Search

Most patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) to vespid venoms present double sensitization by specific IgE (sIgE)-mediated cross-reactivity. Thus, it is mandatory could discriminate between a true double and primary sensitization to implement an accurate venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT). To date, CAP-inhibition is the reference method in the diagnosis of cross-reactivity in double sensitized patients to vespid venoms, being the results obtained with the component resolved diagnostics (CRD) conflicting. For this, we have studied in a cohort of double sensitized patients to Vespula vulgaris (VV) and Polistes dominulus (PD) venoms (n = 40) the diagnostic accuracy of CRD using the CAP-inhibition as reference method, as well as to investigate whether basophil activation test (BAT) is an alternative method for inconclusive results obtained by CAP-inhibition. CAP-inhibition showed a sensitivity of 59.46 % in view of the indeterminate results; most patients had true double sensitization (54.5 %), followed by single sensitization to PD (27.27 %) and VV (18.18 %) venoms. CRD based on rVes v 5/rPol d 5 (or vice versa) ratio as well as whole extracts I3/I77 (or vice versa) ratio (specific IgE-I3 to VV/specific IgE-I77 to PD) showed a low diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.504, p = 0.974; AUC = 0.35, p = 0.235; respectively). BAT was determined in parallel with CAP-inhibition in 12 patients, presented higher sensitivity than CAP-inhibition (p = 0.021) and a positive agreement of 71.43 %. Likewise it was able to identify 100% of inconclusive results, showing a specificity of 83.3 %. Therefore, CRD is not a suitable method to distinguish monosensitization and BAT appears to be an appropriate method resolving indeterminate results from the gold standard method. • Component-resolved diagnosis is not an accurate method to diagnose monosensitization • CAP-inhibition is the gold standard analyzing true double and single sensitization • BAT presents a good agreement with CAP-inhibition • BAT identifies inconclusive results obtained with CAP-inhibition [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systemic mastocytosis (SM) is a clonal mast cell disorder that can lead to potentially severe anaphylactic reactions. Hymenoptera sting is one of the most frequent triggers of anaphylaxis in these patients, and diagnosis of indolent SM (ISM) without skin involvement (ISMs) is not rare. In this subgroup of patients, venom immunotherapy (VIT) is an effective treatment decreasing subsequent systemic reactions, and lifelong administration is recommended. An individualized diagnosis is necessary to offer the most adequate VIT, and molecular diagnosis (MD) may be useful to discriminate between primary sensitization and cross-reactivity. Nevertheless, other techniques such as ImmunoCAP inhibition assays may be necessary to identify the genuine sensitization to offer the most suitable VIT. We present a male patient with an anaphylactic reaction following several wasp stings. The patient was diagnosed with ISM, and allergy to both Polistes dominula and Vespula sp venom was confirmed. In this scenario, MD did not discriminate between a genuine double sensitization and venom cross-reactivity between both vespids. Thus, CAP-inhibition assay was performed. This case indicated the importance of an accurate diagnosis of hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA). It also highlights the usefulness of CAP-inhibition assays when MD fails to distinguish between genuine double Polistes-Vespula sensitization and cross-reactivity., Competing Interests: The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Cross-reactions between Polistes dominula and Vespula species are common in southern Europe. Currently, only CAP-inhibition demonstrates high accuracy in identifying genuine sensitizations, but this method is time-consuming and expensive, so a new approach is required. This study investigates skin tests, molecular diagnostics, total IgE (tIgE), and the Ves v 5/Pol d 5 (or vice versa) ratio. The ratio generated low-accuracy results and poor agreement with CAP-inhibition, and we did not find any agreement between CAP-inhibition test and double values of Ves v 5/Pol d 5. Nevertheless, a slight diagnostic improvement was obtained when Ves v 5/tIgE and Pol d 5/tIgE were measured. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hymenoptera venom allergy can be effectively cured with specific immunotherapy, thus the correct identification of the allergen is essential. In the case of multiple skin and serum positivities it is important to know if a cross-reaction among venoms is present. We studied by CAP-inhibition assays the degree of cross-reactivity between Vespula vulgaris and Polistes dominulus. Methods: Serum samples were obtained from consecutive patients with a clinical history of grade III–IV reactions to hymenoptera sting and with nondiscriminative skin/CAP positivity to both Vespula and Polistes. Inhibition assays were carried out with a CAP method, incubating the sera separately with both venoms and subsequently measuring the specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) to venoms themselves. Results: Forty-five patients (33 male, mean age 40 years, age range 12–74, total serum IgE 242 ± 168 kU/l) were included. Their specific IgE to Vespula and Polistes were 12.03 ± 5.70 kU/l and 10.7 ± 2.0 kU/l ( P = NS), respectively. At the CAP-inhibition assays, in 25 patients a >75% heterologous inhibition by P. dominulus venom against V. vulgaris-specific IgE was found. In six subjects V. vulgaris venom effectively inhibited the P. dominulus-specific IgE. In the remaining 14 cases the CAP-inhibition test provided intermediate and not discriminative results. Conclusion: In 31/45 patients, the double sensitizations to venoms were probably the result of cross-reactions and the CAP-inhibition allowed identifying the true double sensitizations. This approach may be helpful for the correct prescription of immunotherapy in the case of V. vulgaris and P. dominulus double positivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stings by Polistes species frequently cause allergic reactions. However, standard allergy diagnostics are often unable to differentiate between primary sensitization and cross-reactivity in case of Vespula/Polistes double-sensitization because antigen 5 is the only Polistes venom molecule currently available in diagnostics (Pol d 5)., Objective: To evaluate the frequency of phospholipase A1 in Polistes venom allergy (Pol d 1) and its diagnostic role in vespid allergy., Methods: We performed component-resolved diagnostics in patients with vespid allergic reactions who were positive to Polistes venom. A prevalence analysis was performed and the diagnostic accuracy of Pol d 1 was evaluated to detect primary Polistes sensitization in double-sensitized patients., Results: Blood samples were collected from 132 patients. Pol d 1 was present in 97% to 100% of 128 Polistes-positive patients. It was frequently involved in case of positivity to a single Polistes molecule (48% in double- and 80% in mono-sensitized patients). Furthermore, Pol d 1 was positive in 95% of Pol d 5-negative subjects. The diagnostic accuracy of Pol d 1 was good (folded type: area under the curve = 87%; 82% sensitivity and 77% specificity at the best cutoff of 5.773), and even better when used combined with the whole extract ratio (area under the curve = 99%; 91% sensitivity and 100% specificity)., Conclusions: The study shows that Pol d 1 is the most frequent Polistes allergen in Italian patients. It can distinguish Polistes primary sensitizations with good diagnostic accuracy, which supports its use in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)