A Retrospective Study of a Novel 3-Session Rush Venom Immunotherapy Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Venom-immunotherapy (VIT) is an effective treatment for life-threatening stinging-insect hypersensitivity. Rush VIT protocols allow patients to reach maintenance dosing faster, thereby conferring protection sooner. The published protocols vary in dosing regimens, monitoring parameters, and safety profiles. OBJECTIVE: We describe a novel 3-session outpatient rush VIT protocol with full therapeutic dosing achieved at the end of session 3. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients treated with rush VIT in an outpatient university allergy/immunology clinic. Demographic and clinical data, including the type of sting reaction, the number of venom allergens, and any systemic reactions (SR) during VIT were analyzed. RESULTS: Over a 14-year-period, 55 patients (28 females, 27 males) with a median age of 47 years underwent our VIT protocol. Forty-six patients (84%) tolerated the procedure without SR and 53 (96%) attained full maintenance dosing. All reactions during rush were World Health Organization grade 1 or 2. While the most common venom allergy was yellow jacket, most patients had multiple venom allergies and received therapy with more than 1 venom. Furthermore, ten patients were re-stung while on maintenance with only one patient having a mild SR. CONCLUSION: Our 3-session outpatient rush VIT protocol is effective and safe. The majority of patients had no SR and attained maintenance dosing. In comparison with other 3-session rush protocols, our protocol required non-invasive monitoring and patients achieved monthly maintenance dosing immediately upon completion.

Should patients with a large local reaction be offered VIT? A Pro-Con debate.

Insect stings can cause large local reactions (LLRs) that are IgE-mediated and associated with considerable morbidity. A risk for systemic reactions including anaphylaxis to subsequent stings has been reported and is often noted by patients and health care providers. Guidelines do not recommend venom immunotherapy (VIT) for LLR based on the relatively low risk of anaphylaxis, but this is debated in this review. On the Pro side: the risk of anaphylaxis may be higher than reported in the limited literature, especially in patients who had only 1 LLR; new species with more potent stings are spreading into new areas; the quality of life can be markedly impaired by LLR; VIT is generally safe and highly effective. On the Con side: LLR are benign; stings occur infrequently; VIT has significant cost; systemic reactions occur more often to VIT than to stings in patients with LLR; FDA approval and published guidelines do not recommend VIT for LLR. In practice, shared decision-making is appropriate to incorporate knowledge of the natural history and known high-risk factors in the context of the patient's personal values and preferences.

A patient suffered a second myocardial infarction after a bee sting: a case report.

A few cases have shown that bee stings can be linked to coronary stent thrombosis. However, instances of recurrent myocardial infarction resulting from bee stings among patients who have successfully undergone revascularization treatment are rare. This case report describes a man in his early 60s who experienced an acute myocardial infarction. The left anterior descending coronary artery was revascularized by a drug-eluting stent. Just 1 week later, the patient experienced a second acute myocardial infarction and it occurred immediately after a bee sting. Angiography revealed stent thrombosis so thrombus aspiration was performed. Subsequently, the blood flow in the stent was unobstructed. Follow-up coronary angiography 1 year later revealed no signs of restenosis within the stent. Hymenoptera venoms contains thrombogenic substances that might lead to acute stent thrombosis.

Elderly Patients and Insect Venom Allergy: Are the Clinical Pictures and Immunological Parameters of Venom Allergy Age-Dependent?

Insect venom is one of the most common triggers of anaphylaxis in the elderly population. Venom immunotherapy (VIT) remains the only treatment for Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA). However, little is known about the differences in indication for VIT in the group of patients aged 60 years and older. The objective of this study was to assess the clinical and diagnostic differences of HVA in elderly patients. The study compared data from patients aged ≥ 60 (N = 132) to data from patients aged from 11 to 60 years (N = 750) in terms of HVA severity, comorbidities, and immunological parameters, namely, intradermal testing (IDT), specific IgE (sIgE) levels against extracts and major allergenic molecules, and serum tryptase level (sBT). The severity of systemic HVA (I-IV Müller scale) did not differ between adults and seniors. However, the severity of cardiovascular reactions (IV) increased with age, while the frequency of respiratory reactions (III) decreased. No differences were found in the immunological parameters of sensitization IDT, venom-specific IgE concentrations, or sIgE against Api m 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10 between patients below and above 60 or 65 years of age. Differences were noted for sIgE against Ves v1 and Ves v5; they were higher and lower, respectively, in seniors. In the seniors group, sBT levels were higher. Elevated tryptase levels, along with the aging process, can represent a risk factor within this age category. Nevertheless, advanced age does not influence the immunological parameters of immediate HVA reactions, nor does it impact the diagnosis of HVA.

