patients, 14 were allergic to bee venom and 6 to waps venom. VIT was started at an average age of 10 ± 3,86 years, of which 2 patients started before the fifth year of life. The most frequently represented clinical manifestations of systemic reaction in our group were facial angioedema (70 %), dyspnea (65 %), urticaria (55%) and whole body pruritus (45 %). We observed the occurence of the adverse effects most often during the initial phase of administration in terms of local reactions, whereas no patient developed a systemic reaction. Spontaneus re-exposure during VIT occured in 25% of patients, whereas no patient developed a systemic reaction. During VIT we also noted dynamic changes in individual evaluated laboratory parameters with a gradual decrease of specific IgE against the extract and allergen component of hymenoptera venom and increase of specific IgG4 against the allergen extract. Conclusion: Allergy to hymenoptera venom is classified as a serious to life-threating condition, while the only possible therapy nowadays that can prevent systemic reaction and improve the patient´s quality of life is VIT. A higher effectiveness of VIT and also a lower risk of treatment failure are described in pediatric patients. Our experencie clearly proves the effectiveness and safety of VIT in childhood and at the same time confirms positive changes in laboratory parameters indicating the induction of immune tolerance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hymenoptera venom–triggered anaphylaxis (HVA) affects up to 8.9% of the general population and is the most frequent cause of anaphylaxis in adults, accounting for approximately 20% of all fatal anaphylaxis cases. Quite often, a fatal reaction is a victim's first manifestation of HVA. Mastocytosis represents one of the most important risk factors for severe HVA. We analyzed patients with documented fatal HVA for the presence of underlying clonal mast cell disorder (cMCD). Here, we report three cases of fatal HVA, with undiagnosed underlying cMCD identified by the presence of the peripheral blood and/or bone marrow KIT p.D816V missense variant postmortem. In the first case, anaphylaxis was the initial episode and was fatal. In the other two cases, both patients were treated with specific venom immunotherapy (VIT), nevertheless, one died of HVA after VIT discontinuation, and the other during VIT; both patients had cardiovascular comorbidities and were taking beta-blockers and/or ACE inhibitors. Our results point to the importance of screening all high-risk individuals for underlying cMCD using highly sensitive molecular methods for peripheral blood KIT p.D816V variant detection, including severe HVA and possibly beekeepers, for proper management and the need for lifelong VIT to prevent unnecessary deaths. Patients at the highest risk of fatal HVA, with concomitant cardiovascular and cMCD comorbidities, might not be protected from field stings even during regular VIT. Therefore, two adrenaline autoinjectors and lifelong VIT, and possibly cotreatment with omalizumab, should be considered for high-risk patients to prevent fatal HVA episodes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Allergen immunotherapy remains a widely recognized and widely used method for the treatment of selected allergic diseases. Currently, according to the European Academy Of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) guidelines, venom immunotherapy (VIT) may be considered for patients over 60. Nevertheless, no separate studies have confirmed the efficacy and safety of this therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term effectiveness of VIT against wasp allergens in an ultra-rush protocol for older patients compared to young patients. Methods: Among the 113 patients included in this study, 51 were older than 60 years (Group A), and 62 formed the control “young group” (age range: 18–35 years). All patients were desensitized to wasp venom using the ultra-rush protocol according to Muller and aqueous solutions of vaccines containing wasp venom. A basophil activation test (Basotest, Orpegen Pharma, Germany) and intracutaneous tests with dilutions of wasp allergen and specific IgE to extract wasp venom were performed at the start and after six months of VIT. The safety of VIT was assessed on the basis of the international Mueller scale. Results: One hundred and eleven patients with confirmed wasp allergies completed six months of VIT: 51 participants over 60 years of age (Group A) and 60 young people (Group B). No systemic adverse reactions were observed during the VIT induction phase. However, large local reactions were noted in 17% of older patients and 20% of young patients at a similar level (p > 0.05). During maintenance VIT, two mild grade I systemic reactions were confirmed in young patients. These symptoms resolved spontaneously. There were no such reactions in older patients. The effectiveness of VIT was tested using BAT. There was a statistically significant reduction in CD63 reactivity in 86% of patients in Group A, and a comparable and substantial decrease in 84% of young patients in Group B. According to the BAT test, the mean reductions in the area under the curve (AUC) after six months of VIT were significant (p < 0.05) and comparable between Groups A and B: −6.52 vs. 7.21. Conclusions: VIT against wasp venom is safe and effective in short-term observation, and is comparable to that used for young patients.

