Safety of specific immunotherapy using an ultra-rush induction regimen in bee and wasp allergy

Breaking the mold: nontraditional approaches to allergen immunotherapy for environmental allergens

Allergen immunotherapy is a disease-modifying treatment for allergic diseases. The predominant traditional immunotherapy is through subcutaneous administration of allergens to gradually desensitize allergic individuals. While effective, traditional allergen immunotherapy approaches are often lengthy, time consuming for patients and can result in local or systemic adverse reactions. Nontraditional immunotherapies are emerging as promising alternatives, offering potentially more convenient, safe and efficacious treatment options. This review sought to comprehensively examine the safety, efficacy and performance of various nontraditional immunotherapies for environmental allergens. Nontraditional immunotherapy approaches covered in this review include sublingual, local nasal, intralymphatic rush and ultra-rush immunotherapy, allergoid, microbial and anti-IgE immunotherapies. Nontraditional immunotherapies show significant promise in addressing the limitations of traditional subcutaneous immunotherapy. Methods like intralymphatic and rush immunotherapy offer shorter treatment regimens, enhancing patient adherence and convenience. The co-administration of probiotics or monoclonal antibodies, like omalizumab, with AIT appears to improve treatment efficacy and safety. Despite these advancements, further large-scale, long-term studies are needed to establish standardized protocols, dosing and validate long-term effects of these nontraditional immunotherapies. Standardizing outcome measurements across studies is crucial for accurate comparisons of nontraditional immunotherapies prior to widespread clinical adoption of these innovative techniques.

Safety and Efficacy of VIT against Wasp Venom in Ultra-Rush Protocols in Patients Older Than 60 Years

BACKGROUND

Allergen immunotherapy remains a widely recognized and widely used method for the treatment of selected allergic diseases. Currently, according to the European Academy Of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) guidelines, venom immunotherapy (VIT) may be considered for patients over 60. Nevertheless, no separate studies have confirmed the efficacy and safety of this therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term effectiveness of VIT against wasp allergens in an ultra-rush protocol for older patients compared to young patients.

METHODS

Among the 113 patients included in this study, 51 were older than 60 years (Group A), and 62 formed the control "young group" (age range: 18-35 years). All patients were desensitized to wasp venom using the ultra-rush protocol according to Muller and aqueous solutions of vaccines containing wasp venom. A basophil activation test (Basotest, Orpegen Pharma, Germany) and intracutaneous tests with dilutions of wasp allergen and specific IgE to extract wasp venom were performed at the start and after six months of VIT. The safety of VIT was assessed on the basis of the international Mueller scale.

RESULTS

One hundred and eleven patients with confirmed wasp allergies completed six months of VIT: 51 participants over 60 years of age (Group A) and 60 young people (Group B). No systemic adverse reactions were observed during the VIT induction phase. However, large local reactions were noted in 17% of older patients and 20% of young patients at a similar level (p > 0.05). During maintenance VIT, two mild grade I systemic reactions were confirmed in young patients. These symptoms resolved spontaneously. There were no such reactions in older patients. The effectiveness of VIT was tested using BAT. There was a statistically significant reduction in CD63 reactivity in 86% of patients in Group A, and a comparable and substantial decrease in 84% of young patients in Group B. According to the BAT test, the mean reductions in the area under the curve (AUC) after six months of VIT were significant (p < 0.05) and comparable between Groups A and B: -6.52 vs. 7.21.

CONCLUSIONS

VIT against wasp venom is safe and effective in short-term observation, and is comparable to that used for young patients.

Challenges in Drug and Hymenoptera Venom Hypersensitivity Diagnosis and Management in Mastocytosis

Mastocytosis is a myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by abnormal proliferation and activation of clonal mast cells typically bearing the KITD816V mutation. Symptoms manifest due to the release of bioactive mediators and the tissue infiltration by neoplastic mast cells. Mast cell activation symptoms include flushing, pruritus, urticaria, abdominal cramping, diarrhea, wheezing, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and anaphylaxis. Up to 50% of patients with mastocytosis report a history of provoked and unprovoked anaphylaxis, with Hymenoptera venom and drugs the most common culprits. NSAIDs, antibiotics, vaccines, perioperative medications, and radiocontrast media are often empirically avoided without evidence of reactions, depriving patients of needed medications and placing them at risk for unfavorable outcomes. The purpose of this review is to highlight the most common agents responsible for adverse drug reactions in patients with mastocytosis, with a review of current epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of drug hypersensitivity and Hymenoptera venom allergy.

