ß-blockers and ACE inhibitors are not a risk factor for severe systemic sting reactions and adverse events during venom immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy whether taking ß-blockers or ACE inhibitors (ACEI) is a risk factor for more severe systemic insect sting reactions (SSR) and whether it increases the number or severity of adverse events (AE) during venom immunotherapy (VIT). METHODS: In this open, prospective, observational, multicenter trial, we recruited patients with a history of a SSR and indication for VIT. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate whether patients taking ß-blockers or ACEI show more systemic AE during VIT compared to patients without such treatment. RESULTS: In total, 1,425 patients were enrolled and VIT was performed in 1,342 patients. Of all patients included, 388 (27.2%) took antihypertensive (AHT) drugs (10.4% took ß-blockers, 11.9% ACEI, 5.0% ß-blockers and ACEI). Only 5.6% of patients under AHT treatment experienced systemic AE during VIT as compared with 7.4% of patients without these drugs (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.43-1.22, p = 0.25). The severity of the initial sting reaction was not affected by the intake of ß-blockers or ACEI (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.89-1.46, p = 0.29). In total, 210 (17.7%) patients were re-stung during VIT and 191 (91.0%) tolerated the sting without systemic symptoms. Of the 19 patients with VIT treatment failure, 4 took ß-blockers, none an ACEI. CONCLUSIONS: This trial provides robust evidence that taking ß-blockers or ACEI does neither increase the frequency of systemic AE during VIT nor aggravate SSR. Moreover, results suggest that these drugs do not impair effectiveness of VIT. (Funded by Medical University of Graz, Austria; Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT04269629).

Large local reactions to Hymenoptera stings: Outcome of re-stings in real life.

BACKGROUND: Large local reaction to Hymenoptera stings is usually defined as a swelling >10 cm which lasts longer than 24 hours, sometimes associated with erythema, pruritus and blisters. Currently, the risk of subsequent systemic reactions after re-stings is considered low (2%-15%). Therefore, a diagnostic workup in case of large local reaction is often judged unnecessary, as well as adrenaline auto-injector and venom immunotherapy prescription. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the outcome of re-stings in a real-world setting, in patients with a history of one previous large local reaction. METHODS: We consecutively enrolled patients who experienced their first large local reaction (as per EAACI definition), treated with antihistamine and steroids. They were followed for field re-stings and assessed for risk of subsequent systemic reactions. RESULTS: We enrolled 662 patients. Out of the 225 re-stung subjects, 24% did not experience reactions, 52% reported a second large local reaction and 24% had systemic reactions. The risk of subsequent systemic reactions was higher in case of skin test reactivity to Apis mellifera or Vespula species (OR 2.1 and 3.8, respectively), in particular if positive at 0.001 µg/mL concentration (OR 13.4 and 16.5, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic reactions, after a previous large local reaction, occur more frequently than that reported by literature. After analysing the predictive role of large local reactions for systemic reactions, we demonstrated that an accurate diagnostic workup may be considered, particularly skin tests. Further studies in different countries are needed to confirm these results and large local reaction management.

CAP-Inhibition, Molecular Diagnostics, and Total IgE in the Evaluation of Polistes and Vespula Double Sensitization.

Cross-reactions between Polistes dominula and Vespula species are common in southern Europe. Currently, only CAP-inhibition demonstrates high accuracy in identifying genuine sensitizations, but this method is time-consuming and expensive, so a new approach is required. This study investigates skin tests, molecular diagnostics, total IgE (tIgE), and the Ves v 5/Pol d 5 (or vice versa) ratio. The ratio generated low-accuracy results and poor agreement with CAP-inhibition, and we did not find any agreement between CAP-inhibition test and double values of Ves v 5/Pol d 5. Nevertheless, a slight diagnostic improvement was obtained when Ves v 5/tIgE and Pol d 5/tIgE were measured.

Predictors of side effects during the buildup phase of venom immunotherapy for Hymenoptera venom allergy: the importance of baseline serum tryptase.

BACKGROUND: Severe side effects during venom immunotherapy (VIT) are associated with a variety of risk factors. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the association of baseline serum tryptase concentration (BTC) and of other parameters, which are routinely recorded during patient evaluation, with the frequency of severe reactions requiring an emergency intervention during the buildup phase of VIT. METHODS: In this observational prospective multicenter study, we enrolled 680 patients with established honeybee or vespid venom allergy who underwent VIT. Data were collected on tryptase concentration, age, sex, culprit insect, cardiovascular medication, degree of preceding sting reaction, preventive antiallergic medication before therapy, time between last preceding sting reaction and VIT, venom specific IgE concentration, and type of buildup procedure. Relative rates were calculated with generalized additive models. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients (8.4%) required an emergency intervention during buildup because of a severe systemic reaction. The frequency of interventions increased significantly with higher BTC (log-linear association; adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.15-2.11; P < .005). The predictive power of BTC was markedly greater when VIT was performed for vespid venom allergy than for bee venom (for bee VIT, no significant association; for vespid VIT, log-linear association; adjusted odds ratio, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.28-4.26; P = .005). The most important other factor significantly associated with severe reactions during the buildup phase of VIT was bee venom allergy. CONCLUSION: Before vespid VIT, measurement of baseline serum tryptase concentration should be used to identify patients with a high risk for side effects. Patients with bee venom allergy require a particularly high degree of surveillance during VIT.

