Bee venom: apitherapy and more.

Honeybees are becoming increasingly familiar to the general population due to the growing popularity of backyard and amateur beekeeping. Although bee venom produces reactions ranging from mild local irritation to life-threatening anaphylaxis, it is also used for life-saving desensitization immunotherapy in those with severe reactions to bee stings. The use of honeybee venom for immunotherapy has increased due to an enhanced interest in natural therapeutics. Recently, honeybee venom has been administered as a successful, safe, and cost-effective treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, back pain, and skin diseases. During the past two decades, studies have tested honeybee venom's efficacy for treating various skin disorders, including atopic dermatitis, wound healing, and psoriasis. We will review bee venom from multiple perspectives, including its medical applications and mechanisms for dermatological pathologies.

Presentation and management of insect bites in out-of-hours primary care: a descriptive study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the population presenting to out-of-hours primary care with insect bites, establish their clinical management and the factors associated with antibiotic prescribing. DESIGN: An observational study using routinely collected data from a large out-of-hours database (BORD, Birmingham Out-of-hours general practice Research Database). SETTING: A large out-of-hour primary care provider in the Midlands region of England. PARTICIPANTS: All patients presenting with insect bites between July 2013 and February 2020 were included comprising 5774 encounters. OUTCOME MEASURES: This cohort was described, and a random subcohort was created for more detailed analysis which established the clinical features of the presenting insect bites. Logistic regression was used to model variables associated with antibiotic prescribing. RESULTS: Of the 5641 encounters solely due to insect bites, 67.1% (95% CI 65.8% to 68.3%) were prescribed antibiotics. General practitioners were less likely to prescribe antibiotics than advanced nurse practitioners (60.5% vs 71.1%, p<0.001) and there was a decreasing trend in antibiotic prescribing as patient deprivation increased. Pain (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.86), swelling (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.52 to 5.46) and signs of spreading (OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.54 to 7.70) were associated with an increased frequency of antibiotic prescribing. Extrapolation of the findings give an estimated incidence of insect bite consultations in England of 1.5 million annually. CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of the patients presenting to out-of-hours primary care with insect bites receive antibiotics. While some predictors of prescribing have been found, more research is required to understand the optimal use of antibiotics for this common presentation.

Modified rush venom immunotherapy in dogs with Hymenoptera hypersensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Hymenoptera envenomation occurs frequently in people and dogs and can trigger anaphylaxis. Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the only preventive treatment for Hymenoptera hypersensitivity and is indicated for people with severe adverse reactions to insect stings. Rush VIT is an accelerated VIT protocol in people. This has not been reported in dogs. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to evaluate the safety of modified rush VIT. ANIMALS: Twenty client-owned dogs with Hymenoptera hypersensitivity based on a history of adverse reactions to Hymenoptera envenomation and a positive intradermal test to honey bee and/or paper wasp venom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dogs received incremental doses of venom via subcutaneous injection one day per week for three consecutive weeks until the maintenance dose was achieved. Vital signs were recorded every 30 min prior to venom administration. Adverse reactions were categorised as localised or grade I-IV systemic reactions. RESULTS: Nineteen of 20 dogs (95%) completed rush VIT. One dog experienced a grade III systemic adverse reaction and was withdrawn from the study. No adverse reactions occurred in 10 of 20 dogs (50%). Localised and grade I-II systemic reactions occurred in nine of 20 dogs (45%), including nausea (n = 5), injection site pruritus (n = 3) and diarrhoea and lethargy (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Modified rush VIT in dogs was well-tolerated and should be considered for dogs with Hymenoptera hypersensitivity. Larger studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of VIT in dogs for preventing hypersensitivity reactions to insect stings.

Basophil Activation Test in Double-Sensitized Patients With Hymenoptera Venom Allergy: Additional Benefit of Component-Resolved Diagnostics.

