Search

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective approach to treating allergic rhinitis (AR). Oralair® is a five-grass pollen SLIT tablet containing natural pollen allergens from five of the major grass species responsible for seasonal AR due to grass pollen allergy. Recommended use is in a pre-coseasonal regimen, starting daily treatment approximately 4 months before the start of the pollen season, with treatment then continued daily throughout the season; treatment should continue for 3–5 y. Clinical efficacy and safety of Oralair® in patients with grass pollen-induced AR has been demonstrated in a comprehensive clinical development program of randomized controlled trials. Effectiveness has been substantiated in subsequent observational studies with sustained efficacy following treatment cessation and a favorable level of adherence, quality of life, benefit, and satisfaction for the patients. Supportive evidence for a benefit in reducing the risk or delaying the development of allergic asthma is emerging.

Background: Non-sedating H 1 -antihistamines (nsAH) are the most commonly used treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Many patients use them as on-demand (OD) therapy rather than a maintenance treatment. Here, we compared OD versus daily maintenance treatment with the nsAH rupatadine, assessed the efficacy of rupatadine updosing, and investigated potential long-term disease-modifying effects., Methods: This multicenter, randomized study consisted of 2 weeks of screening, 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, and 6 weeks of treatment-free follow-up (OD allowed). Adult patients were randomized to 10 mg rupatadine OD or 10 mg rupatadine daily. At Week 4, if patients did not have a complete response, they switched from 10 to 20 mg rupatadine daily or underwent sham updosing (patients on 10 mg rupatadine OD). The primary aim was to compare CSU disease activity at the end of follow-up between daily versus OD. Additionally, we assessed the efficacy of rupatadine updosing. Major outcomes were disease activity, CSU-related quality of life (QoL), and disease control., Results: At Week 4, disease activity and QoL significantly improved in daily versus OD-treated patients. Updosing of rupatadine did not improve the mean disease activity, but the number of complete responders increased during updosing from 5% to 22%. At the end of follow-up, the disease activity of patients treated OD versus daily was not significantly different., Conclusions: Daily rupatadine treatment significantly improved CSU disease activity and QoL during treatment versus OD treatment but not after discontinuation of rupatadine, indicating the benefits of a daily maintenance nsAH schedule., (© 2023 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Hymenoptera venom (HV) is injected into the skin during a sting by Hymenoptera such as bees or wasps. Some components of HV are potential allergens and can cause large local and/or systemic allergic reactions (SAR) in sensitized individuals. During their lifetime, ~ 3% of the general population will develop SAR following a Hymenoptera sting. This guideline presents the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to SAR following Hymenoptera stings. Symptomatic therapy is usually required after a severe local reaction, but specific diagnosis or allergen immunotherapy (AIT) with HV (VIT) is not necessary. When taking a patient's medical history after SAR, clinicians should discuss possible risk factors for more frequent stings and more severe anaphylactic reactions. The most important risk factors for more severe SAR are mast cell disease and, especially in children, uncontrolled asthma. Therefore, if the SAR extends beyond the skin (according to the Ring and Messmer classification: grade > I), the baseline serum tryptase concentration shall be measured and the skin shall be examined for possible mastocytosis. The medical history should also include questions specific to asthma symptoms. To demonstrate sensitization to HV, allergists shall determine concentrations of specific IgE antibodies (sIgE) to bee and/or vespid venoms, their constituents and other venoms as appropriate. If the results are negative less than 2 weeks after the sting, the tests shall be repeated (at least 4 - 6 weeks after the sting). If only sIgE to the total venom extracts have been determined, if there is double sensitization, or if the results are implausible, allergists shall determine sIgE to the different venom components. Skin testing may be omitted if in-vitro methods have provided a definitive diagnosis. If neither laboratory diagnosis nor skin testing has led to conclusive results, additional cellular testing can be performed. Therapy for HV allergy includes prophylaxis of reexposure, patient self treatment measures (including use of rescue medication) in the event of re-stings, and VIT. Following a grade I SAR and in the absence of other risk factors for repeated sting exposure or more severe anaphylaxis, it is not necessary to prescribe an adrenaline auto-injector (AAI) or to administer VIT. Under certain conditions, VIT can be administered even in the presence of previous grade I anaphylaxis, e.g., if there are additional risk factors or if quality of life would be reduced without VIT. Physicians should be aware of the contraindications to VIT, although they can be overridden in justified individual cases after weighing benefits and risks. The use of β-blockers and ACE inhibitors is not a contraindication to VIT. Patients should be informed about possible interactions. For VIT, the venom extract shall be used that, according to the patient's history and the results of the allergy diagnostics, was the trigger of the disease. If, in the case of double sensitization and an unclear history regarding the trigger, it is not possible to determine the culprit venom even with additional diagnostic procedures, VIT shall be performed with both venom extracts. The standard maintenance dose of VIT is 100 µg HV. In adult patients with bee venom allergy and an increased risk of sting exposure or particularly severe anaphylaxis, a maintenance dose of 200 µg can be considered from the start of VIT. Administration of a non-sedating H1-blocking antihistamine can be considered to reduce side effects. The maintenance dose should be given at 4-weekly intervals during the first year and, following the manufacturer's instructions, every 5 - 6 weeks from the second year, depending on the preparation used; if a depot preparation is used, the interval can be extended to 8 weeks from the third year onwards. If significant recurrent systemic reactions occur during VIT, clinicians shall identify and as possible eliminate co-factors that promote these reactions. If this is not possible or if there are no such co-factors, if prophylactic administration of an H1-blocking antihistamine is not effective, and if a higher dose of VIT has not led to tolerability of VIT, physicians should should consider additional treatment with an anti IgE antibody such as omalizumab as off lable use. For practical reasons, only a small number of patients are able to undergo sting challenge tests to check the success of the therapy, which requires in-hospital monitoring and emergency standby. To perform such a provocation test, patients must have tolerated VIT at the planned maintenance dose. In the event of treatment failure while on treatment with an ACE inhibitor, physicians should consider discontinuing the ACE inhibitor. In the absence of tolerance induction, physicians shall increase the maintenance dose (200 µg to a maximum of 400 µg in adults, maximum of 200 µg HV in children). If increasing the maintenance dose does not provide adequate protection and there are risk factors for a severe anaphylactic reaction, physicians should consider a co-medication based on an anti-IgE antibody (omalizumab; off-label use) during the insect flight season. In patients without specific risk factors, VIT can be discontinued after 3 - 5 years if maintenance therapy has been tolerated without recurrent anaphylactic events. Prolonged or permanent VIT can be considered in patients with mastocytosis, a history of cardiovascular or respiratory arrest due to Hymenoptera sting (severity grade IV), or other specific constellations associated with an increased individual risk of recurrent and/or severe SAR (e.g., hereditary α-tryptasemia). In cases of strongly increased, unavoidable insect exposure, adults may receive VIT until the end of intense contact. The prescription of an AAI can be omitted in patients with a history of SAR grade I and II when the maintenance dose of VIT has been reached and tolerated, provided that there are no additional risk factors. The same holds true once the VIT has been terminated after the regular treatment period. Patients with a history of SAR grade ≥ III reaction, or grade II reaction combined with additional factors that increase the risk of non response or repeated severe sting reactions, should carry an emergency kit, including an AAI, during VIT and after regular termination of the VIT., Competing Interests: The conflicts of interest were recorded using the AWMF portal interessenerklaerungonline.de, evaluated by the conflict of interest officer of the DGAKI (for details see the guideline report) and tabulated in accordance with the AWMF. The guideline report and conflict of interest table are available at www.awmf.org/leitlinien/. AbbreviationsAbbreviations.AAIAdrenaline auto-injectorABDWorking Group for Occupational and Environmental Dermatology e.V.AeDAMedical Association of German AllergologistsAITAllergen immunotherapyAWMFAssociation of the Scientific Medical SocietiesbSTBaseline serum tryptase concentrationCCDCross-reactive carbohydrate determinantsDDGGerman Society of DermatologyDELBIGerman Guideline Assessment ToolDGAKIGerman Society for Allergology and Clinical ImmunologyDGHNO-KHCGerman Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck SurgeryDGKJGerman Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent MedicineDGPGerman Respiratory SocietyEAACIEuropean Academy of Allergology and Clinical ImmunologyGPASociety for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental MedicineH1Histamine 1HBHoney beeHIVHuman immunodeficiency virusHVHymenoptera venomHVAHymenoptera venom allergyHVSHymenoptera venom sensitizationHV-sIgEHymenoptera venom-specific IgE antibodiesILInterleukinÖGAIAustrian Society for Allergy and ImmunologySARSystemic allergic reactionssIgESpecific IgE antibodiesVITVenom immunotherapyVVVespid venom Table 1.Participating organizations and delegated representatives. German Respiratory Society (DGP)Dr. Wolfgang Sieber Norbert K. MülleneisenGerman Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI)Prof. Dr. Margitta Worm Prof. Dr. Knut Brockow Univ.