Improved recombinant Api m 1- and Ves v 5-based IgE testing to dissect bee and yellow jacket allergy and their correlation with the severity of the sting reaction

Venom Component Allergen IgE Measurement in the Diagnosis and Management of Insect Sting Allergy

Accurate identification of allergy-eliciting stinging insect(s) is essential to ensuring effective management of Hymenoptera venom-allergic individuals with venom-specific immunotherapy. Diagnostic testing using whole-venom extracts with skin tests and serologic-based analyses remains the first level of discrimination for honeybee versus vespid venom sensitization in patients with a positive clinical history. As a second-level evaluation, serologic testing using molecular venom allergens can further discriminate genuine sensitization (honeybee venom: Api m 1, 3, 4, and 10 vs yellow jacket venom/Polistes dominula venom Ves v 1/Pol d 1 and Ves v 5/Pol d 5) from interspecies cross-reactivity (hyaluronidases [Api m 2, Ves v 2, and Pol d 2] and dipeptidyl peptidases IV [Api m 5, Ves v 3, and Pol d 3]). Clinical laboratories use a number of singleplex, oligoplex, and multiplex immunoassays that employ both extracted whole-venom and molecular venom allergens (highlighted earlier) for confirmation of allergic venom sensitization. Established quantitative singleplex autoanalyzers have general governmental regulatory clearance worldwide for venom-allergic patient testing with maximally achievable analytical sensitivity (0.1 kUA/L) and confirmed reproducibility (interassay coefficient of variation <10%). Emerging oligoplex and multiplex (fixed-panel) assays conserve on serum and are more cost-effective, but they need regulatory clearance in some countries and are prone to higher rates of detecting asymptomatic sensitization. Ultimately, the patient's clinical history, combined with proof of sensitization, is the final arbiter in the diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy.

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.

Molecular diagnostics and inhibition of cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants in Hymenoptera venom allergy

BACKGROUND

The composition of venom extracts, cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCD) and the component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) are important fields of investigation. IgE-reactivity to CCD complicates the interpretation of IgE to Hymenoptera venoms, especially in patients with multiple-positivity. We analyzed the clinical importance of CRD and CCD-inhibition for selection of allergens for venom immunotherapy (VIT).

METHODS

In 71 patients, we measured specific IgE (sIgE) to honeybee venom (HBV), wasp venom (WV), hornet venom (HV), CCD, and recombinant allergens: phospholipase A2 (rApi m 1), hyaluronidase (rApi m 2), icarapin (rApi m 10), antigen 5 (rVes v 5), and phospholipase A1 (Immunoblot). In 29/71 HBV/WV/HV/CCD-positive patients CCD-inhibition was performed. According to CRD and CCD-inhibition, we identified true sensitization and defined groups of multiple-positive patients who needed CCD-inhibition before starting VIT.

RESULTS

sIgE-rApi m 1, sIgE-rApi m 2, and sIgE-rApi m 10 were detected in 65.7%, 68.4%, and 58%, respectively. In HBV allergic patients, CRD sensitivity was 86.8%. In WV allergic patients, sensitivity of sIgE-rVes v 5 was 94%. True multiple-sensitization was found in 44.8% of HBV/WV/HV/CCD-positive patients after CCD-inhibition. Patients with multiple venom- and CCD-positivity had more frequent severe allergic reactions (p < 0.001). CCD-inhibition was helpful in HBV/WV/HV/CCD-positive patients who were negative to all tested recombinant honeybee allergens. Persistence of HBV-positivity after CCD-inhibition requires CRD to other honeybee recombinant allergens.

CONCLUSION

CRD, using a profile of five most important recombinant allergens and CCD, has a high sensitivity for the diagnosis of venom allergy, especially in patients positive to several venom extracts. CRD and CCD-inhibition are helpful to reveal the clinically relevant, true sensitization and improve the selection of venoms for long-lasting VIT.

EAACI Molecular Allergology User's Guide 2.0

Since the discovery of immunoglobulin E (IgE) as a mediator of allergic diseases in 1967, our knowledge about the immunological mechanisms of IgE-mediated allergies has remarkably increased. In addition to understanding the immune response and clinical symptoms, allergy diagnosis and management depend strongly on the precise identification of the elicitors of the IgE-mediated allergic reaction. In the past four decades, innovations in bioscience and technology have facilitated the identification and production of well-defined, highly pure molecules for component-resolved diagnosis (CRD), allowing a personalized diagnosis and management of the allergic disease for individual patients. The first edition of the "EAACI Molecular Allergology User's Guide" (MAUG) in 2016 rapidly became a key reference for clinicians, scientists, and interested readers with a background in allergology, immunology, biology, and medicine. Nevertheless, the field of molecular allergology is moving fast, and after 6 years, a new EAACI Taskforce was established to provide an updated document. The Molecular Allergology User's Guide 2.0 summarizes state-of-the-art information on allergen molecules, their clinical relevance, and their application in diagnostic algorithms for clinical practice. It is designed for both, clinicians and scientists, guiding health care professionals through the overwhelming list of different allergen molecules available for testing. Further, it provides diagnostic algorithms on the clinical relevance of allergenic molecules and gives an overview of their biology, the basic mechanisms of test formats, and the application of tests to measure allergen exposure.