Blood Transcriptomics Identifies Multiple Gene Expression Pathways Associated with the Clinical Efficacy of Hymenoptera Venom Immunotherapy.

Allergen-specific venom immunotherapy (VIT) is a well-established therapy for Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA). However, the precise mechanism underlying its clinical effect remains uncertain. Our study aimed to identify the molecular mechanisms associated with VIT efficiency. We prospectively included 19 patients with HVA undergoing VIT (sampled before the beginning of VIT, after reaching the maintenance dose, one year after finishing VIT, and after a sting challenge) and 9 healthy controls. RNA sequencing of whole blood was performed on an Illumina sequencing platform. Longitudinal transcriptomic profiling revealed the importance of the inhibition of the NFκB pathway and the downregulation of DUX4 transcripts for the early protection and induction of tolerance after finishing VIT. Furthermore, successful treatment was associated with inhibiting Th2, Th17, and macrophage alternative signalling pathways in synergy with the inhibition of the PPAR pathway and further silencing of the Th2 response. The immune system became activated when reaching the maintenance dose and was suppressed after finishing VIT. Finally, successful VIT restores the immune system's balance to a state similar to that of healthy individuals. Our results underline the important role of the inhibition of four pathways in the clinical effect of VIT: Th2, Th17, NFκB, and macrophage signalling. Two biomarkers specific for successful VIT, regardless of the time of sampling, were C4BPA and RPS10-NUDT3 and should be further tested as potential biomarkers.

Comparative study of the commonly used protein quantitation assays on different Hymenoptera venoms: A fundamental aspect of Hymenoptera venom proteome analysis.

Determination of protein concentration in Hymenoptera venoms requires an accurate and reproducible assay as the results will be used to support subsequent proteomic techniques employed in their analyses. However, all protein assay techniques have inherent strengths and weaknesses, demanding their assessment before selecting the most suitable platform for sample analysis. In this study, protein profiles of ant, honeybee, and wasp venoms, and bovine serum albumin (BSA) and hyaluronidase standards were qualitatively assessed using sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE). Their amino acid and protein concentration were quantitatively determined via Amino Acid Analysis (AAA). Amino acid concentration was determined via hydrolysis, derivatization, and chromatographic quantification. Protein concentration was estimated using four different protein concentration assays. The ratios of protein concentration in venom samples to protein standards were calculated, and the accuracy of the protein concentration assays was analysed relative to the concentration determined from AAA. SDS-PAGE analysis showed that BSA contained several protein bands, while hyaluronidase contained a mixture of peptide and protein bands. Ant and honeybee venoms contained a higher proportion of peptide bands, while wasp venom contained more protein bands. As determined by AAA, the ratio of protein concentration in Hymenoptera venoms varied between 1.01 and 1.11 to BSA, and between 0.96 and 1.06 to hyaluronidase. Overall, the Bradford assay was found to be the least accurate and the BCA assay was the most accurate in estimating protein concentration in Hymenoptera venoms. There was no significant advantage in using hyaluronidase as a standard or increasing incubation temperature of BCA assay when analysing Hymenoptera venoms. Diluent solutions containing phenol and human serum albumin interfered with Lowry-based assays.

A Quality-of-life Study in Patients with Anaphylaxis to Hymenoptera Venom in Iran.

Little is known about the quality of life of patients with anaphylaxis to Hymenoptera venom. The Vespid Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire (VQLQ) is commonly used to assess the psychological burden of this condition. This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Persian version of VQLQ. In this cross-sectional study, VQLQ was translated into Persian according to expert recommendations.  The final translated version of VQLQ was then administered to 115 patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy at an asthma and allergy clinic in Iran. More than half of the participants were between 20 and 40 years of age, and 60% were male. Fear, anxiety, and outdoor activities had the most significant impact on the quality of life of patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy. Additionally, quality of life was more affected in women than in men, while no correlation was found with age. Furthermore, the quality of life was affected by a history of acute anaphylactic shock due to Hymenoptera venom. The Persian version of VQLQ enables the measurement of quality of life in patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy in the Iranian population. The inclusion of VQLQ in the initial evaluation of these patients may potentially guide allergist in providing support for venom-specific immunotherapy.

