Clinical aspects of hymenoptera venom allergy and venom immunotherapy

The role of molecular diagnosis in anaphylactic patients with dual or triple-sensitization to Hymenoptera venoms

BACKGROUND

The poly-sensitization to Hymenoptera venom makes it difficult to select genuine allergens for immunotherapy and increases patients' costs. The objective of this study was to determine the culprit allergen in dual or triple-sensitized patients to three Hymenoptera venoms through molecular diagnosis and evaluating the results of incorporating the molecular diagnosis with skin tests.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients with anaphylactic reactions and dual or triple-sensitization to Hymenoptera venoms in skin tests entered this study. IgE-sensitization to whole extracts and molecules of Apis mellifera (Api m), Vespula vulgaris (Ves v), and Polistes dominulus (Pol d) was evaluated utilizing ALEX or ImmunoCAP.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients (90.6%) were male. IgE-sensitization to at least one of the allergenic molecules related to Apis mellifera, Vespula vulgaris, and Polistes dominulus was seen in 59.4, 53.1, and 21.9%, respectively. Among 32 patients, 14 (43.8) and 8 (25%), were mono-sensitized to Api m and Ves v components in ALEX, respectively. Double sensitization to Hymenoptera was identified in 18.8% of patients in ALEX. Api m 1+/Api m 2-/Api m 10- and Ves v 1+/Ves v 5+ demonstrated the most prevalent sensitizations patterns in our patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The molecular diagnosis of IgE-sensitization to Hymenoptera venoms can be valuable, especially in patients who show dual or triple-sensitization in skin tests, as the ALEX results revealed mono and double-sensitization to Hymenoptera venoms in 22 and 6 patients, respectively. Regarding the high cost and adverse reactions of venom immunotherapy, especially for two or three venoms, incorporating the molecular diagnosis alongside skin tests for accurate diagnosis of the culprit venom could help decrease costs for patients.

The APISS Questionnaire: A New Tool to Assess the Epidemiology of Systemic Allergic Reactions to Bee Venom in Beekeepers

Aim

To develop and validate a comprehensive questionnaire to be used as an instrument in cross-sectional studies among beekeepers.

Methods

A comprehensive questionnaire in Slovenian was validated by an expert panel (n=13) for content relevance and a rater panel (n=14) for clarity and comprehensibility. The content validity indices (an item-level content validity index and scale-level content validity index based on the average and universal agreement method) and item-level face validity index were calculated in accordance with the recommended number of both the review panels with their implications on the acceptable cut-off scores. Piloting was performed in a sample (n=50) of the target population (N=1.080) using telephone interviews.

Results

The item-level content validity index and scale-level content validity index based on the average method exhibited excellent content validity (0.97), while the scale-level content validity index based on the universal agreement method reached a value of 0.72. The item-level face validity index of 1.00 indicated that all items were clear and comprehensive.

Conclusions

The new instrument may be considered valid and feasible for use in nationwide population-based studies among Slovenian beekeepers and eventually in other populations.

Epidemiology and risk factors of self-reported systemic allergic reactions to a Hymenoptera venom in beekeepers worldwide: a protocol for a systematic review of observational studies

INTRODUCTION

Systemic allergic reaction (SAR) to a Hymenoptera venom is a potentially life-threatening disorder. The rate of SAR between beekeepers in comparison with a healthy individual is different. The risk for an SAR is particularly high in beekeepers due to their persistent or seasonal exposure to the stinging Hymenoptera. We aim to provide a critical appraisal and a synthesis of evidence-based data from epidemiological observational studies, focusing on SARs to a Hymenoptera venom and the associated risk factors for SARs in beekeepers worldwide.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Searching will include seven electronic databases for published studies without language restrictions, from inception up to 3 August 2021, and it will be rerun for all electronic databases prior publication. Only epidemiological observational studies in beekeepers will be included. The risk of bias in the included studies will be appraised by using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, adapted for cross-sectional studies. For the certainty of evidence, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used. Qualitative synthesis will be presented in a tabulated format with the selected characteristics across primary studies and the main outcome of interest. A meta-analysis is planned to be performed if there will be a sufficient number of homogeneous studies with complete data. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 statement will guide the reporting of this systematic literature review.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethics approval is needed to conduct the systematic literature review since it will be solely based on the published literature. Findings will be disseminated through the relevant conferences, peer-review and open-access journals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021260922.