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.

Precision Medicine in Hymenoptera Venom Allergy: Diagnostics, Biomarkers, and Therapy of Different Endotypes and Phenotypes

Allergic reactions to stings of Hymenoptera species may be severe and are potentially fatal deviations of the immunological response observed in healthy individuals. However, venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT) is an immunomodulatory approach able to cure venom allergy in the majority of affected patients. An appropriate therapeutic intervention and the efficacy of VIT not only depend on a conclusive diagnosis, but might also be influenced by the patient-specific manifestation of the disease. As with other diseases, it should be borne in mind that there are different endotypes and phenotypes of venom allergy, each of which require a patient-tailored disease management and treatment scheme. Reviewed here are different endotypes of sting reactions such as IgE-mediated allergy, asymptomatic sensitization or a simultaneous presence of venom allergy and mast cell disorders including particular considerations for diagnosis and therapy. Additionally, phenotypical manifestations of venom allergy, as e.g. differences in age of onset and disease severity, multiple sensitization or patients unsusceptible to therapy, are described. Moreover, biomarkers and diagnostic strategies that might reflect the immunological status of the patient and their value for therapeutic guidance are discussed. Taken together, the increasing knowledge of different disease manifestations in venom hypersensitivity and the growing availability of diagnostic tools open new options for the classification of venom allergy and, hence, for personalized medical approaches and precision medicine in Hymenoptera venom allergy.

The role of component-resolved diagnosis in Hymenoptera venom allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) is a new tool aiming at detecting IgE-mediated sensitizations against individual, relevant allergens. Here, we discuss recent literature on molecular diagnosis in the field of Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) as well as CRD strengths and weaknesses.

RECENT FINDINGS

CRD, using single molecules or panels of allergens, may discriminate between primary sensitization and cross-reactivity in patients with double/multiple positivity in diagnostic tests with whole extracts, allowing the specialist to choose the most suitable venom for specific immunotherapy (VIT), avoiding unnecessary VIT and reducing the risk of side effects. Future availability of the cross-reactive recombinant pairs of allergens of different species may further increase the diagnostic performance. CRD may be useful in patients with negative allergy tests and a proven history of a previous systemic reaction, including those with mast cell disorders, who could benefit from VIT. In honeybee venom allergy, different sensitization profiles have been identified, which could be associated with a greater risk of VIT failure or treatment side effects.

SUMMARY

CRD is undoubtedly an innovative diagnostic method that leads to a more precise definition of the sensitization profile of the HVA patient. Together with a better knowledge of the molecular composition of different venom extracts, CRD may contribute to optimize patient-tailored therapy.

Antigen 5 Allergens of Hymenoptera Venoms and Their Role in Diagnosis and Therapy of Venom Allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Stings of Hymenoptera of the superfamily Vespoidea such as yellow jackets, paper wasps or stinging ants are common triggers for severe and even fatal allergic reactions. Antigen 5 allergens are potent allergens in the majority of these venoms with major importance for diagnosis and therapy. Reviewed here are the characteristics of antigen 5 allergens, their role in component-resolved diagnostics as well as current limitations of the available diagnostics for proper therapeutic decisions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Antigens 5 are proteins of unknown function in Hymenoptera venoms with high allergenic potency. They represent key elements in component-resolved diagnosis to discriminate between honeybee and vespid venom allergy. However, due to their pronounced cross-reactivity, there are remaining diagnostic and therapeutic challenges that have to be addressed. Antigens 5 are highly relevant venom allergens of the Vespoidea superfamily. Although their use in component-resolved diagnosis facilitates dissection of cross-reactivity and primary allergy in double sensitization to honeybee and vespid venom, new diagnostic concepts are needed to discriminate between allergies to different vespid species.

