Immunological and clinical factors associated with adverse systemic reactions during the build-up phase of honeybee venom immunotherapy

Basophil Activation Test Predicts Cetuximab Anaphylaxis Severity in Alpha-Gal IgE-Positive Patients

Upon first exposure to cetuximab, hypersensitivity reactions can occur. We aimed to assess the utility of the basophil activation test (BAT) to alpha-gal and cetuximab for predicting severe reactions. We prospectively recruited 38 patients and evaluated sIgE to alpha-gal in all patients before the first application of cetuximab. In all alpha-gal-sensitized patients, we evaluated skin tests to meat extracts, gelatine, and cetuximab and performed BAT with alpha-gal and cetuximab. In 24% (9/38) of patients, sIgE to alpha-gal was >0.10 kUA/L, and 8/9 reacted to the cetuximab. Basophil activation tests with alpha-gal were positive in all sensitized patients and were higher in those with severe reactions (18.3% in grade 4 [n = 4] vs. 1.8% in grade 2 [n = 3] or no reaction [n = 1] at 3.3 ng/mL of alpha-gal; p = 0.03). All patients with severe grade 4 reactions had a positive CD63 BAT response to cetuximab compared to patients with moderate or no reaction, who all had negative BAT (57.7% vs. 0.9% at 500 µg/mL, 63.2% vs. 4.1% at 100 µg/mL, 58.2% vs. 2.7% at 10 µg/mL, and 32.1% vs. 3.3% at 1 µg/mL of cetuximab, respectively; p ≤ 0.001). In summary, before initiating cetuximab treatment, sIgE to alpha-gal should be assessed in all patients. To predict the severity of the reaction and to assess the risk of cetuximab-induced anaphylaxis, we should perform BATs with alpha-gal or more discriminative BATs with cetuximab.

Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy: Safety and efficacy of an accelerated induction regimen with depot aluminum adsorbed extracts

Introduction: Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the only therapy that protects patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy by preventing systemic reactions after a new sting. Various extracts for VIT are available and used. VIT administration consists of an induction phase and a maintenance phase. Depot preparations of Hymenoptera VIT extracts are typically used for cluster and conventional protocols, and the maintenance phase. Many patients with Hymenoptera allergy need to achieve tolerance quickly because of the high risk of re-sting and possible anaphylaxis. Objective: Our study aimed to show the safety and efficacy of an accelerated regimen with depot preparations on aluminum hydroxide by using relatively high starting doses in a heterogeneous group of patients. Methods: The research focused on a group of patients with a history of severe systemic reactions to Hymenoptera stings, with the necessity of swift immunization due to high occupational risks. Aluminum hydroxide depot extracts either of Vepula species or Apis mellifera extracts were used. Results: The induction protocol was started with the highest concentration of depot venom extract of 100,000 standard quality unit and was well tolerated by 19 of 20 patients. Onne patient presented with a mild systemic reaction during the accelerated induction schedule, which was promptly treated with intravenous steroids and intramuscular H1 antihistamine; when switched to a conventional induction protocol, he had a similar reaction but finally reached maintenance with an H1-antagonist premedication. Conclusion: If validated, the accelerated induction protocol by using depot aluminum adsorbed extracts with the highest concentration of venom from the beginning could offer a streamlined and accessible treatment modality for patients diagnosed with anaphylaxis from bee and wasp venoms in need of rapid desensitization.

Venom Anaphylaxis: Decision Points for a More Aggressive Workup

Diagnostic testing of patients who present for evaluation of insect venom allergy can involve many levels of investigation. A detailed initial history is critical for diagnosis and prognosis. The severity of previous sting reactions and the presence or absence of urticaria or hypotension predict severe future sting reactions and underlying mast cell disorders. Venom skin tests and specific IgE measurement can confirm the diagnosis but have limited positive predictive value for the frequency and severity of future sting reactions. Testing for serum IgE to recombinant venom component allergens can distinguish true allergy from cross-reactivity to honey bee and yellowjacket venoms. Basophil activation tests can improve the detection of venom allergy and predict the severity of reactions and the efficacy of venom immunotherapy but are limited in availability. An elevated basal serum tryptase level is an important marker for severe sting anaphylaxis and underlying mast cell disorders (eg, hereditary α-tryptasemia and clonal mast cell disease). When there is high suspicion (eg, using the Red Espanola de Mastocytosis score), bone marrow biopsy is the definitive tool to characterize mast cell disorders that are associated with the most severe outcomes in patients with insect sting allergy.

