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.

Helios-Negative Regulatory T Cells as a Key Factor of Immune Tolerance in Nonallergic Beekeepers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although exposure to stings has been identified as the leading risk factor for anaphylaxis due to Hymenoptera venom allergy, professional beekeepers receive hundreds of stings yearly without developing systemic reactions. This study aims to analyze the mechanisms underlying bee venom tolerance in beekeepers. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted. Participants were recruited and classified into 3 groups: allergic patients (APs), who experienced systemic reactions after bee stings, with a positive intradermal test and specific IgE (sIgE) to Apis mellifera venom (AmV); tolerant beekeepers (TBKs), who received ≥50 stings/year; and healthy nonexposed controls (HCs). We measured serum levels of sIgE and specific IgG4 (sIgG4) to AmV, rApi m 1, rApi m 2, rApi m 3, Api m 4, rApi m 5, and rApi m10, as well as AmV-induced basophil degranulation, percentage of T-cell subsets, regulatory T cells (Treg), and IL-10 production. RESULTS: Compared with TBKs, APs had high levels of sIgE to AmV and all its allergic components (P<.001), together with a high basophil activation rate (P<.001). Conversely, compared with APs, TBKs had higher levels of sIgG4 (P<.001) and IL-10 (P<.0001), as well as an enhanced CTLA-4+ Treg population (P=.001), expanded Helios- Treg (P<.003), and reduced type 1 helper T cells (TH1) (P=.008), TH2 (P=.004), and TH17 (P=.007) subsets. CONCLUSIONS: The profile of TBKs, which was strongly marked by Treg activity, differed from that of TBKs. This natural tolerance would be led by the expansion of inducible Helios- Treg cells at the peripheral level. The Helios- Treg population could be a novel candidate biomarker for monitoring tolerance.

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 Hymenopterastings. The need for a tool that shows the degree of protection afforded by VIT and the lack of useful biomarkers have made the stingchallenge test (SCT) the gold standard for this disorder, although its use has both lights and shadows. SCT with Hymenoptera involvescausing a real sting in a patient diagnosed with allergy to the venom of the stinging insect and who is undergoing treatment with specificimmunotherapy. In Spain, SCT is included in the list of services offered by some hospitals and forms part of their daily clinical practice. Thisreview 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. (AU)

La inmunoterapia con veneno de himenóptero (ITV) es un tratamiento que se ha mostrado eficaz en la protección de sujetos con reaccionesalérgicas sistémicas por picaduras de himenópteros. La necesidad de una herramienta que demuestre el grado de protección proporcionadapor la ITV, y la ausencia de biomarcadores útiles, convierte a la Prueba de Provocación con Repicadura (PPR) en el gold standard en estapatología, con sus luces y sus sombras. La PPR con himenópteros es una prueba que consiste en provocar una picadura real, a un pacienteque ha sido diagnosticado de alergia al veneno del insecto picador y habitualmente está en tratamiento con inmunoterapia específica.En España, la PPR se incluye en la cartera de servicios de algunos hospitales, formando parte de su práctica clínica habitual. Esta revisióntrata de analizar las fortalezas y debilidades de esta prueba, integrando el procedimiento estandarizado y recursos necesarios, basándoseen la experiencia de un grupo de expertos españoles y en la revisión de la literatura. (AU)

Helios-Negative Regulatory T Cells as a Key Factor of Immune Tolerance in Nonallergic Beekeepers

