Statement
Practical recommendations for the allergological risk assessment of the COVID-19 vaccination – a harmonized statement of allergy centers in Germany
Margitta Worm, Andrea Bauer, Bettina Wedi, Regina Treudler, Wolfgang Pfuetzner, Knut Brockow, Timo Buhl, Torsten Zuberbier, Joachim Fluhr, Gerda Wurpts, Ludger Klimek, Thilo Jakob, Hans F. Merk, Norbert Mülleneisen, Stefani Roeseler, Heinrich Dickel, Ulrike Raap, and Jörg Kleine-Tebbe
Volume 5 (2021) p. 72 - 76
Abstract
Allergologie select, Vol. 5/2021 (72-76)
Practical recommendations for the allergological risk assessment of the COVID-19 vaccination – a harmonized statement of allergy centers in Germany
Margitta Worm1, Andrea Bauer2, Bettina Wedi3, Regina Treudler4, Wolfgang Pfuetzner5, Knut Brockow6, Timo Buhl7, Torsten Zuberbier8, Joachim Fluhr8, Gerda Wurpts9, Ludger Klimek10, Thilo Jakob11, Hans F. Merk12, Norbert Mülleneisen13, Stefani Roeseler14, Heinrich Dickel15, Ulrike Raap16, and Jörg Kleine-Tebbe17
1Allergology and Immunology, Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Campus Charité Mitte, University Medicine Berlin, 2Clinic and Polyclinic for Dermatology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus at the Technical University Dresden, 3Department of Dermatology, Allergology and Venereology Comprehensive Allergy Center (CAC) Treatment Center for Hereditary Angioedema in the ZSE, Hannover Medical School, 4Clinic of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Leipzig University Medical Center, 5Hesse Allergy Center, Clinic for Dermatology and Allergology, Marburg University Hospital, 6Dermatology Clinic Campus Biederstein, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 7Dermatology Venereology and Allergology Clinic, University Medical Center Göttingen Georg-August-University, 8Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Comprehensive Allergy Center Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, 9Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital Aachen, 10Center for Rhinology and Allergology of the ENT University Clinic Mannheim, Wiesbaden, 11Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, University Hospital Giessen, 12Dermatology Clinic, RWTH Aachen University, 13Asthma and Allergy Center, Leverkusen, 14Allergy, Asthma and Anaphylaxis Center, Clinic of Pneumology, Allergology, Sleep and Respiratory Medicine, Augustinians Hospital, Cologne, 15Department of Allergology, Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Clinic for Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, St. Josef Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, 16Department of Experimental Allergology and Immunodermatology, Department of Human Medicine, University of Oldenburg, and 17Allergy and Asthma Center Westend, Berlin, Germany
Severe allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. Single severe reactions have occurred worldwide after vaccination with the new mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. PEG2000 is discussed as a possible trigger. We provide guidance on risk assessment regarding COVID-19 vaccination in patients with allergic diseases and suggest a standardized, resource-oriented diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Reports of severe allergic reactions in the context of COVID-19 vaccination can be made via www.anaphylaxie.net using an online questionnaire.Correspondence to:
Univ.-Prof. Dr. med. Margitta Worm, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Allergologie und Immunologie, Klinik für Dermatologie und Allergologie, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin
Email: [email protected]
Guideline
Guideline for allergological diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions
Knut Brockow, Gerda Wurpts, Axel Trautmann, Wolfgang Pfützner, Regina Treudler, Andreas J. Bircher, Randolf Brehler, Timo Buhl, Heinrich Dickel, Thomas Fuchs, Thilo Jakob, Julia Kurz, Burkhard Kreft, Lars Lange, Hans F. Merk, Maja Mockenhaupt, Norbert Mülleneisen, Hagen Ott, Johannes Ring, Franziska Ruëff, Bernhardt Sachs, Helmut Sitter, Bettina Wedi, Stefan Wöhrl, Margitta Worm, and Torsten Zuberbier
Add to Cart
Login
###ENGLISH_ABSTRACT_LINK###
###FREE_ENGLISH_ARTICLE_DOWNLIAD_LINK###
Volume 7 (2023) p. 122 - 139
Abstract
Allergologie select, Vol. 7/2023 (122-139)
Guideline for allergological diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity reactions
Knut Brockow1, Gerda Wurpts2, Axel Trautmann3, Wolfgang Pfützner4, Regina Treudler5, Andreas J. Bircher6, Randolf Brehler7, Timo Buhl8, Heinrich Dickel9, Thomas Fuchs8, Thilo Jakob10, Julia Kurz4, Burkhard Kreft11, Lars Lange12, Hans F. Merk2, Maja Mockenhaupt13, Norbert Mülleneisen14, Hagen Ott15, Johannes Ring1, Franziska Ruëff16, Bernhardt Sachs2, Helmut Sitter17, Bettina Wedi18, Stefan Wöhrl19, Margitta Worm20, and Torsten Zuberbier20