Updates and Recent Advances on Venom Immunotherapy

Purpose of Review

Venom immunotherapy has been utilized to treat Hymenoptera venom allergy since the 1920s. Over the last century, significant advances in the fields of immunology and genetics have led to improvements in the practice of venom immunotherapy. This review encompasses recent advances in the use of venom immunotherapy to provide precise, patient-centered care.

Recent Findings

Research about the mechanism of action of venom immunotherapy continues to highlight the modification of both the innate and adaptive immune systems. Molecular techniques have allowed for the identification of specific venom allergens to improve the diagnostic accuracy and safety of venom immunotherapy. Research continues to support the safety of accelerated schedules which can impact the cost, adherence, and quality of life for patients receiving this treatment modality. Finally, significant advances have led to the elucidation of risk factors that place patients at risk for reactions during and after venom immunotherapy. Creation of risk profiles for venom-allergic patients can thus inform the process of immunotherapy in order to provide personalized and precise care.

Summary

Significant progress in the use of venom immunotherapy makes the practice a dynamic and active field for continued research. Future research needs to build on these recent advances to continue to optimize and enhance this life-saving treatment.

[Basophil activation test to follow-up of patients treated with hymenoptera venom immunotherapy: a review of current evidence]

Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (HVI) is a long-term effective treatment to avoid new systemic reactions in patients with Hymenoptera allergy. The sting challenge test is considered the gold standard to confirm the tolerance. However, the use of this technique is not generalized in clinical practice, being the basophil activation test (BAT), which functionally explores allergen response, an alternative that does not entail any of the provocation risks associated with the sting challenge test. This study reviews the publications that used the BAT to follow up and evaluate the success of the HVI. Studies assessing the changes between a baseline BAT before the start and BATs performed between the starting and maintenance phases of the HVI were selected. Ten articles were found, comprising information from 167 patients, of which 29% used the sting challenge test. The studies concluded the importance of evaluating the responses with submaximal allergen concentrations, which reflect basophil sensitivity, to monitor the HVI using the BAT. It was also observed that changes in the maximum response (reactivity) could not reflect the clinical status of tolerance, particularly in the initial phases of HVI.

A single center retrospective study of systemic reactions' distribution and risk factors to subcutaneous immunotherapy with dust mite extract in patients with allergic rhinitis and/ or asthma

To analyze various risk factors including causes that may lead to adverse reactions, especially systemic adverse reactions（SRs）, before and after mite allergen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), so as to provide real-world reference data for further improving the safety of mite allergen SCIT. Methods: The local adverse reactions（LRs）and SRs of 230 patients with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma who received SCIT in Weifang people's hospital were analyzed retrospectively. The data of patient characteristics, drug factors and environmental elements of adverse reactions were collected and statistically analyzed. Results: There were 28 cases (12.2%) of SRs in 230 patients. All the patients received a total of 7515 injections and 37 SRs (0.49%) were observed. 32.4% (12/37) of SRs could identify their external and subjective triggers. SRs patients had higher 2-year SCIT compliance than no-SRs patients (p = 0.026). The prevalence of SRs in SCIT patients with atopic dermatitis or simple allergic asthma are no statistical significance (P = 0.111). Conclusion: the incidence of SRs in this study is within an ideal range. Through professional patient education and pre injection risk factor assessment, Compliance is still well-controlled and guaranteed although SRs occurred.

Adverse reactions in venom immunotherapy protocols: conventional versus ultra-rush

BACKGROUND

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is an effective treatment in the patients at high risk of anaphylaxis or life-threatening systemic reactions due to Hymenoptera venom allergy. But, systemic and large local reactions can be observed, especially during the build-up phase of VIT. We evaluated the safety of conventional and ultra-rush build-up protocols.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two protocols in 71 patients (39 conventional and 32 ultra-rush protocols) with honeybee and wasp venom allergy were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were diagnosed and selected for VIT according to the criteria established by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. The severity of systemic reactions was evaluated according to the criteria of Mueller.

