Venom immunotherapy in hymenoptera sting allergy. Comparison of rush and conventional hyposensitization and observations during long-term treatment

Expression of eosinophils, RANTES and IL-25 in the first phase of Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy

Introduction

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) can protect against severe anaphylactic reactions (SR) in 80–100% of subjects allergic to Hymenoptera venom. The mechanisms of induction of immunological tolerance produced by VIT are still little known. It has been shown that VIT modulates Treg activity, Th2 or Th1 cells or both, increases production of IL-10, decreases secretion of IL-13, and causes an IgG4/IgE ratio shift.

Aim

To investigate the blood eosinophil count, CCL5/RANTES and IL-17E/IL-25 concentrations before and after the initial phases of the rush protocol of VIT.

Material and methods

Forty individuals (14 males, 26 females) of mean age 41.03 ±12.43 years were included in the study. The peripheral eosinophils and the concentration of serum interleukin IL-17E/IL-25 and RANTES were determined before and after the initial phase of VIT.

Results

Paired sample t-test revealed that all patients after VIT had significantly higher eosinophil levels compared to the baseline (mean: 0.42 vs. 0.64, p < 0.05). Moreover, in subjects treated with bee venom, RANTES levels proved to rise significantly (51 × 103 vs. 62 × 103, p < 0.05) while IL-17E/IL-25 dropped with near-marginal significance (916 vs. 650, p = 0.069).

Conclusions

Our immunological study on the early phase of venom immunotherapy suggested that eosinophils, cytokines such as CCL5/RANTES and IL-17E/IL-25 contribute to the immunological response.

Determinants of venom-specific IgE antibody concentration during long-term wasp venom immunotherapy

Background

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is an effective treatment for subjects with systemic allergic reactions (SR) to Hymenoptera stings, however there are few studies concerning the relevance of the venom specific IgE changes to decide about VIT cessation. We assessed IgE changes during a 5-year VIT, in patients stung and protected within the first 3 years (SP 0–3) or in the last 2 years (SP 3–5), and in patients not stung (NoS), to evaluate possible correlations between IgE changes and clinical protection.

Methods

Yellow jacket venom (YJV)-allergic patients who completed 5 years of VIT were retrospectively evaluated. Baseline IgE levels and after the 3rd and the 5th year of VIT were determined; all patients were asked about field stings and SRs.

Results

A total of 232 YJV-allergic patients were included and divided into the following groups: 84 NoS, 72 SP 0–3 and 76 SP 3–5. IgE levels decreased during VIT compared to baseline values (χ² = 346.029, p < 0.001). Recent vespid stings accounted for significantly higher IgE levels despite clinical protection. IgE levels after 5 years of VIT correlated significantly with Mueller grade (F = 2.778, p = 0.012) and age (F = 6.672, p = 0.002). During follow-up from 1 to 10 years after VIT discontinuation, 35.2 % of the contacted patients reported at least one field sting without SR.

Conclusions

The yellow jacket-VIT temporal stopping criterion of 5 years duration did not result in undetectable IgE levels, despite a long-lasting protection. A mean IgE decrease from 58 to 70 % was observed, and it was less marked in elderly patients or in subjects with higher Mueller grade SR.

Risk associated with bee venom therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The safety of bee venom as a therapeutic compound has been extensively studied, resulting in the identification of potential adverse events, which range from trivial skin reactions that usually resolve over several days to life-threating severe immunological responses such as anaphylaxis. In this systematic review, we provide a summary of the types and prevalence of adverse events associated with bee venom therapy.

