Insect venom allergy is the most frequent cause of anaphylaxis in Europe and possibly worldwide. The majority of systemic allergic reactions after insect stings are caused by Hymenoptera, and among these, vespid genera induce most of the systemic sting reactions (SSR). Honey bees are the second leading cause of SSR. Depending on the global region, other Hymenoptera such as different ant genera are responsible for SSR. Widely distributed hornets and bumblebees or local vespid or bee genera rarely induce SSR. Hematophagous insects such as mosquitoes and horse flies usually cause (large) local reactions while SSR occasionally occur. This position paper aimed to identify either rare or locally important insects causing SSR as well as rarely occurring SSR after stings or bites of widely distributed insects. We summarized relevant venom or saliva allergens and intended to identify possible cross‐reactivities between the insect allergens. Moreover, we aimed to locate diagnostic tests for research and routine diagnosis, which are sometimes only regionally available. Finally, we gathered information on available immunotherapies. Major allergens of most insects were identified, and cross‐reactivity between insects was frequently observed. While some diagnostics and immunotherapies are locally available, standardized skin tests and immunotherapies are generally lacking in rare insect allergy.

Systemic reactions (SR) to venom immunotherapy (VIT) are rare but may occur, with a rate significantly higher for honeybee than for vespid VIT. In patients with repeated SRs to VIT it is difficult to reach the maintenance dose of venom and pre-treatment with omalizumab is indicated, as shown by some studies reporting its preventative capacity, when antihistamines and corticosteroids are ineffective. We present the case of a 47 years old woman allergic to bee venom who experienced two severe SRs after bee stings and several SRs to VIT with bee venom. Pre-treatment with antihistamines and corticosteroids as well as omalizumab at doses up to 300 mg was unsuccessful, while an omalizumab dose of 450 mg finally achieved in our patient the protection from SRs to VIT with 200 mcg of bee venom. The search of the dose of omalizumab able to protect a patient with repeated SRs to VIT may be demanding, but this search is warranted by the need to provide to this kind of patient, by an adequate VIT, the protection from potentially life-threatening reactions.

The use of drugs in the elderly is very extensive because of the frequent occurrence of chronic diseases. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) commonly occur in geriatric patients receiving multiple therapeutic regimens. In the literature, little attention has been given to ADRs in the elderly, and particularly to allergic reactions. The aim of the present study is to provide data on possible inappropriate prescriptions in the elderly in relation to allergic reactions and to identify a list of drugs which are likely inducers of allergic reactions. We retrospectively evaluated ADRs in patients referring to Immunoallergy Unit of Hospital Policlinico in Bari on the basis of Beers criteria. Among adverse reactions, hypersensitivity reactions were extracted and a comparison between different age groups was assessed. Out of 823 patients with ADRs, in 30.6% hypersensitivity drug reactions (HDR) were diagnosed. Data about drug intake, comorbidities and clinical presentation were collected, aiming to identify possible risk factors. An evaluation of drugs most commonly involved was assessed. HDR are reported to represent 5–10% of all ADRs, while in our study population the prevalence was about 30%. This suggests the need to develop strategies to minimize the incidence of drug allergy in the elderly, as well to reduce the phenomenon of inappropriate prescriptions.

Allergic rhinitis (AR), traditionally considered as a childhood condition, is increasingly recognized among older adults, driven by rising life expectancy and environmental factors. Although allergic sensitization declines with age, AR prevalence in the elderly is underestimated, with 3–12% of geriatric patients affected. Diagnosis is challenging due to nonspecific symptoms and overlapping conditions, leading to underdiagnosis and inadequate treatment. AR significantly impacts the quality of life (QoL), often exacerbating respiratory comorbidities like asthma and COPD. Presbynasalis, encompassing age-related sinonasal changes, includes reduced allergic responses, increased chronic rhinosinusitis, altered nasal structure, and impaired mucociliary clearance. Non-allergic rhinitis, atrophic rhinitis, and overlapping rhinitis further complicate AR diagnosis in the elderly. Effective management involves personalized pharmacotherapy, allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT), and addressing comorbidities and polypharmacy risks. Despite safety concerns, recent studies demonstrate AIT efficacy in elderly patients, reducing symptoms and medication use. Given AR’s impact on cognitive and respiratory health, accurate diagnosis and treatment can enhance QoL and mitigate health decline. Greater awareness and further research are essential to understand AR prevalence and improve outcomes for geriatric patients.

Neurofibroma occurs as isolated or multiple lesions frequently associated with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), a common autosomal dominant disorder affecting 1 in 3500 individuals. It is caused by mutations in the NF1 gene, which comprises 60 exons and is located on chromosome 17q11.2. NF1 is a fully penetrant gene exhibiting a mutation rate some 10-fold higher compared with most other disease genes. As a consequence, a high number of cases (up to 50%) are sporadic. Mutation detection is complex due to the large size of the NF1 gene, the presence of pseudogenes and the great variety of lesions.