Simple Summary: Insect venom allergy is a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction following a bee, wasp, or ant sting. The only treatment to prevent further systemic sting reactions is venom immunotherapy (VIT), with an efficacy of up to 98% in humans. Prospective clinical data on VIT efficacy in dogs are currently lacking. In this investigation, 10 dogs with severe allergic reactions to either bee or wasp stings were treated with VIT. All dogs tolerated the therapy without adverse effects and the dogs which were re-stung tolerated the sting. This means that VIT is not only safe, but also efficacious in these patients. Furthermore, it was also shown that in addition to skin testing, two serum allergen-specific IgE tests were reliable to identify the underlying patients' insect sensitization pattern. Hymenoptera allergens are the main triggers for anaphylaxis in susceptible dogs and humans. Hymenoptera venom specific immunotherapy (VIT), the only disease-modifying treatment, has the potential to prevent future life-threatening reactions in human patients. Prospective clinical data on VIT efficacy in dogs are currently lacking. Therefore, the aim of this study was to show that VIT is not only safe but also efficacious in preventing anaphylaxis in dogs allergic to Hymenoptera. This uncontrolled prospective clinical trial included 10 client-owned dogs with a history of anaphylaxis following repeated Hymenoptera stings. The sensitization to bee and wasp allergens was demonstrated by intradermal testing (IDT) and allergen-specific IgE serology. For VIT induction (induction phase), dogs received a shortened rush immunotherapy protocol with aqueous allergens, which was then followed by monthly injections of 100 µg of alum-precipitated allergen (maintenance phase). VIT efficacy was determined by observing patients' clinical reactions to re-stings. No systemic adverse events were seen during the induction and maintenance phases. From the seven re-stung dogs, only one developed a mild angioedema at the site of the sting; the remaining dogs were asymptomatic. These results show that VIT represents a safe and effective treatment option for Hymenoptera-allergic dogs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: IgE-mediated bee venom allergy can be treated with allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is time and cost intensive due to the repeated consultations, but the costs are justified by the high risk of potentially life-threatening allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. However, intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) offers potential to reduce treatment costs due to a significant reduction in injections and a shorter duration of therapy. Therefore, we calculated the cost savings that arise when switching from SCIT to ILIT. Methods: Treatment protocols for ILIT were based on previous ILIT studies. Treatment protocols for SCIT were based on routine treatment at the University Hospital Zurich (USZ). The treatment costs were calculated based on the internal hospital information system (KISIM). Results: The calculations revealed a potential two-fold reduction in treatment costs if ILIT is used instead of SCIT in patients with bee venom allergy. The costs could be reduced from EUR 11,612.59 with SCIT to EUR 5,942.15 with ILIT over 5 years. Conclusions: This study shows that bee venom ILIT has a cost-benefit potential for health insurances and patients, which should encourage further ILIT studies and which should be taken into account when considering future implementation of ILIT in the standard care of venom allergy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Jack Jumper ant venom allergy is a uniquely Australian medical issue. The stinging ant is a leading cause of insect venom allergy in south‐eastern Australia. An effective venom immunotherapy‐based treatment was successfully developed by the Tasmanian Jack Jumper Allergy Research group. This paper provides a synopsis of our 25 years' research journey in developing this evidence‐based treatment modality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neurological complications after a single Hymenoptera insect sting are very rare. The authors of this paper describe two instances of cerebral ischemic stroke that occurred immediately after a wasp sting. Two distinct pathomechanisms involved in the cases are put forward. When diagnosing such cases, it is vital to rule out the possibility of an immunoglobulin E (IgE)-dependent reaction of hypersensitivity. However, if sIgE antibodies against wasp venom extract and/or its allergenic components are detected, after hospitalization the patient should be qualified for venom immunotherapy, which is the only efficient method of protection from severe allergic reactions caused by an insect sting. Although the incidence of ischemic stroke in patients stung by insects is very low, it is important to be aware of this complication. This will allow rapid implementation of appropriate diagnostics and treatment. The optimal stroke treatment (thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy) in these rare cases has not yet been established.

Background: The basis for qualification for venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the fulfilment of both the clinical and immunological criteria. Diagnostic tests that confirm the immunological criterion of an IgE-mediated sensitization include skin prick tests (SPT), intradermal tests (IDT), and serum specific IgE (sIgE) for the culprit venom. Objective: This study aimed to assess the usefulness of SPT as the immunological marker in the diagnosis of insect venom sensitization in children with history of systemic reaction (SR) to insect sting evaluated by means of I-IV-grades Mueller's scale. There are no such studies in children. Methods: This cross-sectional study sample consisted of 416 children aged 3–18 years (mean age 10.6 ± 3.8), 76% males, all with the history of a systemic reaction (SR) after a Hymenoptera sting (48% of grade III/IV according to Mueller scale), diagnosed between 1999 and 2019 in the tertiary referral centre. The standard diagnostic tests were used. Specificity, sensitivity, and positive and negative predictive values were computed to assess the diagnostic properties of the clinical tests to distinguish between mild and severe SR. To assess the relative value of an individual test in predicting the qualification to VIT we incorporated the Shapley value (SV). Results: Positive SPT results were found in up to no more than 3% of children; among them less than 1% had only positive SPT and were negative for sIgE and IDT. Approximately 85% of the children had detectable venom sIgE, followed by positive IDT (75%). Almost 70% of children had positive both sIgE and IDT results. In children with grade III/IV reaction, about 80% of children had positive results of both of these tests. sIgE and IDT had sensitivity >0.80, whereas SPT had high specificity (>0.97) in differentiating between mild and severe SR. Relative value of diagnostic tests in predicting qualification to VIT varied between venoms. Bee venom IDT had higher SV (0.052) than sIgE (0.041). In contrast, wasp venom sIgE had higher SV (0.075) than IDT (0.035). Conclusion: SPTs are not an useful immunological marker of venom sensitization in children, and eliminating SPT does not result in a loss of diagnostic accuracy. Limiting diagnostics to venom sIgE and IDT would shorten the procedure and reduce costs. Future studies are needed to determine if venom sIgE as the first line diagnostic test, with IDT added only if the venom sIgE is undetectable, is an optimal diagnostic process.