BACKGROUND: In Hymenoptera venom allergy serologically double-sensitized patients, it is often difficult to identify the culprit insect for venom immunotherapy (VIT). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if basophil activation tests (BATs) performed not only with venom extracts but additionally with single component-resolved diagnostics could differentiate between sensitized and allergic individuals and how the test results influenced the physicians' decision regarding VIT. METHODS: BATs were performed with bee and wasp venom extracts and with single components (Api m 1, Api m 10, Ves v 1, and Ves v 5) in 31 serologically double-sensitized patients. RESULTS: In 28 finally included individuals, 9 BATs were positive and 4 negative for both venoms. Fourteen of 28 BATs showed positive results for wasp venom alone. Two of 10 BATs positive for bee venom were only positive to Api m 1 and 1 of 28 BATs only to Api m 10, but not for whole bee venom extract. Five of 23 BATs positive for wasp venom were only positive for Ves v 5 but negative for wasp venom extract and Ves v 1. Finally, VIT with both insect venoms was recommended in 4 of 28 individuals, with wasp venom alone in 21 of 28 patients and with bee venom alone in 1 of 28. In 2 cases no VIT was recommended. CONCLUSIONS: BATs with Ves v 5, followed by Api m 1 and Api m 10, were helpful for the decision for VIT with the clinically relevant insect in 8 of 28 (28.6%) patients. A BAT with components should therefore be additionally carried out in cases with equivocal results.

Efficacy of Concentrated Heat for Treatment of Insect Bites: A Real-world Study.

Insect bites that cause itch, pain and swelling are very common. The use of concentrated heat for relief of these symptoms may be a promising approach; however, the scientific evidence for efficacy of hyperthermia treatment is sparse. We report here the results of a large real-world study using a randomized control group to assess the efficacy of hyperthermia on insect bites in real-world conditions, specifically considering mosquito bites as the most common type. The study was conducted in a decentralized manner via a smartphone-controlled medical device, heat it®, for treatment of insect bites and stings through application of heat. The application that controls the device was accompanied by additional questionnaires, that collected data related to insect bites, such as itch and pain intensity. Analysis of data from over 12,000 collected treated insect bites, generated by approximately 1,750 participants (42% female, 39 ± 13 years) showed significant inhibition of itch and pain for all investigated insect species (mosquitoes, horseflies, bees and wasps). Mosquito bite-induced itch was reduced by 57% within the first minute and by 81% 5-10 min after treatment, and the overall reduction in itch and pain was more pronounced than in the control group. In conclusion, the results indicate that local application of heat relieves symptoms of insect bites.

Allergy to stings and bites from rare or locally important arthropods: Worldwide distribution, available diagnostics and treatment.

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.

Venom Hypersensitivity.

Stinging insects are a frequent cause of local and systemic hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis. For those with a history of life-threatening anaphylaxis, venom immunotherapy is effective, safe, and can be life-saving. Arachnids are a much less common source of envenomation through bites or stings and are less likely to cause a hypersensitivity reaction. However, recognizing the clinical manifestations when they do present is important for accurate diagnosis and treatment, and, when indicated, consideration of other diagnoses.

Skin Tests versus Serology: Specific IgE May Suffice for Diagnosis of Vespid Venom Allergy and Follow-Up of Allergen Immunotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: In adults, allergic reactions to insect stings are among the most frequent causes of anaphylaxis, a potentially life-threatening condition. Recurrent anaphylaxis following vespid stings may be prevented by allergen immunotherapy (AIT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefit of measuring venom-induced wheal area in intracutaneous skin tests (ICT), in comparison to various serological and clinical parameters, for the diagnosis of severe vespid venom allergy and during follow-up of AIT. METHODS: We conducted a monocentric, retrospective evaluation of 170 patients undergoing AIT against vespid venoms. We scanned ICT wheals at baseline and at three time points after AIT initiation and measured wheal area using objective data analysis software. RESULTS: We found that ICT histamine-induced and venom-induced wheal areas did not correlate. In addition, the venom-induced wheal area was independent from the minimal venom concentration required to elicit a wheal in an ICT and all other parameters. No correlation was found between wheal area and the severity of anaphylaxis. Wheal area standardized to the application of 0.1 µg/mL venom inversely correlated with anaphylaxis severity and positively correlated with venom-specific IgE levels. During AIT, mean areas of venom-induced wheals did not change. In contrast, venom-specific IgG and IgG4 levels, and the minimal venom concentration required to induce a positive ICT result increased, while the venom wheal area standardized to 0.1 µg/mL venom application and specific IgE levels decreased over time. CONCLUSION: Wheal area evaluation did not provide additional information over specific IgE analysis. We therefore recommend that ICTs are used only as a secondary measure for confirming serological test results.