Patient's Adherence and Compliance and Quality of Life During/After VIT

Adherence and compliance, respectively considered as a more positive, proactive behavior, resulting in a patient's lifestyle change to follow a daily regimen, and, as a more enforced response to an external command, are a critical aspect of any medical therapy, since it is estimated that less than half of the patients who are prescribed a therapy perform it, respecting the doses and duration. As far as aeroallergen immunotherapy is concerned, current data show that adherence is respected in about 50% of subcutaneous immunotherapy and in percentages even lower than 20% in sublingual immunotherapy treatments. This review analyzes the adherence to venom immunotherapy (VIT), in which, given its purpose of preventing potentially fatal anaphylactic reactions to insect stings, this aspect plays a critical role. In fact, protection from stings already takes place when the maintenance dose is reached, but VIT interruption before the recommended duration of 5 years exposes patients to new sting reactions. The data on adherence to VIT are far less abundant than that for aeroallergen immunotherapy. One of the first studies reported poor adherence in Austria, but the model used, consisting in the estimate of the percentage of patients with systemic reactions who accepted or rejected VIT, does not meet the criteria that define adherence to treatment. As for appropriate adherence studies, rates higher than 70% were reported in the United States and European countries. Studies from Italy found that good adherence were observed also in patients receiving, after 4 years of VIT, 3 months extended maintenance dose, as well as in patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic, <10% of whom stopped VIT. Instead, only 35% of the patients treated for allergy to imported fire ant remained adherent after 1 year of treatment. However, also concerning honeybees and vespids, although adherence is satisfactory, it is possible to further improve it by increasing information and support for patients. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is an efficient measure to estimate the effectiveness and safety of medical treatment. Tools designed to make patients aware of its improvement through VIT and, in particular, of the complete prevention of the risk of fatal reactions have an important role in reinforcing adherence. However, aspects not yet evaluated, such as the possible relationship between the efficacy of VIT and HRQL or its particular features in patients with mastocytosis, deserve specific studies.

Acute Urticaria and Anaphylaxis: Differences and Similarities in Clinical Management

Acute urticaria is a common condition that presents with wheals and/or angioedema. However, these symptoms are also frequent in anaphylaxis, a life-threatening reaction that should be immediately diagnosed and treated. In both, mast cells play a central role in the physiopathology. Causes and triggers of acute urticaria and anaphylaxis are similar in general, but some peculiarities can be observed. The diagnostic approach may differ, accordingly to the condition, suspicious causes, age groups and regions. Adrenaline is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, but not for acute urticaria, where H1-antihistamines are the first choice. In this paper, we review the main aspects, similarities and differences regarding definitions, mechanisms, causes, diagnosis and treatment of acute urticaria and anaphylaxis.

[Allergen immunotherapy: FAQs and facts]

Die Allergenimmuntherapie (AIT) ist – neben der oft nicht suffizient durchzuführenden Allergenmeidung – die einzige kausale Therapie Ig(Immunglobulin)E-vermittelter Allergien gegen Aeroallergene und Hymenopterengifte. Sie kann je nach Allergen als subkutane Injektion (subkutane Immuntherapie [SCIT]) oder über eine sublinguale Applikation (sublinguale Immuntherapie [SLIT]) erfolgen, kürzlich wurde zudem auch ein Verfahren zur oralen Immuntherapie zur Behandlung der Nahrungsmittelallergie zugelassen. Neben der korrekten Indikationsstellung (positive Anamnese und Diagnostik einer IgE-vermittelten Allergie, Allergenkarenz nicht ausreichend möglich) sind mögliche Kontraindikationen und Risikofaktoren zu beachten. Zudem kann es unter einer AIT zu – potenziell auch lebensgefährlichen – Nebenwirkungen kommen. Im Folgenden sollen häufig gestellte Fragen und Fakten zur Entscheidungsfindung für die Durchführung und zum Risikomanagement der AIT beleuchtet und unter Berücksichtigung der aktuellen Datenlage diskutiert werden.

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.

Clinical Manifestations and Causes of Anaphylaxis. Analysis of 382 Cases from the Anaphylaxis Registry in West Pomerania Province in Poland

Anaphylaxis is most commonly defined as an acute, severe, potentially life-threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction. Current expert consensus has defined anaphylaxis as a serious reaction that is rapid in onset and can be fatal, and is a severe, potentially life-threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction that is still rarely diagnosed. For safety reasons, patients should visit an allergologist to identify potential causes of this reaction. There are no data from other health care centres in Poland presenting characteristics of anaphylactic reactions. Clinical manifestations of anaphylaxis should be analysed, because some patients (10-30%) with anaphylaxis can present without cutaneous findings. This lack of skin/mucosa involvement can lead to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis of anaphylaxis. Objectives-to gather epidemiological data on anaphylactic reactions, to identify clinical manifestations of anaphylaxis (organ systems involved), to present diagnostic methods useful for the identification of anaphylaxis triggers, and most importantly, to find causes of anaphylaxis. In this retrospective analysis, we used a questionnaire-based survey regarding patients visiting the Clinical Allergology Department, Pomeranian Medical University (PMU) in Szczecin, between 2006 and 2015. The registry comprised patients with grade II (Ring and Messmer classification) or higher anaphylaxis. Patients with grade I anaphylaxis (e.g., urticaria) were not included in the registry. The incidence of anaphylaxis was higher in women. Clinical manifestations included cutaneous and cardiovascular symptoms, but more than 20% of patients did not present with cutaneous symptoms, which may create difficulties for fast and correct diagnosis. Causes of anaphylaxis were identified and confirmed by means of detailed medical interview, skin tests (STs), and measurement of specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) and tryptase levels. In the analysed group, the most common cause of anaphylaxis (allergic and nonallergic) was Hymenoptera stinging (wasp), drugs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, NSAIDs) and foods (peanuts, tree nuts, celery). The incidence of anaphylaxis is low, but because of its nature and potentially life-threatening consequences it requires a detailed approach. Comprehensive management of patients who have had anaphylaxis can be complex, so partnerships between allergy specialists, emergency medicine and primary care providers are necessary. Monitoring its range is very important to monitor changes in allergy development.