RESULTS

Build-up phases were tolerated in 66.2% (n = 47) without any reaction. Allergic adverse reactions were observed in 33.8% (n = 24): large local reactions 22.5% (n = 16) and systemic reactions 11.3% (n = 8). There was no significant difference in the number of adverse reactions comparing patients receiving conventional and ultra-rush protocol. In addition, no association was found between allergic adverse reactions and the following factors: sex, previous systemic sting reactions, honeybee and wasp venom extract.

CONCLUSION

We found that both protocols were tolerated in patients with honeybee and wasp venom allergy. Ultra-rush protocol will be preferred for patients and clinicians because of its advantages in terms of time and costs.KEY MESSAGESVIT is the only curative treatment method that reduces the risk of severe reactions after a bee sting and improves the quality of life in patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy.Ultra-rush VIT protocol has advantages such as few injection and time savings.Both ultra-rush and conventional VIT are safe treatments to prevent potentially life-threatening reactions in patients with honeybee and wasp venom allergy.

Intracutaneous Skin Tests and Serum IgE Levels Cannot Predict the Grade of Anaphylaxis in Patients with Insect Venom Allergies

Background

Allergies against Hymenoptera venoms are a major cause of severe anaphylaxis. Risk assessment for subjects with suspected allergy is difficult because there are currently no biomarkers that predict the likelihood of high-grade anaphylaxis other than several associated comorbidities.

Objective

We investigated the relationship between the severity of anaphylaxis and the results of intracutaneous skin tests (ICTs) together with serum levels of tryptase, total IgE, and venom-specific IgE, IgG, and IgG4.

Methods

We performed a retrospective evaluation of 194 patients who presented to a single medical center with allergies to bee venoms (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp.; n=24, 12.4%), vespid venoms (Vespula spp., Vespa spp., Polistes spp.; n=169, 87.1%), or both (n=1, 0.5%).

Results

Index bee stings occurred earlier in the year than vespid stings, although the latter were reported more frequently overall. On average, subjects who previously experienced grade IV anaphylaxis required higher dosages of venom to yield positive ICTs than those who exhibited lower grade responses. Patients diagnosed with grade IV anaphylaxis exhibited significantly lower levels of venom-specific IgE and IgG and trended toward elevated levels of tryptase. No significant differences in average levels of venom-specific IgG4 and total IgE were observed.

Conclusion

Our findings reveal that intracutaneous skin testing and levels of venom-specific IgE do not predict the degree of anaphylaxis that develops in patients with venom allergy. Furthermore, the month of the index sting is not a reliable means to differentiate bee from vespid stings in patients presenting with an uncertain history.

Anaphylactic reactions in the build-up phase of rush immunotherapy for bee venom allergy in pediatric patients: a single-center experience

Background

Anaphylaxis occurs in up to 3.5% of hymenoptera stings and can be a life-threatening emergency. Venom immunotherapy (VIT) provides excellent protection from further episodes of anaphylaxis and is well tolerated. In this study the frequency of anaphylactic reactions in pediatric patients undergoing rush bee venom immunotherapy was assessed as well as possible risk factors and modified up-dosing schemes are reported.

Methods

19 consecutive pediatric patients, who had previously experienced an anaphylactic reaction following a bee sting and showed IgE-mediated sensitization to bee venom, underwent inpatient rush immunotherapy with bee venom extract. We retrospectively compared serological findings (total IgE, serum tryptase level, sensitization to Api m1, Api m3 and Api m10 bee venom allergens) and possible risk factors between patients who experienced an anaphylactic reaction during immunotherapy and patients who did not.

Results

Three of the included 19 patients (15.8%) developed anaphylactic reactions to rush bee venom immunotherapy, all of them between administration of 40 and 80 µg of bee venom extract. However, all three patients reached the standard maintenance dose of 100 µg of bee venom following a modified VIT schedule without any further complications. Total serum IgE levels as well as Api m3 sensitization levels were significantly higher in patients showing an adverse reaction to bee VIT compared to those who did not experience any complications. There were no statistically significant differences concerning age, pre-existing conditions, type and severity of the initial reaction and Api m1, Api m10 and serum tryptase levels between the two subgroups.

Conclusion

Even if anaphylactic reactions occur during the build-up phase of VIT for bee venom in children and adolescents, venom immunotherapy can and should be continued in most cases.

