Component Resolved Diagnosis in Hymenoptera Anaphylaxis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hymenoptera anaphylaxis is one of the leading causes of severe allergic reactions and can be fatal. Venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT) can prevent a life-threatening reaction; however, confirmation of an allergy to a Hymenoptera venom is a prerequisite before starting such a treatment. Component resolved diagnostics (CRD) have helped to better identify the responsible allergen. RECENT FINDINGS: Many new insect venom allergens have been identified within the last few years. Commercially available recombinant allergens offer new diagnostic tools for detecting sensitivity to insect venoms. Additional added sensitivity to nearly 95% was introduced by spiking yellow jacket venom (YJV) extract with Ves v 5. The further value of CRD for sensitivity in YJV and honey bee venom (HBV) allergy is more controversially discussed. Recombinant allergens devoid of cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants often help to identify the culprit venom in patients with double sensitivity to YJV and HBV. CRD identified a group of patients with predominant Api m 10 sensitization, which may be less well protected by VIT, as some treatment extracts are lacking this allergen. The diagnostic gap of previously undetected Hymenoptera allergy has been decreased via production of recombinant allergens. Knowledge of analogies in interspecies proteins and cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants is necessary to distinguish relevant from irrelevant sensitizations.

Is drug allergy less prevalent than previously assumed? A 5-year analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rashes are a frequent conundrum in clinical practice as they may be reactive, drug induced or disease specific. Identification of the culprit drug is important as re-exposure may be harmful or even life-threatening and unnecessary avoidance of 'innocent' drugs leads to limitations of treatment options. OBJECTIVE: To objectify the cause of suspected cutaneous drug reactions in a large patient population. METHOD: Over 5years (2006-10), 612 patients with suspected cutaneous drug reactions were evaluated. Histology was assessed. About 200 patients were invited for complete work-up with skin tests (prick/intracutaneous testing and scratch/patch as indicated) and, if necessary, lymphocyte transformation tests (LTT). In special cases, drug provocation tests were conducted. RESULTS: A total number of 141 cases with suspected drug reaction underwent full work-up (age 6-86years; 75% female, 25% male). In 107 cases (76%) a drug was identified whereas 34 (24%) were reactive rashes or had other causes. Mostly, cutaneous drug reactions were maculopapular rashes, urticaria/angio-oedema; less frequently, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, systemic drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema, toxic epidermal necrolysis and fixed drug eruptions were present. Of all the cutaneous drug reactions investigated, 39·8% were caused by antibiotics, 21·2% by anti-inflammatories, 7·6% by contrast media and 31·4% by others (oral antidiabetics, antimycotics, antipsychotics, antiepileptics and others). CONCLUSION: Clinical assessment overestimates the role of drug allergies in cutaneous reactions. Assessment of suspected drug reactions can be greatly improved by thorough evaluation including dermatological and allergological work-up with skin testing and assays such as LTT.