Combining Discordant Serum IgE and Skin Testing Improves Diagnostic and Therapeutic Accuracy for Hymenoptera Venom Hypersensitivity Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of patients with hymenoptera venom hypersensitivity consists of elucidating clinical symptoms suggestive of systemic reaction (SR) and then confirmation of sensitization via intradermal skin testing (IDST) first and serum IgE assays such as ImmunoCAP (ICAP) as a complementary modality of diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

Determine the concordance between ICAP and IDST in patients with a clinical history suggestive of hymenoptera venom SR. Determine whether venom immunotherapy would change on the basis of IDST versus ICAP results.

METHODS

A prospective diagnostic study was designed to test the concordance between IDST and ICAP venom testing in the diagnosis of hymenoptera venom hypersensitivity. This study entailed testing both IDST and ICAP for 5 hymenoptera venoms (honey bee, wasp, yellow jacket, yellow hornet, and white-faced hornet) in both a case group with SR to hymenoptera venom (N = 70) and a control group without SR (N = 51).

RESULTS

Significant discordance was observed between positive IDST and ICAP results for any of the 5 hymenoptera venoms (McNemar test, P = .001). In the case group, there was significant discordance for wasp (P < .0001), yellow jacket (P = .002), and white-faced hornet (P = .02). More than 47% of the case patients would have different venom immunotherapy prescriptions if ICAP and IDST had been performed during initial diagnosis versus IDST alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows significant discordance between IDST and ICAP; however, they are complementary. On the basis of our data, we propose ICAP testing first followed by IDST for ICAP-negative venoms as an alternative and efficient diagnostic strategy.

Prevalence of Pol d 1 Sensitization in Polistes dominula Allergy and Its Diagnostic Role in Vespid Double-Positivity

BACKGROUND

Stings by Polistes species frequently cause allergic reactions. However, standard allergy diagnostics are often unable to differentiate between primary sensitization and cross-reactivity in case of Vespula/Polistes double-sensitization because antigen 5 is the only Polistes venom molecule currently available in diagnostics (Pol d 5).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency of phospholipase A1 in Polistes venom allergy (Pol d 1) and its diagnostic role in vespid allergy.

METHODS

We performed component-resolved diagnostics in patients with vespid allergic reactions who were positive to Polistes venom. A prevalence analysis was performed and the diagnostic accuracy of Pol d 1 was evaluated to detect primary Polistes sensitization in double-sensitized patients.

RESULTS

Blood samples were collected from 132 patients. Pol d 1 was present in 97% to 100% of 128 Polistes-positive patients. It was frequently involved in case of positivity to a single Polistes molecule (48% in double- and 80% in mono-sensitized patients). Furthermore, Pol d 1 was positive in 95% of Pol d 5-negative subjects. The diagnostic accuracy of Pol d 1 was good (folded type: area under the curve = 87%; 82% sensitivity and 77% specificity at the best cutoff of 5.773), and even better when used combined with the whole extract ratio (area under the curve = 99%; 91% sensitivity and 100% specificity).

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows that Pol d 1 is the most frequent Polistes allergen in Italian patients. It can distinguish Polistes primary sensitizations with good diagnostic accuracy, which supports its use in clinical practice.