Melittin-Based Nano-Delivery Systems for Cancer Therapy

Melittin (MEL) is a 26-amino acid polypeptide with a variety of pharmacological and toxicological effects, which include strong surface activity on cell lipid membranes, hemolytic activity, and potential anti-tumor properties. However, the clinical application of melittin is restricted due to its severe hemolytic activity. Different nanocarrier systems have been developed to achieve stable loading, side effects shielding, and tumor-targeted delivery, such as liposomes, cationic polymers, lipodisks, etc. In addition, MEL can be modified on nano drugs as a non-selective cytolytic peptide to enhance cellular uptake and endosomal/lysosomal escape. In this review, we discuss recent advances in MEL’s nano-delivery systems and MEL-modified nano drug carriers for cancer therapy.

Biomarkers of the Severity of Honeybee Sting Reactions and the Severity and Threshold of Systemic Adverse Events During Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

A biomarker that could identify individuals at high risk for severe honeybee sting allergic reaction and/or systemic adverse events (SAEs) during venom immunotherapy (VIT) would improve the management of patients with honeybee (HB) venom allergy.

OBJECTIVE

To identify biomarkers for risk of severe sting reactions or SAEs during VIT.

METHODS

We recruited 332 patients undergoing HB VIT. We ascertained predictors of the severity of the field-sting reaction and the severity and threshold of SAEs during VIT. We assessed the use of cardiovascular medications; baseline serum tryptase (BST) levels; specific IgEs to HB venom, rApi m 1, and rApi m 10; and basophil activation test (BAT) response.

RESULTS

Significant and independent predictors of a severe HB field-sting reaction were age (P = .008), an absence of skin symptoms (P = .001), BST (P = .014), and BAT response at an HB venom concentration of 0.1 μg/mL (P = .001). Predictors of severe SAEs during HB VIT were age (P = .025), BST (P = .006), and BAT response (P = .001). BAT response was also an individual and significant predictor of any SAEs and SAEs at a low cumulative allergen dose (median, 55 μg) during VIT build-up (P < .001). The use of β-blockers and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and specific IgE levels were not associated with the severity of HB field-sting reactions or VIT SAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

BST and basophil activation are independent risk factors for severe HB sting anaphylaxis and SAEs during HB VIT. BAT response was the best biomarker for any SAEs and a lower threshold of SAEs during HB VIT. These risk factors can help guide recommendations for VIT and overcome systemic reactions to HB VIT.

Benefits and limitations of sting challenge in hymenoptera venom allergy

The prevalence of systemic reactions to hymenoptera stings is up to 7.5%. Venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT) is an established treatment for insect venom allergy. In order to monitor the allergic status and thus the success of the therapy, controlled sting challenge under VIT continues to be the gold standard. This review deals not only with useful indications and therapeutic consequences but also with critical aspects that should be considered when performing sting challenge.

Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Safety: Incidence per Surveys and Risk Factors

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is effective for allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis, asthma, and insect venom hypersensitivity. The risk of severe allergic reactions induced by SCIT remains low, and mild systemic reactions have recently shown a tendency to decline. However, near-fatal and fatal anaphylactic reactions may occur. Clinicians administering allergen-specific immunotherapy should receive specialized training and be aware of risk factors and preventive measures to avoid severe allergic reactions induced by SCIT.

EAACI Allergen Immunotherapy User's Guide

Allergen immunotherapy is a cornerstone in the treatment of allergic children. The clinical efficiency relies on a well-defined immunologic mechanism promoting regulatory T cells and downplaying the immune response induced by allergens. Clinical indications have been well documented for respiratory allergy in the presence of rhinitis and/or allergic asthma, to pollens and dust mites. Patients who have had an anaphylactic reaction to hymenoptera venom are also good candidates for allergen immunotherapy. Administration of allergen is currently mostly either by subcutaneous injections or by sublingual administration. Both methods have been extensively studied and have pros and cons. Specifically in children, the choice of the method of administration according to the patient's profile is important. Although allergen immunotherapy is widely used, there is a need for improvement. More particularly, biomarkers for prediction of the success of the treatments are needed. The strength and efficiency of the immune response may also be boosted by the use of better adjuvants. Finally, novel formulations might be more efficient and might improve the patient's adherence to the treatment. This user's guide reviews current knowledge and aims to provide clinical guidance to healthcare professionals taking care of children undergoing allergen immunotherapy.