LAD2 mast cell activation test associates with the reaction severity and diagnoses BAT nonresponders in Hymenoptera venom allergy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The usefulness of the mast cell activation test (MAT) in diagnosing patients with uninterpretable basophil activation test (BAT) caused by nonresponding basophils has not yet been addressed. It should be further evaluated if the results of MAT are associated with the severity of the allergic reaction. METHODS: We recruited 39 Hymenoptera venom allergic (HVA) patients, 22 non-sensitized controls, and 37 BAT nonresponding HVA patients. Specific IgE levels for honey bee venom (HBV), yellow jacket venom (YJV) and total IgEs were quantified using the Immulite system. BAT and MAT with LAD2 cells in response to HBV and YJV were performed. RESULTS: We first optimized the susceptibility of LAD2 cells to IgE-mediated degranulation in HVA and showed that prestimulation with IL-33 and IL-6 significantly increased the LAD2 cells´ responsiveness to allergen stimulation (P<0.01). LAD2 MAT results correlated with BAT results, and patients with severe sting reactions (Mueller grades IV or III) had a median 2-fold higher LAD2 MAT than the patients with nonsevere sting reactions (Mueller grades II, I or LLR) (P<0.05). Further, LAD2 MAT provided conclusive results in 54.1% (20 of 37) of HVA patients with nonresponding basophils in the BAT. CONCLUSION: The LAD2 MAT represents a new diagnostic tool for HVA patients with nonresponding basophils. Further, LAD2 MAT can identify patients at risk of severe sting reactions and thus can help guide recommendations for venom immunotherapy and improve the management of patients with HVA.

Fatal Hymenoptera Venom-Triggered Anaphylaxis in Patients with Unrecognized Clonal Mast Cell Disorder-Is Mastocytosis to Blame?

Hymenoptera venom-triggered anaphylaxis (HVA) affects up to 8.9% of the general population and is the most frequent cause of anaphylaxis in adults, accounting for approximately 20% of all fatal anaphylaxis cases. Quite often, a fatal reaction is a victim's first manifestation of HVA. Mastocytosis represents one of the most important risk factors for severe HVA. We analyzed patients with documented fatal HVA for the presence of underlying clonal mast cell disorder (cMCD). Here, we report three cases of fatal HVA, with undiagnosed underlying cMCD identified by the presence of the peripheral blood and/or bone marrow KIT p.D816V missense variant postmortem. In the first case, anaphylaxis was the initial episode and was fatal. In the other two cases, both patients were treated with specific venom immunotherapy (VIT), nevertheless, one died of HVA after VIT discontinuation, and the other during VIT; both patients had cardiovascular comorbidities and were taking beta-blockers and/or ACE inhibitors. Our results point to the importance of screening all high-risk individuals for underlying cMCD using highly sensitive molecular methods for peripheral blood KIT p.D816V variant detection, including severe HVA and possibly beekeepers, for proper management and the need for lifelong VIT to prevent unnecessary deaths. Patients at the highest risk of fatal HVA, with concomitant cardiovascular and cMCD comorbidities, might not be protected from field stings even during regular VIT. Therefore, two adrenaline autoinjectors and lifelong VIT, and possibly cotreatment with omalizumab, should be considered for high-risk patients to prevent fatal HVA episodes.

Prevalent bee venom genes evolved before the aculeate stinger and eusociality.

BACKGROUND: Venoms, which have evolved numerous times in animals, are ideal models of convergent trait evolution. However, detailed genomic studies of toxin-encoding genes exist for only a few animal groups. The hyper-diverse hymenopteran insects are the most speciose venomous clade, but investigation of the origin of their venom genes has been largely neglected. RESULTS: Utilizing a combination of genomic and proteo-transcriptomic data, we investigated the origin of 11 toxin genes in 29 published and 3 new hymenopteran genomes and compiled an up-to-date list of prevalent bee venom proteins. Observed patterns indicate that bee venom genes predominantly originate through single gene co-option with gene duplication contributing to subsequent diversification. CONCLUSIONS: Most Hymenoptera venom genes are shared by all members of the clade and only melittin and the new venom protein family anthophilin1 appear unique to the bee lineage. Most venom proteins thus predate the mega-radiation of hymenopterans and the evolution of the aculeate stinger.