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is one of the most effective treatment methods for allergic diseases. Neurological symptoms are infrequent among systemic reactions. In this case report, the clinical and radiological features of a patient who developed acute brainstem ischemia two hours after a VIT up-dosing phase were evaluated. A 48-year-old male patient developed dyspnea, angioedema, and syncope after a honeybee sting and was diagnosed with anaphylaxis. VIT was started with the conventional schedule (depot extract). The patient went to the emergency department due to numbness in his right arm and impaired speech two hours after VIT was started during an up-dosing phase. In the neurological examination, the patient was conscious and fully cooperative. The pupillary light response, eye movements, and visual field were normal. The right nasolabial groove was faint and consistent with central facial paralysis. Brain diffusion-weight magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) detected diffusion restriction consistent with acute lacunar infarct in the pons. The patient was started on clopidogrel (75 mg/day), atorvastatin (10 mg/day), and levetiracetam (1000 mg/day) treatment. When re-evaluated 30 days later, his muscle strength deficit and speech had improved. VIT is a life-saving treatment option applied in cases of anaphylaxis as a result of bee stings. Although systemic reactions are sometimes observed during the applications, it is rare to see neurological symptoms after VIT. In patients undergoing VIT, one should be vigilant regarding ischemia development, especially during an up-dosing phase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with allergy to the venom of the Jack Jumper Ant (JJA), Myrmecia pilosula - a Hymenoptera order species native and endemic to the South-Eastern quarter of Australia. This has not previously been studied, despite an estimated population prevalence of generalised allergic symptoms as high as 3% in some areas., Objective: To validate the VQLQ HRQoL instrument - previously validated in wasp and bee venom allergic patients - for use in this specific ant venom-allergic population., Methods: The 14-item VQLQ survey instrument was administered to patients with clinical allergy to JJA venom presenting at the state treatment centre for venom-immunotherapy. Surveys were performed at different time points of the progression through visits for venom immunotherapy treatment. Cross-sectional and longitudinal validation was performed against 'expectation of outcome'(EO) questionnaire by determining correlation and agreement., Results: 271 individuals contributed survey data, comprising a median age of 52 years (3-85) with a bimodal distribution, with 25% being < 18 years of age. Internal consistency was excellent, with a Cronbach of 0.95. Cross-sectional validity was demonstrated with a positive correlation VQLQ to EO of 0.44 (p < 0.001). Performance was nearly identical when stratified into adults and children(<18 yo). Longitudinal Validity was suggested as both VQLQ and EO improved over time in both adults and children, but this only had paired correlation at two time points in adults. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated an acceptable agreement between VQLQ and EO and no evidence of systematic bias., Conclusion: The VQLQ appears to offer similar performance of HRQoL measurement in patients suffering from JJA venom allergy, as has previously been demonstrated in other Hymenoptera species. In addition, this is the first study to demonstrate cross-sectional validity specifically in a paediatric population 3-18 years of age., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Hymenoptera allergens are the main triggers for anaphylaxis in susceptible dogs and humans. Hymenoptera venom specific immunotherapy (VIT), the only disease-modifying treatment, has the potential to prevent future life-threatening reactions in human patients. Prospective clinical data on VIT efficacy in dogs are currently lacking. Therefore, the aim of this study was to show that VIT is not only safe but also efficacious in preventing anaphylaxis in dogs allergic to Hymenoptera. This uncontrolled prospective clinical trial included 10 client-owned dogs with a history of anaphylaxis following repeated Hymenoptera stings. The sensitization to bee and wasp allergens was demonstrated by intradermal testing (IDT) and allergen-specific IgE serology. For VIT induction (induction phase), dogs received a shortened rush immunotherapy protocol with aqueous allergens, which was then followed by monthly injections of 100 µg of alum-precipitated allergen (maintenance phase). VIT efficacy was determined by observing patients’ clinical reactions to re-stings. No systemic adverse events were seen during the induction and maintenance phases. From the seven re-stung dogs, only one developed a mild angioedema at the site of the sting; the remaining dogs were asymptomatic. These results show that VIT represents a safe and effective treatment option for Hymenoptera-allergic dogs.