Wings and stings: Hymenoptera on vacation.

Traveling to different regions, one might encounter a species to which they have a known allergy, or other related and unrelated species. A first-time systemic reaction can occur while on vacation, even in those with previous asymptomatic stings. Three main groups of Hymenoptera are responsible for most sting reactions. Honey bee species are virtually identical around the world. Among social wasps (family Vespidae), the yellowjacket (genus Vespula and Dolichovespula) and hornet (genus Vespa) venoms have almost complete cross-reactivity, whereas paper wasp (genus Polistes) venoms show only partial cross-reactivity with other vespid venoms. Venom immunotherapy (VIT) confers 80% to 95% protection against related insects, though isolated species of paper wasps and yellowjackets exist in every country that may be distinct from the ones at home. Those allergic to imported fire ants (genus Solenopsis) in the United States should not react to other ant species around the world. Stinging ants belong to several unrelated subfamilies in different geographic regions, which do not have cross-reactive venom. The chances of encountering specific species of Hymenoptera at a traveler's destination vary by location, planned activities, and season. In this article, we discuss special considerations for traveling, including distribution of stinging insects around the world, risk factors for more severe reactions, ways to prepare for a trip, and when allergist examination or treatment may be helpful before travel.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in refractory anaphylactic shock after bee stings: A case report.

An allergy to insect stings is one of the most frequent causes of anaphylactic reactions. Such reactions can be fatal, even on the first reaction, although it very rarely happens. The use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) in refractory anaphylactic shock was previously described. We report a case of a 31-year-old female who presented with refractory anaphylactic shock after bee stings without the presence of cutaneous manifestations other than the rashes in her neck. The toxic component of bee venom and systemic allergic response plays a vital role in pathophysiology. She did not respond to conventional advanced life support, but following urgent VA ECMO, she survived neurologically intact. Despite an uncommon indication for anaphylaxis, ECMO support may be possible and effective in patients with refractory shock.

Field sting reactions in patients receiving Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy: real-life experience.

BACKGROUND: Hymenoptera stings can cause systemic allergic reactions (SARs) that are prevented by venom immunotherapy (VIT). Sting challenge tests or field stings are used to evaluate the outcome of VIT. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the consequences of field stings in patients during or after completion of VIT, and to identify patients at higher risk. METHODS: Patients treated with VIT between 1995 and 2018 were retrospectively evaluated. Contacted patients were invited to the clinic and a questionnaire was conducted regarding the history of field stings. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients (F/M: 45/70, mean age: 38.5 ± 12 years) treated with VIT were included; 74/115 were contacted and asked about field stings after VIT cessation. A history of 73 field stings was reported in 38 patients, 25 of whom were treated with honeybee venom and 13 with common wasp venom. Eighteen of the reactions were SARs [8 with honeybees (1 grade-I, 6 grade-II, 1 grade-III) and 10 with common wasps (1 grade-I, 5 grade-II, 4 grade-III)]. There was no association between the severity of index reactions and field stings with either the honeybee or common wasp. The median duration of VIT was longer in patients showing no reaction than in patients with an SAR. Of the 7 patients on ACE inhibitors or beta-blockers, 1 asthmatic patient developed grade-II SAR due to field stings in the first year of VIT. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that VIT lasting at least 3 years is effective in preventing SARs after field stings.