Revealing clinically relevant specific IgE sensitization patterns in Hymenoptera venom allergy with dimension reduction and clustering.

Background: Immunoglobulin E (IgE) blood tests are used to detect sensitizations and potential allergies. Recent studies suggest that specific IgE sensitization patterns due to molecular interactions affect an individual's risk of developing allergic symptoms. Objective: The aim of this study was to reveal specific IgE sensitization patterns and investigate their clinical implications in Hymenoptera venom allergy. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 257 hunters or fishers with self-filled surveys on previous Hymenoptera stings were analyzed. Blood samples were taken to determine Hymenoptera IgE sensitization levels. Using dimensionality reduction and clustering, specific IgE for 10 Hymenoptera venom allergens were evaluated for clinical relevance. Results: Three clusters were unmasked using novel dimensionality reduction and clustering methods solely based on specific IgE levels to Hymenoptera venom allergens. These clusters show different characteristics regarding previous systemic reactions to Hymenoptera stings. Conclusion: Our study was able to unmask non-linear sensitization patterns for specific IgE tests in Hymenoptera venom allergy. We were able to derive risk clusters for anaphylactic reactions following hymenoptera stings and pinpoint relevant allergens (rApi m 10, rVes v 1, whole bee, and wasp venom) for clustering.

Diagnosis and treatment of Hymenoptera venom allergy: S2k Guideline of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in collaboration with the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Berufs- und Umweltdermatologie e.V. (ABD), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNOKC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), German Respiratory Society (DGP), and the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI).

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 ß-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.

Recombinant antigen 5 from Polybia paulista wasp venom (Hymenoptera, Vespidae): Antigen-specific antibody production and functional profile of CD4+ T cells in the immune response.

Polybia paulista is a neotropical social wasp related to severe accidents and allergic reactions cases, including anaphylaxis, in southeastern Brazil. Antigen 5 (Poly p 5) is a major allergenic protein from its venom with potential use for component-resolved diagnostic. Therefore, the previous characterization of the immune response profile triggered by Poly p 5 should be evaluated. Recombinant Poly p 5 (rPoly p 5) was used to sensitize BALB/c mice with six weekly intradermal doses, and the specific antibody production and the functional profile of CD4+ T cells were assessed. rPoly p 5 induced the production of specific immunoglobulins (sIg) sIgE, sIgG1 and sIgG2a, which could recognize natural Poly p 5 presented in the venom of four different wasp species. rPoly p 5 stimulated in vitro the CD4+ T cells from immunized mice, which showed a significant proliferative response. These antigen-specific CD4+T cells produced IFN-γ and IL-17A cytokines and increased ROR-γT transcription factor expression. No differences between the control group and sensitized mice were found in IL-4 production and GATA-3 and T-bet expression. Interestingly, increased CD25+FoxP3+ regulatory T cells (Tregs) frequency was observed in the splenocyte cell cultures from rPoly p 5 immunized mice after the in vitro stimulation with both P. paulista venom extract and rPoly p 5. Here we showed that rPoly p 5 induces antigen-specific antibodies capable of recognizing Antigen 5 in the venom of four wasp species and modulates antigen-specific CD4+ T cells to IFN-γ production response associated with a Th17 profile in sensitized mice. These findings emphasize the potential use of rPoly p 5 as an essential source of a major wasp allergen with significant immunological properties.

Endothelial dysfunction of the cornea after exposure to sprayed venom from hornets.

PURPOSE: Ocular injuries due to Hymenoptera venom are uncommon and most injuries occur on the ocular surface. We reported two rare cases of corneal endothelial damage caused by hornet venom that was sprayed, not injected, through stinging in the eye. OBSERVATIONS: Case 1: A 57-year-old male patient was injured when a hornet sprayed venom into his left eye. He was referred to our hospital because the edoema and epithelial erosion of the cornea persisted. The patient presented with bullous keratopathy, asymmetrical iris atrophy, irreversible mydriasis, and glaucoma. His cataract progressed, and his best-corrected visual acuity was 0.03. Cataract surgery was performed after anti-inflammatory treatment with steroids, and Descemet-stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty was performed 6 months later. The patient recovered well postoperatively: his best-corrected visual acuity improved to 1.0 and he continued his glaucoma treatment. Case 2: A 75-year-old male patient had damage to his corneal epithelium, severe conjunctivitis, and conjunctival edoema when sprayed hornet venom entered his left eye. At initial presentation, the corneal endothelial cell density had decreased to 1042 cells/mm2. The conjunctival sac was washed, and steroid and topical antibacterial instillations were administered. His best-corrected visual acuity improved from 0.07 at the initial visit to 0.5. However, the corneal opacification and glaucoma persisted, and 3 months later the corneal endothelial cell density decreased to 846 cells/mm2. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPORTANCE: Corneal injuries caused by sprayed hornet venom are rare; however, they can cause intense anterior chamber inflammation and severe, irreversible corneal endothelial damage. In such cases, prompt initial treatment, the administration of adequate anti-inflammatory medication, and careful evaluation of the corneal endothelium are required.

