Wasp venom from Vespa magnifica acts as a neuroprotective agent to alleviate neuronal damage after stroke in rats.

CONTEXT: Acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) is a major cause of disability and death, which is a serious threat to human health and life. Wasp venom extracted from Vespa magnifica Smith (Vespidae) could treat major neurological disorders. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effects of wasp venom on AIS in rats. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used a transient middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) model in Sprague-Dawley rats (260-280 g, n = 8-15) with a sham operation group being treated as negative control. MCAO rats were treated with wasp venom (0.05, 0.2 and 0.6 mg/kg, i.p.) using intraperitoneal injection. After treatment 48 h, behavioural tests, cortical blood flow (CBF), TTC staining, H&E staining, Nissl staining, TUNEL assay, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and ELISA were employed to investigate neuroprotective effects of wasp venom. RESULTS: Compared with the MCAO group, wasp venom (0.6 mg/kg) improved neurological impairment, accelerated CBF recovery (205.6 ± 52.92 versus 216.7 ± 34.56), reduced infarct volume (337.1 ± 113.2 versus 140.7 ± 98.03) as well as BBB permeability as evidenced by changes in claudin-5 and AQP4. In addition, function recovery of stroke by wasp venom treatment was associated with a decrease in TNF-α, IL-1ß, IL-6 and inhibition activated microglia as well as apoptosis. Simultaneously, the wasp venom regulated the angiogenesis factors VEGF and b-FGF in the brain. CONCLUSIONS: Wasp venom exhibited a potential neuroprotective effect for AIS. In the future, we will focus on determining whether the observed actions were due to a single compound or the interaction of multiple components of the venom.

Changing microRNA Expression during Three-Month Wasp Venom Immunotherapy.

MicroRNAs are small non-coding molecules playing a significant regulatory role in several allergic diseases. However their role in tolerance induction remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the expression of selected microRNAs during the first three months of wasp venom immunotherapy (VIT). 5 adult patients with a history of severe systemic reactions after stinging by wasps and confirmed sensitization were included. Venous blood samples were collected before VIT, 24 hours after completing its initial phase and after 3 months of the maintenance therapy. A control group was comprised of 5 healthy individuals with no history of allergy. In the blood samples expression of 96 microRNAs was determined with the use of microfluidic cards. In a statistical analysis the expression was compared between the study groups as well as between the pre- and post-VIT samples. Significant differences were found between the patients with wasp venom allergy and the healthy controls in the expression of miR-601 and miR-1201 upregulated in allergic patients at every time point (p = 0.04; p = 0.015, respectively). During VIT profile of microRNA was changing with lower expression of 6 microRNAs (including miR-182, miR-342, miR-375) and higher of 11 microRNAs (including let-7d, miR-34b, miR-143). To conclude, VIT has led to some changes in the expression of microRNA associated with Th2-type inflammation and tolerance induction.

Safety and Efficacy of a Progressively Prolonged Maintenance Interval of Venom Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The long-term protection provided by venom immunotherapy (VIT) is related to the dose administered and to its long duration; the latter, however, becomes inconvenient for patients in countries like Greece, with many islanders or inhabitants of distant mountainous areas. Maintenance interval prolongation reduces the number of office visits - saving time and money - and as a consequence contributes to the patients' compliance. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of VIT on a progressively prolonged maintenance interval (PPMI). METHOD: 450 venom-allergic patients were reviewed for participation in our study; all of them were initially treated with a modified rush or an ultrarush protocol using freshly reconstituted, pure venoms. Upon reaching the maintenance dose, the VIT interval was scheduled to be gradually prolonged - by 1 week each time - aiming at a maximal interval of 26 weeks. RESULTS: 267/450 patients consented to participate in our VIT PPMI protocol: 98 were treated with vespid(s) venom, 142 with honeybee venom, and 27 with both. The mean duration of patient follow-up was 9.1 ± 4.2 years. The majority of systemic reactions due to VIT injections occurred up to the 8-weeks PPMI; few additional reactions were documented in a small fraction (2.9%) of our patient population beyond 9 weeks and up to 16 weeks; all were caused by honeybee VIT. No reactions were observed during VIT administration at the 26-week interval. Ninety-six patients reported 204 field sting occurrences by the culprit insect. Ten systemic reactions (8 mild and 2 moderate in severity) were registered between the 9- and 18-week PPMI; the honeybee was the culprit insect in all cases. 108 field stings by the offending insect were sustained beyond the 20- and up to the 26-week PPMI; there were no reactions at all. CONCLUSIONS: Progressively prolonging the VIT maintenance interval up to 26 weeks appears to be safe and efficacious.