Vespa velutina nigrithorax venom allergy: inhibition studies approach for the choice of specific immunotherapy.

Summary: Vespa velutina nigrithorax (VVN), commonly known as Asian wasp because endemic in Asia, represents an alien species in Europe. VVN can induce allergic reactions similar to those caused by other Hymenoptera and death after VVN stings, presumably due to fatal allergic reactions, has been reported. In the treatment of Hymenoptera venom hypersensitivity, specific immunotherapy (VIT) is highly effective. Currently, there is no specific available VIT for VVN, so it is relevant to assess if patients stung by VVN and showing allergic reactions could be treated with the Hymenoptera commercially available extracts Vespa crabro (VC) and Vespula spp (Vspp) or if they need the specific VIT with VVN venom extract. Methods. Four patients with a clinical history of systemic reactions after VVN sting were evaluated. Serum specific IgE were assayed quantitatively with an automated fluoro-enzyme immunoassay ImmunoCAP™ Specific IgE by Phadia™ 1000 System (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden) for VC, Vspp and VVN. Cap inhibition assays were performed incubating serum samples with 200 µl of each venom at increasing concentrations and subsequently specific IgE against each of the venoms were determined in the samples by Phadia™ 250 System (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden). Results. Our results suggested that both Vspp and VC venoms were able to inhibit the specific IgE for VVN, although the VC compared to the Vspp venom showed a higher inhibition. Conclusions. Our inhibition studies suggested that VIT with VC venom, nowadays when there is not specific available VIT for VVN, may be more effective than Vspp VIT in patients with VVN sting reactions.

Long-term adherence to imported fire ant subcutaneous immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Imported fire ant (IFA) whole-body extract subcutaneous immunotherapy (IT) is a safe and effective treatment for IFA hypersensitivity, with a recommended length of treatment of 3 to 5 years. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term IFA IT adherence in patients with IFA allergy living in an endemic area. METHODS: During 2007 to 2014, patients with IFA-sting systemic reactions and a recommendation to start IFA IT were prospectively enrolled in this study. Subjects were contacted annually for interval IT adherence. Institutional review board approval was obtained. RESULTS: A total of 87 subjects, ages 2 to 64 years, with a recommendation to initiate IFA IT, were enrolled. Subjects were predominantly adult (76%) and female (55%), and 30% had asthma. Of these patients, 77 (89%) initiated treatment within 1 year of recommendation; 18 (23%) adhered to a 3-year course; and 10 (13%) adhered to a 5-year course. At 3 years, there were no significant differences in adherence between male and female subjects (28% vs 19%, P = .33), children and adults (25% vs 22%, P = .79), or those with or without asthma (30% vs 20%, P = .31). Adherence in subjects with mild initial reactions was lower than in subjects with moderate-to-severe reactions (0% vs 25%, P = .05) at 3 years only. Conventional buildup and concurrent flying Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy were predictive of adherence. Reasons for discontinuation were relocation to a nonendemic area (29%) and inconvenience (27%). CONCLUSION: This study showed poor long-term adherence to IFA IT at 3 and 5 years. Initial sting severity, buildup protocol, and concurrent flying Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy were predictors for long-term IT adherence.

Natural and Induced Tolerance to Hymenoptera Venom: A Single Mechanism?

Inducing tolerance in Hymenoptera-allergic patients, bee venom immunotherapy (BVIT) is a widely accepted method to treat severe allergy to bee stings. In order to increase the existing knowledge on the underlying immunological mechanisms and look for possible biomarkers predictive of efficacy, a group of 20 bee-venom-allergic patients (AG) were thoroughly examined during their first year of BVIT. In addition, the results of treated patients with those of an untreated group of 20 tolerant beekeepers (TG) who had previously shown a firm suppressor-regulatory profile were compared. Tolerance in AG patients was invariably associated with a significant regulatory response characterised by the expansion of Helios- subpopulation and increased IL-10, specific IgG4 (sIgG4), and kynurenine levels. Although specific IgE (sIgE) levels increased transiently, surprisingly, the T helper type 2 (Th2) population and IL-4 levels rose significantly after one year of immunotherapy. Thus, the picture of two parallel phenomena emerges: a tolerogenic response and an allergenic one. Comparing these results with those obtained from the TG, different immunological mechanisms appear to govern natural and acquired tolerance to immunotherapy. Of particular interest, the kynurenine levels and T regulatory (Treg) Helios- population could be proposed as new biomarkers of response to BVIT.