-Prof. Dr. Thilo Jakob Prof. Dr. Bettina Wedi Prof. Dr. Franziska RuëffGerman Society of Dermatology (DDG)Prof. Dr. Ulf Darsow Prof. Dr. Regina Treudler Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Pfützner Dr. Jörg FischerAustrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI)Prof. Dr. Wolfram Hötzenecker Priv.-Doz. Mag. Dr. Stefan WöhrlMedical Association of German Allergists (AeDA)Prof. Dr. Randolf Brehler Prof. Dr. Thomas Fuchs Univ.-Prof. Dr. Hans Merk Prof. Dr. Ludger KlimekGerman Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC)Priv.-Doz. Dr. Adam Chaker Priv.-Doz. Dr. Sven BeckerSociety for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA)Dr. Sunhild Gernert Dr. Michael Gerstlauer Dr. Irena NeustädterArbeitsgemeinschaft für Berufs- und Umweltdermatologie e.V. (Association for Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, ABD)Prof. Dr. Andrea Bauer Prof. Dr. Christoph SkudlikGerman Society for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ)Dr. Lars Lange Prof. Dr. Eckhard Hamelmann Table 2.Recommendation strengths. StrengthSyntaxStrong recommendationShallWeak recommendationShouldOpen recommendationCan Table 3.Severity scale for the classification of anaphylactic reactions (according to Ring and Messmer) [7]*. GradeSkin#AbdomenRespiratory tractCardiovascular systemIItch Flush Urticaria Angioedema–––IIItch Flush Urticaria AngioedemaNausea CrampsRhinorrhea Hoarseness DyspneaTachycardia (increase of heart rate ≥ 20/minutes) Hypotension (decrease of systolic blood pressure ≥ 20 mmHg) ArrhythmiaIIIItch Flush Urticaria AngioedemaVomiting DefecationLaryngeal Edema Bronchospasm CyanosisShock Loss of consciousnessIVItch Flush Urticaria AngioedemaVomiting DefecationRespiratory arrestCardiac arrest #Generalized skin symptoms apart from the sting area; *Classification is based on the most severe symptoms encountered (none of the symptoms is obligatory). Box 1.Recommendations on the indication of allergological testing (skin test, IgE detection). Strength of consensus1. If there is a history of a general allergic reaction after a Hymenoptera sting, allergy testing shall be performed.Strong2. Without evidence of a general allergic reaction after Hymenoptera sting(s) („exclusion of insect venom allergy“), no diagnostic procedures should be undertaken.Majority3. If therapeutic consequences are unlikely because of only a mild systemic reaction limited to the skin, allergy testing should be avoided.Majority Table 4.Questionnaire for taking medical history in case of a systemic insect sting reaction. Insect venom allergy questionnaireDatePatient:       female □       male □Weight:       kgHeight:       cmSeverity of reaction1st sting2nd sting3rd stingSymptoms1st sting2nd sting3rd stingSting date (day/month/year)Itching all over the bodyInsectBeeHeat sensationVespulaRash all over the bodyOtherTingling in hands/feetCertainFace swellingUncertainRunny noseLocalization of the stingRedness of the eye conjunctivaInterval until symptom onset (min/h)Lump/tightness in the throatSite and circumstances of the eventCough irritationPhysical effort?Shortness of breathMental stress when reacting?NauseaDid the sting remain in the skin?VomitingOccupation?Urinary (stool) urgency/dischargeOutdoor activities?DizzinessLater tolerated stings?       Yes □       No □Feeling of weakness (circulatory disorder)Beekeeper?       Yes □       No □HeadacheIs there a beekeeper in the neighborhood?       Yes □       No □Unconsciousness (duration)OtherOtherHay fever □       Asthma □       Atopic eczema □Treatment: self/doctorComorbiditiesAdrenalineGlucocorticoidAntihistaminesIntravenous fluidsHospital admissionMedication at reaction (R) or currently (C)Intensive Care UnitRecovery after (hour(s)/day(s)/week(s))Information sheet handed out       Yes □       No □Emergency kit available       Yes □       No □Adrenaline auto-injector (trade name)Other medications: Table 5.Clues about the kind of insect causing the reaction [44]. BeeVespidRather “peaceful” (except at the hive)Rather “aggressive”, sting can also occur in “passing flight”.Main flying season spring to late summer(even on warm winter days!)Main flying season summer until late autumnAfter a sting, the stinger usually remains in the skinSting usually does not remain in the skin (exceptions are possible due to shearing, if the insect was trapped, for example)Occurrence mainly in the vicinity of bee hives, flowers, and cloverOccurrence mainly in the vicinity of food or garbage Table 6.Variables increasing exposure risk. (Hobby) beekeepers, family members and neighbors of beekeepersProfessions such as fruit or bakery seller, forestry worker, gardener, firefighter, farmer, roofer, construction workerIntensive practice of outdoor activities Box 2.Recommendations on the recording of risk factors. Strength of consensus4. Risk factors for an increased sting risk shall be obtained when taking the medical history.Strong5. The medical history shall capture possible risk factors for more severe anaphylaxis.Strong6. If a systemic allergic reaction has not only affected the skin, basic diagnosis for the detection of mastocytosis shall involve a skin inspection to detect mastocytosis of the skin and a determination of basal serum tryptase concentration.Consensus Box 3.Recommendations on the in-vitro diagnostics of sIgE against Hymenoptera venoms and their components. Strength of consensus7. A determination of specific IgE antibodies against bee and/or Vespula venom/components shall be performed; in case of a suspected sting reaction caused by other Hymenoptera, this determination shall be also directed against the corresponding other venom.Strong8. In the case of negative test results obtained shortly (less than 2 weeks) after the sting reaction, the tests shall be repeated (no sooner than 4 – 6 weeks after the sting reaction).Strong9. In case of double sensitization against whole bee and Vespula venom extract, or if an implausible result is suspected, testing of sIgE against recombinant components shall be performed.Strong Box 5.Recommendations on the determination of bST. Strength of consensus12. All patients with anaphylaxis (severity grade ≥ II) after a Hymenoptera sting shall have a determination of bST.Strong13. In case of elevated serum tryptase measured within 24 hours after the acute sting event, a control measurement shall be performed in the symptom-free interval.Strong14. If the bST concentration is permanently elevated (> 20 µg/L), further diagnostic measures shall be performed to clarify mastocytosis.Consensus Box 6.Recommendations on skin tests with Hymenoptera venoms. Strength of consensus15. If an unequivocal diagnosis is obtained by in-vitro diagnostics, a skin test can be omitted.Consensus16. The skin test can be performed as a titrated prick and/or intradermal test.Strong Box 7.Recommendation on sting provocation in adults. Strength of consensus17. Diagnostic sting provocations (before the start of VIT) or sting provocations after completion of VIT shall not be performed.Consensus Box 8.Recommendations on large local sting reactions. Strength of consensus18. Acute treatment can be symptomatic using non-sedating antihistamines, cooling compresses, topical and/or systemic glucocorticoids.Consensus19. Antibiotic therapy for the treatment of non-infectious lymphangitis or lymphadenopathy shall not be performed.Consensus Box 9.Recommendations for long-term care in patients with a history of a large local reaction. Strength of consensus20. VIT shall not be performed for large local reactions.Strong Table 9.Emergency medication for self-treatment in children and adults [43]. Adrenaline auto-injector for intramuscular application, weight-adapted:7.5 – 25 kg BW or 15 – 30 kg BW150 μg*25 – 50 kg BW or 30 – 50 kg BW300 μg*> 50 kg BW300 – 500# – 600# μg– H1 receptor-blocking antihistamine, according to patient age and preference, orally as liquid or (melting) tablet – The dose of the respective antihistamine can be increased off-label up to four times the single dose – For dimetinden drops, a weight-adapted dosage of the IV formulation can be recommended as an oral dose (Table 8)Glucocorticoid, according to patient age and preference, rectally or orally (as liquid or tablet) with 50 – 100 mg prednisolone equivalentIn case of known bronchial asthma or previous reaction with bronchospasm additionally β2-adrenoceptor agonist 2 puffsIf there is a history of laryngeal edema, additionally: inhaled adrenaline preparation with spray head for drug vial (to be specifically requested from pharmacist)Note: An emergency first aid kit should include an anaphylaxis passport with written instructions for use of the components. *According to the respective approval status for the prescribed autoinjector; BW = body weight; #not available in Austria; IV = intravenous. Table 11.Recommendations for prescribing AAIs in patients with insect venom allergy. Absolute indication– Children and adults with mastocytosis and/or elevated basal