BACKGROUND: Stings by insects can precipitate many signs and symptoms of dermatological and ocular diseases. Of particular importance is the anaphylaxis after Hymenoptera stings. Selection of the appropriate venom for immunotherapy requires a precise diagnosis, which is frequently difficult to confirm since the history presented by the patient is many times not conclusive and diagnostic tests are often positive for bee venom (BV) and vespula venom (VV). This double positivity is either caused by true double sensitization or by antibodies cross-reactive to homologous peptide sequences or to cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs). In this study, we analyzed in 39 patients, tested positive for specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) against BV and VV and CCDs whether the routine detection of sIgE against the recombinant species-specific major allergens (SSMAs) rApi m1 and rVes v5 enables the discrimination between genuine double sensitization and cross reactivity and therefore may be superior to other in vitro assays such as IgE-inhibition test or the basophil activation test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients each with allergic reactions to vespula and/or honey bee stings and tested positive for sIgE antibodies against CCDs were analyzed for sIgE against BV, VV, CCDs (MUFX3) and SSMAs by UNICAP (CAP) and to BV, VV, bromelain, horseradish peroxidase and ascorbat oxidase by Immulite 2000 (IMMU). In 12 cases results from a basophil activation test, in nine cases results from IgE-inhibition assays and in 10 cases an unambiguous history of the patient were taken into consideration. RESULTS: A definite diagnosis could be assigned to each patient: sensitization to BV n = 7, sensitization to VV n = 29 and true double sensitization to both venoms n = 3. Detection of sIgE against BV and VV by CAP leads in three cases to the diagnosis BV allergy, in 35 cases to the diagnosis double sensitization and in one case to the diagnosis VV allergy. Detection of sIgE against BV and VV by IMMU leads in five cases to the diagnosis BV allergy, in 27 cases to the diagnosis double sensitization and in seven cases to the diagnosis VV allergy. Detection of sIgE against rApi m1 and rVes v5 by CAP leads in six cases to the diagnosis BV allergy, in eight cases to the diagnosis double sensitization, in 21 cases to the diagnosis VV allergy and in four cases to a false double-nagative result implicating no allergy. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Detection of sIgE to rApi m 1 and rVes v 5 by CAP is the most reliable diagnostic procedure to discriminate between true double sensitization and cross reactivity in patients with double-positive IgE results to venom extracts in the presence of sIgE against CCDs. In this study, however, we demonstrate that in nine of 39 patients tested positive for sIgE against CCDs, even the allergen component based diagnostic produces false double-positive and also false double-negative test results. Thus, we conclude that especially in hard to diagnose CCD positive patients beside the detection of sIgE, in vitro assays such as the IgE-inhibition test or the basophil activation test are still of importance. Detection of sIgE against only two SSMAs is not sufficient for a precise diagnosis. We propose inclusion of further SSMAs in diagnostic procedures.