Background/aim: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the most effective treatment method to prevent recurrent systemic reactions to Hymenoptera stings. In this study, the demographic characteristics of VIT patients, the success rates of VIT, the difficulties we encountered during VIT, and solutions for these difficulties in our clinic were presented. Materials and methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients with venom allergy who applied venom immunotherapy between 20132020. Data on age, gender, Hymenoptera species with the first reaction, grade of the reaction, beekeeping history, skin prick and specific IgE and component results, double sensitization, blood groups, and reactions with VIT and/or sting during built-up and maintenance periods were recorded. Results: A total of 73 patients were enrolled in the study. The median time from the first sting reaction to the application to the allergy outpatient clinic was 12 (0.5-24) months. The first sting reaction of 38 (52.1%) of the patients was with honey bees, and 24 (32.9%) were with wasps. Double positivity was present in 29 (40%) of the patients in prick results and 26 (36%) serologically. There was no correlation between the severity of first reactions and Apis Mellifera or Vespula prick diameters (p = 0.643; r = -0.056; p = 0.462; r = 0.089, respectively). High-dose VIT was administered to 4 patients. Omalizumab has been used as an alternative agent to achieve the maintenance dose in 2 patients with frequent systemic reactions during VIT. Conclusion: Most patients were able to tolerate VIT. Double positivity is one of the most common difficulties before VIT. In patients who develop systemic reactions in the VIT maintenance phase, a maintenance dose increase should be considered in the maintenance phase. Adding omalizumab does not seem to be a permanent solution in patients who develop a severe systemic reaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neurological complications after a single Hymenoptera insect sting are very rare. The authors of this paper describe two instances of cerebral ischemic stroke that occurred immediately after a wasp sting. Two distinct pathomechanisms involved in the cases are put forward. When diagnosing such cases, it is vital to rule out the possibility of an immunoglobulin E (IgE)-dependent reaction of hypersensitivity. However, if sIgE antibodies against wasp venom extract and/or its allergenic components are detected, after hospitalization the patient should be qualified for venom immunotherapy, which is the only efficient method of protection from severe allergic reactions caused by an insect sting. Although the incidence of ischemic stroke in patients stung by insects is very low, it is important to be aware of this complication. This will allow rapid implementation of appropriate diagnostics and treatment. The optimal stroke treatment (thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy) in these rare cases has not yet been established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allergy to Polistes dominula (European paper wasp) venom is of particular relevance in Southern Europe, potentially becoming a threat in other regions in the near future, and can be effectively cured by venom immunotherapy (VIT). As allergen content in extracts may vary and have an impact on diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, the aim was to compare five therapeutic preparations for VIT of P. dominula venom allergy available in Spain. Products from five different suppliers were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and LC-MS/MS and compared with a reference venom sample. Three products with P. dominula venom and one product with a venom mixture of American Polistes species showed a comparable band pattern in SDS-PAGE as the reference sample and the bands of the major allergens phospholipase A1 and antigen 5 were assignable. The other product, which consists of a mixture of American Polistes species, exhibited the typical band pattern in one, but not in another sample from a second batch. All annotated P. dominula allergens were detected at comparable levels in LC-MS/MS analysis of products containing P. dominula venom. Due to a lack of genomic information on the American Polistes species, the remaining products were not analyzed by this method. The major Polistes allergens were present in comparable amounts in the majority, but not in all investigated samples of venom preparations for VIT of P. dominula venom allergy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the only efficient therapy for the Hymenoptera insect venom allergy. Immunotherapy with bee venom is encumbered with a higher risk of systemic side effects and/or therapeutic failures. The objective of the study was to assess if specific profiles of molecular IgE (Immunoglobulin E) responses are associated with an increased risk of systemic side effects and/or the treatment's inefficacy. The study group numbered 64 bee venom allergic patients (BVA) who received venom immunotherapy modo ultra-rush (VIT-UR), (f/m: 32/32, mean age 43.4 ± 17.2). In total, 54.84% of them manifested allergic reactions of grades I-III (acc. to Mueller's scale), while 48.66% manifested reactions of grade IV. In all the patients, IgE against bee venom extract, rApi m 1 and tryptase (sBT) were assessed. In 46 patients, assessments of IgE against rApi m 2, 3, 5, 10 were also performed. BVA patients manifesting cardiovascular symptoms (SYS IV0) showed higher levels of both sIgE-rApi m 5 (p = 0.03) and tryptase (p = 0.07) than patients with SYS I–III. Systemic adverse events during VIT with bee venom were more frequent in the induction phase than in the maintenance phase: 15.22% vs. 8.7%. In BVA patients who experienced systemic adverse events during VIT, higher concentrations of sIgE-rApi m 5 (p < 0.05), rApi m 1 (p = 0.009), and sBT (p = 0.019) were demonstrated. We conclude that higher levels of sIgE against rApi m 1, rApi m 5, and tryptase many constitute a potential marker of the severity of allergic reactions and therapeutic complications that can occur during VIT with bee venom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) and venom immunotherapy (VIT) are meant to work on the causes of allergies, respectively, to respiratory allergens and Hymenoptera venom, inducing tolerance to the allergens and modifying the natural history of allergy. Both types of immunotherapies have evidence of efficacy, but actually they present wide differences in both effectiveness and safety. Indeed, as far as the effectiveness of VIT is concerned, if the protection against fatal reactions to stings is considered as the primary objective, more than 40 years of clinical practice demonstrate complete success. The clinical success of AIT is measurable on the basis of reduction or disappearance of allergic symptoms. The difference between the two treatments is even higher as regards safety: AIT has been concerned in the past by a series of fatal reactions caused, which underwent a progressive decrease when it was understood that they were related to the presence of uncontrolled asthma. However, fatal reactions related to failure to recognize the presence of risk factors or administration errors are still reported. Similarly to what has been observed for efficacy, VIT has never been affected by fatal reactions to the administration of venom, and the most important risk of anaphylaxis, which is the concomitance of mastocytosis, is now identified by measuring its marker serum tryptase. To date, mechanisms of hypersensitivity reactions that differentiate respiratory allergy from Hymenoptera venom allergy have not been successfully demonstrated. We have examined the past and present literature in order to propose reasonable hypotheses about the mechanisms actually involved.

