Component-resolved diagnosis in selecting patients for yellowjacket venom immunotherapy

Biomarkers for the Molecular Diagnosis of IgE-Mediated Hymenoptera Venom Allergy in Clinical Practice

Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) is a potentially life-threatening condition, making accurate diagnosis crucial for identifying significant IgE sensitizations and enabling effective venom immunotherapy. In this review, we provide a detailed overview of biomarkers for the molecular diagnosis of IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to Hymenoptera insect venoms in clinical practice, and we present, in a structured manner, their importance in differentiating genuine sensitizations versus cross-sensitizations using different diagnostic procedures. Updated algorithms are provided, along with the advantages and limitations of molecular diagnosis approaches. Geographical variations and rare species may pose further challenges in diagnosing and treating HVA, adding complexity to HVA management. This review informs readers about performing tailored diagnostics based on molecular allergen biomarkers and subsequent treatment strategies.

The role of component-resolved diagnosis in Hymenoptera venom allergy in clinical practice

Background: Hymenoptera venom allergy is an immunoglobulin (Ig) E mediated hypersensitivity reaction to Hymenoptera venoms. Obvious identification of the culprit insect that causes the clinical symptoms and, hence, the accurate selection of venom for curative treatment, is of great importance for the effectiveness and safety of venom immunotherapy. Objective: In this study, the contribution of component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) is evaluated in the diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy. Method: Ninety-three patients from four different centers in Turkey were included in the study. Conventional tests, including prick and intradermal skin tests, with commercial venom extracts and serum specific IgE (sIgE) levels for whole venoms were performed. An sIgE analysis for venom allergen components, including rApi m 1, rApi m 2, rApi m 10, rVes v 1, rVes v 5, were evaluated by immunoblotting. Results: In conventional test results, 17 of 35 patients with bee venom allergy were positive to honey bee venom, whereas 18 patients were positive to bee and wasp venoms. In 28 of 35 patients with bee venom allergy, the diagnosis was confirmed with CRD. CRD revealed a sensitivity of 80% in patients with bee venom allergy. According to conventional tests, 7 of 24 patients with vespid venom allergy demonstrated sensitivity only to Vespula species, whereas 17 patients revealed double positivity. The total diagnostic sensitivity of Ves v 1 and Ves v 5 was calculated as 87.5%. Ten of 23 patients with a history of hypersensitivity to both venoms showed double sensitivity with CRD; one patient had cross-reactivity, one patient was found to be sensitive only to bee venom, and, eight patients were sensitive only to Vespula species. Eleven patients had an uncertain history in terms of the culprit insect type and six of them had double sensitivity in CRD. Conclusion: CRD seemed to be more helpful in diagnosing vespid venom allergy than bee venom allergy. It can also discriminate clinically significant sensitizations from irrelevant ones.