METHODS

We searched the literature using 12 databases from their inception to June 2014, without language restrictions. We included all types of clinical studies in which bee venom was used as a key intervention and adverse events that may have been causally related to bee venom therapy were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 145 studies, including 20 randomized controlled trials, 79 audits and cohort studies, 33 single-case studies, and 13 case series, were evaluated in this review. The median frequency of patients who experienced adverse events related to venom immunotherapy was 28.87% (interquartile range, 14.57-39.74) in the audit studies. Compared with normal saline injection, bee venom acupuncture showed a 261% increased relative risk for the occurrence of adverse events (relative risk, 3.61; 95% confidence interval, 2.10 to 6.20) in the randomized controlled trials, which might be overestimated or underestimated owing to the poor reporting quality of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events related to bee venom therapy are frequent; therefore, practitioners of bee venom therapy should be cautious when applying it in daily clinical practice, and the practitioner's education and qualifications regarding the use of bee venom therapy should be ensured.

Honey as a topical treatment for wounds

BACKGROUND

Honey is a viscous, supersaturated sugar solution derived from nectar gathered and modified by the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Honey has been used since ancient times as a remedy in wound care. Evidence from animal studies and some trials has suggested that honey may accelerate wound healing.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of honey compared with alternative wound dressings and topical treatments on the of healing of acute (e.g. burns, lacerations) and/or chronic (e.g. venous ulcers) wounds.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 October 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to October Week 1 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 13 October 2014); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 13 October 2014); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 15 October 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that evaluated honey as a treatment for any sort of acute or chronic wound were sought. There was no restriction in terms of source, date of publication or language. Wound healing was the primary endpoint.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data from eligible trials were extracted and summarised by one review author, using a data extraction sheet, and independently verified by a second review author. All data have been subsequently checked by two more authors.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 26 eligible trials (total of 3011 participants). Three trials evaluated the effects of honey in minor acute wounds, 11 trials evaluated honey in burns, 10 trials recruited people with different chronic wounds including two in people with venous leg ulcers, two trials in people with diabetic foot ulcers and single trials in infected post-operative wounds, pressure injuries, cutaneous Leishmaniasis and Fournier's gangrene. Two trials recruited a mixed population of people with acute and chronic wounds. The quality of the evidence varied between different comparisons and outcomes. We mainly downgraded the quality of evidence for risk of bias, imprecision and, in a few cases, inconsistency.There is high quality evidence (2 trials, n=992) that honey dressings heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional dressings (WMD -4.68 days, 95%CI -5.09 to -4.28) but it is unclear if there is a difference in rates of adverse events (very low quality evidence) or infection (low quality evidence).There is very low quality evidence (4 trials, n=332) that burns treated with honey heal more quickly than those treated with silver sulfadiazine (SSD) (WMD -5.12 days, 95%CI -9.51 to -0.73) and high quality evidence from 6 trials (n=462) that there is no difference in overall risk of healing within 6 weeks for honey compared with SSD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02) but a reduction in the overall risk of adverse events with honey relative to SSD. There is low quality evidence (1 trial, n=50) that early excision and grafting heals partial and full thickness burns more quickly than honey followed by grafting as necessary (WMD 13.6 days, 95%CI 9.82 to 17.38).There is low quality evidence (2 trials, different comparators, n=140) that honey heals a mixed population of acute and chronic wounds more quickly than SSD or sugar dressings.Honey healed infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptic washes followed by gauze and was associated with fewer adverse events (1 trial, n=50, moderate quality evidence, RR of healing 1.69, 95%CI 1.10 to 2.61); healed pressure ulcers more quickly than saline soaks (1 trial, n= 40, very low quality evidence, RR 1.41, 95%CI 1.05 to 1.90), and healed Fournier's gangrene more quickly than Eusol soaks (1 trial, n=30, very low quality evidence, WMD -8.00 days, 95%CI -6.08 to -9.92 days).The effects of honey relative to comparators are unclear for: venous leg ulcers (2 trials, n= 476, low quality evidence); minor acute wounds (3 trials, n=213, very low quality evidence); diabetic foot ulcers (2 trials, n=93, low quality evidence); Leishmaniasis (1 trial, n=100, low quality evidence); mixed chronic wounds (2 trials, n=150, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is difficult to draw overall conclusions regarding the effects of honey as a topical treatment for wounds due to the heterogeneous nature of the patient populations and comparators studied and the mostly low quality of the evidence. The quality of the evidence was mainly downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision. Honey appears to heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional treatment (which included polyurethane film, paraffin gauze, soframycin-impregnated gauze, sterile linen and leaving the burns exposed) and infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptics and gauze. Beyond these comparisons any evidence for differences in the effects of honey and comparators is of low or very low quality and does not form a robust basis for decision making.