Systemic mastocytosis (SM) is a clonal mast cell disorder that can lead to potentially severe anaphylactic reactions. Hymenoptera sting is one of the most frequent triggers of anaphylaxis in these patients, and diagnosis of indolent SM (ISM) without skin involvement (ISMs) is not rare. In this subgroup of patients, venom immunotherapy (VIT) is an effective treatment decreasing subsequent systemic reactions, and lifelong administration is recommended. An individualized diagnosis is necessary to offer the most adequate VIT, and molecular diagnosis (MD) may be useful to discriminate between primary sensitization and cross-reactivity. Nevertheless, other techniques such as ImmunoCAP inhibition assays may be necessary to identify the genuine sensitization to offer the most suitable VIT. We present a male patient with an anaphylactic reaction following several wasp stings. The patient was diagnosed with ISM, and allergy to both Polistes dominula and Vespula sp venom was confirmed. In this scenario, MD did not discriminate between a genuine double sensitization and venom cross-reactivity between both vespids. Thus, CAP-inhibition assay was performed. This case indicated the importance of an accurate diagnosis of hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA). It also highlights the usefulness of CAP-inhibition assays when MD fails to distinguish between genuine double Polistes-Vespula sensitization and cross-reactivity., Competing Interests: The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

This review summarizes new research developments and clinical practice recommendations for the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis presented in the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters 2023 Anaphylaxis practice parameter Update. It is intended to serve as a high-level summary of the 2023 practice parameter, which makes clinically impactful recommendations based on evidence that has emerged since the 2015 practice parameter. We invite clinicians to explore the full 2023 practice parameter to understand the research methods and underlying evidence that have informed the recommendations summarized here. There are new and evolving diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis, rules for defining elevated tryptase levels, and recognition of signs and symptoms particular to infants and toddlers. The administration of epinephrine should not be used as a surrogate to diagnose anaphylaxis. Risk factors for anaphylaxis should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Patient counseling and shared decision-making are essential to support patients' treatment decisions and capacity to manage the risk of anaphylaxis at home and in other community settings. Activation of emergency medical services after home epinephrine administration may not be required in all cases, and patients should be engaged in shared decision-making to determine when home management may be appropriate., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Understanding the risk factors leading to severe systemic sting reactions (SSRs) is crucial for initiating venom immunotherapy (VIT) and for educating affected individuals and their families. Some of these risk factors are well established, some are no longer considered risk factors, and some remain controversial. Well-established risk factors for severe SSRs include clonal mast cell disease, high baseline serum tryptase, and advanced age. The absence of skin symptoms and the rapid onset of symptoms are indicators of severe SSRs. Recent publications indicate that antihypertensive treatment and stings in the head and neck area are not risk factors for severe SSRs. VIT is the only available treatment that can potentially prevent further anaphylactic reactions. Although rare and generally manageable, individuals undergoing VIT may experience systemic adverse events (sAEs). More sAEs are expected in patients undergoing bee VIT compared with vespid VIT. The role of elevated baseline serum tryptase as a risk factor for sAEs remains debated, but if it is a factor, the risk is increased by only about 1.5-fold. Rapid updosing protocols, depending on the specific regimen, can also be associated with more sAEs. Severe initial SSRs, antihypertensive medication, high skin test reactivity, and high specific IgE levels are not risk factors for sAEs., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Before starting venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT), systemic sting reactions to Hymenoptera venoms require allergological workup in order to prove an IgE-mediated reaction and to identify the culprit insect venom. In addition to skin tests and the determination of specific IgE antibodies, the basophil activation test (BAT) using flow cytometry has emerged as a powerful tool and sensitive marker for this purpose in recent years. BAT seems to have a better informative value in terms of clinical relevance compared to the other tests. In Hymenoptera venom allergies, BAT is particularly useful for the diagnosis of cases with unclear or contradictory history and sensitization profile. Its results are associated with adverse reactions during VIT and efficacy of VIT and therefore have a certain predictive value for side effects and treatment failure of VIT. In research, it is mainly used to characterize the allergenic components of Hymenoptera venoms. This review article focuses on these topics., Competing Interests: BE reports non-financial support from Bühlmann Laboratories outside the submitted work. KB received lecture fees from ALK, Bencard and ThermoFisher and reports non-financial support from Bühlmann Laboratories outside the submitted work. SB reports grants and personal fees from Bencard, Thermo Fisher Scientific and Allergy Therapeutics, grants from Leti Pharma, and non-financial support from Siemens Healthineers, outside the submitted work. The rest of the authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interest. Table 1. Overview of possible current applications of basophil activation test for Hymenoptera venom allergy. Field of applicationGroup of patientsAllergens to be used in the BATDiagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergyPatients with negative results in routine testingWhole venom extracts, allergen componentsPatients with double sensitizationWhole venom extracts, allergen components Efficacy and tolerance of VITPatients with adverse events during VITSubmaximal concentrations of whole venom extracts in the course of VITPatients with systemic reactions after a field sting or sting challenge during VITSubmaximal concentrations of whole venom extracts in the course of VIT Characterization of allergen componentsPatients with a history or sensitization profile relevant to the scientific issueAllergen components BAT = basophil activation test; VIT = venom-specific immunotherapy., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Mastocytosis or an elevated basal serum tryptase (bST) level are known risk factors for patients with insect venom allergy. We report on 3 patients with a history of severe anaphylactic insect sting reactions who underwent a detailed workup for insect venom allergy before starting venom immunotherapy. In addition to insect venom sensitization, an elevated concentration of bST (15.5, 20.8, and 23.2 µg/L) was found in all cases. There was no evidence of mastocytosis in the skin (MIS). Further testing revealed hereditary α-hypertryptasemia (HαT) in 2 patients and a D816V mutation by liquid biopsy in 1 patient, which is a minor diagnostic criterion for indolent systemic mastocytosis. Even without iliac crest puncture, causes of elevated bST can be narrowed down with minimally invasive diagnostic measures. As this has practical implications, patients with elevated bST should always undergo further work-up to determine the cause of this abnormal finding., Competing Interests: FR has participated in advisory boards for ALK-Abelló Arzneimittel GmbH, Blueprint medicines (Germany), and received payments for lectures from ALK-Abelló Arzneimittel GmbH Novartis, and ThermoFisher. MW received payments for lectures from ALK-Abelló Arzneimittel GmbH. The other authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this case report. Table 1.Characterization of the patients. Patient123Age at time of first presentation and biological sex47 yrs, male46 yrs, female34 yrs, femaleSting history: Type of insect, severity of sting reaction (Ring and Messmer)Wasp, repeated SAR (grade III) Wasp, SAR grade III Bee, SAR grade IIIInsect venom-specific IgE concentration at first presentation kUA/L (CAP class)Bee0.91 (2)0.15 (0)6.22 (3)Vespula0.55 (1)9.81 (3)0.05 (0)Lowest venom concentration resulting in a positive skin prick testBeeNegative up to 100 µg/mLNegative up to 300 µg/mLn.d.VespulaNegative up to 100 µg/mLNegative up to 300 µg/mLn.d.Intradermal test 1 μg/mLBeeNegativen.d.n.d.VespulaPositiven.d.n.d.bST (µg/L)20.8 23.215.5 Venom dose for initial treatment200 µg bee venom and 100 µg Vespula venom100 µg Vespula venom200 µg bee venomSymptoms during VITNo SARNo SARRepeated SAR (grade II) good tolerance of dosing-up while receiving omalizumab (for 5 months) Reactions after sting provocation/field sting n.d.SAR grade II following a field sting No SAR following VIT dose increase No SARbST (µg/L) during VIT20.2 17.216.3 TPSAB1 gene mutationGermline duplication Germline triplicationAbsentKIT mutation (D816V)AbsentAbsentPresentBone densitometry findingsNormalMild osteopenian.d.SAR = systemic allergic reaction; n.d. = not done; bST = basal serum tryptase; VIT = venom immunotherapy. Table 2.Criteria for the diagnosis of systemic mastocytosis [6]. Major criterionMultifocal dense infiltrates of mast cells in bone marrow biopsies and/or in sections of other extracutaneous organsMinor criteria≥ 25% of all mast cells in sections of bone marrow or other extracutaneous organs are atypical, e.g., spindle-shapedKIT-activating KIT point mutation at codon 816 in the bone marrow or another extracutaneous organCD2 and/or CD25 and/or CD30 expression on mast cellsBasal tryptase in serum > 20 µg/LIf at least 1 major and 1 minor criterion or 3 minor criteria are met, the diagnosis of a systemic mastocytosis is confirmed., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Summary: Background. In diagnosing insect venom allergy and making immunotherapy decisions, clinical history, skin tests, and specific serum IgE levels are commonly utilized. This study aims to emphasize the clinical significance of using the basophil activation test in accurately identifying sensitivities in individuals with insect venom allergy and to compare its effectiveness with other testing methods. Methods. This study included a total of 43 patients, who experienced at least one systemic allergic reaction following insect stings and were deemed suitable for immunotherapy.Basophil activation test, specific serum IgE levels, and skin prick test results utilized in making immunotherapy treatment decisions were recorded. Results. Our study determined that the overall clinical sensitivities of the basophil activation test (BAT), specific serum IgE (spIgE), and skin prick test (SPT) for apis mellifera were 95.5%, 95.7%, and 48.4% respectively, while for vespula vulgaris, they were 83.3%, 100%, and 33.3%. Based on these results, the prediction of systemic reactions to bee stings is ordered as spIgE > BAT > SPT. Additionally, early-stage skin prick tests showed a sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 50% at a cut-off value of 1.5 mm, and 33% sensitivity and 83% specificity at 2.5 mm. Conclusions. This study demonstrates that the basophil activation test (BAT) can provide a high positive predictive value in immunotherapy treatment decisions and offer significant insights in clinical practices.

