Simon Tischler, Axel Trautmann, Matthias Goebeler, Johanna Stoevesandt
{"title":"蜜蜂/蛛毒特异性 IgE 比率≥5:1 表示双重过敏患者的罪魁祸首是昆虫。","authors":"Simon Tischler, Axel Trautmann, Matthias Goebeler, Johanna Stoevesandt","doi":"10.1016/j.jaip.2024.10.029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Venom-allergic patients are frequently double-sensitized to honeybee venom (BV) and Vespula venom (VV); genuine double allergy is uncommon.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess if quantitative comparison of BV and VV-specific IgE levels permits to identify the culprit venom in double-sensitized patients; to evaluate whether independent sensitization to BV- and VV-specific components corresponds to an indication for double immunotherapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single centre observational study evaluates 1069 consecutive patients; 490 non-allergic controls were available for statistical comparison. The diagnosis (BV allergy, VV allergy, double allergy) based on a comprehensive allergological work-up including patient history, IgE serology, intradermal skin test, and - if required - basophil activation testing. Quantitative allergen-specific IgE to BV, VV, rApi m 1, rVes v 5 was retrospectively compared with the final diagnosis; the ratio of BV/VV-specific IgE levels was considered in double-sensitized venom-allergic patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sensitization to whole venom preparations and components was frequent in patients and asymptomatic controls, with higher specific IgE levels in the patient group. An at least 5:1-dominance of the specific IgE to either BV or VV was documented in 239 (52.1 %) of 459 double-sensitized venom-allergic patients; 232 (97.1%) of these patients were diagnosed mono-allergic to only the venom they were dominantly sensitized to.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Five:1-dominant specific IgE indicates the culprit venom in double-sensitized allergic patients. Additional component-resolved diagnostic testing can be restricted to cases with double sensitization to whole venoms at a ratio less than 5:1. Double sensitization to rApi m 1 and rVes v 5 per se does not justify double venom immunotherapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":51323,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bee/Vespula venom-specific IgE ratio ≥5:1 indicates culprit insect in double-sensitized patients.\",\"authors\":\"Simon Tischler, Axel Trautmann, Matthias Goebeler, Johanna Stoevesandt\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jaip.2024.10.029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Venom-allergic patients are frequently double-sensitized to honeybee venom (BV) and Vespula venom (VV); genuine double allergy is uncommon.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess if quantitative comparison of BV and VV-specific IgE levels permits to identify the culprit venom in double-sensitized patients; to evaluate whether independent sensitization to BV- and VV-specific components corresponds to an indication for double immunotherapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single centre observational study evaluates 1069 consecutive patients; 490 non-allergic controls were available for statistical comparison. The diagnosis (BV allergy, VV allergy, double allergy) based on a comprehensive allergological work-up including patient history, IgE serology, intradermal skin test, and - if required - basophil activation testing. Quantitative allergen-specific IgE to BV, VV, rApi m 1, rVes v 5 was retrospectively compared with the final diagnosis; the ratio of BV/VV-specific IgE levels was considered in double-sensitized venom-allergic patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sensitization to whole venom preparations and components was frequent in patients and asymptomatic controls, with higher specific IgE levels in the patient group. An at least 5:1-dominance of the specific IgE to either BV or VV was documented in 239 (52.1 %) of 459 double-sensitized venom-allergic patients; 232 (97.1%) of these patients were diagnosed mono-allergic to only the venom they were dominantly sensitized to.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Five:1-dominant specific IgE indicates the culprit venom in double-sensitized allergic patients. Additional component-resolved diagnostic testing can be restricted to cases with double sensitization to whole venoms at a ratio less than 5:1. Double sensitization to rApi m 1 and rVes v 5 per se does not justify double venom immunotherapy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2024.10.029\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2024.10.029","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Bee/Vespula venom-specific IgE ratio ≥5:1 indicates culprit insect in double-sensitized patients.
Background: Venom-allergic patients are frequently double-sensitized to honeybee venom (BV) and Vespula venom (VV); genuine double allergy is uncommon.
Objectives: To assess if quantitative comparison of BV and VV-specific IgE levels permits to identify the culprit venom in double-sensitized patients; to evaluate whether independent sensitization to BV- and VV-specific components corresponds to an indication for double immunotherapy.
Methods: This single centre observational study evaluates 1069 consecutive patients; 490 non-allergic controls were available for statistical comparison. The diagnosis (BV allergy, VV allergy, double allergy) based on a comprehensive allergological work-up including patient history, IgE serology, intradermal skin test, and - if required - basophil activation testing. Quantitative allergen-specific IgE to BV, VV, rApi m 1, rVes v 5 was retrospectively compared with the final diagnosis; the ratio of BV/VV-specific IgE levels was considered in double-sensitized venom-allergic patients.
Results: Sensitization to whole venom preparations and components was frequent in patients and asymptomatic controls, with higher specific IgE levels in the patient group. An at least 5:1-dominance of the specific IgE to either BV or VV was documented in 239 (52.1 %) of 459 double-sensitized venom-allergic patients; 232 (97.1%) of these patients were diagnosed mono-allergic to only the venom they were dominantly sensitized to.
Conclusions: Five:1-dominant specific IgE indicates the culprit venom in double-sensitized allergic patients. Additional component-resolved diagnostic testing can be restricted to cases with double sensitization to whole venoms at a ratio less than 5:1. Double sensitization to rApi m 1 and rVes v 5 per se does not justify double venom immunotherapy.
期刊介绍：
JACI: In Practice is an official publication of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI). It is a companion title to The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and it aims to provide timely clinical papers, case reports, and management recommendations to clinical allergists and other physicians dealing with allergic and immunologic diseases in their practice. The mission of JACI: In Practice is to offer valid and impactful information that supports evidence-based clinical decisions in the diagnosis and management of asthma, allergies, immunologic conditions, and related diseases.
This journal publishes articles on various conditions treated by allergist-immunologists, including food allergy, respiratory disorders (such as asthma, rhinitis, nasal polyps, sinusitis, cough, ABPA, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis), drug allergy, insect sting allergy, anaphylaxis, dermatologic disorders (such as atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, urticaria, angioedema, and HAE), immunodeficiency, autoinflammatory syndromes, eosinophilic disorders, and mast cell disorders.
The focus of the journal is on providing cutting-edge clinical information that practitioners can use in their everyday practice or to acquire new knowledge and skills for the benefit of their patients. However, mechanistic or translational studies without immediate or near future clinical relevance, as well as animal studies, are not within the scope of the journal.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