Adverse reactions in venom immunotherapy protocols: conventional versus ultra-rush

BACKGROUND

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is an effective treatment in the patients at high risk of anaphylaxis or life-threatening systemic reactions due to Hymenoptera venom allergy. But, systemic and large local reactions can be observed, especially during the build-up phase of VIT. We evaluated the safety of conventional and ultra-rush build-up protocols.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two protocols in 71 patients (39 conventional and 32 ultra-rush protocols) with honeybee and wasp venom allergy were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were diagnosed and selected for VIT according to the criteria established by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. The severity of systemic reactions was evaluated according to the criteria of Mueller.

RESULTS

Build-up phases were tolerated in 66.2% (n = 47) without any reaction. Allergic adverse reactions were observed in 33.8% (n = 24): large local reactions 22.5% (n = 16) and systemic reactions 11.3% (n = 8). There was no significant difference in the number of adverse reactions comparing patients receiving conventional and ultra-rush protocol. In addition, no association was found between allergic adverse reactions and the following factors: sex, previous systemic sting reactions, honeybee and wasp venom extract.

CONCLUSION

We found that both protocols were tolerated in patients with honeybee and wasp venom allergy. Ultra-rush protocol will be preferred for patients and clinicians because of its advantages in terms of time and costs.KEY MESSAGESVIT is the only curative treatment method that reduces the risk of severe reactions after a bee sting and improves the quality of life in patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy.Ultra-rush VIT protocol has advantages such as few injection and time savings.Both ultra-rush and conventional VIT are safe treatments to prevent potentially life-threatening reactions in patients with honeybee and wasp venom allergy.

Accelerated/rush allergen immunotherapy

Accelerated allergy shot schedules for inhalant and venom allergens provide individuals with allergy symptom relief but in a shorter time frame than conventional therapy. Accelerated immunotherapy (IT) protocols allow patients to reach therapeutic doses in a shorter time frame while improving adherence and reducing direct costs (e.g., fewer office visits and medications) and indirect costs (e.g., less travel time, missed work or school). Rush IT and cluster IT are believed to work through mechanisms similar to conventional subcutaneous IT (SCIT). The risk for severe systemic reactions during accelerated IT is low when appropriately administered; however, life-threatening and fatal reactions do occur. To reduce the incidence of systemic allergic reactions during cluster and rush IT protocols, premedication is recommended. It is important to exclude individuals at high risk such as those with poorly controlled asthma or those who are on β-blockers to mitigate the risk for developing systemic allergic reactions. However, accelerated SCIT regimens offer increased convenience, faster improvement in allergy symptoms, and the potential to reduce health-care costs while providing equivalent safety outcomes compared with conventional IT protocols.

Biomarkers of the Severity of Honeybee Sting Reactions and the Severity and Threshold of Systemic Adverse Events During Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

A biomarker that could identify individuals at high risk for severe honeybee sting allergic reaction and/or systemic adverse events (SAEs) during venom immunotherapy (VIT) would improve the management of patients with honeybee (HB) venom allergy.

OBJECTIVE

To identify biomarkers for risk of severe sting reactions or SAEs during VIT.

METHODS

We recruited 332 patients undergoing HB VIT. We ascertained predictors of the severity of the field-sting reaction and the severity and threshold of SAEs during VIT. We assessed the use of cardiovascular medications; baseline serum tryptase (BST) levels; specific IgEs to HB venom, rApi m 1, and rApi m 10; and basophil activation test (BAT) response.

