Characteristics of venom allergic reactions in Turkish beekeepers and alternative treatment modalities

The Prevalence of Self-Reported Systemic Allergic Reaction to Hymenoptera Venom in Beekeepers Worldwide: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Beekeepers represent a high-allergic risk population group due to their unavoidable seasonal or persistent exposure to the elicitors of Hymenoptera venom allergy, bees in particular. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the prevalence of self-reported systemic allergic reaction to Hymenoptera venom among beekeepers worldwide.

Methods

We rigorously reviewed and conducted meta-analysis on observational studies retrieved from seven electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, ScienceDirect, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Zoological Record), spanning data from inception to August 1, 2023. The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool was employed to assess the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize evidence.

Results

Out of 468 studies, eight original articles met the inclusion criteria. The estimated overall lifetime and one-year prevalence of self-reported systemic allergic reaction to bee venom were 23.7% (95% CI: 7.7-53.4) and 7.3% (95% CI: 5.8-9.2), respectively. The estimated lifetime prevalence of self-reported systemic allergic reaction to bee venom for grades III-IV (severe systemic allergic reaction) was 6.0% (95% CI: 3.0-11.7). In general, substantial heterogeneity and a high risk of bias were observed across the majority of studies. The impact of geographical location and climate differences on the estimated lifetime prevalence is suggestive for severe systemic allergic reaction.

Conclusions

Future observational cross-sectional studies should employ rigorous study designs, using validated questionnaires, and thoroughly report the observed health outcomes, verified by physicians.

Reported Cases and Diagnostics of Occupational Insect Allergy: A Systematic Review

A significant part of adult-onset asthma is caused by occupational exposure to both high- and low-molecular-mass agents. Insects are occasionally described to cause occupational allergy in professions including anglers and fishers, laboratory workers, employees of aquaculture companies, farmers, bakers, sericulture workers and pet shop workers. Occupational insect allergies are often respiratory, causing asthma or rhinoconjunctivitis, but can be cutaneous as well. The European Union recently approved three insect species for human consumption, enabling an industry to develop where more employees could be exposed to insect products. This review overviews knowledge on occupational insect allergy risks and the tools used to diagnose employees. Despite the limited availability of commercial occupational insect allergy diagnostics, 60.9% of 164 included reports used skin prick tests and 63.4% of reports used specific IgE tests. In 21.9% of reports, a more elaborate diagnosis of occupational asthma was made by specific inhalation challenges or peak expiratory flow measurements at the workplace. In some work environments, 57% of employees were sensitized, and no less than 60% of employees reported work-related symptoms. Further development and optimization of specific diagnostics, together with strong primary prevention, may be vital to the health conditions of workers in the developing insect industry.

Venom allergy and knowledge about anaphylaxis among beekeepers and their families

BACKGROUND

Beekeepers and their families are at an increased risk of life-threatening anaphylaxis due to recurrent bee-sting exposures.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the demographic features, previous history of anaphylaxis among beekeepers and their family members, and their knowledge about the symptoms and management of anaphylaxis.

METHODS

A standardized questionnaire was administered to beekeepers during the 6th International Beekeeping and Pine Honey Congress held in 2018, in Mugla, Turkey. Additionally, food-service staff from restaurants were surveyed as an occupational control group about their knowledge about anaphylaxis.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine beekeepers (82.6% male, mean age 48.4±12.0 years) and 52 restaurant staff (46.2% male, mean age 40.5±10.0 years) completed the questionnaire. Awareness of the terms 'anaphylaxis' and 'epinephrine auto-injector' among the beekeepers were 55.1% and 30.4% and among the restaurant staff were 23.1% and 3.8%, respectively. Of the beekeepers, 74% were able to identify the potential symptoms of anaphylaxis among the given choices; 2.9% and 5.8% reported anaphylaxis related to bee-stings in themselves and in their family members, respectively. None of the restaurant staff had experienced or encountered anaphylaxis before but 3.8% of their family members had anaphylaxis and those reactions were induced by drugs.

CONCLUSION

It is essential that implementation of focused training programs about anaphylaxis symptoms and signs as well as practical instructions of when and how to use an epinephrine auto-injector will decrease preventable morbidities and mortalities due to bee-stings in this selected high-risk population of beekeepers and their family members, as well as other fieldworkers under risk.

Allergic Anaphylactic Risk in Farming Activities: A Systematic Review

Allergic disorders in the agriculture sector are very common among farm workers, causing many injuries and occupational diseases every year. Agricultural employees are exposed to multiple conditions and various allergenic substances, which could be related to onset of anaphylactic reactions. This systematic review highlights the main clinical manifestation, the allergens that are mostly involved and the main activities that are usually involved. This research includes articles published on the major databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus), using a combination of keywords. The online search yielded 489 references; after selection, by the authors, 36 articles (nine reviews and 27 original articles) were analyzed. From this analysis, the main clinical problems that were diagnosed in this category were respiratory (ranging from rhinitis to asthma) and dermatological (eczema, dermatitis, hives) in nature, with a wide symptomatology (from a simple local reaction to anaphylaxis). The main activities associated with these allergic conditions are harvesting or cultivation of fruit and cereals, beekeepers and people working in greenhouses. Finally, in addition to the allergens already known, new ones have emerged, including triticale, wine, spider and biological dust. For these reasons, in the agricultural sector, research needs to be amplified, considering new sectors, new technologies and new products, and ensuring a system of prevention to reduce this risk.

Venom allergy, risk factors for systemic reactions and the knowledge levels among Turkish beekeepers

Background

Allergic reactions developing after bee sting can be severe and life-threatening. According to epidemiological data, serious systemic reactions range between 1.2%–3%, and this is 2–3 times higher (6%) in beekeeping. In different beekeepers' populations, risk factors of systemic reactions have been investigated and diverse results have been found.

Objective

The aim of this study is to evaluate the level of knowledge of beekeepers about venom allergy, epidemiological data, systemic reaction rates, risk factors for systemic reactions, and the rate of emergency admissions after bee sting.

Methods

With the collaboration of Uludağ University Beekeeping Development Research Center and Beekeepers Association, a questionnaire consisting of 19 questions was applied to 242 beekeepers in Bursa and Yalova. Two hundred twenty-one beekeepers who completed the questionnaire were involved in the study.

Results

The mean age of the beekeepers was 49.9 years (range, 18–75 years). The systemic reaction to bee sting in beekeepers was 37.6%. Allergic rhinitis was found to be a risk factor for systemic reaction. Although 80% of the beekeepers recognized that bee venom could be lethal, only 60% of the beekeepers were aware of immunotherapy, and only 30% were aware of the adrenaline auto-injector drug.

Conclusion

Similar to previous studies, we found that the systemic response to the bee sting in beekeepers was higher compared to normal population. Considering the occupational exposure to bee venom and thus higher risk, the awareness of venom allergy in this high risk population was low, and they were poorly informed about the treatment options.