serum tryptase levels: before, during, and after completion of immunotherapy– Untreated children and adults with more than cutaneous/mucosal SAR (i.e., grade I anaphylaxis) and at high risk of re-exposure– During VIT: in children and adults with more than cutaneous/mucosal SARs (i.e., grade I anaphylaxis) when there are additional risk factors* for non-response to immunotherapy– After completion of regular VIT in children and adults presenting with more than cutaneous/mucosal SAR (i.e., grade I anaphylaxis) and if there are additional risk factors* for non-response to VIT.Relative indication– Long distance to medical care and/or high risk of exposure and/or impaired quality of life– After completion of regular VIT in children and adults with cutaneous/mucosal reactions (grade I) who are at increased risk of exposure and/or have had a short duration of immunotherapy (< 3 years)– Individual patient request*Risk factors in this context are severe insect venom anaphylaxis (grade III or IV), high risk of exposure (e.g., beekeeper), (repeated) systemic reaction under immunotherapy, mastocytosis, or elevated baseline serum tryptase above 20 µg/L . For adults, bee venom allergy is also considered a risk factor. Table 10.Patient information sheet “How to behave in the event of a sting”. – Keep calm! If attacked by bees or wasps, protect the head with arms or clothing. The retreat must not be hectic, but very slow. Insects release pheromones when stinging, which also motivate other insects to sting. Therefore, the sting site should be covered with the hand in the event of a sting.– Try to selectively inform bystanders about the sting event and its possible consequences.– Immediately remove any stinger remaining in the skin. When doing so, do not squeeze the sting apparatus with your fingers, but scrape it away to the side.Emergency medication in case of mild reactions limited to the skin:– If venom-specific immunotherapy has not yet been administered, oral medication is taken immediately after the sting, even in the absence of symptoms, according to the doctor‘s instructions: – Antihistamines – Steroids– After a successful allergen-specific immunotherapy*, medication should only be taken if, contrary to expectations, systemic symptoms do occur. For symptoms limited to the skin, oral medications are used first, and for more extensive reactions, the adrenaline auto-injector is used.Emergency measures in case of shortness of breath, swelling in the mouth/throat region or of circulatory problems:– Inject adrenaline laterally into the lateral thigh– In case of asthma, inhale 2 puffs of the emergency spray– Correct positioning (shortness of breath→ raised upper body, circulatory problems head-down position, unconsciousness→ stable side position)– Take oral medications only if swallowing is possible without problems– Alert an emergency doctor immediately!*Your allergist has confirmed that success of an allergen-specific immunotherapy is highly likely based on a tolerated sting provocation or field sting. Box 10.Recommendations on the emergency kit. Strength of consensus21. In patients with a history of a severity grade I reaction, and in the absence of other risk factors, the prescription of an AAI is not required. However, the AAI can be prescribed in special situations (e.g., high risk of exposure, long distance to medical care, limitation of quality of life).Consensus22. In patients with a history of anaphylaxis (grade II – IV) or of a severity grade I reaction in combination with a high risk of re-exposure, an emergency kit including an AAI shall be prescribed until allergy diagnosis and assessment are complete.Consensus23. After successful initiation of VIT and reaching the maintenance dose at the maintenance interval, the prescription of an AAI can be waived in patients with a history of a systemic sting reaction (severity grade I – II) and in the absence of other risk factors for VIT failure.Consensus24. After successful completion of VIT, the prescription of an AAI can be waived in patients with a history of a systemic sting reaction (severity grade I – II) and in the absence of other risk factors for VIT failure.Consensus25. Patients with grade III or IV anaphylaxis or patients who present with other risk factors for VIT failure shall carry an emergency kit with an AAI during and after VIT. Risk factors include: high risk of exposure (e.g., beekeepers), repeated SAR on immunotherapy, mast cell disease, and/or elevated basal serum tryptase (> 20 µg/L). For adults, bee venom allergy is also considered a risk factor.Consensus Box 11.Recommendation on ACE inhibitors. Recommendation on ACE inhibitorsStrength of consensus26. If there is no firm need for the use of ACE inhibitors and if their switching is straightforward, the drug may be replaced by another medication.Consensus Box 12.Recommendations on the indication of Hymenoptera VIT. Strength of consensus27. VIT shall be performed in patients with a history of an anaphylactic reaction of severity grade ≥ II according to Ring and Messmer, and with evidence of IgE-mediated sensitization to the culprit venom.Strong28. If there is increased exposure, if there are relevant risk factors for a particularly severe anaphylaxis, and/or if quality of life would be significantly impaired without VIT, VIT shall be performed even if there is only a history of an exclusively cutaneous SAR.Strong Table 12.Contraindications of VIT. Uncontrolled asthmaActive malignant neoplastic diseasesSevere active systemic autoimmune diseases and severe immunodeficienciesInsufficient complianceUntreated, chronic infection (e.g., active HIV, viral hepatitis) Box 19.Recommendation on sting provocation. Strength of consensus43. Sting provocation can be performed on a case-by-case basis to verify the success of therapy. Provocation shall only be performed in patients who have reached the planned maintenance dose and tolerate VIT.Strong Table 16.Variables associated with treatment failure/success [59]. Risk factors or predictors of treatment failure– Bee venom > Vespula venom– Repeated systemic allergic reactions while being on VIT– Mastocytosis, increased bSTProtective factors– Higher treatment dose (also double VIT)– Extended treatment time Box 20.Recommendations on the management of systemic allergic sting reactions while being on maintenance therapy. Strength of consensus44. If treatment failure is evident during ACE inhibitor therapy, discontinuation of the ACE inhibitor should be considered.Strong45. If there is evidence of overt therapeutic failure, maintenance venom dose shall be increased in adults to up to 200 µg or above (maximum 400 µg), and in children to up to 200 µg.Strong46. If protection cannot be established by increasing the maintenance dose and if there are co-factors for severe anaphylaxis, co-medication with an IgE antibody (omalizumab; off-label use) should be considered during the relevant insect flight period.Strong Figure 1.Apis mellifera (honey bee).Figure 2.Vespula germanica on ivy.Figure 3.Vespula vulgaris on a plum.Figure 4.Dolichovespula media on the earth.Figure 5.Dolichovespula saxonica.Figure 6.Polistes dominulus while drinking.Figure 7.Vespa crabro (hornet) on a leaf.Figure 8.Bombus hortorum (bumblebee).Figure 9.Stepwise diagnosis using whole venoms (bee venom (BV) and Vespula venom (VV)) and allergen components of bee venom (Api m) and Vespula venom (Ves v).Figure 10.Algorithm for the diagnosis of suspected Hymenoptera venom allergy. Table 7.Allergologically significant components of bee and Vespula venom (http://www.allergome.org). Apis melliferaVespula speciesApi m 1Phospholipase A2a#Ves v 1Phospholipase A1a#Api m 2Hyaluronidasea,b#Ves v 2Hyaluronidasea,bApi m 3Acid phosphatasea#Ves v 3Dipeptidyl peptidasea,b#Api m 4Melittinc#Ves v 5Antigen 5aApi m 5Dipeptidyl peptidasea,b#Ves v 6VitellogeninbApi m 6Protease inhibitorApi m 7CUB Serine ProteaseApi m 8CarboxylesteraseApi m 9Serine carboxypeptidaseApi m 10Icarapinea#Api m 11Gellée royal proteinApi m 12VitellogeninbaMajor allergen: More than 50% of the patients tested show sensitization to the allergen in question; bcross-reacting venom allergens. The sIgE reactivity against bee venom hyaluronidase can be interpreted as a marker for bee venom-specific sensitization. In contrast, sIgE reactivity against Vespula venom hyaluronidase is mainly based on reactivity against cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants; cresearch purposes; #IgE detection kits for single detection are commercially available (singleplex). Table 8.Measures to prevent Hymenoptera stings. – Repellents (chemical insect repellents) do not provide protection.– When being outdoors, avoid eating or drinking food, picking fruits or flowers, staying near waste baskets, trash cans, animal enclosures, or fallen fruit, and using perfume or scented cosmetics. Wash hands and wipe mouth after eating.– Do not drink from bottles or beverage cans, cover drinking glasses, use straws.– Do not scare insects away from food sources, especially not with hectic movements.– Keep skin largely covered by clothing (at least when gardening). Do not walk barefoot, or use open foot wear. When riding a motorcycle, wear gloves and motorcycle clothing close to the skin. Open bicycle helmets are to be provided with a net.– Be especially careful on days with hot and humid weather, as insects are aggressive during such weather.– Avoid wearing loose-fitting, light garments, e.g., loose skirts or dresses with dark colors; try to wear dresses with light colors.– Keep apartment windows closed during the day or secure them with insect nets. No light in the evening when windows are open, as hornets are nocturnal and then prefer to fly towards light sources.– Watch for hidden insects (especially in bed or shoes).– Beehives must be avoided. Nests near a permanent residence must be removed (by beekeeper or fire department).