Venom Immunotherapy in High-Risk Patients: The Advantage of the Rush Build-Up Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is considered to be the gold standard treatment for patients with hymenoptera venom allergy. This treatment induces systemic reactions (SR) in a significant number of patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcome of VIT in patients with known risk factors for VIT-induced SR and to compare rush VIT (RVIT) and conventional VIT (CVIT). METHODS: All of the patients who received VIT and had at least one of the following risk factors were included: current cardiovascular disease, uncontrolled asthma, high basal serum tryptase, current treatment with ß-blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and age >70 or <5 years. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were included, and most of them (52; 81.5%) were allergic exclusively to bee venom. Thirty-five (54.7%) patients underwent RVIT and 29 CVIT. The incidence of patients who developed SR during the build-up phase was similar for RVIT and CVIT (25.7 and 27.5%, respectively; p = 1). However, the incidence of SR per injection was significantly higher in CVIT than in RVIT (5.6 and 2.75%, respectively; p = 0.01). Most reactions (79.1%) were mild, limited to the skin. Most of the patients (92.1%) reached the full maintenance dose of 100 µg. This dose was reached by a significantly larger number of patients receiving RVIT compared to CVIT (100 and 82.7%, respectively; p = 0.01). None of the patients experienced exacerbation of their concurrent chronic disease during VIT. CONCLUSION: VIT can be performed safely and efficiently in patients with risk factors for immunotherapy. In these patients RVIT appears to be safer and more efficient than CVIT.

Changes in the Expression of MicroRNA in the Buildup Phase of Wasp Venom Immunotherapy: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Allergen-specific immunotherapy is the most effective method of treatment in allergy to wasp venom. However, its mechanism of action is still not fully understood. The aim of this study is to describe changes in microRNA (miRNA) expression in patients undergoing the buildup phase of venom immunotherapy. METHODS: The study group comprised 7 adult patients with a history of severe systemic reactions after stinging by a wasp. In all patients, sensitization to wasp venom had been confirmed by skin tests and serum IgE. The buildup phase of wasp venom immunotherapy (VIT) was conducted according to an ultrarush protocol. In blood samples collected before and 24 h after completing the VIT buildup phase, 740 miRNAs were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 740 miRNAs, 440 were detected in the study group, and in 5 expression was significantly changed after the buildup phase of VIT: miR-370, miR-539, miR-502-3p, miR-299, and miR-29c. Another 62 miRNAs changed 2-fold in some patients (nonsignificant), including increases in miR-143 (stimulating FOXp3 expression) and let-7d (reducing expression of IL-13, IL-6, and TLR4), and decreases in proinflammatory miR-301, miR-146b, miR-106, and miR-485. CONCLUSIONS: Several changes in miRNA expression have been found as a result of the buildup phase of wasp VIT, with lower expression of some miRNAs involved in allergic inflammation and higher expression of those possibly involved in tolerance induction. However, the role of the most significant changes is uncertain.

Safety of Ultrarush Venom Immunotherapy: Comparison Between Children and Adults.