RESULTS

Significant and independent predictors of a severe HB field-sting reaction were age (P = .008), an absence of skin symptoms (P = .001), BST (P = .014), and BAT response at an HB venom concentration of 0.1 μg/mL (P = .001). Predictors of severe SAEs during HB VIT were age (P = .025), BST (P = .006), and BAT response (P = .001). BAT response was also an individual and significant predictor of any SAEs and SAEs at a low cumulative allergen dose (median, 55 μg) during VIT build-up (P < .001). The use of β-blockers and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and specific IgE levels were not associated with the severity of HB field-sting reactions or VIT SAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

BST and basophil activation are independent risk factors for severe HB sting anaphylaxis and SAEs during HB VIT. BAT response was the best biomarker for any SAEs and a lower threshold of SAEs during HB VIT. These risk factors can help guide recommendations for VIT and overcome systemic reactions to HB VIT.

Safety and tolerability of venom immunotherapy: Evaluation of 581 rush- and ultra-rush induction protocols (safety of rush and ultra-rush venom immunotherapy)

Background

Current literature is inconsistent regarding the risk of severe side effects using accelerated induction protocols in Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT). In addition, several data indicate the influence of purity grade of venom preparation on tolerability. We evaluated the safety and tolerability of ultra-rush and rush build-up protocols using purified and non-purified venom preparations.

Methods

Retrospective single-center study of 581 VIT inductions (325 ultra-rush and 256 rush protocols) from 2005 to 2018 in 559 patients with bee and vespid venom allergy using aqueous purified (ALK SQ®) for ultra-rush protocol and aqueous non-purified (ALK Reless®) venom preparations for rush protocol.

Results

Urticaria (8% vs. 3.1%, p = 0,013) and dose reductions (4.3% vs. 1.2%, p = 0,026) were significantly more frequent in the ultra-rush group. Overall rate of moderate-to-severe side effects (anaphylaxis ≥grade 2 according to Ring and Meβmer) was low and did not differ significantly between protocols (p = 0.105). Severe events (grade 4 anaphylaxis) were not reported. Discontinuation rate was very low in both cohorts (0.6% vs 1.2%). The higher purity grade of venom preparations in the ultra-rush cohort did not improve tolerability. The bee venom group showed a non-significant trend towards higher incidence of mild reactions (urticaria), resulting in more frequent dose reductions and antiallergic therapy.

Conclusion

Rush and ultra-rush protocols show an excellent safety profile with only infrequent and mild anaphylactic reactions in bee and vespid venom allergy. Ultra-rush immunotherapy reduces the duration of the inpatient build-up phase setting and thus is viewed by the authors as preferred treatment in Hymenoptera venom allergic patients.

Safety and Effectiveness of a 3-Day Rush Insect Venom Immunotherapy Protocol

BACKGROUND

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is an established and effective treatment for patients with Hymenoptera venom allergies. Especially during the build-up of VIT, systemic allergic reactions are a key issue.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety and effectiveness of a 3-day rush insect VIT protocol and a strategy for the management of individuals with VIT-induced anaphylaxis.

METHODS

In this retrospective monocentric study, 11-year data regarding build-up cycles of VIT were retrieved from institutional records. The following parameters of VIT-induced anaphylaxis were analyzed: frequency, severity, time of occurrence within the build-up cycle, and impact on the success of VIT. The effectiveness of VIT was assessed by the results of sting challenges (SCs) by the culprit insect.

RESULTS

In total, 1,317 initial build-up cycles of VIT were evaluated in this study, and the frequency of VIT-induced anaphylaxis was 6.6%. Anaphylaxis occurred most frequently when the daily cumulative venom dose was ≥100 µg. A group (n = 65) of patients with VIT-induced anaphylaxis in this dose range temporarily received a reduced maintenance dose, and without additional co-medications or complications, the target dose was reached after a second build-up in 91% of the cycles. After completing the VIT build-up, SCs were performed in 76.9% of the cohort, and the effectiveness of VIT was confirmed by 98.5% of the tests.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we report a 3-day VIT rush protocol with a reasonable rate of VIT-induced anaphylaxis and excellent effectiveness of VIT.