Risk factors and indicators of severe systemic insect sting reactions

Hymenoptera venom allergy ranks among the top three causes of anaphylaxis worldwide, and approximately one-quarter of sting-induced reactions are classified as severe. Fatal sting reactions are exceedingly rare, but certain factors may entail a considerably higher risk. Delayed administration of epinephrine and upright posture are situational risk factors which may determine an unfavorable outcome of the acute anaphylactic episode and should be addressed during individual patient education. Systemic mastocytosis and senior age are major, unmodifiable long-term risk factors and thus reinforce the indication for venom immunotherapy. Vespid venom allergy and male sex likewise augment the risk of severe or even fatal reactions. Further studies are required to assess the impact of specific cardiovascular comorbidities. Available data regarding potential effects of beta-blockers and/or ACE inhibitors in coexisting venom allergy are inconclusive and do not justify recommendations to discontinue guideline-directed antihypertensive treatment. The absence of urticaria/angioedema during sting-induced anaphylaxis is indicative of a severe reaction, serum tryptase elevation, and mast cell clonality. Determination of basal serum tryptase levels is an established diagnostic tool for risk assessment in Hymenoptera venom-allergic patients. Measurement of platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase activity represents a complementary approach but is not available for routine diagnostic use.

Worldwide perspectives on venom allergy

Venom immunotherapy is the standard of care for people with severe reactions and has been proven to reduce risk of future anaphylactic events. There is a moral imperative to ensure production, supply and worldwide availability of locally relevant, registered, standardized commercial venom extracts for diagnosis and treatment. Insects causing severe immediate allergic reactions vary by region worldwide. The most common culprits include honeybees (Apis mellifera), social wasps including yellow jackets (Vespula and Dolichovespula), paper wasps (Polistes) and hornets (Vespa), stinging ants (Solenopsis, Myrmecia, Pachycondyla, and Pogonomyrmex), and bumblebees (Bombus). Insects with importance in specific areas of the world include the Australian tick (Ixodes holocyclus), the kissing bug (Triatoma spp), horseflies (Tabanus spp), and mosquitoes (Aedes, Culex, Anopheles). Reliable access to high quality venom immunotherapy to locally relevant allergens is not available throughout the world. Many current commercially available therapeutic vaccines have deficiencies, are not suitable for, or are unavailable in vast areas of the globe. New products are required to replace products that are unstandardized or inadequate, particularly whole-body extract products. New products are required for insects in which no current treatment options exist. Venom immunotherapy should be promoted throughout the world and the provision thereof be supported by health authorities, regulatory authorities and all sectors of the health care service.

Immunology of Bee Venom

Bee venom is a blend of biochemicals ranging from small peptides and enzymes to biogenic amines. It is capable of triggering severe immunologic reactions owing to its allergenic fraction. Venom components are presented to the T cells by antigen-presenting cells within the skin. These Th2 type T cells then release IL-4 and IL-13 which subsequently direct B cells to class switch to production of IgE. Generating venom-specific IgE and crosslinking FcεR1(s) on the surface of mast cells complete the sensitizing stage in allergic individuals who are most likely to experience severe and even fatal allergic reactions after being stung. Specific IgE for bee venom is a double-edged sword as it is a powerful mediator in triggering allergic events but is also applied successfully in diagnosis of the venom allergic patient. The healing capacity of bee venom has been rediscovered under laboratory-controlled conditions using animal models and cell cultures. The potential role of enzymatic fraction of bee venom including phospholipase A2 in the initiation and development of immune responses also has been studied in numerous research settings. Undoubtedly, having insights into immunologic interactions between bee venom components and innate/specific immune cells both locally and systematically will contribute to the development of immunologic strategies in specific and epitope-based immunotherapy especially in individuals with Hymenoptera venom allergy.

The culprit insect but not severity of allergic reactions to bee and wasp venom can be determined by molecular diagnosis

Background

Allergy to bee and wasp venom can lead to life-threatening systemic reactions. The identification of the culprit species is important for allergen-specific immunotherapy.

Objectives

To determine a panel of recombinant bee and wasp allergens which is suitable for the identification of bee or wasp as culprit allergen sources and to search for molecular surrogates of clinical severity of sting reactions.

Methods

Sera from eighty-seven patients with a detailed documentation of their severity of sting reaction (Mueller grade) and who had been subjected to titrated skin testing with bee and wasp venom were analyzed for bee and wasp-specific IgE levels by ImmunoCAP^TM. IgE-reactivity testing was performed using a comprehensive panel of recombinant bee and wasp venom allergens (rApi m 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10; rVes v 1 and 5) by ISAC chip technology, ImmunoCAP and ELISA. IgG₄ antibodies to rApi m 1 and rVes v 5 were determined by ELISA and IgE/IgG₄ ratios were calculated. Results from skin testing, IgE serology and IgE/IgG₄ ratios were compared with severity of sting reactions.

Results

The panel of rApi m 1, rApi m 10, rVes v 1 and rVes v 5 allowed identification of the culprit venom in all but two of the 87 patients with good agreement to skin testing. Severities of sting reactions were not associated with results obtained by skin testing, venom-specific IgE levels or molecular diagnosis. Severe sting reactions were observed in patients showing < 1 ISU and < 2kU_A/L of IgE to Api m 1 and/or Ves v 5.