BACKGROUND: The ultrarush protocol is an attractive approach in the buildup phase of venom immunotherapy (VIT-UR). However, the degree of risk of VIT-UR in children remains unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the safety of VIT-UR in children and adults. METHODS: We performed a study based on prospectively gathered medical records of children and adults with hymenoptera venom allergy treated with VIT-UR in 3 allergy centers in Poland. RESULTS: The study population comprised 134 children (mean [SD] age, 12.6 [3.7] years; males, 70.1%) and 207 adults (mean age, 42.4 [14.0] years; males, 47.8%). The number of children in the subgroups of bee venom (BV) allergy and wasp venom (WV) allergy were comparable, although sensitization to WV was more predominant in the adult group (70.1%). Skin reactivity to both venoms was more common in children than in adults (P < .001); however, children had higher concentrations of total IgE and specific IgE to BV (both P < .001). Systemic allergic reactions (VIT-SARs) occurred in 6.2% of the patients (3.7% in children and 7.7% in adults; nonsignificant). In adults, SARs occurred more frequently in patients treated with BV than WV extracts (21.4% vs 2.6%; P < .001). The same pattern was observed in children (7.2% vs 0%; P = .058). However, VIT-SARs to BV were less frequent in children than in adults (P = .034). Similarly, no significant relationship was noted between children and adults receiving WV VIT (2.6% vs 0%; nonsignificant). The severity of VIT-SAR did not differ between children and adults. CONCLUSIONS: VIT-UR is safer in children. Age below 18 is not a risk factor for VIT-SARs.

Rush immunotherapy for wasp venom allergy seems safe and effective in patients with mastocytosis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mastocytosis and wasp venom allergy (WA) may benefit from venom immunotherapy (VIT). However, fatal insect sting reactions have been described in mastocytosis patients despite previous immunotherapy. We investigated the safety and efficacy of (rush) VIT in patients with mastocytosis and WA. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of (rush) VIT in patients with mastocytosis and WA. METHODS: We describe nine patients with cutaneous mastocytosis and WA who received VIT. Cutaneous mastocytosis was confirmed by histopathology and systemic mastocytosis was diagnosed according to World Health Organization criteria. VIT was given according to a rush protocol. Given the difference in safety and efficacy of VIT in patients with WA and honeybee venom allergy, we reviewed the literature for VIT with the focus on WA patients with mastocytosis and addressed the difference between patients with cutaneous versus systemic mastocytosis. RESULTS: Nine patients had WA and mastocytosis, of whom six had cutaneous mastocytosis, two combined cutaneous and systemic mastocytosis and one systemic mastocytosis. All patients received rush IT with wasp venom. Most patients had only mild local side effects, with no systemic side effects during the course of VIT. One patient had a systemic reaction upon injection on one occasion, during the updosing phase, with dyspnoea and hypotension, but responded well to treatment. Immunotherapy was continued after temporary dose adjustment without problems. Two patients with a previous anaphylactic reaction were re-stung, without any systemic effects. CONCLUSIONS: VIT is safe in cutaneous mastocytosis patients with WA, while caution has to be made in case of systemic mastocytosis. VIT was effective in the patients who were re-stung.

Risk assessment of Hymenoptera re-sting frequency: implications for decision-making in venom immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Venom immunotherapy is highly efficacious in preventing anaphylactic sting reactions. However, there is an ongoing discussion regarding patient selection and whether and how to apply a cost-benefit analysis of venom immunotherapy. In order to help decision-making, we investigated the re-sting frequency of hymenoptera-venom-allergic patients to single out those at high risk. METHODS: In this retrospective study, re-sting data of 96 bee-venom-allergic patients and 95 vespid-venom-allergic patients living mainly in a rural area of Switzerland were analyzed. Hymenoptera venom allergy status was rated according to the classification system of H.L. Mueller [J Asthma Res 1966;3:331-333]. Different risk-groups were defined according to sting exposure and their median sting-free interval was calculated. RESULTS: The risk factors for a wasp or bee re-sting were outdoor occupation, beekeeping and habitation close to a bee-house. Half of all vespid-venom-allergic outdoor workers were re-stung within 3.75 years compared to 7.5 years for indoor workers. Similarly, 50% of the bee-venom-allergic beekeepers or subjects with a bee-house in the vicinity suffered a bee re-sting within 5.25 years compared to 10.75 years for individuals who were not beekeepers. CONCLUSIONS: The high degree of exposure of vespid-venom-allergic outdoor workers and bee-venom-allergic beekeepers and subjects living close to bee-houses underlines the high benefit of venom immunotherapy for these patients even if they suffered a non-life-threatening grade II reaction. Yet, bee-venom-allergic individuals with no proximity to bee-houses and with an indoor occupation face a very low exposure risk, which justifies epinephrine rescue treatment for these patients especially if they have suffered from grade II sting reactions.