1Department of Dermatology and Allergology Biederstein, Faculty of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, 2Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Germany, Aachen Comprehensive Allergy Center (ACAC), University Hospital of RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, 3Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Allergy Center Mainfranken, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, 4Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Marburg, 5Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, 6Facoltà di Scienze biomediche, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, and Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, 7Department of Dermatology, Münster University Hospital, Münster, 8Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, 9Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, St. Josef Hospital, University Hospital of the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, 10Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital, Justus-Liebig University, Gießen, 11Department of Dermatology and Venereology, University Hospital Halle, Halle (Saale), 12Pediatric Clinic, Marienhospital Bonn, Bonn, 13Documentation Center for Severe Skin Reactions, Department of Dermatology and Venereology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, 14Asthma Allergy Center Leverkusen, Leverkusen, 15Children’s and Youth Hospital Auf der Bult, Hanover, 16Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Allergy Center, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, 17Institute for Theoretical Surgery, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, 18Hanover Medical School, Department of Dermatology, Allergology and Venereology, Hanover, Germany, 19Floridsdorf Allergy Center (FAZ), Vienna, Austria, and 20Allergology and Immunology, Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Correspondence to:
Prof. Dr. med. Knut Brockow, Department of Dermatology and Allergology at Biederstein, Faculty of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Biedersteiner Straße 29, 80802 Munich, Germany
Email: [email protected]
Consensus paper
“Delabeling” by direct provocation testing in children and adolescents with a suspected history of a delayed reaction to β-lactam antibiotics. Consensus paper of Gesellschaft für pädiatrische Allergologie und Umweltmedizin (GPAU
Irena Neustädter, Sophie Blatt, Gerda Wurpts, Heinrich Dickel, Christian Walter, Werner Aberer, Sebastian Bode, Timo Buhl, Sunhild Gernert, Susanne Harner, Guido Heine, Sebastian Kerzel, Meike Köhler, Lars Lange, Joachim List, Hans F. Merk, Thomas Nüßlein, Hagen Ott, Franziska Sattler, Antje Schuster, Helen Straube, Bettina Wedi, Torsten Zuberbier, and Knut Brockow
Volume 8 (2024) p. 206 - 211
Abstract
Allergologie select, Vol. 8/2024 (206-211)
“Delabeling” by direct provocation testing in children and adolescents with a suspected history of a delayed reaction to β-lactam antibiotics. Consensus paper of Gesellschaft für pädiatrische Allergologie und Umweltmedizin (GPAU
Irena Neustädter1, Sophie Blatt1, Gerda Wurpts3, Heinrich Dickel4, Christian Walter5, Werner Aberer6, Sebastian Bode7, Timo Buhl8, Sunhild Gernert9, Susanne Harner10, Guido Heine11, Sebastian Kerzel10, Meike Köhler12, Lars Lange9, Joachim List13, Hans F. Merk2, Thomas Nüßlein14, Hagen Ott15, Franziska Sattler12, Antje Schuster16, Helen Straube17, Bettina Wedi18, Torsten Zuberbier19, and Knut Brockow2
1Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Diakoneo Klinik Hallerwiese-Cnopfsche Kinderklinik, Nuremberg, 2Clinic and Polyclinic for Dermatology and Allergology at Biederstein, Technical University of Munich, Munich, 3Clinic for Dermatology and Allergology, Aachen Comprehensive Allergy Center (ACAC), University Hospital of RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, 4Clinic for Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, St. Josef Hospital, University Hospital of the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, 5Practice for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Allergology, Bad Homburg, Germany, 6Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Medical University of Graz, Austria, 7University Clinic for Children and Adolescents, Ulm, 8Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 9Department of Pediatrics, St. Marien Hospital, GFO Clinics, Bonn, 10Clinic and Polyclinic for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, 11Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, 12Asthma and Allergy Outpatient Clinic, Dr. von Hauner Children’s Hospital, LMU University Hospital, Munich, 13University of Freiburg, Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Freiburg, 14Clinic for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Gemeinschaftsklinikum Mittelrhein, Koblenz, 15Children’s and Youth Hospital Auf der Bult, Hanover, 16Clinic for General Pediatrics, Neonatology and Pediatric Cardiology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, 17Princess Margaret Children’s Hospital, Darmstadt, 18Hannover Medical School, Clinic for Dermatology, Allergology and Venereology, Hanover, and 19Allergology and Immunology, Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Background: Approximately 10% of European children are classified as allergic to drugs. In the majority of these children, no allergy to β-lactam antibiotics (BLA) can be found. In most cases, the exanthema is caused by the infection. Materials and methods: The objective of this paper is to describe the causes and consequences of a misdiagnosis of drug allergy. We propose a