Search

Background: Forestry and field workers who work outdoors are at high risk for Hymenoptera stings and may develop occupation-related allergies from being stung. However, clinical and immunological surveys of Hymenoptera stings in the occupational setting have rarely been reported. We surveyed the natural history of Hymenoptera stings in Japanese forestry workers (FWs) and electrical facility field workers (EFFWs), and we assessed the utility of measuring specific (s)IgE Ab to Hymenptera venom. Methods: Questionnaires on hornet and paper wasp stings were completed by 999 FWs, 354 EFFWs, and 365 office workers as controls between July and November 2009. Sera from these participants were tested for sIgE Ab levels to Hymenptera venom with a CAP system using a fluoroenzyme immunoassay. Results: Of the participants who had experienced Hymenoptera stings, 914 (91.5%) were FWs, 293 (82.8%) were EFFWs, and 295 (80.8%) were controls. Of the participants who had experienced systemic reactions, 210 (21.0%) were FWs, 51 (14.4%) were EFFWs, and 39 (10.7%) were controls. sIgE Ab in response to hornet and wasp venom was positive (≥ class 2) in 42.4% and 41.4% of FWs, 30.1% and 31.4% of EFFWs, and 15.1% and 18.1% of controls, respectively. The likelihood of being sIgE-positive to wasp and hornet venom was significantly higher in FWs and EFFWs than in controls (P Conclusions: 21% of FWs and 14% of EFFWs had experienced systemic reactions to Hymenoptera stings with a higher frequency compared with office workers in the same area. 40% of FWs and 30% of EFFWs had sera that were sIgE positive to Hymenoptera venom.

Background Patients may receive negative results from a specific IgE (sIgE) test such as the ImmunoCAP (CAP) despite a documented history of systemic reaction to a Hymenoptera sting. Thus, further testing may be required using another serological method or venom skin prick tests to confirm allergy diagnosis and correct species. Objective To evaluate the sensitivity and the specificity of CAP and IMMULITE 3gAllergy (IMMULITE) for detecting sIgE to Paper wasp (WA) and Yellow Jacket (YJ) venoms using patient clinical history as the comparator. Methods Sera from 70 participants with a history of systemic reactions (SR) to WA and/or YJ stings were tested using CAP and IMMULITE. Fifty participants from this group had negative results on CAP. To assess specificity, sera from 71 participants who had never experienced either a WA or YJ sting were tested using CAP and IMMULITE. Fifty participants from this group tested positive using CAP. Results In participants with a history of systemic reaction to a Hymenoptera sting, yet who tested negative for WA and/or YJ sIgE according to CAP, the positivity rate according to IMMULITE was 20-42% using 0.10 IUA/mL as the limit of detection (LoD), per the manufacturer's specification. When the LoD for CAP (0.35 IUA/mL) was applied to the IMMULITE results, positivity according to IMMULITE was 14-26%. Overall, sensitivity, specificity, and agreement with SR were greater for IMMULITE than for CAP. For YJ: sensitivity (IMMULITE:CAP), 42.8%:28.5%; specificity, 53.5%:39.4%; agreement, 48.2%:34%. For WA, sensitivity (IMMULITE:CAP), 58.6%:28.5%; specificity, 49.3%:47.8%; agreement, 43.9%:38.3%. Conclusion The IMMULITE performed well for detecting sIgE to Hymenoptera venom

Riluzole has recently been proven as the first effective drug for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). We report two rare cases of lung injury caused by riluzole therapy in patients with ALS. Chest radiographs showed bilateral lower lobe, dorsal-dominant ground glass opacity, and/or consolidation. A drug lymphocyte stimulation test (DLST) of peripheral blood or bronchoalveolar lavage cells was positive for riluzole. Histopathological examination of lung biopsy specimens revealed lung injury without fungoid granuloma, vasculitis, or diffuse alveolar damage. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of riluzole-induced lung injury with positive DLST results.

Although anti-IgE antibody (Ab) therapy was recently shown to be effective in patients with bronchial asthma, no study has reported the effect of IgE therapy in the prevention of wasp venom anaphylaxis. In this study, we used a mouse model of wasp venom allergy to investigate the effect of anti-IgE Ab on wasp venom anaphylaxis.We developed a mouse model of wasp venom allergy by intraperitoneally (i.p.) injecting wasp venom into BALB/c mice twice on experimental day (day) 0 and 7. On day 20, a group of mice received an i.p. injection of mouse anti-IgE Ab as a pretreatment, and another group received rat anti-IgG1 Ab. On day 21, the animals were challenged by i.p. injection of wasp venom, and 30 min later, body temperature was measured and serum levels of leukotriene (LT) B4 and LTC4 were determined using enzyme immunoassay.The body temperature of mice treated with anti-IgE Ab and controls before and after wasp venom challenge was 37.8±0.2 vs 37.7± 0.3°C before challenge and 37.8±0.2 vs 37.1± 0.3°C after challenge, respectively, showing that anti-IgE Ab treatment significantly prevented body temperature from falling (p0.05). Furthermore, anti-IgE Ab treatment reduced total serum IgE levels in the treated mice (42.2±15.9 pg/ml), compared with controls (105.9±23.1 pg/ml, p0.05), and inhibited the secretion of LTC4 in the treated mice (32.0±18.8 pg/ml), but not in the controls (162.4±12.4 pg/ml, p0.05), following challenge with wasp venom.The results of the present study indicate that anti-IgE Ab treatment is an effective preventive measure against wasp venom-induced anaphylaxis.

Background: Patients may receive negative results from a specific IgE (sIgE) test such as the ImmunoCAP (CAP) despite a documented history of systemic reaction to a Hymenoptera sting. Thus, further testing may be required using another serological method or venom skin prick tests to confirm allergy diagnosis and correct species. Objective: To evaluate the sensitivity and the specificity of CAP and IMMULITE 3gAllergy (IMMULITE) for detecting sIgE to Paper wasp (WA) and Yellow Jacket (YJ) venoms using patient clinical history as the comparator. Methods: Sera from 70 participants with a history of systemic reactions (SR) to WA and/or YJ stings were tested using CAP and IMMULITE. Fifty participants from this group had negative results on CAP. To assess specificity, sera from 71 participants who had never experienced either a WA or YJ sting were tested using CAP and IMMULITE. Fifty participants from this group tested positive using CAP. Results: In participants with a history of systemic reaction to a Hymenoptera sting, yet who tested negative for WA and/or YJ sIgE according to CAP, the positivity rate according to IMMULITE was 20-42% using 0.10 IUA/mL as the limit of detection (LoD), per the manufacturer’s specification. When the LoD for CAP (0.35 IUA/mL) was applied to the IMMULITE results, positivity according to IMMULITE was 14-26%. Overall, sensitivity, specificity, and agreement with SR were greater for IMMULITE than for CAP. For YJ: sensitivity (IMMULITE:CAP), 42.8%:28.5%; specificity, 53.5%:39.4%; agreement, 48.2%:34%. For WA, sensitivity (IMMULITE:CAP), 58.6%:28.5%; specificity, 49.3%:47.8%; agreement, 43.9%:38.3%. Conclusion: The IMMULITE performed well for detecting sIgE to Hymenoptera venom.