Contribution of molecular diagnosis to bee venom allergic patients with systemic reactions during the build-up phase of bee venom immunotherapy
Contribuição do diagnóstico molecular em doentes alérgicos ao veneno de abelha com reações sistêmicas durante o ultra-rush
Tatiana Lourenço; Mara Fernandes; Anabela Lopes; Elisa Pedro; Manuel Pereira Barbosa; M. Conceição Pereira Santos
Abstract
Introduction: Bee venom (BV) allergy is one of the most common causes of severe anaphylaxis. Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is considered the most effective treatment, but systemic reactions may occur. This study aimed to characterize the sensitization profile by molecular components of patients with BV anaphylaxis under VIT and to evaluate whether systemic reactions during the build-up phase of VIT protocol are related to different sensitization patterns. Methods: A retrospective study of 30 patients under VIT for 1 year. The group of patients who reacted during the build-up phase (group A) was compared with the group with no reactions (group B). Specific IgE (sIgE) and IgG4 (sIgG4) for BV and recombinants (rApi m1, rApi m2, rApi m3, rApi m5, and rApi m10) were evaluated before and 1 year after VIT. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism v5.01. Results: Men accounted for 80% of the sample, and mean age was 47 years (14-74 years). Group A consisted of 10 patients, and group B of 20 patients. Before VIT, sIgE to rApi m1 was detected in 86.7% of patients, rApi m2 in 46.7%, rApi m3 in 16.7%, rApi m5 in 43.3%, and rApi m10 in 70%. Positive results to at least 1 BV allergen were detected in 100%; 73% of patients were sensitized to >1 allergen, and 13.3% to all allergens. The profile of the two groups did not differ significantly before VIT, but group B showed a significant decrease in whole BV extract (p=0.045), rApi m 3 (p=0.017), and rApi m 10 (p=0.021) 1 year after VIT. Regarding sIgG4, there was a significant increase in rApi m1, which was not observed in other allergens, such as rApi m3 and rApi m10. Conclusion: The analysis of a panel of BV recombinants can improve diagnostic sensitivity, when compared to rApi m1 alone. There was no association between systemic reactions during the build-up phase of VIT and molecular sensitization profile. Nevertheless, it is important to study a greater number of patients.
Keywords
Resumo
Introdução: A alergia ao veneno de abelha (VA) é uma das causas mais comuns de anafilaxia grave. A imunoterapia com veneno de abelha (VIT) é considerada o tratamento mais eficaz, mas reações sistêmicas podem ocorrer. O objetivo deste estudo foi caracterizar o perfil de sensibilização por componentes moleculares de doentes com anafilaxia a VA e avaliar se reações sistêmicas durante o ultrarush estão relacionadas com diferentes padrões de sensibilização. Métodos: Estudo retrospectivo incluindo 30 doentes submetidos a VIT durante 1 ano. Considerou-se dois grupos: grupo de doentes que reagiu durante o ultra-rush (Grupo A), que foi comparado com o grupo sem reação (Grupo B). Foram avaliadas as IgE (sIgE) e IgG4 (sIgG4) específicas para VA(i1) e componentes moleculares: rApi m1, rApi m2, rApi m3, rApi m5 e rApi m10 antes e 1 ano após VIT. Os testes estatísticos foram realizados com Graph-PadPrism v5.01. Resultados: 80% sexo masculino, média de idade 47 anos (14-74). Grupo A com 10 doentes, Grupo B com 20 doentes. Previamente à VIT, sIgE para rApi m1 foi detectada em 86,7%; rApi m2 em 46,7%; rApi m3 em 16,7%; rApi m5 em 43,3%; e rApi m10 em 70%. Resultados positivos para pelo menos um alergênio de VA foram detectados em 100%. 73% dos doentes eram sensibilizados a mais de um alergênio, e 13,3% a todos os alergênios. Não houve diferenças estatisticamente significativas no perfil dos dois grupos antes da VIT, porém verificouse uma diminuição significativa: p = 0,045; p = 0,017 e p = 0,021 de i1, rApi m3 e rApi m10, respectivamente, no grupo B um ano após VIT. Relativamente à sIgG4, observou-se um aumento significativo de rApi m1, não observado nos restantes alergênios como rApi m3 e rApi m10. Conclusão: A análise de um painel de recombinantes de VA pode melhorar a sensibilidade diagnóstica, quando comparado com rApi m1 isolado. Não se verificou associação entre a ocorrência de reações sistêmicas durante o ultra-rush e o perfil de sensibilização molecular. No entanto, é importante para estudar um maior número de doentes.
