Search

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

Angioedema is a relatively rare but potentially life-threatening adverse reaction to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). As with hereditary forms of angioedema (HAE), this adverse reaction is mediated by bradykinin. Research suggests that ACEi/ARB-induced angioedema has a multifactorial etiology. In addition, recent case reports suggest that some ACEi/ARBinduced angioedema patients may carry pathogenic HAE variants. The aim of the present study was to investigate the possible association between ACEi/ARB-induced angioedema and HAE genes via systematic molecular genetic screening in a large cohort of ACEi/ARB-induced angioedema cases. Targeted re-sequencing of five HAEassociated genes (SERPING1, F12, PLG, ANGPT1, and KNG1) was performed in 212 ACEi/ARB-induced angioedema patients recruited in Germany/Austria, Sweden, and Denmark, and in 352 controls from a German cohort. Among patients, none of the identified variants represented a known pathogenic variant for HAE. Moreover, no significant association with ACEi/ARB-induced angioedema was found for any of the identified common [minor allele frequency (MAF) >5%] or rare (MAF < 5%) variants. However, several non-significant trends suggestive of possible protective effects were observed. The lowest p-value for an individual variant was found in PLG (rs4252129, p.R523W, p = 0.057, p.adjust > 0.999, Fisher’s exact test). Variant p.R523W was found exclusively in controls and has previously been associated with decreased levels of plasminogen, a precursor of plasmin which is part of a pathway directly involved in bradykinin production. In addition, rare, potentially functional variants (MAF < 5%, Phredscaled combined annotation dependent depletion score >10) showed a nominally significant enrichment in controls both: 1) across all five genes; and 2) in the F12 gene alone. However, these results did not withstand correction for multiple testing. In conclusion, our results suggest that HAE-associated mutations are, at best, a rare cause of ACEi/ARB-induced angioedema. Furthermore, we were unable to identify a significant association between ACEi/ARB-induced angioedema and other variants in the investigated genes. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to draw more definite conclusions concerning variants with limited effect sizes, including protective variants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The pathophysiology of the underlying paroxysmal permeability disturbances in angioedema (AE) is not well understood. Methods: To identify clinical and laboratory parameters specific for a certain AE subtype, 40 AE patients were prospectively enrolled: 15 hereditary (HAE), 13 ACE‐inhibitor induced (ACE‐AE), and 12 mast cell‐mediated without wheals in chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU‐AE). Ten healthy subjects served as controls. Serum levels of markers indicating activation of the ficolin‐lectin pathway, of endothelial cells, or those indicating impairment of vascular integrity or inflammation were assessed by enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay. Results: New routine clinical diagnostic criteria could not be identified, not even for distinguishing bradykinin‐mediated (BK‐) AE (ie, HAE and ACE‐AE) from mast cell‐/histamine‐mediated CSU‐AE. However, FAP‐α and tPA were significantly increased in all AE compared to controls. In HAE, FAP‐ α, tPA, uPAR, pentraxin‐3, Tie‐2, sE‐selectin, and VE‐cadherin were significantly increased compared to controls. In HAE compared to CSU‐AE and ACE‐AE, sE‐Selectin, Tie‐2, and VE‐Cadherin were significantly increased, whereas for Ang‐2 the difference was significant compared to CSU‐AE only. Tie‐2 correlated strongly negatively with C4, C1‐INH activity, and C1‐INH function. Conclusions: This study is the first to compare HAE, ACE‐AE, and CSU‐AE. Although significance is limited by small sample size, Tie‐2 was identified as a new promising biomarker candidate for HAE. FAP‐ α and tPA might serve as a marker for AE in general, whereas sE‐selectin and Ang‐2 were increased in BK‐AE only. Our results add information to the role of endothelial dysfunction and serine proteases in different AE subtypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately 10% of European children are classified as allergic to drugs. In the majority of these children, no allergy to β-lactam antibiotics (BLA) can be found. In most cases, the exanthema is caused by the infection., Materials and Methods: The objective of this paper is to describe the causes and consequences of a misdiagnosis of drug allergy. We propose a method for establishing a correct diagnosis in the case of a history of a delayed reaction during treatment with a BLA. For this purpose, a proposal was discussed via e-mail communication, and consensus was reached among the members of the drug allergy working groups of the participating medical societies., Results: The suspicion of a BLA allergy based on the medical history alone can have a negative impact on future antibiotic treatment. Exanthema associated with febrile infections not related to drug administration is a frequent finding in children. This makes it all the more important to be able to recommend a standardized procedure for clarification in children and adolescents with suspected hypersensitivity reactions. The medical history should be the basis on which to diagnose either a drug allergy or another possible differential diagnosis. A mild maculopapular exanthema (MPE) can be an expression of a drug allergy or a nonspecific viral exanthema. Uncomplicated MPE is not associated with significant systemic involvement, and there is no involvement of the mucous membranes or cutaneous blistering. Only a small number of children with uncomplicated MPE show positive skin tests and only ~ 7 - 16% of suspected BLA diagnoses can be confirmed by provocation tests. Thus, in children with uncomplicated MPE, drug provocation can be performed in an outpatient setting even without prior skin testing. This paper presents a 3-day outpatient direct provocation scheme for BLA delabeling in children with uncomplicated MPE., Conclusion: Many children and adolescents are unnecessarily denied treatment with BLA after an uncomplicated MPE while being treated with a BLA., Competing Interests: The author declared no potential conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Table 1.Warning signs of β-lactam allergy, modified according to [1, 12]. Immediate reactionDelayed reactionConjunctival erythemaPronounced facial edemaShock symptoms (arterial hypotension/dizziness)Atypical target lesions, bullous lesionsCoughing, sneezing, wheezing ErythrodermaDyspneaHemorrhagic and necrotic lesionsHoarsenessPainful skin, mucous membrane involvementDysphagiaGeneralized lymphadenopathyPathological laboratory findings (e.g., liver enzyme elevation, impaired renal function) Table 2.Provocation regime [6, 8, 15]. Day 1 (practice/clinic)Day 2 (at home)Day 3 (at home)1 single doseDaily dose distributed in 2 – 3 doses (depending on the antibiotic)Daily dose distributed in 2 – 3 doses (depending on the antibiotic)Monitoring for 1 hourStart ~ 24 hours after the first dose day 1**Wash-out period should be ~ 24 hours so that delayed reactions can be recorded after the 1st dose during the time interval between reaching the therapeutic dose and the subsequent dose. Figure 1Estimates on the likelihood of allergic cross-reactions between the various β-lactam antibiotics ([14])., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