Background: Although exposure to stings has been identified as the leading risk factor for anaphylaxis due to Hymenoptera venom allergy, professional beekeepers receive hundreds of stings yearly without developing systemic reactions. Objective: This study aims to analyze the mechanisms underlying bee venom tolerance in beekeepers. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted. Participants were recruited and classified into 3 groups: allergic patients (APs), who experienced systemic reactions after bee stings, with a positive intradermal test and specific IgE (sIgE) to Apis mellifera venom (AmV); tolerant beekeepers (TBKs), who received ≥50 stings/year; and healthy nonexposed controls (HCs). We measured serum levels of sIgE and specific IgG4 (sIgG4) to AmV, rApi m 1, rApi m 2, rApi m 3, Api m 4, rApi m 5, and rApi m10, as well as AmV-induced basophil degranulation, percentage of T-cell subsets, regulatory T cells (Treg), and IL-10 production. Results: Compared with TBKs, APs had high levels of sIgE to AmV and all its allergic components (P<.001), together with a high basophil activation rate (P<.001). Conversely, compared with APs, TBKs had higher levels of sIgG4 (P<.001) and IL-10 (P<.0001), as well as an enhanced CTLA-4+ Treg population (P=.001), expanded Helios– Treg (P<.003), and reduced type 1 helper T cells (TH1) (P=.008), TH2 (P=.004), and TH17 (P=.007) subsets. Conclusions: The profile of TBKs, which was strongly marked by Treg activity, differed from that of TBKs. This natural tolerance would be led by the expansion of inducible Helios– Treg cells at the peripheral level. The Helios– Treg population could be a novel candidate biomarker for monitoring tolerance (AU)

Successful adaptation of bee venom ommunotherapy in a patient monosensitized to api m 10

No disponible

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

No disponible

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.

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 (AU)

En esta revisión el Comité de Alergia a Himenópteros de la SEAIC ha analizado la literatura científica más reciente sobre los principales problemas diagnósticos de la alergia a himenópteros, así como sobre las dificultades que pueden surgir durante la inmunoterapia con venenos. Se revisan especialmente las novedades relacionadas con el diagnóstico molecular y los perfiles moleculares de riesgo. También se describe la alergia a himenópteros poco habituales y los problemas diagnósticos y terapéuticos que esta conlleva. Por último, se tratan los síndromes de activación mastocitaria clonal, íntimamente relacionados con la alergia a himenópteros, que se han convertido en un nuevo reto diagnóstico para el alergólogo (AU)

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.

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 (AU)

Introducción: La inmunoterapia con veneno de himenópteros (ITV) es un tratamiento eficaz, pero no está desprovisto de riesgo ya que pueden ocurrir reacciones adversas locales o sistémicas, especialmente en las etapas iniciales del tratamiento. Comparamos la tolerancia de tres protocolos de inicio de ITV y analizamos los factores de riesgo asociados con las reacciones adversas que se produjeron en esta fase. Métodos: Se incluyeron 165 pacientes divididos en tres grupos según el protocolo de iniciación utilizado (3, 4 o 9 semanas). Evaluamos la gravedad de las reacciones sistémicas de acuerdo con el modelo de la Organización Mundial de Alergia. Analizamos los resultados mediante estadística descriptiva exploratoria y comparamos variables mediante el análisis de la varianza. Resultados: Cincuenta y tres pacientes (32%) experimentaron algún tipo de reacción adversa; 43 eran locales y 10 sistémicas. Las reacciones locales fueron inmediatas en 27 pacientes (63%) y tardías en 16 (37%). La gravedad de la reacción local fue leve o moderada en 15 pacientes y grave en 13. Las reacciones sistémicas fueron de grado 1 o 2. No encontramos asociación significativa entre la modalidad de tratamiento y la aparición de reacciones adversas locales o sistémicas o el tipo de reacción local. Solo encontramos una asociación estadísticamente significativa de la gravedad de la reacción local con el sexo femenino. En cuanto a los factores de riesgo asociados con las reacciones sistémicas en la fase de inicio, no se encontraron diferencias significativas en estos valores en función del protocolo utilizado o el insecto responsable. Conclusiones: Los protocolos de inicio comparados demostraron ser seguros y no difirieron significativamente entre sí. En la población estudiada, el protocolo de 9-semanas no produjo reacciones sistémicas, por lo que se puede considerar el protocolo más seguro (AU)