Venom immunotherapy for preventing allergic reactions to insect stings.

BACKGROUND: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is commonly used for preventing further allergic reactions to insect stings in people who have had a sting reaction. The efficacy and safety of this treatment has not previously been assessed by a high-quality systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of immunotherapy using extracted insect venom for preventing further allergic reactions to insect stings in people who have had an allergic reaction to a sting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to February 2012: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), PsycINFO (from 1806), AMED (from 1985), LILACS (from 1982), the Armed Forces Pest Management Board Literature Retrieval System, and OpenGrey. There were no language or publication status restrictions to our searches. We searched trials databases, abstracts from recent European and North American allergy meetings, and the references of identified review articles in order to identify further relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of venom immunotherapy using standardised venom extract in insect sting allergy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias. We identified adverse events from included controlled trials and from a separate analysis of observational studies identified as part of a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Health Technology Assessment. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 6 randomised controlled trials and 1 quasi-randomised controlled trial for inclusion in the review; the total number of participants was 392. The trials had some risk of bias because five of the trials did not blind outcome assessors to treatment allocation. The interventions included ant, bee, and wasp immunotherapy in children or adults with previous systemic or large local reactions to a sting, using sublingual (one trial) or subcutaneous (six trials) VIT. We found that VIT is effective for preventing systemic allergic reaction to an insect sting, which was our primary outcome measure. This applies whether the sting occurs accidentally or is given intentionally as part of a trial procedure.In the trials, 3/113 (2.7%) participants treated with VIT had a subsequent systemic allergic reaction to a sting, compared with 37/93 (39.8%) untreated participants (risk ratio [RR] 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03 to 0.28). The efficacy of VIT was similar across studies; we were unable to identify a patient group or mode of treatment with different efficacy, although these analyses were limited by small numbers. We were unable to confirm whether VIT prevents fatal reactions to insect stings, because of the rarity of this outcome.Venom immunotherapy was also effective for preventing large local reactions to a sting (5 studies; 112 follow-up stings; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.69) and for improving quality of life (mean difference [MD] in favour of VIT 1.21 points on a 7-point scale, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.67).We found a significant risk of systemic adverse reaction to VIT treatment: 6 trials reported this outcome, in which 14 of 150 (9.3%) participants treated with VIT and 1 of 135 (0.7%) participants treated with placebo or no treatment suffered a systemic reaction to treatment (RR 8.16, 95% CI 1.53 to 43.46; 2 studies contributed to the effect estimate). Our analysis of 11 observational studies found systemic adverse reactions occurred in 131/921 (14.2%) participants treated with bee venom VIT and 8/289 (2.8%) treated with wasp venom VIT. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found venom immunotherapy using extracted insect venom to be an effective therapy for preventing further allergic reactions to insect stings, which can improve quality of life. The treatment carries a small but significant risk of systemic adverse reaction.

[Influence of venom immunotherapy on anxiety level of being re-stung]. / Wplyw immunoterapii swoistej z jadem owadów blonkoskrzydlych na poziom leku przed ponownym uzadleniem.

