BackgroundCross-reactivity among Hymenoptera venoms is an important issue when prescribing venom immunotherapy (VIT). Using all venoms eliciting a positive response results in treatment excess and unjustified cost increase. The first in vitro method that helped to identify the really causative venom was RAST-inhibition, but in latest years also molecular allergy (MA) diagnostics, that detects specific sIgE to single venom allergens, was introduced. We compared the two methods in patients with double sensitization to Vespula spp. and Polistes spp.MethodsFifty-four patients with anaphylactic reactions to Hymenoptera stings and positive results to skin tests and sIgE measurement with whole venom from Vespula spp. and Polistes dominula were included in the study. Sera from all patients were analyzed by CAP-inhibition (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden) and MA diagnostics with recombinant Ves v 1, Ves v 5 and Pol d 5.ResultsBy the data obtained from MA technique, VIT would have been prescribed to 7 patients for Polistes, to 6 for Vespula, and to 41 for both venoms. With the data from CAP inhibition, it would have been a prescription to 15 patients for Polistes, to 28 for Vespula, and to 11 for both venoms. A good concordance between the results of MA and CAP-inhibition was found only when the value in kU/l of Ves v 5 were about twice those of Pol d 5, and vice versa.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that in the choice of the venom to be used for VIT CAP-inhibition remains a pivotal tool, because the significance of in vitro inhibition is definite and provides a diagnostic importance higher than MA in patients with positive tests to both Vespula and Polistes spp.

From its availability for clinical use nearly two decades ago for severe asthma, omalizumab has gained strong evidence of efficacy and safety in the treatment of severe asthma not controlled by standard-of-care therapy. It has been acknowledged by Global Initiative on Asthma guidelines as add-on therapy against severe uncontrolled asthma. Thanks to controlled trials supporting its efficacy, omalizumab has also been licensed for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria. The optimal duration of treatment in either disease has not been established. Despite its high price, omalizumab appears to be cost-effective in severe uncontrolled asthma as well as in chronic urticaria. The literature suggests a wide range of applications for omalizumab in various disorders regardless of allergic or non-allergic pathophysiology.

BackgroundIn the few studies available, the risk of developing systemic reactions (SR) to hymenoptera stings in patients with previous large local reactions (LLRs) to stings ranges from 0 to 7 %. We evaluated both retrospectively and prospectively the risk of SRs in patients with LLRs to stings.MethodsAn overall number of 477 patients, 396 with an SR as the first manifestation of allergy and 81 with a history of only LLRs after hymenoptera stings, were included in the study. All patients had clinical history and allergy testing (skin tests and/or specific IgE) indicative of allergy to venom of only one kind of Hymenoptera. Of the 81 patient with LLRs, 53 were followed-up for 3 years by annual control visits, while the 396 patients with SR were evaluated retrospectively.ResultsAmong the 396 patients with an SR, only 17 (4.2 %) had had a previous LLR as debut of allergy, after an history of normal local reactions to Hymenoptera stings. All the 81 patients with a history of only LLRs had previously had at least two LLRs, with an overall number of 238 stings and no SR. Among the 53 patients who were prospectively evaluated we found that 31 of them (58.3 %) were restung by the same type of insect, with an overall number of 59 stings, presenting only LLRs and no SR.ConclusionsOur findings confirm that patients with repeated LLRs to stings had no risk of SR, while a single LLR does not exclude such risk. This has to be considered in the management of patients with LLRs.

The diagnosis of food allergy, as assessed by skin tests or in vitro tests with allergen extracts, has insufficient diagnostic performance and needs to be confirmed by food challenges. However, the availability of molecular allergens (recombinant or highly purified) for laboratory methods has profoundly changed the diagnostic approach to food allergy. In fact, the allergy diagnosis conducted at the molecular level, which is defined internationally as component resolved diagnosis (CRD), allows to characterize more precisely the sensitization profile of the individual patient, distinguishing the sensitizations to allergens that are strongly associated with a given source (genuine sensitizers) from those to molecules that are common to many sources (panallergens) or cross-react with other components from the same family or from other families. This review provides an update on the allergen molecules from foods, including plant foods and animal foods, and on the techniques to detect them, by means of a single reagent (singleplex) or an array of molecules tested at the same time (multiplex). Such testing offers detailed information on the sensitization profile of patients and enables the physician to suitably manage their allergy. Moreover, identifying the real causative allergens will be crucial when allergen immunotherapy for food allergy will be introduced in the near future. We also address patents concerning food allergens in this review.

No abstract