method for establishing a correct diagnosis in the case of a history of a delayed reaction during treatment with a BLA. For this purpose, a proposal was discussed via e-mail communication, and consensus was reached among the members of the drug allergy working groups of the participating medical societies. Results: The suspicion of a BLA allergy based on the medical history alone can have a negative impact on future antibiotic treatment. Exanthema associated with febrile infections not related to drug administration is a frequent finding in children. This makes it all the more important to be able to recommend a standardized procedure for clarification in children and adolescents with suspected hypersensitivity reactions. The medical history should be the basis on which to diagnose either a drug allergy or another possible differential diagnosis. A mild maculopapular exanthema (MPE) can be an expression of a drug allergy or a nonspecific viral exanthema. Uncomplicated MPE is not associated with significant systemic involvement, and there is no involvement of the mucous membranes or cutaneous blistering. Only a small number of children with uncomplicated MPE show positive skin tests and only ~ 7 – 16% of suspected BLA diagnoses can be confirmed by provocation tests. Thus, in children with uncomplicated MPE, drug provocation can be performed in an outpatient setting even without prior skin testing. This paper presents a 3-day outpatient direct provocation scheme for BLA delabeling in children with uncomplicated MPE. Conclusion: Many children and adolescents are unnecessarily denied treatment with BLA after an uncomplicated MPE while being treated with a BLA.Correspondence to:
Dr. med. Irena Neustädter, Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Diakoneo Klinik Hallerwiese-Cnopfsche Kinderklinik, St.-Johannis-Mühlgasse 19, 90419 Nuremberg, Germany
Email: [email protected]
Position Paper
Recommendations on how to proceed in case of suspected allergy to penicillin/β-lactam antibiotics. Position paper of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in cooperation with the German Society for Pediatric Allergology (
Knut Brockow, Wolfgang Pfützner, Bettina Wedi, Gerda Wurpts, Axel Trautmann, Burkhard Kreft, Timo Buhl, Mathias Sulk, Andreas Recke, Kathrin Scherer, Stefan Wöhrl, Irena Neustädter, Regina Treudler, Christiane Querbach, and Margitta Worm
Volume 9 (2025) p. 28 - 39
Abstract
Allergologie select, Vol. 9/2025 (28-39)
Recommendations on how to proceed in case of suspected allergy to penicillin/β-lactam antibiotics. Position paper of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in cooperation with the German Society for Pediatric Allergology (
Knut Brockow1, Wolfgang Pfützner2, Bettina Wedi3, Gerda Wurpts4, Axel Trautmann5, Burkhard Kreft6, Timo Buhl7, Mathias Sulk8, Andreas Recke9, Kathrin Scherer10, Stefan Wöhrl11, Irena Neustädter12, Regina Treudler13, Christiane Querbach14, and Margitta Worm15
1Department of Dermatology and Allergology Biederstein, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, 2Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Marburg, 3Hanover Medical School, Department of Dermatology, Allergology and Venereology, Hanover, 4Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Germany, Aachen Comprehensive Allergy Center (ACAC), University Hospital of RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, 5Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Allergy Center Mainfranken, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, 6Department of Dermatology and Venereology, University Hospital Halle, Halle (Saale), 7Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, 8Department of Dermatology, Münster University Hospital, Münster, 9Department of Dermatology, Allergology and Venereology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Holstein Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany, 10Department of Dermatology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau, and Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, 11Floridsdorf Allergy Center (FAZ), Vienna, Austria, 12Pediatric Clinic, Diakoneo Klinik Hallerwiese-Cnopfsche Kinderklinik, Nuremberg, 13Institute for Allergy Research, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, 14Hospital Pharmacy, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, and 15Allergology and Immunology, Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
β-lactam antibiotics (BLAs) are still the antibiotics of first choice for the treatment of many bacterial infections. Treatment with a BLA is often hindered by a suspected allergy, up to 10% of the population report an allergy to penicillin. After Position Paper allergological evaluation of the suspected allergic reaction to a BLA, most patients show a low probability of a BLA allergy; only in a minority of cases an allergic reaction to the repeated administration of a BLA appear likely in view of the previous history. In > 90% of cases, the suspected BLA allergy can be ruled out by allergy diagnostics. We recommend a risk-stratified approach in the context of an urgent need for BLA, which should enable most patients to receive a BLA therapy. After acute therapy, allergy diagnostics have to be done to clearly prove or reliably rule out a BLA allergy.Correspondence to:
