Progress and challenges in the understanding of chronic urticaria

Chronic urticaria is a skin disorder characterized by transient pruritic weals that recur from day to day for 6 weeks or more. It has a great impact on patients' quality of life. In spite of this prevalence and morbidity, we are only beginning to understand its physiopathology and we do not have a curative treatment. Moreover, a patient with chronic urticaria may undergo extensive laboratory evaluations seeking a cause only to be frustrated when none is found. In recent years there have been significant advances in our understanding of some of the molecular mechanisms responsible for hive formation. The presence and probable role of IgG autoantibodies directed against epitopes expressed on the alpha-chain of the IgE receptor and to lesser extent, to IgE in a subset of patients is generally acknowledged. These autoantibodies activate complement to release C5a, which augments histamine release, and IL4 and leukotriene C4 are released as well. A perivascular cellular infiltrate results without predominance of either Th1 or Th2 lymphocyte subpopulations. Basophils of all chronic urticaria patients (autoimmune or idiopathic) are hyperresponsive to serum, regardless of source, but poorly responsive to anti IgE. In this review we will summarize the recent contributions to this field and try to provide insights to possible future directions for research on this disease

IgE allergy diagnostics and other relevant tests in allergy, a World Allergy Organization position paper

Currently, testing for immunoglobulin E (IgE) sensitization is the cornerstone of diagnostic evaluation in suspected allergic conditions. This review provides a thorough and updated critical appraisal of the most frequently used diagnostic tests, both in vivo and in vitro. It discusses skin tests, challenges, and serological and cellular in vitro tests, and provides an overview of indications, advantages and disadvantages of each in conditions such as respiratory, food, venom, drug, and occupational allergy. Skin prick testing remains the first line approach in most instances; the added value of serum specific IgE to whole allergen extracts or components, as well as the role of basophil activation tests, is evaluated. Unproven, non-validated, diagnostic tests are also discussed. Throughout the review, the reader must bear in mind the relevance of differentiating between sensitization and allergy; the latter entails not only allergic sensitization, but also clinically relevant symptoms triggered by the culprit allergen.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

IgE allergy diagnostics and other relevant tests in allergy, a World Allergy Organization position paper

Currently, testing for immunoglobulin E (IgE) sensitization is the cornerstone of diagnostic evaluation in suspected allergic conditions. This review provides a thorough and updated critical appraisal of the most frequently used diagnostic tests, both in vivo and in vitro. It discusses skin tests, challenges, and serological and cellular in vitro tests, and provides an overview of indications, advantages and disadvantages of each in conditions such as respiratory, food, venom, drug, and occupational allergy. Skin prick testing remains the first line approach in most instances; the added value of serum specific IgE to whole allergen extracts or components, as well as the role of basophil activation tests, is evaluated. Unproven, non-validated, diagnostic tests are also discussed. Throughout the review, the reader must bear in mind the relevance of differentiating between sensitization and allergy; the latter entails not only allergic sensitization, but also clinically relevant symptoms triggered by the culprit allergen

7th Drug hypersensitivity meeting: part two

No abstract availabl

Progress and challenges in the understanding of chronic urticaria

Chronic urticaria is a skin disorder characterized by transient pruritic weals that recur from day to day for 6 weeks or more. It has a great impact on patients' quality of life. In spite of this prevalence and morbidity, we are only beginning to understand its physiopathology and we do not have a curative treatment. Moreover, a patient with chronic urticaria may undergo extensive laboratory evaluations seeking a cause only to be frustrated when none is found. In recent years there have been significant advances in our understanding of some of the molecular mechanisms responsible for hive formation. The presence and probable role of IgG autoantibodies directed against epitopes expressed on the alpha-chain of the IgE receptor and to lesser extent, to IgE in a subset of patients is generally acknowledged. These autoantibodies activate complement to release C5a, which augments histamine release, and IL4 and leukotriene C4 are released as well. A perivascular cellular infiltrate results without predominance of either Th1 or Th2 lymphocyte subpopulations. Basophils of all chronic urticaria patients (autoimmune or idiopathic) are hyperresponsive to serum, regardless of source, but poorly responsive to anti IgE. In this review we will summarize the recent contributions to this field and try to provide insights to possible future directions for research on this disease

Differences in linear epitopes of Ara h 9 recognition in peanut allergic and tolerant, peach allergic patients

Background: Peanut-allergic patients from the Mediterranean region are predominantly sensitized to the lipid transfer protein (LTP) Ara h 9, and the peach LTP Pru p 3 seems to be the primary sensitizer. However, LTP sensitization in peanut allergy is not a predictive marker for clinically relevant symptoms. Objective: We aimed to identify sequential epitopes of IgE and IgG4 from Pru p 3 and Ara h 9 in peach-allergic patients sensitized to peanuts. We also sought to determine the differences in IgE and IgG4 binding between patients who had developed peanut allergy and those tolerating peanuts. Methods: A total of 46 peach-allergic patients sensitized to peanuts were selected. A total of 35 patients were allergic to peanuts (peanut-allergic group) and 11 were tolerant to peanuts (peanut-tolerant group). We measured sIgE and sIgG4 in peanut, peach, and their recombinant allergen (Ara h 1, Ara h 2, Ara h 3, Ara h 8, and Ara h 9) with fluorescence enzyme immunoassay. We examined the IgE and IgG4 binding to sequential epitopes using a peptide microarray corresponding to linear sequences of the LTPs Ara h 9 and Pru p 3 with a library of overlapping peptides with a length of 20 amino acids (aa) and an offset of 3 aa. Results: The frequency and the intensity of IgE recognition of Ara h 9 and Pru p 3 peptides were higher in the peanut-tolerant group than in the peanut-allergic group. We found four Ara h 9 peptides (p4, p14, p21, and p25) and four Pru p 3 peptides (p1, p3, p21, and p24) with a significantly elevated IgE recognition in peanut-tolerant patients. Only one peptide of Ara h 9 (p4) recognized by IgG4 was significantly elevated in the peanut-tolerant group. The IgG4/IgE ratio of Ara h 9 peptide 4 was significantly higher in peanut-tolerant patients than in peanut-allergic patients, while no significant differences were observed in the IgG4/IgE ratio of this peptide in Pru p 3. Conclusion: Although we found significant differences in IgE and IgG4 recognition of Ara h 9 and Pru p 3 between peanut-tolerant and peanut-allergic patients (all of whom were allergic to peach), polyclonal IgE peptide recognition of both LTPs was observed in peach-allergic patients tolerating peanuts. However, the IgG4 blocking antibodies against Ara h 9 peptide 4 could provide an explanation for the absence of clinical reactivity in peanut-tolerant peach-allergic patients. Further studies are needed to validate the usefulness of IgG4 antibodies against Ara h 9 peptide 4 for peanut allergy diagnosis

Erratum to 'IgE allergy diagnostics and other relevant tests in allergy, a World Allergy Organization position paper' [World Allergy Organ J 13/2 (2020) 100080]

The publisher regrets we have been made aware of the below errors: 1) In Table 15, row NOVEOS chemiluminescent assay is written “utilizes 40 μL (0.04 ml) of sample per result”. The correct value would be “4 μL (0.004 ml)" of sample per result.2) In Table 16, is written “NOVEOS menu has 79 available allergens, consisting of 69 extracts and 10 molecular allergens”. It should say “NOVEOS menu continues to increase and it has 152 total allergens with 108 extracts and 44 components".3) In Table 15, row “Euroimmun”, column “Patient's serum”, is written “1000 ml”. The correct value would be “0.1 ml (-0.4 ml)”.The publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.</p