Predictors of severe systemic anaphylactic reactions in patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy: importance of baseline serum tryptase-a study of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology Interest Group on Insect Venom Hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Severe anaphylaxis to honeybee or vespid stings is associated with a variety of risk factors, which are poorly defined. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the association of baseline serum tryptase concentrations and other variables routinely recorded during patient evaluation with the frequency of past severe anaphylaxis after a field sting. METHODS: In this observational multicenter study, we enrolled 962 patients with established bee or vespid venom allergy who had a systemic reaction after a field sting. Data were collected on tryptase concentration, age, sex, culprit insect, cardiovascular medication, and the number of preceding minor systemic reactions before the index field sting. A severe reaction was defined as anaphylactic shock, loss of consciousness, or cardiopulmonary arrest. The index sting was defined as the hitherto first, most severe systemic field-sting reaction. Relative rates were calculated with generalized additive models. RESULTS: Two hundred six (21.4%) patients had a severe anaphylactic reaction after a field sting. The frequency of this event increased significantly with higher tryptase concentrations (nonlinear association). Other factors significantly associated with severe reactions after a field sting were vespid venom allergy, older age, male sex, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication, and 1 or more preceding field stings with a less severe systemic reaction. CONCLUSION: In patients with honeybee or vespid venom allergy, baseline serum tryptase concentrations are associated with the risk for severe anaphylactic reactions. Preventive measures should include substitution of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

Development of a model care pathway for the management of Hymenoptera venom allergy: evidence-based key interventions and indicators.

BACKGROUND: Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) is an underestimated condition representing an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Preventing future allergic reactions in patients who have already developed a systemic reaction is based on the correct management of the acute phase of the reaction followed by a correct diagnosis and, where indicated, prescription of adrenaline autoinjectors and VIT. A possible strategy to optimize care processes and to improve outcomes is the implementation of a Diagnostic and Therapeutic Care Pathways, also known as Integrated Care Pathways or Clinical Pathways (CPWs). The aim of the care pathway is to enhance the quality of care by improving risk-adjusted patient outcomes, promoting patient safety, increasing patient satisfaction, and optimizing the use of resources. To our knowledge, currently in Italy as well as in Europe, there is no CPWs codified for the management of HVA patients. This paper describes the development of the clinical content of a care pathway for the management of HVA. METHODS: The methodology applied is based on the eight step method to build the clinical content of an evidence-based care pathway suggested by Lodewijckx et al. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventeen different clinical activities were extracted from the selected literature. The expert panel was involved in their evaluation, expressing a judgment of relevance through the Delphi study. As a result, 126 clinical activities were appraised to be valid and feasible. The final recommendations (126) were translated into 123 key interventions. Six indicators were produced by the clinical activities. CONCLUSION: A set of 123 key interventions and of six process indicators were found to be appropriate for the development and standardization of the clinical content of the Hymenoptera venom allergy care pathway.

Vespa crabro immunotherapy versus Vespula-venom immunotherapy in Vespa crabro allergy: a comparison study in field re-stings.

BACKGROUND: In ascertained allergic sensitization to Vespa crabro (VC) venom, the European guidelines still consider venom immunotherapy (VIT) with Vespula (VE) venom sufficient to achieve an adequate protection against VC. However, antigen 5 immunoblotting studies showed that a genuine sensitization to VC venom may exist. In such cases, a specific VC venom would be preferable for VIT treatment. Since in the last few years, VC venom extracts became available for diagnosis and desensitization, we assessed the efficacy and safety of VIT with a VC-VIT, compared to VE extract. METHODS: Patients stung by VC, and carefully diagnosed for specific sensitization and indication to VIT underwent a 5-year course of immunotherapy with either VE or VC extracts. The severity of reactions at the first sting (pre-VIT) and after field re-stings (during VIT) were compared. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients, treated with VE extract and 130 patients treated with VC extract completed the 5-year course of VIT. Only a fraction of those patients (43,8%) were field-re-stung by VC: 64 patients on VC VIT and 69 on VE VIT. In the VC VIT group, reactions at re-sting were: 50 negative, 12 large local reactions, 4 systemic reactions (Muller grade I). In this group the VC VIT efficacy was 93,8%. In the VE VIT treated group the reactions at VC re-sting were: 51 negative, 10 large local reactions and 9 systemic reactions (5 Muller I, 3 Mueller III, 1 Muller IV). In this group the overall efficacy of VIT was 87,0%. The difference in efficacy between the two groups was not statistically significant, as previously reported in literature. Nonetheless, field sting systemic reactions Muller III and IV were recorded only in those patients receiving VE VIT. CONCLUSION: This observation suggests that in patients with ascertained VC-induced allergic reactions a specific VC VIT, where available, would be more adequate, at least concerning the safety profile.