International guidelines for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria support the updosing of second-generation antihistamines to four times of the approved dose when adequate symptom control cannot be achieved with the standard dosage. However, this recommendation is primarily based on expert opinions, and there is a lack of large, well-designed, double-blind clinical trials. Most the existing trials provide insufficient data, and due to the heterogeneity of the conducted trials on antihistamine effects (definition of control, design, quality, lack of an active comparator, no placebo arm, small sample size, outcomes) and their short duration, comparative analysis is challenging. However, it can be concluded that the use of modern second-generation antihistamines is both effective and safe based on the available data and our own long-term experiences in the specialized outpatient clinic of a university dermatology department, even though increased dosages (up to fourfold as per the current international guidelines) may be necessary for symptom control. Another therapeutic option for refractory symptoms in chronic spontaneous urticaria is subcutaneous administration of omalizumab at a dosage of 300 mg at 4‑week intervals as a very safe and effective treatment., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Background: Allergic medical care in Germany is organized on an interdisciplinary basis. An overview of the current care situation is necessary to manage and improve interdisciplinary cooperation., Methods: Between January and February 2022, questionnaires were sent online and by mail to chief physicians of inpatient clinical departments to which most allergological diseases are assigned (dermatology, otorhinolaryngology [ENT], pulmonology, pediatrics, environmental/occupational medicine, gastroenterology; n = 899)., Results: The response rate was 52.1%. Allergology departments of dermatology, ENT and pulmonology were predominantly located in metropolitan areas (> 100,000 inhabitants), whereas responses of pediatric departments were mostly from smaller towns. 76.8% of the respondents reported existing interdisciplinary treatment plans with other specialties. Pediatric and pulmonology clinics stated disproportionately few interdisciplinary treatment concepts with dermatology and ENT clinics, especially in smaller cities with < 100,000 inhabitants. Diagnosis and therapy of allergic rhinitis were performed in particular by the departments of ENT, asthma mainly by the pulmonology departments. Care of other allergological diseases was most frequently reported by chief physicians of dermatology and pediatrics., Conclusions: In metropolitan areas, participating departments provide allergology care in a cooperative manner. A large spectrum of care is covered in cooperation with dermatological clinics. In more rural areas, cooperation is rarer; here, mainly pediatric departments provide allergological care, which may explain the more limited range of services compared to metropolitan areas., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft.)