Stinging ants represent a wide range of over 200 different species across the world, of which Solenopsis, Myrmecia, Pogonomyrmex, and Brachyponera genera account for a substantial economic and healthcare burden. S. invicta (red imported fire ant [IFA]) and M. pilosula (jack jumper ant [JJA]) are 2 species of high clinical importance, known to cause anaphylaxis in humans, with numerous reported fatalities. Diagnostic testing should be performed in patients with a history of a systemic reaction with skin testing and/or in vitro specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) testing. In vitro testing is commercially available for IFA through whole-body extract specific IgE and JJA venom-specific IgE, but not widely available for other stinging ant species. Commercial venom component testing for IFA and JJA is currently not available. Patients with a clinical history and positive specific IgE testing should undergo treatment with specific immunotherapy, which is currently available for IFA and JJA. Buildup may be performed using conventional, semi-rush, rush, or ultra-rush schedules with similar risk profiles for IFA. Optimal duration for whole=body extract immunotherapy for IFA and specific JJA venom immunotherapy is not well studied, but generally recommended for at least 3 to 5 years. Sting challenges are used in research settings, primarily to assess treatment efficacy of immunotherapy., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Insect stings can cause large local reactions (LLRs) that are IgE-mediated and associated with considerable morbidity. A risk for systemic reactions including anaphylaxis to subsequent stings has been reported and is often noted by patients and health care providers. Guidelines do not recommend venom immunotherapy (VIT) for LLRs based on the relatively low risk of anaphylaxis, but this is debated in this review. On the pro side: the risk of anaphylaxis may be higher than reported in the limited literature, especially in patients who had only 1 LLR; new species with more potent stings are spreading into new areas; the quality of life can be markedly impaired by LLRs; and VIT is generally safe and highly effective. On the con side: LLRs are benign, stings occur infrequently, VIT has significant cost, systemic reactions occur more often to VIT than to stings in patients with LLRs, and Food and Drug Administration approval and published guidelines do not recommend VIT for LLRs. In practice, shared decision-making is appropriate to incorporate knowledge of the natural history and known high-risk factors in the context of the patient's personal values and preferences., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Stinging insects are a frequent cause of local and systemic hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis. For those with a history of life-threatening anaphylaxis, venom immunotherapy is effective, safe, and can be life-saving. Arachnids are a much less common source of envenomation through bites or stings and are less likely to cause a hypersensitivity reaction. However, recognizing the clinical manifestations when they do present is important for accurate diagnosis and treatment, and, when indicated, consideration of other diagnoses., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Evaluation and management of insect sting allergy are often not straightforward when there is uncertainty about the history of reaction, the significance of test results, and the risk of severe reaction to future stings. Patients encounter misinformation about the chance of reaction and may have strong beliefs about the need for treatment. Shared decision-making encourages the clinician to listen to the patients' concerns and beliefs, share relevant information and evidence, and partner with patients to incorporate their values and preferences. This review discusses some major decision points in diagnosis and treatment of insect-allergic patients, with attention to the potential burdens or harms that are important to patients and factors that relate to patients' values and preferences concerning the choices they must make. This is especially true in patients with no history of moderate to severe sting anaphylaxis in whom the risk may be overestimated, but it can also be important in patients who underestimate the risk associated with severe sting anaphylaxis. Clinicians should become more knowledgeable about patient-important beliefs and outcomes and engage in shared decision-making to help patients understand and be comfortable with the choices they must make., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) is a well-established, efficient, and safe way to treat respiratory and insect-venom allergies. After determining the diagnosis of the clinically relevant culprit allergen, AIT can be prescribed. However, not all patients are eligible for AIT, since some diseases/conditions represent contraindications to AIT use, as described in several guidelines. Allergists are often preoccupied on whether an extensive workup should be ordered in apparently healthy AIT candidates in order to detect contra-indicated diseases and conditions. These preoccupations often arise from clinical, ethical and legal issues. The aim of this article is to suggest an approach to the workup and assessment of the presence of any underlying diseases/conditions in patients with no case history before the start of AIT. Notably, there is a lack of published studies on the appropriate evaluation of AIT candidates, with no globally accepted guidelines. It appears that Allergists are mostly deciding based on their AIT training, as well as their clinical experience. Guidance is based mainly on experts’ opinions; the suggested preliminary workup can be divided into mandatory and optional testing. The evaluation for possible underlying neoplastic, autoimmune, and cardiovascular diseases, primary and acquired immunodeficiencies and pregnancy, might be helpful but only in subjects for whom the history and clinical examination raise suspicion of these conditions. A workup without any reasonable correlation with potential contraindications is useless. In conclusion, the evaluation of each individual candidate for possible medical conditions should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Wasp allergy with a diagnostic profile of double sensitizations to vespid venom is a frequent clinical problem in areas where different genera of wasps are present. Identification of the insect responsible for serious reactions poses a diagnostic challenge as the only effective treatment to date is immunotherapy based on the specific venom. In southern Europe, the double sensitization to Vespula and Polistes venoms is highly frequent. It has been shown that the major allergenic proteins (Phospholipase A1 and Antigen 5) share sequences across the different genera and species, which would be the cause of cross-reactivity. Additionally, the minor allergens (Dipeptidyl-peptidases, Vitellogenins) have been found to share partial sequence identity. Furthermore, venom contains other homologous proteins whose allergenic nature still remains to be clarified. The traditional diagnostic tools available are insufficient to discriminate between allergy to Vespula and Polistes in a high number of cases. IgE inhibition is the technique that best identifies the cross-reactivity. When a double sensitization has indeed been shown to exist or great uncertainty surrounds the primary sensitization, therapy with two venoms is advisable to guarantee the safety of the patient. In this case, a strategy involving alternate administration that combines effectiveness with efficiency is possible.