– Wasp traps or repellent sprays can be helpful.– When approached by insects or being near the nest, avoid hectic or flapping movements, pull back slowly! Nests must not be shaken. Do not breathe into a flight hole. Box 4.Recommendations on IgE determination against Hymenoptera venoms and their components. Strength of consensus10. If HVA requiring absolutely necessary treatment is suspected, and if results from IgE detection methods for venom components and whole venom and from skin tests are not conclusive, cellular tests can be performed.Consensus11. Determination of specific IgG antibodies to Hymenoptera venom should not be used to assess the need for treatment of HVA.Consensus Table 13.Schemes* for updosing to 100 µg insect venom. PeriodHymenoptera venom dose in µgDayHourUltra-rushRush (3 days)Cluster100.010.020.020.50.10.04110.080.041.5100.22200.40.082.5400.838023.544.0820100822041004068030802100WeekHour100.210.4200.812404185106207408809100*There are numerous modifications to these updosing schemes in which the maintenance dose of 100 µg can be reached in a shorter or longer time, and which contain even more or fewer intermediate steps. Table 14.Updosing schemes with aqueous Hymenoptera venom [according to Ruëff (scheme 1) or Bauer (scheme 2)] to > 100 µg). Scheme 1Scheme 2DayMinutesDose (µg)Dose (µg)10100100+302040+30306020150100+3020100+30303200 Table 15.Management of repeated systemic allergic reactions to Hymenoptera VIT. 1. Identification (and, where possible, elimination) of risk factors for SARs in VIT.   Drugs    Concomitant inhalant or food allergy    Chronic infection, other general diseases    Physical exertion on the day of injection   Optimization of drug therapy at the reacting organ (for example, an anti-obstructive therapy for asthmatic reactions).2. Adjunctive therapy with H1-blocking antihistamine3. Continued administration of the highest tolerated dose of HV for 3 months, then starting updosing again4. Pretreatment with an anti-IgE antibody (300 mg omalizumab; off-label use): e.g., 5, 3, and 1 week before resuming updosing (> 100 µg maintenance dose if necessary) and subsequent continuation every 4 weeks for 4 – 6 months [134].SAR = systemic allergic reactions; VIT = venom immunotherapy; HV = hymenoptera venom Box 13.Recommendations on contraindications of Hymenoptera VIT. Strength of consensus29. The use of β-blockers and ACE inhibitors are no contraindication of VIT. Patients should be informed about possible interactions.Consensus30. The following contraindications to VIT shall be respected: uncontrolled bronchial asthma, active malignant neoplastic disease, severe active systemic autoimmune disease and severe immunodeficiency (terminal AIDS), inadequate compliance, untreated chronic infection (e.g., active HIV, hepatitis C), pregnancy (for re-initiation)Strong31. In individual cases, VIT may be applied despite the presence of contraindications. This concept shall include a thorough weighing of the benefits and risks. Autoimmune diseases, severe cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases, and malignant diseases shall be optimally treated, shall be in remission before initiation of VIT, and shall be closely monitored during the course of VIT.Strong Box 15.Recommendations on venom selection for Hymenoptera VIT. Strength of consensus34. For VIT, that venom shall be used, which was the culprit venom according patient history and to the results of the allergological work-up.Strong35. If there is double sensitization, if the history of the patient is uncertain with regard to the culprit venom, and if the culprit venom cannot be determined even by additional diagnostic procedures, VIT with both venoms shall be performed.Strong36. If allergy to the venoms of bumblebees or hornets is certain, VIT shall be performed with the related, partly cross-reacting venoms of bees or wasps.Consensus Box 14.Recommendations on the practical implementation of Hymenoptera VIT. Strength of consensus32. The standard maintenance dose of VIT shall be 100 µg of Hymenoptera venom.Strong33. In case of bee venom allergy and increased risk of sting or risk of particularly severe anaphylaxis, starting VIT with a maintenance dose of 200 µg may be considered.Consensus Box 16.Recommendation on the maintenance therapy of Hymenoptera VIT. Strength of consensus37. The maintenance dose should be administered at 4-week intervals in the 1st year and, taking into account the manufacturer’s information, can be administered every 5 – 6 weeks from the 2nd year onwards, depending on the preparation used, and every 8 weeks from the 3rd year onwards if a depot preparation is used.Consensus Box 17.Recommendation on the reduction of side effects in Hymenoptera VIT. Strength of consensus38. A non-sedating antihistamine can be administered as a preventive measure during updosing, which can be continued in the further treatment if required. In case of reactions in the area of the injection site, local cooling measures shall be used.Consensus Box 18.Recommendations on the management of repeated systemic allergic adverse events in Hymenoptera VIT. Strength of consensus39. Possible risk factors of systemic side effects of VIT shall be identified and eliminated as appropriate.Majority40. Concomitant therapy with an H1-blocking antihistamine should be performed. The last tolerated dose should be continued for 3 months and, subsequently, a new updosing should be attempted.Consensus41. If risk factors for systemic side effects are present and cannot be eliminated, and if concomitant therapy with an H1-blocking antihistamine is not effective, concomitant treatment with an anti-IgE antibody (omalizumab; off-label use) should be performed.Majority42. If side effects continue to occur, the last maximum dose that was tolerated should be administered every 4 weeks for 5 years.Consensus Box 21.Recommendations on the duration of Hymenoptera VIT. Strength of consensus47. In the absence of risk factors described below (recommendations 48 and 49), VIT can be discontinued after 3 – 5 years, provided that maintenance therapy has been tolerated without recurrent anaphylactic side effects.Consensus48. Permanent VIT can be considered in patients with, among others, – established mastocytosis, – cardiovascular or respiratory arrest due to Hymenoptera stings – other specific individual constellations indicating an increased individual risk (e.g., hereditary α-tryptasemia)Strong49. If insect exposure time is greatly increased and unavoidable (e.g., occupational), VIT can be given to adults until the end of intensive contact.Consensus, (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Background: Allergic diseases, especially inhalation allergies, have reached epidemic levels and environmental factors play an important role in their development. Climate change influences the occurrence, frequency, and severity of allergic diseases., Methods: The contents of this article were selected by the authors and developed section by section according to their expertise and the current state of knowledge. The sections were then discussed and agreed upon amongst all authors., Results: The article highlights direct and indirect effects of climate change on allergies. It goes into detail about the connections between climate change and (new) pollen allergens as well as (new) occupational inhalation allergens, explains the effects of climate change on the clinical picture of atopic dermatitis, discusses the connections between air pollutants and allergies, and provides information about the phenomenon of thunderstorm asthma., Conclusions: There is a need for action in the field of pollen and fungal spore monitoring, allergy and sensitisation monitoring, urban planning from an allergological perspective, and changes in the working environment, among others., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Randolf Brehler declared lecturing activities (ALK, Allergopharma, Almirall, Astra Zeneca, Behring, Bencard, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL Allergie, Leti, MedUpdate, Merck, Novartis, Omnicuris, Oto-Rhino-Laryngologischer Verein, Sanofi, Stallergenes, Thermo-Fischer) and consulting activities (Allergopharma, Astra Zeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL Allergie, Leti, Lofarma, Novartis). The other authors declared no conflicts of interest., (© Robert Koch Institute. All rights reserved unless explicitly granted.)

The consensus-based guideline "Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of hand eczema (HE)" provides concrete instructions and recommendations for diagnosis, prevention, and therapy of HE based on an evidence- and consensus-based approach. The guideline was created based on the German guideline "Management von Handekzemen" from 2009 and the current guideline of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) "Guidelines for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of hand eczema" from 2022. The general goal of the guideline is to provide dermatologists and allergologists in practice and clinics with an accepted, evidence-based decision-making tool for selecting and conducting suitable and sufficient therapy for patients with hand eczema. The guideline is based on two Cochrane reviews of therapeutic and preventive interventions for HE. The remaining chapters were mainly developed and consented based on non-systematic literature research by the expert group. The expert group consisted of members of allergological and occupational dermatological professional associations and working groups, a patient representative, and methodologists. The proposals for recommendations and key statements were consented by using a nominal group process during a consensus conference on September 15, 2022. The structured consensus-building process was professionally moderated. This guideline is valid until February 22, 2028., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft.)