Basophil Activation Test in Double-Sensitized Patients With Hymenoptera Venom Allergy: Additional Benefit of Component-Resolved Diagnostics.

BACKGROUND: In Hymenoptera venom allergy serologically double-sensitized patients, it is often difficult to identify the culprit insect for venom immunotherapy (VIT). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if basophil activation tests (BATs) performed not only with venom extracts but additionally with single component-resolved diagnostics could differentiate between sensitized and allergic individuals and how the test results influenced the physicians' decision regarding VIT. METHODS: BATs were performed with bee and wasp venom extracts and with single components (Api m 1, Api m 10, Ves v 1, and Ves v 5) in 31 serologically double-sensitized patients. RESULTS: In 28 finally included individuals, 9 BATs were positive and 4 negative for both venoms. Fourteen of 28 BATs showed positive results for wasp venom alone. Two of 10 BATs positive for bee venom were only positive to Api m 1 and 1 of 28 BATs only to Api m 10, but not for whole bee venom extract. Five of 23 BATs positive for wasp venom were only positive for Ves v 5 but negative for wasp venom extract and Ves v 1. Finally, VIT with both insect venoms was recommended in 4 of 28 individuals, with wasp venom alone in 21 of 28 patients and with bee venom alone in 1 of 28. In 2 cases no VIT was recommended. CONCLUSIONS: BATs with Ves v 5, followed by Api m 1 and Api m 10, were helpful for the decision for VIT with the clinically relevant insect in 8 of 28 (28.6%) patients. A BAT with components should therefore be additionally carried out in cases with equivocal results.

Stinging insect identification in children with Hymenoptera venom allergy and their parents.

Introduction: The treatment of Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) is based among others on the proper identification of the culprit insect. Aim: To assess the accuracy in identifying stinging insects by children with HVA and their parents. Material and methods: Participants were recruited from a paediatric medical centre. The data on their demographics, sting history and ability of insect identification (based on pictures) were obtained using a questionnaire. The study sample consisted of 102 children with HVA and their parents as well as 98 children without HVA and their parents. Results: The rates of subjects correctly identifying insects in the groups were 91.2%, 92.5%, 78.8%, 82.4%, respectively. When compared to children with HVA, those without HVA were less likely to correctly identify the bee, bumblebee and hoverfly. In this group, the correct identification of the wasp was more common among children living in the countryside. The correct identification of the bee and bumblebee by children without HVA was more common among children living in the city. Conclusions: Some children with HVA and their parents cannot correctly identify stinging insects despite previous life-threatening allergic reactions. The ability to identify stinging insects may depend on the HVA diagnosis and place of residence.

Segurança da vacinação contra a COVID-19 em doentes referenciados dos cuidados de saúde primários por alergia ao veneno de himenópteros / COVID-19 vaccination safety in patients with hymenoptera venom allergy referred by primary health care