Hymenoptera Venom Allergy: How Does Venom Immunotherapy Prevent Anaphylaxis From Bee and Wasp Stings?

Hymenoptera stings may cause both local and systemic allergic reactions and even life threatening anaphylaxis. Along with pharmaceutical drugs and foods, hymenoptera venom is one of the most common causes of anaphylaxis in humans. To date, no parameter has been identified that may predict which sensitized people will have a future systemic sting reaction (SSR), however some risk factors, such as mastocytosis and age >40 years are known. Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the most effective method of treatment for people who had SSR, which is shown to be effective even after discontinuation of the therapy. Development of peripheral tolerance is the main mechanism during immunotherapy. It is mediated by the production of blocking IgG/IgG4 antibodies that may inhibit IgE dependent reactions through both high affinity (FcεRI) and low affinity (FcεRII) IgE receptors on mast cells, basophils and B cells. The generation of antigen specific regulatory T cells produces IL-10 and suppresses Th2 immunity and the immune responses shift toward a Th1-type response. B regulatory cells are also involved in the production of IL-10 and the development of long term immune tolerance. During VIT the number of effector cells in target organs also decreases, such as mast cells, basophils, innate type 2 lymphocytes and eosinophils. Several meta-analyses and randomized controlled studies have proved that VIT is effective for preventing SSR to a sting and improves the quality of life. In this review, the risk of SSR in venom allergy and how VIT changed this risk are discussed.

Clinical and immunological differences between asymptomatic HDM-sensitized and HDM-allergic rhinitis patients

BACKGROUND

Confirmation of the clinical relevance of sensitisation is important for the diagnosis of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the usefulness of an in vitro basophil activation test and component-resolved diagnosis in distinguishing between symptomatic allergic rhinitis patients and asymptomatic sensitization to house dust mites (HDMs).

METHODS

Thirty-six subjects with a positive skin prick test (SPT) for HDM were divided into a symptomatic (n = 17) and an asymptomatic (n = 19) group on the basis of their clinical history and a nasal provocation test. A basophil CD63 response to in vitro stimulation with Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus whole allergen extract and the IgE reactivity profiles for Der p 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 21, 23 were evaluated. Serum IgE and IgG specific to D pteronyssinus whole allergen extract and total IgE were measured.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in the levels of IgE (IgE levels were higher in symptomatic patients with P = 0.055) and IgG specific to D pteronyssinus and total IgE. Symptomatic patients showed a lower threshold for in vitro basophil activation (3.33 ng/mL vs 33.3 ng/mL), a higher area under the curve (AUC) of basophil activation (171 vs 127) (P = 0.017), a higher response to positive control with anti-FcεRI stimulation (97% vs 79%) (P < 0.001), a recognition of more HDM allergens (4 vs 2) and more frequent sensitization to rDer p 7 (P = 0.016) and rDer p 23 compared to asymptomatic subjects (P = 0.018). There was a positive correlation (r = 0.63; P < 0.001) between the number of recognized allergens and the AUC of basophil activation.

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In the subjects studied, the differences in the basophil response to D pteronyssinus allergen extract, number of recognized HDM allergens and reactivity to rDer p 7 and rDer p 23 distinguish symptomatic from asymptomatic HDM sensitisation better than SPT or allergen extract-specific IgE. Information regarding the clinical relevance of sensitization is important for the prescription of allergen-specific immunotherapy.

Biopanning of allergens from wasp sting patients

Objective: Wasp venom is a potentially important natural drug, but it can cause hypersensitivity reactions. The purpose of the present study was to systematically study the epitopes of wasp venom. Methods: Using a random 12-peptide phage library, we performed antibody-binding epitope panning on ten serum samples from wasp sting victims at 3 h and 4 days after the sting. The panning epitopes were identified by high-throughput sequencing and matched with wasp venom proteins by BLAST. The panned antibody-binding epitopes were verified by ELISA. Results: A total of 35 specific potential wasp venom epitopes in 4 days were identified. Amongst them, twelve peptide epitopes were matched with nine wasp venom proteins, namely, vitellogenin precursor, hexamerin 70b precursor, venom carboxylesterase-6 precursor, MRJP5, major royal jelly protein 8 precursor, venom acid phosphatase Acph-1 precursor, phospholipase A2, venom serine protease 34 precursor, and major royal jelly protein 9 precursor. The changes in serum IgM antibodies induced by wasp venom were confirmed by ELISA based on the 12 peptide epitopes. Conclusion: The nine wasp venom proteins are potential allergens, which should be excluded or modified in the potential biomedical applications of wasp venom.