Not available., Competing Interests: The information on interests was collected using the AWMF form of 2018 and assessed by Prof. Dr. Monika Raulf for a thematic relation to the guideline. Guideline-relevant lecturing or consulting activities for manufacturers of devices for allergy diagnosis were categorized as a low conflict of interest, and direct financial secondary interests (e.g., share ownership, patent) as a moderate/high conflict of interest. Low conflicts of interest resulted in abstention from voting. Strong conflicts of interest were not present. Protective factors counteracting conflict of interest bias were the pluralistic composition of the guideline group, structured consensus building under neutral moderation, discussion on interests, and handling of conflicts of interest at the beginning of each consensus meeting, and a public consultation version. Abbreviations.Abbreviations. ADRAdverse drug reactionAGEPAcute generalized exanthematous pustulosisAWMFGerman Association of the Scientific Medical SocietiesCOPDChronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseDGAKIGerman Society for Allergology and Clinical ImmunologyDRESSDrug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptomsINNInternational non-proprietary nameMPEMaculopapular exanthemNSAIDNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugsSJSStevens-Johnson syndromeTENToxic epidermal necrolysis Table 1.Definitions.Adverse drug reaction (ADR): A noxious and unintended reaction that occurs in addition to the intended effect of a drug, for which a causal relationship between the use of the drug and the adverse effect is suspected. ADRs can be both type A (pharmacological/toxic) and type B (hypersensitivity).Type A (“augmented” = pharmacological/toxic (on-target) drug effects): Disease manifestations due to dose-dependent predictable pharmacological/toxic effects of a drug at the recommended dose (examples: sedative effect of older antihistamines, hair loss due to cytostatics) or increased dosage (intoxication).Type B (“bizarre” = hypersensitivity (off-target) reactions): Individual, unpredictable clinical reaction to a drug, i.e., symptoms occur only in specially predisposed patients. Two forms can be distinguished:   –Drug allergy: Hypersensitivity is based on an immunological reaction (types I – IV according to Coombs and Gell).   –Non-allergic drug hypersensitivity: An allergic mechanism is not detectable. Previously, this type of reaction was further divided into:      –Drug intolerance: Typical symptoms of pharmacological action (toxicity) develop even at low doses that are usually tolerated.      –Drug idiosyncrasy: The symptoms differ from the pharmacological substance effect. In cases where the symptomatology of this form of hypersensitivity looked similar to an allergic reaction, the term pseudoallergy has also been used. Table 2.Time interval, clinic, and pathomechanism – three levels for classifying a drug hypersensitivity reaction. 1) Time reaction intervalsa) For those already sensitized   –Immediate reaction (“immediate”) immediate up to 60 minutes (in rare exceptions up to 6 hours)   –Delayed reaction (“non-immediate”) > 6 hours to several weeksb) In case of new sensitization under therapy   –Typical sensitization latency 7 – 10 days2) Clinical manifestationsa) Immediate reaction: E.g., flush, urticaria, angioedema, bronchospasm, anaphylaxis.b) Late reaction: Maculopapular exanthem (MPE), acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP). Severe cutaneous drug reactions: Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS).c) Others: E.g., hepatitis, cytopenia, autoimmune diseases (e.g., lupus erythematosus, drug-induced linear IgA dermatosis)3) Pathomechanisma) Allergic hypersensitivity: Immediate type (type I according to Coombs and Gell, IgE mediated): typical manifestation, immediate-type symptoms (reaction time: 0 – 6 hours)b) Non-allergic hypersensitivity: Typical manifestation immediate-type symptoms (reaction time: 0 – 6 hours, rarely up to 12 hours)c) Allergic hypersensitivity: Delayed-type (type IV according to Coombs and Gell, T-cell mediated): typical manifestation delayed-type (reaction time: 24 – 72 hours, begin rarely after 6 – 24 hours).d) Other forms of immunologically mediated hypersensitivity (type II, type III according to Coombs and Gell, IgG, IgA, or IgM mediated): Cytopenias, serum sickness, immune complex vasculitis (vasculitis allergica); (reaction time: 24 hours or more).e) In case of new sensitization under therapy: Typical immunologic sensitization latency 5 – 7 days for types I –IV, with reaction latency of 1 –3 days). Onset of MPE after 7 –10 days. However, the reaction in SJS/TEN, DRESS may occur after weeks, that in autoimmune diseases (e.g., lupus erythematosus) after months, probably due to sensitization only after prolonged exposure (e.g., sensitization or triggering favored by cofactors). Table 3.Typical time interval between start of drug intake and first occurrence of reactions. Reaction patternTime intervalUrticaria, asthma, anaphylaxis≤ 1 hour, rarely up to 6 hours after start of exposureFixed drug exanthem ≤ 48 hours, rarely later after start of exposureMaculopapular drug exanthem4 – 14 days after start of exposure*AGEP1 –12 days after start of exposure**SJS/TEN4 – 28 days after start of exposure***DRESS2 – 8 weeks after start of exposureAGEP = acute exanthematous generalized pustulosis; SJS = Stevens-Johnson Syndrome; TEN = toxic epidermal necrolysis; DRESS = drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms. *In repeat reactions, time interval typically shortened compared to initial reaction. In maculopapular drug exanthem typically reaction after 1 – 4 days, in AGEP, SJS, TEN, DRESS typical time interval after repeat reactions not studied. **For antibiotics mostly 1 – 2 days, for other drugs often 7 – 12 days. ***Sometimes longer for allopurinol. Table 4.Important clinical and anamnestic information for the test plan. A) Clinical manifestation   – Documentation of clinical manifestations and/or organ systems involved: e.g., skin, airways, cardiovascular system, gastrointestinal tract, liver, kidney.   – Exact description of the clinical-morphological findings (especially in case of skin manifestations/mucosal reactions) additionally photo documentation   – General symptoms: Fever, reduced general condition   – Course of the reaction (onset of the reaction in temporal relation to the drug administration, duration of the reaction, morphological change of the reaction).   – Laboratory findings (e.g., blood count changes such as eosinophilia, thrombocytopenia; liver and kidney values; serum tryptase).   – If necessary, histological findings (especially in the case of blistering skin reactions)B) Other circumstances of the reaction   – Acute illness at the time of the reaction (e.g., concurrent infectious disease).   – Co-factors that may lower the threshold for an allergic or non-allergic reaction: stress, physical exertion, food intake, alcohol intake, UV exposure, menstruation.C) Documentation of drugs used in temporal relation to the reaction.   – Indication for drug use   – Trade name   – Mode of application   – Ingredients (active ingredients)   – Duration of application   – Dosage   – Tolerance after previous or during renewed applicationD) General history and findings   – Known hypersensitivity reactions (allergy passport)   – Similar reactions without drug application (e.g., natural latex allergy)   – Atopic diseases, food allergy   – Disposing diseases (e.g., asthma, nasal polyps, chronic urticaria, mastocytosis, infections, e.g., HIV, EBV)   – Other relevant past or current medical conditions (including somatoform or mental health conditions)   – Noxious agents: Nicotine, alcohol, drugs   – Current medication (long-term medication)E) Chronology of the hypersensitivity reaction   – Timing in relation to drug application   – First occurrence   – Course and resolution   – Therapeutic measures and responseF) Diagnosis and pathophysiological classification of the clinical reaction taking into account (see Table 1):   – Morphology and symptoms   – Time courseNote: In the case of multiple reactions, the information for each individual reaction is required. Table 5.Non-irritant skin test concentrations of commonly tested drugs [17]. Drug or classSkin prick testIntradermal test8Patch testBeta-lactam antibiotics   Benzylpenicilloyl-octa-L-lysine8.6 × 10-5 mol/L8.6 × 10-5 mol/LNA   Sodium benzylpenilloate1.5 × 10-3 mol/L1.5 × 10-3 mol/LNA   Benzylpenicillin10,000 UI/mL10,000 UI/mL5%   Amoxicillin20 mg/mL20 mg/mL5%   Ampicillin20 mg/mL20 mg/mL5%   Cephalosporins20 mg/mL1020 mg/mL105%Anticoagulants   Heparins1Undiluted81/10 dilutedUndiluted8   Heparinoids2Undiluted81/10 dilutedUndiluted8Platinum salts   Carboplatin10 mg/mL1 mg/mLNA   Oxaliplatin1 mg/mL0.1 mg/mLNA   Cisplatin1 mg/mL0.1 mg/mLNANSAID   Pyrazolone3Suspension90.1 – 1 mg/mL10%   Coxibe4Suspension910%   Other NSAIDs5Suspension90.1 – 1 mg/mL10%Biologics   Adalimumab50 mg/mL50 mg/mLUndiluted8   Etanercept25 mg/mL5 mg/mLNA   Infliximab10 mg/mL10 mg/mLNA   Omalizumab1.25 µg/mL1.25 µg/mLNAOther   Local anestheticsUndiluted81/10 dilutedUndiluted8   X-ray contrast agentUndiluted81/10 dilutedUndiluted8   Gadolinium chelatesUndiluted81/10 dilutedNA   Patent blueUndiluted1/10 dilutedNA   Methylene blueUndiluted1/100 dilutedNA   FluoresceinUndiluted81/10 dilutedUndiluted8   Proton pump inhibitors6Undiluted940 mg/mL10%   Anticonvulsants7NANA10%   Chlorhexidine digluconate5 mg/mL0.002 mg/mL1% 1Heparins: unfractionated heparin, nadroparin, dalteparin, enoxaparin; testing contraindicated in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. 2Heparinoids: danaparoid, fondaparinux. 3Pyrazolones: metamizole, propyphenazone, aminopyrine, phenazone, phenylbutazone. 4Coxibs: celecoxib, etoricoxib, valdecoxib. 5Other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: e.g., aspirin, ibuprofen, naproxen, indomethacin, diclofenac, fenoprofen, meloxicam, mefenamic acid, nimesulide. 6For lasoprazole and rabeprazole no intravenous solution for intradermal test (IDT), only skin prick test. 7For severe reactions, first test with 1%. 8Use of commercially available solution for intravenous infusion or subcutaneous injection. 9Crushing of the tablet and preparation of a suspension with physiological saline solution. 10Only for cefepime 2 mg/mL each. NA = not applicable or no concentration recommended. Table 6.Selection of commercial tests for the determination of specific IgE antibodies against drugs in serum*. – Ampicilloyl1– Amoxicylloyl1– Cefaclor2– Chlorhexidine2– Gelatin (bovine)1 Galactoseα−1,3-galactose (α-gal)1,3– Insulin (Human) 1– Morphine2– Penicilloyl G1– Penicilloyl V1– Pholcodin2– Suxamethonium (succinylcholine) 2*When determining sIgE for drugs, attention must be paid to the validation of the test methods. CE certification requires at least five, FDA registration at least 30 positive patient sera, as well as studies on stability and reproducibility. If these criteria are not met, test reagents may be offered for research purposes. Here, particular attention should be paid to the quality of the deposited literature. In routine diagnostics, no determinations of sIgE should be performed against substances for which no IgE-mediated allergic reactions have been described so far. 1CE-certified and FDA-registered; 2CE-certified,3 α-gal, this is an IgE-reactive sugar epitope which is held responsible for anaphylactic reactions to cetuximab and infusion solutions containing gelatine. Figure 1.Diagnostic algorithm for suspected drug hypersensitivity [2]., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) as a validated, disease-modifying treatment is nowadays a widely recommended therapy option for allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma. The registration of allergen extracts used for AIT is based on allergen standardization, dose finding trials, and phase 3 trials proving their efficacy in high-quality, statistically significant randomized clinical trials. Real-world evidence (RWE) studies confirm the clinical relevance of these findings. The most data are available for the treatment of patients suffering from allergic rhinitis. Due to the similar inflammatory mechanisms, allergic rhinitis is often associated with allergic asthma. AIT, which induces tolerance against individual allergens, is the approach to treat the underlying mechanisms of these two interrelated respiratory diseases. Some trials have been published focusing primarily on the effect of AIT on parameters of allergic asthma. Here we give a summary of the evidence for the efficacy of AIT in the indication of allergic asthma., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

This publication is the second part of the German-language S3 guideline on urticaria. It covers the management of urticaria and should be used together with Part 1 of the guideline on classification and diagnosis. This publication was prepared according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system conditions in German-speaking countries. Chronic urticaria has a high impact on the quality of life and daily activities of patients. Therefore, if causal factors cannot be eliminated, effective symptomatic treatment is necessary. The recommended first-line treatment is to administer new generation, non-sedating H1 antihistamines. If the standard dose is not sufficiently effective, the dose should be increased up to fourfold. For patients who do not respond to this treatment, the second-line treatment in addition to antihistamines in the treatment algorithm is omalizumab and, if this treatment fails, ciclosporin. Other low-evidence therapeutic agents should only be used if all treatments in the treatment algorithm agreed upon by the guideline group fail. Both the benefit-risk profile and cost should be considered. Corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term treatment due to their inevitable severe side effects., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft.)