UNLABELLED: Hymenoptera venom allergy is related to higher risk of potential life -threatening anaphylactic reactions, which leads to anxiety and decreased quality of life. AIM: The aim of this paper was: 1) estimation of fear level of being re-stung among venom allergy adults treated with venom specific immunotherapy (VIT)--before and during treatment; 2) estimation of expectation of outcome of VIT as compared to level of anxiety of being re-strug, in the Visual Analogue Scale--VAS score; 3) identification of factors influencing changes in the fear level among patients during VIT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group comprised 42 patients (18 women, 24 men) in the mean age 42.6 years, with bee or vespid allergy, who had been qualified to the VIT treatment with Alutard SQ. Visual Analogue Scale--VAS and the Expectation of Outcome Questionnaire were used. The demographic data were collected. RESULTS: The VAS score before VIT for insect venom allergic patients was 8.8 (SD = 0.9). It decreased after achieving maintenance dose to 3.1 (SD = 1.6) and was significantly lower in men (p < 0.05). Score achieved in the Expectation of Outcome Questionnaire was for each question 2.2 (SD = 1.5) and there was correlation with VAS score during VIT. CONCLUSIONS: The patients with insect venom allergy, who undergo a serious allergic reaction (SR) as a result of being stung and who are qualified to VIT, have a high level of anxiety of being re-stung. Achieving the maintenance dose of VIT, results in a significant decrease of anxiety level in women and men, significantly so in men. There is a significant correlation between VAS score and the Expectation of Outcome Questionnaire results during VIT. Both VAS for anxiety level and the Expectation of Outcome Questionnaire can be simple, easily available and useful instruments helping to estimate quality of life. VIT significantly decreases the patients level of anxiety of being restung and improves their quality of life.

Neurobiology: venom of wasps and initiation of movements.

The ability to initiate movements can be impaired in some brain injuries even though motor actions proceed normally once they are begun. The effects of venom that wasps use in preying upon cockroaches could provide insights into this problem.

Three days rush venom immunotherapy in bee allergy: safe, inexpensive and instantaneously effective.

BACKGROUND: Rush venom immunotherapy (VIT) is highly effective in vespid venom allergy, but comparable data regarding bee venom (BV) allergy are sparse. We evaluated its safety, efficacy and cost in BV-allergic patients. METHODS: Conventional or rush VIT were offered to all patients with systemic reaction to insect sting. Rush VIT was also given to hyperreactive patients who failed to reach the maintenance dose with conventional VIT due to multiple systemic reactions. In BV-allergic patients, honeybee sting challenge was performed within 1 week after reaching the maintenance dose. RESULTS: 179 patients, some of them allergic to more than one venom, received 246 rush VIT courses. Bee VIT was administered to 132 patients (73.7%); 173 patients (96.6%) reached the maintenance dose. The incidence of systemic reactions was 29.6%. They were more common in VIT with BV than with vespid venoms (31.1 and 16.3%, respectively, p = 0.01). After excluding the hyperreactive subgroup (n = 20), this difference was not significant (23.7 and 16%, respectively, p = 0.19). Despite the high incidence of systemic reactions (15 of 20, 75%) among hyperreactive patients, 17 patients (85%) achieved the maintenance dose. Sting challenges resulted in systemic reaction in 4 of 8 (50%) hyperreactive patients and in 2 of 47 (4.3%) ordinary patients. The cost of rush VIT was 41% of that of conventional VIT. CONCLUSIONS: Rush VIT with BV is safe, instantaneously effective, less expensive and enables most patients with previous failures of conventional VIT to reach the maintenance dose.