Component-resolved diagnosis in hymenoptera allergy

Component-resolved diagnosis based on the use of well-defined, properly characterised and purified natural and recombinant allergens constitutes a new approach in the diagnosis of venom allergy. Prospective readers may benefit from an up-to-date review on the allergens. The best characterised venom is that of Apis mellifera, whose main allergens are phospholipase A2 (Api m1), hyaluronidase (Api m2) and melittin (Api m4). Additionally, in recent years, new allergens of Vespula vulgaris have been identified and include phospholipase A1 (Ves v1), hyaluronidase (Ves v2) and antigen 5 (Ves v5). Polistes species are becoming an increasing cause of allergy in Europe, although only few allergens have been identified in this venom. In this review, we evaluate the current knowledge about molecular diagnosis in hymenoptera venom allergy.

Bee venom therapy: Potential mechanisms and therapeutic applications

Bee venom is a very complex mixture of natural products extracted from honey bee which contains various pharmaceutical properties such as peptides, enzymes, biologically active amines and nonpeptide components. The use of bee venom into the specific points is so called bee venom therapy, which is widely used as a complementary and alternative therapy for 3000 years. A growing number of evidence has demonstrated the anti-inflammation, the anti-apoptosis, the anti-fibrosis and the anti-arthrosclerosis effects of bee venom therapy. With these pharmaceutical characteristics, bee venom therapy has also been used as the therapeutic method in treating rheumatoid arthritis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, liver fibrosis, atherosclerosis, pain and others. Although widely used, several cases still reported that bee venom therapy might cause some adverse effects, such as local itching or swelling. In this review, we summarize its potential mechanisms, therapeutic applications, and discuss its existing problems.

EAACI guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: Hymenoptera venom allergy

Hymenoptera venom allergy is a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction following a honeybee, vespid, or ant sting. Systemic-allergic sting reactions have been reported in up to 7.5% of adults and up to 3.4% of children. They can be mild and restricted to the skin or moderate to severe with a risk of life-threatening anaphylaxis. Patients should carry an emergency kit containing an adrenaline autoinjector, H₁ -antihistamines, and corticosteroids depending on the severity of their previous sting reaction(s). The only treatment to prevent further systemic sting reactions is venom immunotherapy. This guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on Venom Immunotherapy as part of the EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy initiative. The guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of venom immunotherapy, has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis and produced using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included representation from a range of stakeholders. Venom immunotherapy is indicated in venom-allergic children and adults to prevent further moderate-to-severe systemic sting reactions. Venom immunotherapy is also recommended in adults with only generalized skin reactions as it results in significant improvements in quality of life compared to carrying an adrenaline autoinjector. This guideline aims to give practical advice on performing venom immunotherapy. Key sections cover general considerations before initiating venom immunotherapy, evidence-based clinical recommendations, risk factors for adverse events and for relapse of systemic sting reaction, and a summary of gaps in the evidence.

Mast cell activation test in the diagnosis of allergic disease and anaphylaxis

Background

Food allergy is an increasing public health issue and the most common cause of life-threatening anaphylactic reactions. Conventional allergy tests assess for the presence of allergen-specific IgE, significantly overestimating the rate of true clinical allergy and resulting in overdiagnosis and adverse effect on health-related quality of life.

Objective

To undertake initial validation and assessment of a novel diagnostic tool, we used the mast cell activation test (MAT).

Methods

Primary human blood-derived mast cells (MCs) were generated from peripheral blood precursors, sensitized with patients' sera, and then incubated with allergen. MC degranulation was assessed by means of flow cytometry and mediator release. We compared the diagnostic performance of MATs with that of existing diagnostic tools to assess in a cohort of peanut-sensitized subjects undergoing double-blind, placebo-controlled challenge.