The lifetime prevalence of urticaria, a severe allergic disease, is almost 20%. It not only limits the quality of life of those affected, but also their general performance at work and in their daily activities. This publication is the first section of the Urticaria Guideline. It covers the classification and diagnosis of urticaria, taking into account the major advances in research into its causes, triggering factors and pathomechanisms. It also addresses strategies for the efficient diagnosis of the different subtypes of urticaria. This is crucial for individual, patient-oriented treatment, which is covered in the second part of the guideline, published separately. This German-language guideline was developed according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system characteristics in the German-speaking countries. This first part of the guideline describes the classification of urticaria, distinguishing spontaneously occurring wheals (hives) and angioedema from forms of urticaria with inducible symptoms. Urticaria is defined as sudden onset of wheals, angioedema, or both, but is to be distinguished from conditions in which wheals occur as a short-term symptom, such as anaphylaxis. The diagnosis is based on (a limited number of) laboratory tests, but especially on medical history. In addition, validated instruments are available to measure the severity, activity and course of the disease., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft.)

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective approach to treating allergic rhinitis (AR). Oralair® is a five-grass pollen SLIT tablet containing natural pollen allergens from five of the major grass species responsible for seasonal AR due to grass pollen allergy. Recommended use is in a pre-coseasonal regimen, starting daily treatment approximately 4 months before the start of the pollen season, with treatment then continued daily throughout the season; treatment should continue for 3-5 y. Clinical efficacy and safety of Oralair® in patients with grass pollen-induced AR has been demonstrated in a comprehensive clinical development program of randomized controlled trials. Effectiveness has been substantiated in subsequent observational studies with sustained efficacy following treatment cessation and a favorable level of adherence, quality of life, benefit, and satisfaction for the patients. Supportive evidence for a benefit in reducing the risk or delaying the development of allergic asthma is emerging.

Background: Systemic allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. In this study we assessed the management and outcome of suspected SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hypersensitivity., Methods: Totally, 334 individuals underwent an allergy work up regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (group A: 115 individuals suspected to be at increased risk for vaccine-related reactions before vaccination and group B: 219 patients with reactions after COVID vaccination). The large majority of the SPT/IDT with the vaccines were negative; however, we identified in 14.1% (n = 47) a possible sensitization to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and/or its ingredients defined as one positive skin test. Of the 219 individuals (group B) who experienced symptoms suspicious for a hypersensitivity reaction after vaccination, 214 were reported after the first vaccination with a mRNA vaccine (157 mRNA (Comirnaty®, 38 Spikevax®) and 18 with a vector vaccine (Vaxzevria®), 5 cases were after the second vaccination., Results: The symptom profile in group B was as follows: skin symptoms occurred in 115 cases (n = 59 angioedema, n = 50 generalized urticaria and n = 23 erythema/flush. Seventy individuals had cardiovascular, 53 respiratory and 17 gastrointestinal symptoms. Of the overall 334 individuals, 78 patients tolerated (re)-vaccination (out of skin test positive/negative 7/19 from group A and 17/35 from group B)., Conclusion: Proven IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is extremely rare and not increased in comparison with reported hypersensitivity to other vaccines. The value of skin tests is unclear and nonspecific reactions, in particular when intradermal testing is applied, should be considered., (© 2022 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Not available., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Background: Little is known about how many patients with hereditary angioedema due to C1 inhibitor deficiency (HAE-C1-INH) receive on-demand and/or prophylactic treatment and what their clinical features are. Here, we estimated, using Delphi-based consensus, prevalence and treatment patterns in Germany as well as patient features linked to long-term prophylaxis., Materials & Methods: Eight experts, who together treat approximately 75% of all German HAE-C1-INH patients, participated in a classic, two-round Delphi survey. Consensus was defined as agreement between at least 75% of participants., Results: Experts agreed that an estimated 1,350 patients in Germany have HAE-C1-INH, i.e. 1.62 per 100,000. One in four patients was estimated to receive long-term prophylaxis. Patient features linked to the use of prophylactic treatment included reduced quality of life, frequent swellings and swellings that affect the upper airways, and >two attacks per month., Conclusion: The rate of prophylactic treatment in Germany is low, but is expected to increase. The level of disease activity and its impact and control are and should be considered in the choice for prophylactic treatment.

Background: Essential oils (EOs) are widely used in cosmetics, perfumes, massage fluids, aroma therapy and natural medicine. Some EOs contain contact sensitizers., Objectives: To describe the frequency of sensitization to EOs in dermatitis patients presenting in skin clinics including concomitant reactions, to evaluate the EO patch test preparations and to identify patient groups with an increased risk of EO sensitization., Patients and Methods: Retrospective analysis of data from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2010-2019., Results: Twelve EOs were patch tested in an aimed manner in 10 930 patients, of whom 908 (8.3%) reacted to at least 1 EO. Only 6 EOs elicited more than 1% positive patch test reactions: ylang ylang (I + II) oil (3.9%), lemongrass oil (2.6%), jasmine absolute (1.8%), sandalwood oil (1.8%), clove oil (1.6%) and neroli oil (1.1%). Concomitant reactions among EOs or to EOs and fragrances were frequent. Among EO-positive patients, women, leg dermatitis patients, patients aged 40 years or more, masseurs and cosmeticians were over-represented., Conclusions: Sensitization to EOs occurs, albeit infrequently in most cases. Masseurs and cosmeticians have an increased risk of sensitization to EOs., (© 2022 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Contact dermatitis is an inflammation of the epidermis and dermis at the site of exposure triggered by external agents. The two main forms are irritant and allergic contact dermatitis, which cause significant health and socioeconomic costs in addition to a marked reduction in quality of life. The anamnesis and the clinical picture are decisive for the necessary diagnostic measures. The most accurate possible diagnostic classification of contact dermatitis by means of allergological testing is important for disease management, since not only classical eczema therapy but also avoidance of the exogenous triggering factors are of great importance here. The choice of therapy should be based on the acuity, clinical severity, morphology of the lesions and localization of the contact dermatitis. A combination of basic therapy, topical, physical, and systemic therapy adapted to the patient's needs is required, whereby not all forms of therapy must be carried out simultaneously but can be used in a varying manner. Primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention strategies aim at the recognition of the triggering noxae or allergens with subsequent contact avoidance or minimization. The present S1-guideline on contact dermatitis is primarily intended to provide dermatologists, allergologists and physicians working in allergology and occupational dermatology with a decision-making aid for the selection and implementation of suitable and sufficient diagnostics, therapy, and prevention., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft.)