Introdução: As reações de hipersensibilidade após vacinação contra a COVID-19 têm vindo a ser descritas, embora a anafilaxia seja rara. A hipersensibilidade ao veneno de himenópteros constitui a terceira causa mais frequente de anafilaxia em Portugal, embora não pareça aumentar o risco de anafilaxia à vacinação contra a COVID-19. Objetivos: Avaliar a segurança da vacinação contra a COVID-19 em doentes com história de alergia ao veneno de himenópteros referenciados dos Cuidados de Saúde Primários (CSP). Métodos: Estudo observacional retrospectivo com inclusão dos doentes com alergia ao veneno de himenópteros referenciados pelos CSP ao serviço de Imunoalergologia, para estratificação do risco de reações de hipersensibilidade à vacina contra o SARS-CoV-2, entre janeiro e dezembro de 2021. Resultados: No total, incluíram-se 18 doentes, 72% do sexo feminino, média de idades de 61±18 [21-89] anos. Na caracterização do tipo da reação ao veneno de himenópteros, as reações locais exuberantes corresponderam a 33% de todas as reações referidas. Quanto a sintomas sistêmicos de anafilaxia, foram referidos sintomas mucocutâneos (33%), respiratórios (28%), cardiovasculares (33%) e gastrointestinais (11%). A abelha foi o inseto mais frequentemente implicado (61%). Relativamente aos valores de triptase basal, 3 doentes apresentaram níveis acima do cut-off estabelecido de 11,4 ng/mL, tendo indicação formal para iniciar esquema de vacinação em meio hospitalar. Durante o processo vacinal registrou-se um total de 46 administrações em 18 doentes, todas sem intercorrências. Apenas 5 doentes foram vacinados em meio hospitalar, tendo sido os restantes encaminhados para os CSP. Os doentes com mastocitose confirmada ou suspeita foram submetidos à pré-medicação com anti-histamínico anti-H1 e anti- H2, bem como montelucaste, na véspera e no dia da vacinação. Conclusões: A vacinação contra a COVID-19 é segura em doentes com reação de hipersensibilidade ao veneno de himenópteros. O protocolo utilizado mostrou ser eficaz na segregação de doentes entre CSP e cuidados secundários/terciários.

Introduction: Despite numerous reports of hypersensitivity reactions to COVID-19 vaccination, anaphylaxis is rare. Although hypersensitivity reactions to hymenoptera venom are the third most common cause of anaphylaxis in Portugal, they don't appear to enhance the risk of anaphylactic reaction to COVID-19 vaccination. Objectives: To assess the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in patients with a history of hymenoptera venom allergy. Methods: This retrospective observational study included patients with hymenoptera venom allergy referred by primary health care to the Immunoallergology Outpatient Clinic of a tertiary hospital between January and December 2021 to stratify the risk of hypersensitivity reactions to the SARSCoV- 2 vaccine. Results: A total of 18 patients were included: 72% women; mean age 61 (SD, 18 [range 21-89]) years. One-third of all reported reactions to hymenoptera venom were large and local. Topical systemic symptoms of anaphylaxis were mucocutaneous (33%), respiratory (28%), cardiovascular (33%) and gastrointestinal (11%). The honeybee was the most frequently involved hymenoptera species (61%). The basal tryptase levels of 3 patients were above the established cut-off (11.4 ng/mL) and they were formally indicated for vaccination in a hospital setting. Concerning the vaccination process, 46 doses were administered to the 18 patients and no reactions were recorded. Only 5 patients were vaccinated in a hospital environment; the rest were referred to primary health care centers. Patients with confirmed or suspected mastocytosis were premedicated with anti-H1 and anti-H2 antihistamines, as well as montelukast, the day before and on the day of vaccination. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination is safe for patients with hypersensitivity to hymenoptera venom. The risk assessment protocol effectively designated patients to primary or secondary/tertiary health care.

Anaphylaxis and systemic mastocytosis caused by Solenopsis invicta stings / Anafilaxia e mastocitose sistêmica ocasionada pela Solenopsis invicta

Indolent systemic mastocytosis is a rare disease characterized by an increased number of mast cells in the bone marrow and other tissues, such as the liver, spleen, lymph nodes, and skin. Patients with indolent systemic mastocytosis and high serum tryptase levels are at risk for Hymenoptera venom-induced anaphylaxis. Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy in patients with specific IgE is safe and effective. While some patients can receive ultra-rush venom immunotherapy with minimal side effects, omalizumab effectively protects against anaphylaxis during the build-up phase.

A mastocitose sistêmica indolente é uma doença rara caracterizada por um número aumentado de mastócitos na medula óssea e em outros tecidos, como fígado, baço, linfonodos e pele. Pacientes com mastocitose sistêmica indolente e altos níveis séricos de triptase correm risco de anafilaxia induzida pelo veneno dos Hymenoptera. A imunoterapia com veneno de himenópteros em pacientes com IgE específica é segura e eficaz. Embora alguns pacientes possam receber imunoterapia com veneno ultrarrápido com efeitos colaterais mínimos, o omalizumabe protegeu efetivamente contra a anafilaxia durante a fase de acúmulo.