Summary: Background. Bee venom allergy (BVA) can trigger local and systemic allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. Recently, the molecular sensitization profile has gained importance in the reaction's stratification and venom immunotherapy (VIT). Methods. Retrospective analysis of patients with hypersensitivity to BVA, confirmed by specific sIgE to Apis mellifera ≥0.35 kU/L and/or positive skin tests to bee venom commercial extract, evaluated in specialized consultation. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data (including molecular Api m 1, 4, and 10) were analyzed, looking for risk factors associated with the severity of the index reaction and reactions during VIT. Results. 93 patients were included (55.9% male; median age of 46 years), 57.3% with atopic comorbidities, and 23.4% with cardiovascular comorbidities. The median specific IgE to Apis mellifera was 6.7 kU/L (IQR 1.0-20.3) kU/L. Regarding the molecular profile, the median IgE to Api m 1 was 0.5 kU/L (57.5% positive out of all measurements); Api m 4 - 0.01 kU/L (11.9% positive), and Api m 10 - 0.3 kU/L (50.0% positive). No patient was monosensitized to Api m 4. The median age of the most severe sting reaction was 36 (IQR 26-48) years, with a median severity (Müeller scale) of 3 (IQR 2-3). Forty-seven patients (50.5%) underwent VIT, with 35.6% of reactions recorded. Allergic reactions during VIT were recorded in 35.6% of cases. The severity of the index reaction correlated positively with older ages (p=0.040; r=0.249), in contrast to monosensitization to Api m 1, which was an independent predictor of milder reactions (p=0.015). Sensitization to Api m 10 was associated with a higher likelihood of reactions during VIT (p=0.038) but potentially less systemic reactions at re-stings (p=0.097). Conclusions. Molecular sensitization profile appears to be relevant not only to the severity of index reactions but also during VIT. Studies of a large cohort of patients with molecular profiles are essential to validate these results and improve the clinical and therapeutic approach to BVA.

Background and Objective: The safety profile of venom immunotherapy (VIT) is a relevant issue and considerable differences in safety and efficacy of VIT have been reported. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers during VIT, which has already been published. For a second analysis, data concerning premedication and venom preparations in relation to systemic adverse events (AE) during the up-dosing phase and the first year of the maintenance phase were evaluated as well as the outcome of field stings and sting challenges., Methods: The study was conducted as an open, prospective, observational, multicenter study. In total, 1,425 patients were enrolled and VIT was performed in 1,342 patients., Results: Premedication with oral antihistamines was taken by 52.1% of patients during the up-dosing and 19.7% of patients during the maintenance phase. Taking antihistamines had no effect on the frequency of systemic AE (p=0.11) but large local reactions (LLR) were less frequently seen (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.58-0.96; p=0.02). Aqueous preparations were preferentially used for up-dosing (73.0%) and depot preparations for the maintenance phase (64.5%). The type of venom preparation neither had an influence on the frequency of systemic AE nor on the effectiveness of VIT (p=0.26 and p=0.80, respectively), while LLR were less frequently seen when depot preparations were used (p<0.001)., Conclusion: Pretreatment with oral antihistamines during VIT significantly reduces the frequency of LLR but not systemic AE. All venom preparations used were equally effective and did not differ in the frequency of systemic AE.

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.)

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.

Background: In Hymenoptera venom allergy serologically double-sensitized patients, it is often difficult to identify the culprit insect for venom immunotherapy (VIT)., Objectives: To evaluate if basophil activation tests (BATs) performed not only with venom extracts but additionally with single component-resolved diagnostics could differentiate between sensitized and allergic individuals and how the test results influenced the physicians' decision regarding VIT., Methods: BATs were performed with bee and wasp venom extracts and with single components (Api m 1, Api m 10, Ves v 1, and Ves v 5) in 31 serologically double-sensitized patients., Results: In 28 finally included individuals, 9 BATs were positive and 4 negative for both venoms. Fourteen of 28 BATs showed positive results for wasp venom alone. Two of 10 BATs positive for bee venom were only positive to Api m 1 and 1 of 28 BATs only to Api m 10, but not for whole bee venom extract. Five of 23 BATs positive for wasp venom were only positive for Ves v 5 but negative for wasp venom extract and Ves v 1. Finally, VIT with both insect venoms was recommended in 4 of 28 individuals, with wasp venom alone in 21 of 28 patients and with bee venom alone in 1 of 28. In 2 cases no VIT was recommended., Conclusions: BATs with Ves v 5, followed by Api m 1 and Api m 10, were helpful for the decision for VIT with the clinically relevant insect in 8 of 28 (28.6%) patients. A BAT with components should therefore be additionally carried out in cases with equivocal results., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)