Pediatric Penile Bee Sting.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study, for the first time in the literature, are to evaluate the symptoms, clinical course, and treatment management of penile bee stings in children and to discuss whether bee stings can be evaluated within the scope of summer penile syndrome. METHODS: Records of all pediatric patients presented to the emergency department of our hospital from June 2020 to October 2021 due to bee sting of penis were reviewed. Only patients with isolated penile bee stings were included in the study. Patients were evaluated in terms of the age at presentation, time of occurrence, symptoms, and treatment modality. RESULTS: There were 10 patients treated for penile bee sting. Patients ranged in age from 3 to 7 years (mean, 4.2 years). The most common complaints of the patients at presentation were pain (100%), swelling (100%), and dysuria (70%). Three of the patients were unable to void. The gauze moistened with warm saline was applied to the penis of these patients who developed glob, and all of these patients urinated after the warm application. Three of the patients had progressive erythema on the penile skin. These patients were admitted to the pediatric surgery department to monitor whether skin necrosis would develop. In all patients, the erythema regressed significantly within 48 hours and regained its completely normal appearance at the end of 72 hours. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of the development of serious local reactions and urological problems in penile bee stings is low. Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and warm, wet dressing are usually sufficient to treat local reactions. Penile bee stings may be evaluated within the scope of summer penile syndrome because their symptoms, clinical findings, and treatments are almost similar.

Venom allergen immunotherapy.

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) with Hymenoptera venom extracts is highly effective in preventing large local, systemic allergic, and anaphylactic reactions to insect stings. VIT is not required for patients with cutaneous systemic or large local allergic reactions to stings because it is uncommon for reactions to become more severe. The clinical history, with confirmatory skin or serum tests for venom IgE, can clarify the risk for future anaphylaxis and the need for VIT. For initial treatment, rush regimens are recommended because they have the same or less risk of systemic reactions than slower traditional regimens. VIT is relatively safe with a low incidence of systemic reactions. Injection-site reactions can be bothersome but do not predict systemic reactions to venom injections. Patients who need VIT should be screened for baseline serum tryptase and possible underlying mast cell disorders. VIT can be discontinued after five years in most patients, but those with known high-risk factors should continue VIT indefinitely.

Review of venom immunotherapy at a regional tertiary paediatric centre.

AIM: Bee stings can result in allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is a definitive cure for bee venom allergy, but controversy surrounds whether accelerated protocols are safe in children. Our primary aim was to assess the safety profile of ultra-rush bee VIT compared with conventional bee VIT at a regional paediatric tertiary centre. We also sought to evaluate the impact of both approaches on time and resource use. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from 14 patients with bee venom allergy who were treated with ultra-rush or conventional bee VIT between 2013 and 2021 at John Hunter Children's Hospital. We compared VIT-associated adverse reactions and use of resources in both these groups. RESULTS: Overall, six patients received ultra-rush bee VIT and eight patients received conventional VIT. The ultra-rush group had a lower rate of systemic reaction (16%) compared with the conventional group (25%). One patient from the conventional group required adrenaline. Ultra-rush patients require fewer injections over a shorter time and fewer hospital visits to complete the protocol. Travel distance for families was significantly reduced. CONCLUSION: At our regional paediatric tertiary centre, ultra-rush bee VIT was a safe treatment option for children with bee venom allergy. It has many advantages over a conventional approach, especially for patients living in regional or remote areas.