Gene expression analysis in predicting the effectiveness of insect venom immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) enables longtime prevention of insect venom allergy in the majority of patients. However, in some, the risk of a resystemic reaction increases after completion of treatment. No reliable factors predicting individual lack of efficacy of VIT are currently available. OBJECTIVE: To determine the use of gene expression profiles to predict the long-term effect of VIT. METHODS: Whole genome gene expression analysis was performed on RNA samples from 46 patients treated with VIT divided into 3 groups: (1) patients who achieved and maintained long-term protection after VIT, (2) patients in whom insect venom allergy relapsed, and (3) patients still in the maintenance phase of VIT. RESULTS: Among the 48.071 transcripts analyzed, 1401 showed a >2 fold difference in gene expression (P < .05); 658 genes (47%) were upregulated and 743 (53%) downregulated. Forty-three transcripts still show significant differences in expression after correction for multiple testing; 12 of 43 genes (28%) were upregulated and 31 of 43 genes (72%) downregulated. A naive Bayes prediction model demonstrated a gene expression pattern characteristic of effective VIT that was present in all patients with successful VIT but absent in all subjects with failure of VIT. The same gene expression profile was present in 88% of patients in the maintenance phase of VIT. CONCLUSION: Gene expression profiling might be a useful tool to assess the long-term effectiveness of VIT. The analysis of differently expressed genes confirms the involvement of immunologic pathways described previously but also indicates novel factors that might be relevant for allergen tolerance.

[In vitro diagnosis and monitoring of Hymenoptera venom hyposensitization]. / In-vitro-Diagnostik und Monitoring bei Insektengifthyposensibilisierung.

Specific immunotherapy (SIT) of hymenoptera venom allergy, in particular, has become an example for the effectiveness of the treatment of IgE-mediated allergic diseases. In vitro diagnostic procedures and the measurement of serum tryptase for risk assessment are well-established in the process of diagnose finding and therapy preparation. For monitoring and validation of the effectiveness of the SIT, however, in vitro diagnostic procedures remain controversial. Potentially useful approaches include detection of specific IgE, specific IgG4, basophile activation - represented by the CD 63 expression - and the lymphocyte proliferation and its IL10 release. Preliminary data suggest that the latter method appear appropriate, whereas the detection of basophile activation did not produce definite results.

Maintenance venom immunotherapy administered at a 3-month interval preserves safety and efficacy and improves adherence.

BACKGROUND: Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT) is a safe and effective approach to insect sting allergy. However, after discontinuation, relapses can occur in some patients, especially those with a high occupational risk, and they may need to prolong VIT indefinitely. In order to improve adherence, we propose extending the interval between injections of maintenance VIT (MVIT). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and patient acceptance of a 3-month interval between MVIT injections in a group of Hymenoptera-allergic patients who are occupationally exposed to insect stings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 72 patients with severe systemic reactions to Hymenoptera stings. MVIT was administered for 4 years at intervals increasing up to 3 months and then continued for a further 2 years. Patients were informed of the risk of relapse after discontinuation and of the need for indefinite treatment at 3-month intervals. RESULTS: During the 3-month interval maintenance phase, only 235 local reactions (17.8%) were observed in 17 patients. Sixty patients experienced 125 field re-stings and only 1 experienced a systemic reaction with generalized urticaria. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms that the conventional MVIT interval of 4 to 6 weeks can be extended to 3 months in most patients with no adverse events, while maintaining safety and efficacy, improving adherence, and guaranteeing safe continuation of professional activity.

[Therapy control of specific hymenoptera venom allergy]. / Therapiekontrolle der Insektengifthyposensibilisierung.

In Germany anaphylactic reactions after insect stings are mostly caused by honey bee (Apis mellifera) and wasp (Vespula vulgaris, Vespula germanica). In the majority of cases venom immunotherapy is a successful therapy and protects patients from recurrent systemic anaphylactic reaction. In some patients persistent severe reactions after insect sting can even occur in spite of venom therapy, as a sign of therapy failure. It is important to identify these patients, who do not benefit from venom immunotherapy, in an early stage of therapy. In this case dose rate of venom immunotherapy must be adjusted for a successful therapy outcome. Up to now skin prick tests, specific IgE-antibodies and in vitro diagnostics are not suitable for detecting therapy failure. Patients with treatment failure can be diagnosed by insect sting test and almost all of them will become fully protected by increasing the maintenance dose.