Influencing factors on the safety and effectiveness of venom immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The safety profile of venom immunotherapy (VIT) is a relevant issue and considerable differences in safety and efficacy of VIT have been reported. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers during VIT, which has already been published. For a second analysis, data concerning premedication and venom preparations in relation to systemic adverse events (AE) during the up-dosing phase and the first year of the maintenance phase were evaluated as well as the outcome of field stings and sting challenges. METHODS: The study was conducted as an open, prospective, observational, multicenter study. In total, 1,425 patients were enrolled and VIT was performed in 1,342 patients. RESULTS: Premedication with oral antihistamines was taken by 52.1% of patients during the up-dosing and 19.7% of patients during the maintenance phase. Taking antihistamines had no effect on the frequency of systemic AE (p=0.11) but large local reactions (LLR) were less frequently seen (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.58-0.96; p=0.02). Aqueous preparations were preferentially used for up-dosing (73.0%) and depot preparations for the maintenance phase (64.5%). The type of venom preparation neither had an influence on the frequency of systemic AE nor on the effectiveness of VIT (p=0.26 and p=0.80, respectively), while LLR were less frequently seen when depot preparations were used (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Pretreatment with oral antihistamines during VIT significantly reduces the frequency of LLR but not systemic AE. All venom preparations used were equally effective and did not differ in the frequency of systemic AE.

The Lights and the Shadows of Controlled Sting Challenge With Hymenoptera.

Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT) is effective for protecting individuals with systemic allergic reactions caused by Hymenoptera stings. The need for a tool that shows the degree of protection afforded by VIT and the lack of useful biomarkers have made the sting challenge test (SCT) the gold standard for this disorder, although its use has both lights and shadows. SCT with Hymenoptera involves causing a real sting in a patient diagnosed with allergy to the venom of the stinging insect and who is undergoing treatment with specific immunotherapy. In Spain, SCT is included in the list of services offered by some hospitals and forms part of their daily clinical practice. This review aims to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of this test and to describe the standardized procedure and necessary resources, based on the experience of a group of Spanish experts and a review of the literature.

Component-resolved diagnosis in hymenoptera allergy.

Component-resolved diagnosis based on the use of well-defined, properly characterised and purified natural and recombinant allergens constitutes a new approach in the diagnosis of venom allergy. Prospective readers may benefit from an up-to-date review on the allergens. The best characterised venom is that of Apis mellifera, whose main allergens are phospholipase A2 (Api m1), hyaluronidase (Api m2) and melittin (Api m4). Additionally, in recent years, new allergens of Vespula vulgaris have been identified and include phospholipase A1 (Ves v1), hyaluronidase (Ves v2) and antigen 5 (Ves v5). Polistes species are becoming an increasing cause of allergy in Europe, although only few allergens have been identified in this venom. In this review, we evaluate the current knowledge about molecular diagnosis in hymenoptera venom allergy.

Key Issues in Hymenoptera Venom Allergy: An Update.

In this review, the Hymenoptera Allergy Committee of the SEAIC analyzes the most recent scientific literature addressing problems related to the diagnosis of hymenoptera allergy and to management of venom immunotherapy. Molecular diagnosis and molecular risk profiles are the key areas addressed. The appearance of new species of hymenoptera that are potentially allergenic in Spain and the associated diagnostic and therapeutic problems are also described. Finally, we analyze the issue of mast cell activation syndrome closely related to hymenoptera allergy, which has become a new diagnostic challenge for allergists given its high prevalence in patients with venom anaphylaxis.

Insect Venom Immunotherapy: Analysis of the Safety and Tolerance of 3 Buildup Protocols Frequently Used in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT) is an effective treatment but not one devoid of risk, as both local and systemic adverse reactions may occur, especially in the initial phases. We compared the tolerance to 3 VIT buildup protocols and analyzed risk factors associated with adverse reactions during this phase. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We enrolled 165 patients divided into 3 groups based on the buildup protocol used (3, 4, and 9 weeks). The severity of systemic reactions was evaluated according to the World Allergy Organization model. Results were analyzed using exploratory descriptive statistics, and variables were compared using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Adverse reactions were recorded in 53 patients (32%) (43 local and 10 systemic). Local reactions were immediate in 27 patients (63%) and delayed in 16 (37%). The severity of the local reaction was slight/moderate in 15 patients and severe in 13. Systemic reactions were grade 1-2. No significant association was found between the treatment modality and the onset of local or systemic adverse reactions or the type of local reaction. We only found a statistically significant association between severity of the local reaction and female gender. As for the risk factors associated with systemic reactions during the buildup phase, we found no significant differences in values depending on the protocol used or the insect responsible. CONCLUSIONS: The buildup protocols compared proved to be safe and did not differ significantly from one another. In the population studied, patients undergoing the 9-week schedule presented no systemic reactions. Therefore, this protocol can be considered the safest approach.

Component-resolved diagnosis in vespid venom-allergic individuals.

BACKGROUND: Hymenoptera venom-allergic patients frequently present multiple sensitisations. OBJECTIVES: To define the allergic profile by components in wasp allergic patients. To study the usefulness of specific IgE to components in cases of double sensitisation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Wasp allergic patients who needed Polistes and/or Vespula venom immunotherapy were included. Before immunotherapy and after two years of treatment the following specific IgE (sIgE) levels were measured: Apis mellifera, Vespula spp. Polistes spp., rVes v 5, rPol d 5, nVes v 5, nPol d 5, nVes v 1, nPol d 1, nApi m 1, nApi m 2 and peroxidase. Skin tests with venoms were performed. Based on the sIgE and the skin test results, Polistes and/or Vespula immunotherapy was administered. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were included. Double sensitisation to Polistes/Vespula was detected in eight patients. Sensitisation to rVes v 5 and rPol d 5 was found in two of eight cases, to nVes v 1 and nPol d 1 in eight of 13 cases, and to nVes v 5 and nPol d 5 in 2 of 13 cases. Three patients received double immunotherapy with both wasps. One patient was treated with Vespula and nine with Polistes. sIgE levels decreased after two years of treatment. In patients who showed double sensitisation but were treated with only one venom, sIgE to both venoms decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Components analysis can be useful to study double positivity. In case of doubt, double immunotherapy should be administered. Phospholipase was found to be a major allergen in our population.