Results

Human blood-derived MCs sensitized with sera from patients with peanut, grass pollen, and Hymenoptera (wasp venom) allergy demonstrated allergen-specific and dose-dependent degranulation, as determined based on both expression of surface activation markers (CD63 and CD107a) and functional assays (prostaglandin D₂ and β-hexosaminidase release). In this cohort of peanut-sensitized subjects, the MAT was found to have superior discrimination performance compared with other testing modalities, including component-resolved diagnostics and basophil activation tests. Using functional principle component analysis, we identified 5 clusters or patterns of reactivity in the resulting dose-response curves, which at preliminary analysis corresponded to the reaction phenotypes seen at challenge.

Conclusion

The MAT is a robust tool that can confer superior diagnostic performance compared with existing allergy diagnostics and might be useful to explore differences in effector cell function between basophils and MCs during allergic reactions.

Developments in the field of clinical allergy in 2015 through the eyes of Clinical and Experimental Allergy

In the second of two papers, we describe developments in the field of clinical allergy as documented by Clinical and Experimental Allergy in 2015. Epidemiology, clinical allergy, asthma and rhinitis are all covered.

Allergen immunotherapy: an updated review of safety

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergen immunotherapy is the only modality that can modify the immune response upon exposure to aeroallergens and venom allergens. This review will update the allergist on recent studies evaluating safety of sublingual and subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple clinical trials and retrospective studies have been published evaluating overall safety of these therapies. The risk of systemic reactions with subcutaneous immunotherapy remains quite low, but near-fatal and fatal anaphylaxis does occur, requiring physicians to be aware of potential risks for such events. Sublingual immunotherapy has a high incidence of local site application reactions, but severe anaphylactic events are very uncommon.

SUMMARY

Subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy are beneficial in treating allergic rhinitis and venom hypersensitivity but should be administered only by physicians familiar with potential risk factors and able to manage treatment-related local and systemic allergic reactions.

Preventive actions of allergen immunotherapy: the facts and the effects in search of evidence

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only treatment that works on the causes of allergy. Available AIT nowadays are subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for allergic rhinitis and asthma, while for allergy to Hymenoptera venom only subcutaneous route is recommended. A bulk of trials and meta-analyses demonstrated that efficacy and safety of AIT in decreasing allergic clinical symptoms and use of rescue medications, while its preventive capacity is yet under investigation. The most important of these effects is the prevention of potentially fatal anaphylactic reactions to Hymenoptera stings by venom immunotherapy (VIT). A certain number of studies thus far available showed that AIT, in both forms, is able to prevent the progress of allergic rhinitis into asthma and the development of new sensitizations. These effects should be related to the mechanisms of action of AIT. In fact, it has been demonstrated that both SCIT and SLIT are able to modify the allergen presentation by dendritic cells, with result in modification of the phenotype of allergen-specific T cells, switching from the typical of allergic inflammation Th2-type response to a Th1-type one. Also allergen-specific T regulatory (Treg) cells play a pivotal role by producing suppressive cytokines, such as IL-10 and TGF-beta. However, the only plain evidence of a preventive effect concerns VIT, while the other outcomes need to be furtherly investigated.

Agreement of skin test with IL-4 production and CD40L expression by T cells upon immunotherapy of subjects with systemic reactions to Hymenoptera stings

Venom immunotherapy is the only curative intervention for subjects with Hymenoptera venom allergy who suffering systemic reactions upon bee or wasp stings. Venom immunotherapy can restore normal immunity against venom allergens, as well as providing to allergic subjects a lifetime tolerance against venoms. Nevertheless, it is necessary using safety assays to monitoring the development of tolerance in the VIT protocols to avoid fatal anaphylactic reactions. The purpose of this study was to assess the modifications in several markers of tolerance induction in subjects with Hymenoptera venom allergy undergoing immunotherapy. The studies were performed at baseline time and after six month of VIT. Intradermal skin tests, basophil activation tests, specific IgE levels; and the T-cell markers (IL-4 and IFN-γ producing cells; and expression of the surface activation markers CD40L and CTLA-4) were assayed. At six month of immunotherapy all parameters studied had significant alterations. All decreased, except the IFN-γ producing cells. In addition, modifications in intradermal skin test showed a significant correlation with both, CD40L expression on CD4 T lymphocytes (p=0.043) and IL-4 producing T lymphocytes (p=0.012). Neither basophil activation test nor serum levels of sIgE demonstrated any correlation with the immunological parameters studied nor among them. These results suggest that both IL-4 production and CD40L expression could be two good indicators of the beneficial effects of venom immunotherapy which translate into skin tests.