Conclusion

We identified a minimal panel of recombinant bee and wasp allergens for molecular diagnosis which may permit identification of bee and/or wasp as culprit insect in venom-sensitized subjects. The severity of sting reactions was not associated with parameters obtained by molecular diagnosis.

Component resolved diagnostics for hymenoptera venom allergy

Purpose of review

Component-resolved diagnostics makes use of defined allergen molecules to analyse IgE-mediated sensitizations at a molecular level. Here, we review recent studies on the use of component-resolved diagnostics in the field of Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) and discuss its benefits and limitations.

Recent findings

Component resolution in HVA has moved from single molecules to panels of allergens. Detection of specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) to marker and cross-reactive venom allergens has been reported to facilitate the discrimination between primary sensitization and cross-reactivity and thus, to provide a better rationale for prescribing venom immunotherapy (VIT), particularly in patients sensitized to both honeybee and vespid venom. Characterization of IgE reactivity to a broad panel of venom allergens has allowed the identification of different sensitization profiles that in honeybee venom allergy were associated with increased risks for side effects or treatment failure of VIT. In contrast, component resolution so far has failed to provide reliable markers for the discrimination of sensitizations to venoms of different members of Vespidae.

Summary

Component-resolved diagnostics allows a better understanding of the complexity of sensitization and cross-reactivities in HVA. In addition, the enhanced resolution and precision may allow identification of biomarkers, which can be used for risk stratification in VIT. Knowledge about the molecular composition of different therapeutic preparations may enable the selection of appropriate preparations for VIT according to individual sensitization profiles, an approach consistent with the goals of personalized medicine.

Component-resolved diagnostics to direct in venom immunotherapy: Important steps towards precision medicine

Stings of Hymenoptera can induce IgE-mediated systemic and even fatal allergic reactions. Venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT) is the only disease-modifying and curative treatment of venom allergy. However, choosing the correct venom for VIT represents a necessary prerequisite for efficient protection against further anaphylactic sting reactions after VIT. In the past, therapeutic decisions based on the measurement of specific IgE (sIgE) levels to whole venom extracts were not always straightforward, especially when the patient was not able to identify the culprit insect. In the last years, the increasing knowledge about the molecular structure and relevance of important venom allergens and their availability as recombinant allergens, devoid of cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants, resulted in the development of an advanced component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) approach in venom allergy. Already to date, CRD has increased the sensitivity of sIgE detection and enabled the discrimination between primary sensitization and cross-reactivity, particularly in patients with sensitization to both honeybee and vespid venom. Hence, CRD in many patients improves the selection of the appropriate immunotherapeutic intervention. Moreover, the detailed knowledge about sensitization profiles on a molecular level might open new options to identify patients who are at increased risk of side-effects or not to respond to immunotherapy. Therefore, increasing potential of CRD becomes evident, to direct therapeutic decisions in a personalized and patient-tailored manner. Reviewed here are the state of the art options, recent developments and future perspectives of CRD of Hymenoptera venom allergy.

Developments in the field of allergy in 2016 through the eyes of Clinical and Experimental Allergy

In this article, we described the development in the field of allergy as described by Clinical and Experimental Allergy in 2016. Experimental models of allergic disease, basic mechanisms, clinical mechanisms, allergens, asthma and rhinitis, and clinical allergy are all covered.

Diagnostics in Hymenoptera venom allergy: current concepts and developments with special focus on molecular allergy diagnostics

Background

The high rate of asymptomatic sensitization to Hymenoptera venom, difficulty in correctly identifying Hymenoptera and loss of sensitization over time make an accurate diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy challenging. Although routine diagnostic tests encompassing skin tests and the detection of venom-specific IgE antibodies with whole venom preparations are reliable, they offer insufficient precision in the case of double sensitized patients or in those with a history of sting anaphylaxis, in whom sensitization cannot be proven or only to the presumably wrong venom.

Methods

Systematic literature research and review of current concepts of diagnostic testing in Hymenoptera venom allergy.

Results and discussion

Improvements in diagnostic accuracy over recent years have mainly been due to the increasing use of molecular allergy diagnostics. Detection of specific IgE antibodies to marker and cross-reactive venom allergens improves the discrimination between genuine sensitization and cross-reactivity, and this provides a better rationale for prescribing venom immunotherapy. The basophil activation test has also increased diagnostic accuracy by reducing the number of Hymenoptera venom sensitizations overlooked with routine tests. This paper reviews current concepts of diagnostic testing in Hymenoptera venom allergy and suggests fields for further development.