Which immunotherapy product is better for patients allergic to Polistes venom? A laboratory and clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is highly effective in preventing allergic reactions to insect stings, but the appropriate venom must be used to achieve clinical protection. In patients with multiple positive results to venoms, molecular allergy diagnostics or CAP-inhibition may identify the causative venom. Concerning allergy to venom from Polistes spp. it has been proposed that only the European species P. dominulus should be used for VIT. However, this recommendation is not present in any international guideline. Using both laboratory and clinical data, we aimed to evaluate the reliability of this proposal. METHODS: We performed an in vitro study using CAP-inhibition to determine sensitization of 19 patients allergic to Polistes venom. The clinical study included 191 patients with positive tests to Polistes treated with VIT, 102 were treated with P. dominulus and 89 were treated with a mix of American Polistes (mAP). RESULTS: The difference in % of inhibition was significant concerning inhibition of P. dominulus sIgE by P. dominulus venom (79.8%) compared with inhibition by mAP venom (64.2%) and not significant concerning the inhibition of mAP sIgE by P. dominulus venom (80.1%) and by mAP venom (73.6%). Instead, the clinical protection from stings was not statistically different between the two kinds of venom. CONCLUSION: The data from CAP inhibition would suggest that the choice of either P. dominulus venom or mAP venom for VIT is appropriate in patients with CAP inhibition higher than 70%, but the clinical data show the same odds of protection from stings using for VIT P. dominulus or mAP venom.

Pulmonary scintigraphy as a method to investigate gastrobronchial communication in tracheostomized patients.

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is a degeneration of somatic motor neurons extending from upper motor cortical pyramidal neurons to lower motor neurons of the brainstem and cord. During the course of the disease patients require invasive procedures for nutrition and ventilation. Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG), performed in patients with impaired swallowing, is a safe procedure for the administration of Enteral Nutrition (EN). In the advanced stages of the disease patients develop a ventilatory failure due to muscolar weakness in these case they need a permanent tracheal tube with mechanical ventilation. Here we reported a case of a patient with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ASL) who developed an increased gastric endocavitary pressure after a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG).

Clinical effectiveness of hymenoptera venom immunotherapy: a prospective observational multicenter study of the European academy of allergology and clinical immunology interest group on insect venom hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Treatment failure during venom immunotherapy (VIT) may be associated with a variety of risk factors. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the association of baseline serum tryptase concentration (BTC) and of other parameters with the frequency of VIT failure during the maintenance phase. METHODS: In this observational prospective multicenter study, we followed 357 patients with established honey bee or vespid venom allergy after the maintenance dose of VIT had been reached. In all patients, VIT effectiveness was either verified by sting challenge (n = 154) or patient self-reporting of the outcome of a field sting (n = 203). Data were collected on BTC, age, gender, preventive use of anti-allergic drugs (oral antihistamines and/or corticosteroids) right after a field sting, venom dose, antihypertensive medication, type of venom, side effects during VIT, severity of index sting reaction preceding VIT, and duration of VIT. Relative rates were calculated with generalized additive models. RESULTS: 22 patients (6.2%) developed generalized symptoms during sting challenge or after a field sting. A strong association between the frequency of VIT failure and BTC could be excluded. Due to wide confidence bands, however, weaker effects (odds ratios <3) of BTC were still possible, and were also suggested by a selective analysis of patients who had a sting challenge. The most important factor associated with VIT failure was a honey bee venom allergy. Preventive use of anti-allergic drugs may be associated with a higher protection rate. INTERPRETATION: It is unlikely that an elevated BTC has a strong negative effect on the rate of treatment failures. The magnitude of the latter, however, may depend on the method of effectiveness assessment. Failure rate is higher in patients suffering from bee venom allergy.

Efficacy, safety, and modulation of immunologic markers by immunotherapy with honeybee venom: comparison of standardized quality depot versus aqueous extract.

Venom immunotherapy (IT) is a very effective method for the treatment of Hymenoptera venom allergy. We compared safety, efficacy, and modulation of specific immunologic parameters in 70 patients sensitized to Apis mellifera, treated for > or = 5 years with standardized quality (SQ) aqueous IT, either with a rush (n = 20) or with a cluster (n = 20) induction protocol, or with an SQ depot extract and a cluster induction protocol (n = 30). We made an open, noncontrolled study. Side effects were monitored and the effects of field stings during the maintenance phase of the treatment and after its interruption were recorded. Skin reactivity to Apis was measured by end point dilution and specific serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) were measured by a solid-phase-based assay. The depot IT was better tolerated than aqueous IT with rush induction. This was caused by mainly the lower frequency in the induction phase of systemic side effects (3.4% versus 36.8% [p < 0.0041] on a "per patient" and 0.1% versus 0.9% [p = 0.0092] on a "per dose "basis, respectively). The cluster protocol with the aqueous extract tended to be better tolerated that the rush protocol. About one-half of patients from each group were re-stung during the study and all suffered only minor discomfort. Reduction of skin reactivity and of serum-specific IgE was significant in the three groups (p < 0.02 in all cases). SQ Depot IT to Apis venom allergy administered with a cluster protocol induces less side effects and is equally effective then IT with SQ aqueous extract administered with a rush protocol.