Palavras-chave
Referências
1. Sturm GJ, Varga EM, Roberts G, Mosbech H, Bilo MB, Akdis CA, et al. EAACI Guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: Hymenoptera venom allergy. Allergy. 2018;73(4):744-64.
2. Golden DB. Anaphylaxis to insect stings. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2015;35(2):287-302.
3. Müller UR. Bee venom allergy in beekeepers and their family members. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;5(4):343-7.
4. Clark S, Camargo CA Jr. Epidemiology of anaphylaxis. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2007;27(2):145-63.
5. Liew WK, Williamson E, Tang ML. Anaphylaxis fatalities and admissions in Australia. J Allergy Clin Immunology. 2009;123(2):434‑42.
6. Jakob T, Rafei-Shamsabadi D, Spillner E, Müller S. Diagnostics in hymenoptera venom allergy: current concepts and developments with special focus on molecular allergy diagnostics. Allergo J Int. 2017;26:93-105.
7. Bozek A, Koodziejczyk K. Safety of specific immunotherapy using an ultra-rush induction regimen in bee and wasp allergy. Human vaccine & immunotherapeutics. 2018;14(2):288-91.
8. Martignago I, Incorvaia C, Ridolo M. Preventive actions of allergen immunotherapy: the facts and the effects in search of evidence. Clin Mol Allergy. 2017;15:13.
9. Boyle RJ, Elremeli M, Hockenhull J, Cherry MG, Bulsara MK, Daniels M, et al. Venom immunotherapy for preventing allergic reactions to insect stings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 10:CD008838.
10. Sastre J, Rodríguez F, Campo P, Laffond E, Marín A, Alonso MD. Adverse reactions to immunotherapy are associated to different pattern of sensitization to grass allergens. Allergy. 2015;70(5):598‑600.
11. Mueller HL. Diagnosis and treatment of insect sensitivity. J Asthma Res. 1966;3(4):331-3.
12. Birnbaum J, Ramadour M, Magnan A, Vervloet D. Hymenoptera ultra-rush venom immunotherapy (210 min): a safety study and risk factors. Clin Exp Allergy. 2003;33(1):58-64.
13. Köhler J, Blank S, Müller S, Bantleon F, Frick M, Huss-Marp J, et al. Component resolution reveals additional major allergens in patients with honeybee venom allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunology. 2014;133(5):1383-9.
14. Sobotka AK, Franklin RM, Adkinson NF, Valentine MD, Bear H, Lichtenstein LM. Allergy to insect stings. II. Phospholipase A: the major allergen in honeybee venom. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1976;57:29-40.
15. Ruiz B, Serrano P, Moreno C. IgE-Api m4 is useful for identifying a particular phenotype of bee venom allergy. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2016;26(6):355-61.
16. Sobotka AK, Franklin RM, Adkinson NF, Valentine MD, Bear H, Lichtenstein LM. Allergy to insect stings. II. Phospholipase A: the major allergen in honeybee venom. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1976;57:29-40.
17. Jakob T, Müller U, Helbling A, Spillner E. Component resolved diagnostics for hymenoptera venom allergy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;17(5):363-72.
18. Gattinger P, Lupinek C, Kalogiros L, Silar M, Zidarn M, Korosec P, et al. The culprit insect but not severity of allergic reactions to bee and wasp venom can be determined by molecular diagnosis. PLoS One. 2018;13(6).
19. Guan K, Li LS, Yin J. Use of sIgE/T‑IgE in Predicting Systemic Reactions: Retrospective Analysis of 54 Honeybee Venom Allergy Cases in North China. Chin Med J. 2016;129:2091‑5.
20. Ruiz B, Serrano P, Verdú M, Moreno. Sensitization to Api m1, Api m2, and Api m4: association with safety of bee venom immunotherapy [Letter]. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;114:350-2.
21. Ruiz B, Serrano P, Moreno C. IgE- Api m4 is useful for identifying a particular phenotype of bee venom allergy. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2016;26(6):355-61.
22. Korošec P, Žiberna K, Šilar M, Dežman M, Čelesnik Smodiš N, Rijavec M, et al. Immunological and clinical factors associated with adverse systemic reactions during the build-up phase of honeybee venom immunotherapy. Clinical et Experimental Allergy. 2015;45:1579‑89.
23. Frick M, Fischer J, Helbling A, Ruëff F, Wieczorek D, Ollert M, et al. Predominant Api m 10 sensitization as risk factor for treatment failure in honey bee venom immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;13(6):1663-71.
Submetido em:
22/11/2019
Aceito em:
22/12/2019
Facebook
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Email