Prof. Dr. med. Knut Brockow, Department of Dermatology and Allergology Biederstein, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Biedersteiner Strasse 29, 80802 Munich, Germany
Email: [email protected]
Review
Decoding allergy in vitro: Challenges and clinical use of humoral and cellular methods
Bettina Wedi and Timo Buhl
Volume 10 (2026) p. 73 - 85
Abstract
Allergologie select, Vol. 10/2026 (73-85)
Decoding allergy in vitro: Challenges and clinical use of humoral and cellular methods
Bettina Wedi1 and Timo Buhl2
1Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Comprehensive Allergy Center, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, and 2Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
In vitro assays are essential tools in diagnosing IgE-mediated allergic diseases and complement clinical history and skin testing across food, inhalant, venom, and drug allergies. This methodological review is intended for clinicians seeking a more detailed understanding of current laboratory-based allergy diagnostics. It summarizes current humoral and cellular diagnostic methods, including total IgE, singleplex and component-resolved specific IgE testing, multiplex IgE platforms, and functional cellular assays such as the basophil activation test and T-cell–based approaches. Humoral assays remain the quantitative foundation of molecular allergy diagnostics, while multiplex arrays broaden diagnostic scope and map sensitization profiles, although platform variability requires cautious interpretation. Cellular assays may add functional information in selected constellations but remain technically demanding, insufficiently standardized, and are best regarded as adjunctive tools in specialized or research settings, with evidence largely derived from selected cohorts. Additional areas – immunotherapy monitoring, mast cell disorders, contact allergy, and oncology – illustrate the broader methodological spectrum of in vitro methods. Persistent unmet needs include harmonization, validated reference standards, and robust interpretive frameworks. Disease-specific applications are discussed in companion articles in this issue.Correspondence to:
Timo Buhl, MD, University Medical Center Göttingen, Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Robert Koch Str. 40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany
Email: [email protected]
Review
In vitro diagnostics in hymenoptera venom allergy: Current concepts and perspectives
Thilo Jakob, Timo Buhl, and Jörg Fischer
Volume 10 (2026) p. 197 - 208
Abstract
Allergologie select, Vol. 10/2026 (197-208)
In vitro diagnostics in hymenoptera venom allergy: Current concepts and perspectives
Thilo Jakob1, Timo Buhl2, and Jörg Fischer3
1Department of Dermatology and Allergy, University Medical Center Gießen, Justus Liebig Universität Gießen, Gießen, 2Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, and 3Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Augsburg University Hospital, Augsburg, Germany
Background: Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) is a leading cause of anaphylaxis in adults and requires precise diagnostic work-up to guide venom immunotherapy (VIT). However, the high prevalence of asymptomatic sensitization and frequent double sensitization complicate the identification of clinically relevant allergens. Materials and methods: This narrative review summarizes current concepts and recent advances in in vitro diagnostics of HVA, including conventional IgE testing, component-resolved diagnostics (CRD), IgE ratio analysis, and cellular assays and biomarkers for risk stratification. Emphasis is placed on their diagnostic performance, limitations, and clinical applicability. Results: Measurement of venom-specific IgE remains the cornerstone of HVA diagnosis, offering high sensitivity for clinically relevant HVA. CRD using recombinant, CCD-free allergens improves discrimination between primary sensitization and cross-reactivity, particularly in patients with double sensitization to honeybee and yellow jacket venoms. However, incomplete allergen panels, especially in honeybee venom allergy, limit sensitivity. IgE ratio analysis has emerged as a complementary tool to identify the most likely culprit venom, although it may be influenced by recent sting exposure. Cellular assays such as the basophil activation test provide functional information and may support diagnosis in complex cases but are restricted to specialized centers. In addition, biomarkers such as basal serum tryptase and KIT p.D816V mutation are important for risk stratification. Conclusion: Modern in vitro diagnostics substantially enhance the precision of HVA diagnosis but cannot replace clinical history. An integrated approach combining serology, molecular diagnostics, ratio analysis and, where appropriate, functional assays, is essential for accurate identification of the relevant venom and optimal patient management.Correspondence to:
Thilo Jakob, MD, Department of Dermatology and Allergy, University Medical Center Gießen, Justus Liebig Universität Gießen, Gaffkystrasse 14, 35392 Gießen, Germany
Email: [email protected]