This publication is the second part of the German-language S3 guideline on urticaria. It covers the management of urticaria and should be used together with Part 1 of the guideline on classification and diagnosis. This publication was prepared according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system conditions in German-speaking countries. Chronic urticaria has a high impact on the quality of life and daily activities of patients. Therefore, if causal factors cannot be eliminated, effective symptomatic treatment is necessary. The recommended first-line treatment is to administer new generation, non-sedating H1 antihistamines. If the standard dose is not sufficiently effective, the dose should be increased up to fourfold. For patients who do not respond to this treatment, the second-line treatment in addition to antihistamines in the treatment algorithm is omalizumab and, if this treatment fails, ciclosporin. Other low-evidence therapeutic agents should only be used if all treatments in the treatment algorithm agreed upon by the guideline group fail. Both the benefit-risk profile and cost should be considered. Corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term treatment due to their inevitable severe side effects., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft.)

The lifetime prevalence of urticaria, a severe allergic disease, is almost 20%. It not only limits the quality of life of those affected, but also their general performance at work and in their daily activities. This publication is the first section of the Urticaria Guideline. It covers the classification and diagnosis of urticaria, taking into account the major advances in research into its causes, triggering factors and pathomechanisms. It also addresses strategies for the efficient diagnosis of the different subtypes of urticaria. This is crucial for individual, patient-oriented treatment, which is covered in the second part of the guideline, published separately. This German-language guideline was developed according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system characteristics in the German-speaking countries. This first part of the guideline describes the classification of urticaria, distinguishing spontaneously occurring wheals (hives) and angioedema from forms of urticaria with inducible symptoms. Urticaria is defined as sudden onset of wheals, angioedema, or both, but is to be distinguished from conditions in which wheals occur as a short-term symptom, such as anaphylaxis. The diagnosis is based on (a limited number of) laboratory tests, but especially on medical history. In addition, validated instruments are available to measure the severity, activity and course of the disease., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft.)

This update and revision of the international guideline for urticaria was developed following the methods recommended by Cochrane and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. It is a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA²LEN) and its Urticaria and Angioedema Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCAREs and ACAREs), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF; EuroGuiDerm), and the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology with the participation of 64 delegates of 50 national and international societies and from 31 countries. The consensus conference was held on 3 December 2020. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Urticaria is a frequent, mast cell-driven disease that presents with wheals, angioedema, or both. The lifetime prevalence for acute urticaria is approximately 20%. Chronic spontaneous or inducible urticaria is disabling, impairs quality of life, and affects performance at work and school. This updated version of the international guideline for urticaria covers the definition and classification of urticaria and outlines expert-guided and evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria., (© 2021 GA²LEN. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)