Blank Simon, Korošec Peter, Slusarenko Benjamin O, Ollert Markus, Hamilton Robert G
Center of Allergy and Environment, Technical University of Munich, School of Medicine and Health and Helmholtz Munich, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Munich, Germany.
Laboratory for Clinical Immunology and Molecular Genetics, University Clinic of Respiratory and Allergic Diseases Golnik, Golnik, Slovenia; Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2025 Jan;13(1):1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2024.07.023. Epub 2024 Aug 2.
Accurate identification of allergy-eliciting stinging insect(s) is essential to ensuring effective management of Hymenoptera venom-allergic individuals with venom-specific immunotherapy. Diagnostic testing using whole-venom extracts with skin tests and serologic-based analyses remains the first level of discrimination for honeybee versus vespid venom sensitization in patients with a positive clinical history. As a second-level evaluation, serologic testing using molecular venom allergens can further discriminate genuine sensitization (honeybee venom: Api m 1, 3, 4, and 10 vs yellow jacket venom/Polistes dominula venom Ves v 1/Pol d 1 and Ves v 5/Pol d 5) from interspecies cross-reactivity (hyaluronidases [Api m 2, Ves v 2, and Pol d 2] and dipeptidyl peptidases IV [Api m 5, Ves v 3, and Pol d 3]). Clinical laboratories use a number of singleplex, oligoplex, and multiplex immunoassays that employ both extracted whole-venom and molecular venom allergens (highlighted earlier) for confirmation of allergic venom sensitization. Established quantitative singleplex autoanalyzers have general governmental regulatory clearance worldwide for venom-allergic patient testing with maximally achievable analytical sensitivity (0.1 kU/L) and confirmed reproducibility (interassay coefficient of variation <10%). Emerging oligoplex and multiplex (fixed-panel) assays conserve on serum and are more cost-effective, but they need regulatory clearance in some countries and are prone to higher rates of detecting asymptomatic sensitization. Ultimately, the patient's clinical history, combined with proof of sensitization, is the final arbiter in the diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy.
准确识别引发过敏的蜇人昆虫对于确保采用毒液特异性免疫疗法有效管理膜翅目毒液过敏个体至关重要。使用全毒液提取物进行皮肤试验和基于血清学的分析进行诊断测试,仍然是对有阳性临床病史患者区分蜜蜂与黄蜂毒液致敏的首要鉴别方法。作为二级评估,使用分子毒液过敏原进行血清学检测可以进一步区分真正的致敏(蜜蜂毒液:Api m 1、3、4和10与黄胡蜂毒液/意大利黄蜂毒液Ves v 1/Pol d 1和Ves v 5/Pol d 5)与种间交叉反应(透明质酸酶[Api m 2、Ves v 2和Pol d 2]和二肽基肽酶IV[Api m 5、Ves v 3和Pol d 3])。临床实验室使用多种单重、寡重和多重免疫测定法,这些方法采用提取的全毒液和分子毒液过敏原(如前所述)来确认过敏性毒液致敏。既定的定量单重自动分析仪在全球范围内获得政府监管许可,用于毒液过敏患者检测,具有最大可实现的分析灵敏度(0.1 kU/L)和确认的重现性(批间变异系数<10%)。新兴的寡重和多重(固定组合)测定法节省血清且成本效益更高,但在一些国家需要监管许可,并且检测无症状致敏的比率较高。最终,患者的临床病史与致敏证据相结合,是膜翅目毒液过敏诊断的最终裁决依据。