Background: Vaccinations against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are intended to induce an immune response to protect against infection/disease. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is thought to induce a (different) immune response, e.g., to induce tolerance to allergens. In this position paper we clarify how to use AIT in temporal relation to COVID-19 vaccination. Four SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are currently approved in the EU, and their possible immunological interactions with AIT are described together with practical recommendations for use., Materials and Methods: Based on the internationally published literature, this position paper provides specific recommendations for the use of AIT in temporal relation to a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination., Results: AIT is used in 1) allergic rhinitis, 2) allergic bronchial asthma, 3) insect venom allergy, 4) food allergy (peanut)., Conclusion: For the continuation of an ongoing AIT, we recommend an interval of 1 week before and after vaccination for subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). For sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and oral immunotherapy (OIT), we recommend taking them up to the day before vaccination and a break of 2 - 7 days after vaccination. Initiation of a new SCIT, SLIT, or OIT should be delayed until 1 week after the day of the second vaccination. For SCIT, we generally recommend an interval of ~ 1 week to COVID-19 vaccination., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Background: After the beginning and during the worldwide pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2), patients with allergic and atopic diseases have felt and still feel insecure. Currently, four vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been approved by the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany, and vaccination campaigns have been started nationwide. In this respect, it is of utmost importance to give recommendations on possible immunological interactions and potential risks of immunomodulatory substances (monoclonal antibodies, biologicals) during concurrent vaccination with the approved vaccines., Materials and Methods: This position paper provides specific recommendations on the use of immunomodulatory drugs in the context of concurrent SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations based on current literature., Results: The recommendations are covering the following conditions in which biologicals are indicated and approved: 1) chronic inflammatory skin diseases (atopic dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria), 2) bronchial asthma, and 3) chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Patients with atopic dermatitis or chronic spontaneous urticaria are not at increased risk for allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination. Nevertheless, vaccination may result in transient eczema exacerbation due to general immune stimulation. Vaccination in patients receiving systemic therapy with biologicals can be performed. Patients with severe asthma and concomitant treatment with biologicals also do not have an increased risk of allergic reaction following COVID-19 vaccination which is recommended in these patients. Patients with CRSwNP are also not known to be at increased risk for allergic vaccine reactions, and continuation or initiation of a treatment with biologicals is also recommended with concurrent COVID-19 vaccination. In general, COVID-19 vaccination should be given within the interval between two applications of the respective biological, that is, with a time-lag of at least 1 week after the previous or at least 1 week before the next biological treatment planned., Conclusion: Biologicals for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, bronchial asthma, and CRSwNP should be continued during the current COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. However, the intervals of biological treatment may need to be slightly adjusted (DGAKI/AeDA recommendations as of March 22, 2021)., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Complex N -glycan modification of secretory glycoproteins in plants is still not well understood. Essential in animals, where a lack of complex N -glycans is embryo-lethal, their presence in plants seemed less relevant for a long time mostly because Arabidopsis thaliana cgl1 mutants lacking N -acetyl-glucosaminyltransferase I (GNTI, the enzyme initiating complex N -glycan maturation in the Golgi apparatus) are viable and showed only minor impairments regarding stress tolerance or development. A different picture emerged when a rice ( Oryza sativa ) gntI T-DNA mutant was found to be unable to reach the reproductive stage. Here, we report on tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum ) lines that showed severe impairments upon two RNA interference (RNAi) approaches. Originally created to shed light on the role of core α1,3-fucose and β1,2-xylose residues in food allergy, plants with strongly reduced GNTI activity developed necrotic fruit-attached stalks and early fruit drop combined with patchy incomplete ripening. Correspondingly, semiquantitative RT-PCR of the abscission zone (az) revealed an increase of abscission markers. Also, GNTI -RNA interference (RNAi) plants were more susceptible to sporadic infection. To obtain vital tomatoes with comparable low allergenic potential, Golgi α-mannosidase II (MANII) was chosen as the second target. The resulting phenotypes were oppositional: MANII-reduced plants carried normal-looking fruits that remained attached for extended time without signs of necrosis. Fruits contained no or only few, but enlarged, seeds. Furthermore, leaves developed rolled-up rims simultaneously during the reproductive stage. Trials to cross MANII-reduced plants failed, while GNTI-reduced plants could be (back-)crossed, retaining their characteristic phenotype. This phenotype could not be overcome by ethephon or indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) application, but the latter was able to mimic patchy fruit ripening in wild-type. Phytohormones measured in leaves and 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) contents in fruits showed no significant differences. Together, the findings hint at altered liberation/perception of protein-bound N -glycans, known to trigger auxin-like effects. Concomitantly, semiquantitative RT-PCR analysis revealed differences in auxin-responsive genes, indicating the importance of complex N -glycan modification for hormone signaling/crosstalk. Another possible role of altered glycoprotein life span seems subordinate, as concluded from transient expression of Arabidopsis KORRIGAN KOR1-GFP fusion proteins in RNAi plants of Nicotiana benthamiana . In summary, our analyses stress the importance of complex N- glycan maturation for normal plant responses, especially in fruit-bearing crops like tomato., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Kaulfürst-Soboll, Mertens-Beer, Brehler, Albert and von Schaewen.)

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has evolved into a pandemic infectious disease transmitted by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Allergists and other healthcare providers (HCPs) in the field of allergies and associated airway diseases are on the front line, taking care of patients potentially infected with SARS-CoV-2. Hence, strategies and practices to minimize risks of infection for both HCPs and treated patients have to be developed and followed by allergy clinics., Method: The scientific information on COVID-19 was analysed by a literature search in MEDLINE, PubMed, the National and International Guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Cochrane Library, and the internet., Results: Based on the diagnostic and treatment standards developed by EAACI, on international information regarding COVID-19, on guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organizations, and on previous experience, a panel of experts including clinicians, psychologists, IT experts, and basic scientists along with EAACI and the "Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)" initiative have developed recommendations for the optimal management of allergy clinics during the current COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations are grouped into nine sections on different relevant aspects for the care of patients with allergies., Conclusions: This international Position Paper provides recommendations on operational plans and procedures to maintain high standards in the daily clinical care of allergic patients while ensuring the necessary safety measures in the current COVID-19 pandemic., (© 2020 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Not available., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Two employees of the National Health Service (NHS) in England developed severe allergic reactions following administration of BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). The British SmPC for the BNT162b2 vaccine already includes reference to a contraindication for use in individuals who have had an allergic reaction to the vaccine or any of its components. As a precautionary measure, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued interim guidance to the NHS not to vaccinate in principle in "patients with severe allergies". Allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare, but vaccine components are known to cause allergic reactions. BNT162b2 is a vaccine based on an mRNA embedded in lipid nanoparticles and blended with other substances to enable its transport into the cells. In the pivotal phase III clinical trial, the BNT162b2 vaccine was generally well tolerated, but this large clinical trial, used to support vaccine approval by the MHRA and US Food and Drug Administration, excluded individuals with a "history of a severe adverse reaction related to the vaccine and/or a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to a component of the study medication". Vaccines are recognized as one of the most effective public health interventions. This repeated administration of a foreign protein (antigen) necessitates a careful allergological history before each application and diagnostic clarification and a risk-benefit assessment before each injection. Severe allergic reactions to vaccines are rare but can be life-threatening, and it is prudent to raise awareness of this hazard among vaccination teams and to take adequate precautions while more experience is gained with this new vaccine., Competing Interests: Conflict of interestL. Klimek reports grants and personal fees from Allergopharma, grants and personal fees from MEDA/Mylan, personal fees from HAL Allergie, personal fees from ALK Abelló, grants and personal fees from LETI Pharma, grants and personal fees from Stallergenes, grants from Quintiles, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, grants from ASIT biotech, grants from Lofarma, personal fees from Allergy Therapeut., grants from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from GSK, grants from Inmunotek, personal fees from Cassella med, personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work; and Membership: AeDA, DGHNO, Deutsche Akademie für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie, HNO-BV, GPA, EAACI. K. Hartmann has received research funding from Euroimmun and Thermofisher and consultancy or lecture fees from Allergopharma, ALK-Abelló, Blueprint, Deciphera, Menarini, Novartis and Takeda. J. Ring reports personal fees from Mylan, personal fees from Allergika, outside the submitted work. A. Chaker reports grants and other from Allergopharma, grants and other from ALK Abello, grants and other from Bencard/Allergen Therapeutics, grants and other from ASIT Biotech, other from Lofarma, grants and other from GSK, grants and other from Novartis, grants and other from LETI, grants and other from Roche, grants and other from Zeller, other from Sanofi Genzyme, grants from European Institute of Technology, grants and other from AstraZeneca, grants and other from Immunotek, outside the submitted work; in addition, Dr. Chaker has a patent A ratio of immune cells as prognostic indicator of therapeutic success in allergen-specific immunotherapy: 17 177 681.8 licensed to none. M. Wagenmann has received fees for advice, lectures or research support from the following companies in the past 3 years: ALK-Abelló, Allergopharma, AstraZeneca, Bencard Allergie, Genzyme, GSK, HAL Allergie, Infectopharm, LETI Pharma, MEDA Pharma, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi Aventis, Stallergenes, Teva—all outside of the present work. T. Ankermann has received fees and accommodation and travel expenses for lectures and publications from the following companies and institutions: Abbvie, Aimmune, Allergopharma, Chiesi, Infectopharm, Novartis, UKSH Academy, RG, Springer publishing house, Scientific publishing company, GPP e. V, GPA e. V., nappa e. V., ÖGKJ e. V. Dr. Ankermann has received fees for advisory boards from Boehringer Ingelheim, Aimmune, and fees for safety board from Allergopharma, all outside of the present work. C. Vogelberg has received lecture fees or consultant fees or travel and accommodation costs from: ALK, Allergopharma, Aimmune, DBV, LETI, Novartis, Stallergenes, HAL, Bencard, Sanofi, Aimmune, GPA e. V., APPA e. V. all outside of the present work. T. Werfel reports grants and/or fees from AbbVie, ALK Abello, Almirall, Astellas, Bencard, Galderma, Janssen/JNJ, Leo Pharma, Leti, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, Stallergen, all outside of the present work. A. Bauer reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, Leo Pharma, Sanofi/Regeneron, Shire/Takeda, Genentech, outside the submitted work. T. Zuberbier reports personal fees and/or fees for talk from Bayer Health Care, FAES, Novartis, Henkel, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, ALK, Almirall, Astellas, Bencard, Berlin Chemie, HAL, Leti, Meda, Menarini, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, Stallergenes, Takeda, Teva, UCB, Kryolan, L’Oréal outside the submitted work. T. Jakob reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from ALK-Abello, personal fees and non-financial support from Allergy Therapeutics/Bencard, personal fees from Allergopharma, personal fees from Thermo Fisher, outside the submitted work. M. Worm reports honorarium for advisory boards and lecture activities from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, DBV Technologies S.A, Stallergenes GmbH, HAL Allergie GmbH, Bencard Allergie GmbH, Allergopharma GmbH & Co. KG, ALK-Abelló Arzneimittel GmbH, Mylan Germany GmbH, Leo Pharma GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Aimmune Therapeutics UK Limited, Actelion Pharmaceuticals Deutschland GmbH, Novartis AG, Biotest AG, AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, outside the submitted work. N. Novak, E. Hamelmann, C. Taube, H. Merk, U. Rabe, K. Jung, W. Schlenter, W. Wehrmann, S. Becker, N. Mülleneisen, K. Nemat, W. Czech, H. Wrede, R. Brehler, T. Fuchs, S. M. Schmidt and M. Gerstlauer declare that they have no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Background: For the preventive treatment of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) an unprecedented global research effort studied the safety and efficacy of new vaccine platforms that have not been previously used in humans. Less than one year after the discovery of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral sequence, these vaccines were approved for use in the European Union (EU) as well as in numerous other countries and mass vaccination efforts began. The so far in the EU approved mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 are based on similar lipid-based nanoparticle carrier technologies; however, the lipid components differ. Severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination are very rare adverse events but have drawn attention due to potentially lethal outcomes and have triggered a high degree of uncertainty., Methods: Current knowledge on anaphylactic reactions to vaccines and specifically the new mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was compiled using a literature search in Medline, PubMed, as well as the national and international study and guideline registries, the Cochrane Library, and the Internet, with special reference to official websites of the World Health Organization (WHO), US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Robert Koch Institute (RKI), and Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI)., Results: Based on the international literature and previous experience, recommendations for prophylaxis, diagnosis and therapy of these allergic reactions are given by a panel of experts., Conclusion: Allergy testing is not necessary for the vast majority of allergic patients prior to COVID-19 vaccination with currently licensed vaccines. In case of allergic/anaphylactic reactions after vaccination, allergy workup is recommended, as it is for a small potential risk population prior to the first vaccination. Evaluation and approval of diagnostic tests should be done for this purpose., Competing Interests: Conflict of interestL. Klimek reports grants and/or personal fees from Allergopharma, MEDA/Mylan, HAL Allergie, ALK Abelló, LETI Pharma, Stallergenes, Quintiles, Sanofi, ASIT Biotech, Lofarma, Allergy Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, GSK, Inmunotek, Cassella med and Novartis, outside of the submitted work; and memberships in the following organizations: AeDA, DGHNO, German Academy for Allergology and Clinical Immunology, ENT-BV, GPA, EAACI. L. Klimek is editor in chief of Allergo Journal International. R. Brehler reports fees and/or research support from ALK, Allergopharma, Bencard, HAL, Leti, Stallergenes, Astra Zeneca, GSK, MedUpdate, Novartis, BiotechTools, Genentech and Circassia, outside of the submitted work. W. Pfützner reports grants and/or personal fees and/or non-financial support from ALK-Abello, Biomay, Cilag-Janssen, Lilly, Novartis and Thermo Fisher outside of the submitted work. T. Zuberbier reports grants and/or personal fees from AstraZeneca, AbbVie, ALK, Almirall, Astellas, Bayer Health Care, Bencard, Berlin Chemie, FAES, HAL, Leti, Meda, Menarini, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Stallergenes, Takeda, Teva, UCB, Henkel, Kryolan and L’Oréal outside of the submitted work; and the following organizational affiliations: Member of the committee: WHO initiative “Allergic Rhinitis and its Effects on Asthma” (ARIA), Board member: German Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), Chairman of the Board: Foundation of the European Center for Allergy Research (ECARF), President: Global European Network on Allergy and Asthma (GA2LEN), Member: Committee on Allergy Diagnosis and Molecular Allergology, World Allergy Organization (WAO). K. Hartmann has received research grants outside of the present work from Euroimmun and Thermofisher as well as consulting or lecture fees from Allergopharma, ALK-Abelló, Blueprint, Deciphera, Menarini, Novartis and Takeda. T. Jakob reports grants and/or personal fees and/or non-financial support from Novartis, ALK-Abello, Allergy Therapeutics/Bencard, Allergopharma, and Thermo Fisher outside of the submitted work. T. Jakob is editor in chief of Allergo Journal International. N. Novak reports grants and/or personal fees from Alk Abelló, HAL Allergy, Stallergenes Geer, Leti Pharma, Novartis, Leo Pharma, Abbvie, Sanofi Genzmye, Lofarma and Bencard Allergy Therapeutics, outside of the submitted work. J. Ring reports fees from Mylan and Allergika outside of the submitted work. T. Ankermann received fees outside the submitted work from the following companies and organizations: Abbvie, Allergopharma, Chiesi, Infectopharm, Novartis, UKSH Akademie, RG, Springer Verlag, Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, GPP eV, GPA eV, nappa eV and ÖGKJ eV and is an advisory agent active for Boehringer Ingelheim, Aimmune and Allergopharma. S. Schmidt reports grants and/or personal fees and/or non-financial support from Allergopharma, ALK, Bencard, Gilead, Mundipharma, Novartis, Vertex, HAL, Sanofi, Olympus, Infectopharm, Pari and Pfizer outside of the submitted work. V. Mahler The positions stated in this work represent the personal views of the author as an expert in the field of allergology and must not be understood or cited as the view of the Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedical Medicines, the European Medicines Agency or one of its Committees or working groups. There are no conflicts of interest. M. Worm reports fees for consulting and lecture activities from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, DBV Technologies SA, Stallergenes GmbH, HAL Allergie GmbH, Bencard Allergie GmbH, Allergopharma GmbH & Co. KG, ALK-Abelló Arzneimittel GmbH, Mylan Germany GmbH, Leo Pharma GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Aimmune Therapeutics UK Limited, Actelion Pharmaceuticals Deutschland GmbH, Novartis AG, Biotest AG, AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Lilly Deutschland GmbH, outside of the submitted work. K.-C. Bergmann, H. Merk, E. Hamelmann, E. Untersmayr, W. Hötzenecker, E. Jensen-Jarolim and K. Brockow declare that they have no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Background: The vaccines against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) approved in the European Union represent a decisive step in the fight against the pandemic. The application of these available vaccines to patients with pre-existing immunological conditions leads to a multitude of questions regarding efficacy, side effects and the necessary patient information., Results: This review article provides insight into mechanisms of action of the currently available severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines and summarises the current state of science as well as expert recommendations regarding tolerability of the vaccines. In addition, the potential to develop protective immune responses is determined. A special focus is given on patients under immunosuppression or in treatment with immunomodulatory drugs. Special groups of the population such as children, pregnant women and the elderly are also considered., Conclusion: Despite the need for a patient-specific risk-benefit assessment, the consensus among experts is that patients with immunological diseases in particular benefit from the induced immune protection after COVID-19 vaccination and do not have an increased risk of side effects., Competing Interests: Conflict of interestP.M. Brunner is an employee of the Medical University of Vienna and has received personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Celgene, UCB Pharma, Biotest, Boehringer Ingelheim, AbbVie, Amgen and Arena Pharmaceuticals. He also works as an investigator on behalf of Novartis and has received grants for his institute. T. Eiwegger serves as principal investigator for DBV’s company-sponsored studies and as a secondary investigator (sub-investigator) for Regeneron. He also receives grants from Innovation Fund Denmark and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) outside the submitted work. He is co-investigator or scientific lead in three investigator-initiated oral immunotherapy studies supported by the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Program‘SickKids’. In addition, serves as Associate Editor for Allergy. He/his laboratory has received unconditional in-kind support from Macro Array Diagnostics and ALK. He also serves as an Advisory Board Member for ALK. W. Reinisch has acted in an advisory capacity for: Abbvie, Algernon, Amgen, AM Pharma, AMT, AOP Orphan, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Avaxia, Roland Berger GmBH, Bioclinica, Biogen IDEC, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cellerix, Chemocentryx, Celgene, Centocor, Celltrion, Covance, Danone Austria, DSM, Elan, Eli Lilly, Ernest & Young, Falk Pharma GmbH, Ferring, Galapagos, Gatehouse Bio Inc., Genentech, Gilead, Grünenthal, ICON, Index Pharma, Inova, Intrinsic Imaging, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma, Lipid Therapeutics, LivaNova, Mallinckrodt, Medahead, MedImmune, Millenium, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, MSD, Nash Pharmaceuticals, Nestle, Nippon Kayaku, Novartis, Ocera, OMass, Otsuka, Parexel, PDL, Periconsulting, Pharmacosmos, Philip Morris Institute, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Prometheus, Protagonist, Provention, Quell Therapeutics, Robarts Clinical Trial, Sandoz, Schering-Plough, Second Genome, Seres Therapeutics, Setpointmedical, Sigmoid, Sublimity, Takeda, Therakos, Theravance, Tigenix, UCB, Vifor, Zealand, Zyngenia and 4SC. E. Untersmayr, E. Förster-Waldl, M. Bonelli,K. Boztug, K. Eller, L. Göschl, K. Grabmeier-Pfistershammer, W. Hötzenecker, G. Jordakieva, A.R. Moschen, B. Pfaller, W. Pickl, U. Wiedermann, L. Klimek, K.-C. Bergmann, R. Brehler, W. Pfützner, N. Novak, H. Merk, U. Rabe, W. Schlenter, J. Ring, W. Wehrmann, N. Mülleneisen, H. Wrede, T. Fuchs and E. Jensen-Jarolim declare that they have no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2021.)