Marcel Frick1, Jörg Fischer2, Arthur Helbling3, Franziska Ruëff4, Dorothea Wieczorek5, Markus Ollert6, Wolfgang Pfützner7, Sabine Müller8, Johannes Huss-Marp8, Britta Dorn1, Tilo Biedermann9, Jonas Lidholm10, Gerta Ruecker11, Frank Bantleon12, Michaela Miehe12, Edzard Spillner12, Thilo Jakob13. 1. Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Medical Center Gießen-Marburg, Justus Liebig University, Gießen, Germany; Allergy Research Group, Department of Dermatology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 2. Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Medical Center Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Spital Netz Bern, Allergy Unit Zieglerspital, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Ludwig-Maximilian-University Munich, Munich, Germany. 5. Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany. 6. Department of Infection and Immunity, Luxembourg Institute of Health (LIH), Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg; Department of Dermatology and Allergy Center, Odense Research Center for Anaphylaxis, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 7. Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Medical Center Gießen-Marburg, Philipps University, Marburg, Germany. 8. Allergy Research Group, Department of Dermatology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 9. Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Medical Center Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany; Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany. 10. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden. 11. Institute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 12. Department of Engineering, Aarhus University, Immunological Engineering, Aarhus, Denmark. 13. Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Medical Center Gießen-Marburg, Justus Liebig University, Gießen, Germany; Allergy Research Group, Department of Dermatology, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. Electronic address: thilo.jakob@derma.med.uni-giessen.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Component resolution recently identified distinct sensitization profiles in honey bee venom (HBV) allergy, some of which were dominated by specific IgE to Api m 3 and/or Api m 10, which have been reported to be underrepresented in therapeutic HBV preparations. OBJECTIVE: We performed a retrospective analysis of component-resolved sensitization profiles in HBV-allergic patients and association with treatment outcome. METHODS: HBV-allergic patients who had undergone controlled honey bee sting challenge after at least 6 months of HBV immunotherapy (n = 115) were included and classified as responder (n = 79) or treatment failure (n = 36) on the basis of absence or presence of systemic allergic reactions upon sting challenge. IgE reactivity to a panel of HBV allergens was analyzed in sera obtained before immunotherapy and before sting challenge. RESULTS: No differences were observed between responders and nonresponders regarding levels of IgE sensitization to Api m 1, Api m 2, Api m 3, and Api m 5. In contrast, Api m 10 specific IgE was moderately but significantly increased in nonresponders. Predominant Api m 10 sensitization (>50% of specific IgE to HBV) was the best discriminator (specificity, 95%; sensitivity, 25%) with an odds ratio of 8.444 (2.127-33.53; P = .0013) for treatment failure. Some but not all therapeutic HBV preparations displayed a lack of Api m 10, whereas Api m 1 and Api m 3 immunoreactivity was comparable to that of crude HBV. In line with this, significant Api m 10 sIgG4 induction was observed only in those patients who were treated with HBV in which Api m 10 was detectable. CONCLUSIONS: Component-resolved sensitization profiles in HBV allergy suggest predominant IgE sensitization to Api m 10 as a risk factor for treatment failure in HBV immunotherapy. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: Component resolution recently identified distinct sensitization profiles in honey bee venom (HBV) allergy, some of which were dominated by specific IgE to Api m 3 and/or Api m 10, which have been reported to be underrepresented in therapeutic HBV preparations. OBJECTIVE: We performed a retrospective analysis of component-resolved sensitization profiles in HBV-allergic patients and association with treatment outcome. METHODS: HBV-allergic patients who had undergone controlled honey bee sting challenge after at least 6 months of HBV immunotherapy (n = 115) were included and classified as responder (n = 79) or treatment failure (n = 36) on the basis of absence or presence of systemic allergic reactions upon sting challenge. IgE reactivity to a panel of HBV allergens was analyzed in sera obtained before immunotherapy and before sting challenge. RESULTS: No differences were observed between responders and nonresponders regarding levels of IgE sensitization to Api m 1, Api m 2, Api m 3, and Api m 5. In contrast, Api m 10 specific IgE was moderately but significantly increased in nonresponders. Predominant Api m 10 sensitization (>50% of specific IgE to HBV) was the best discriminator (specificity, 95%; sensitivity, 25%) with an odds ratio of 8.444 (2.127-33.53; P = .0013) for treatment failure. Some but not all therapeutic HBV preparations displayed a lack of Api m 10, whereas Api m 1 and Api m 3 immunoreactivity was comparable to that of crude HBV. In line with this, significant Api m 10 sIgG4 induction was observed only in those patients who were treated with HBV in which Api m 10 was detectable. CONCLUSIONS: Component-resolved sensitization profiles in HBV allergy suggest predominant IgE sensitization to Api m 10 as a risk factor for treatment failure in HBV immunotherapy. Copyright Â
Authors: William J Sheehan; Jonathan M Gaffin; David B Peden; Robert K Bush; Wanda Phipatanakul Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Simon Blank; Stefanie Etzold; Ulf Darsow; Maximilian Schiener; Bernadette Eberlein; Dennis Russkamp; Sara Wolf; Anke Graessel; Tilo Biedermann; Markus Ollert; Carsten B Schmidt-Weber Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Marcello Albanesi; Andrea Nico; Alessandro Sinisi; Lucia Giliberti; Maria Pia Rossi; Margherita Rossini; Georgios Kourtis; Anna Simona Rucco; Filomena Loconte; Loredana Muolo; Marco Zurlo; Danilo Di Bona; Maria Filomena Caiaffa; Luigi Macchia Journal: Clin Mol Allergy Date: 2018-01-18