Management of anaphylaxis: a systematic review

To establish the effectiveness of interventions for the acute and long-term management of anaphylaxis, seven databases were searched for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series and - only in relation to adrenaline - case series investigating the effectiveness of interventions in managing anaphylaxis. Fifty-five studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. We found no robust studies investigating the effectiveness of adrenaline (epinephrine), H1-antihistamines, systemic glucocorticosteroids or methylxanthines to manage anaphylaxis. There was evidence regarding the optimum route, site and dose of administration of adrenaline from trials studying people with a history of anaphylaxis. This suggested that administration of intramuscular adrenaline into the middle of vastus lateralis muscle is the optimum treatment. Furthermore, fatality register studies have suggested that a failure or delay in administration of adrenaline may increase the risk of death. The main long-term management interventions studied were anaphylaxis management plans and allergen-specific immunotherapy. Management plans may reduce the risk of further reactions, but these studies were at high risk of bias. Venom immunotherapy may reduce the incidence of systemic reactions in those with a history of venom-triggered anaphylaxis.

Honey as a topical treatment for wounds

BACKGROUND

Honey is a viscous, supersaturated sugar solution derived from nectar gathered and modified by the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Honey has been used since ancient times as a remedy in wound care. Evidence from animal studies and some trials has suggested that honey may accelerate wound healing.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to determine whether honey increases the rate of healing in acute wounds (e.g. burns, lacerations) and chronic wounds (e.g. skin ulcers, infected surgical wounds).

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update of the review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 13 June 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE (2008 to May Week 5 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 12 June 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2008 to 2012 Week 23); and EBSCO CINAHL (2008 to 8 June 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that evaluated honey as a treatment for any sort of acute or chronic wound were sought. There was no restriction in terms of source, date of publication or language. Wound healing was the primary endpoint.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data from eligible trials were extracted and summarised by one review author, using a data extraction sheet, and independently verified by a second review author.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 25 trials (with a total of 2987 participants) that met the inclusion criteria, including six new trials that were added to this update. In acute wounds, three trials evaluated the effect of honey in acute lacerations, abrasions or minor surgical wounds and 12 trials evaluated the effect of honey in burns. In chronic wounds, two trials evaluated the effect of honey in venous leg ulcers, and single trials investigated its effect in infected post-operative wounds, pressure injuries, cutaneous Lieshmaniasis, diabetic foot ulcers and Fournier's gangrene. Three trials recruited people into mixed groups of chronic or acute wounds. Most trials were at high or unclear risk of bias. In acute wounds, specifically partial-thickness burns, honey might reduce time to healing compared with some conventional dressings (WMD -4.68 days, 95%CI -4.28 to -5.09 days), but, when compared with early excision and grafting, honey delays healing in partial- and full-thickness burns (WMD 13.6 days, 95% CI 10.02 to 17.18 days). In chronic wounds, honey does not significantly increase healing in venous leg ulcers when used as an adjuvant to compression (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.38), and may delay healing in cutaneous Leishmaniasis when used as an adjuvant to meglumine antimoniate compared to meglumine antimoniate alone (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.01).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Honey dressings do not increase rates of healing significantly in venous leg ulcers when used as an adjuvant to compression. Honey may delay healing in partial- and full-thickness burns in comparison to early excision and grafting, and in cutaneous Leishmaniasis when used as an adjuvant with meglumine antimoniate. Honey might be superior to some conventional dressing materials, but there is considerable uncertainty about the replicability and applicability of this evidence. There is insufficient evidence to guide clinical practice in other types of wounds, and purchasers should refrain from providing honey dressings for routine use until sufficient evidence of effect is available.

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.

Bee venom immunotherapy - how early is it effective?

BACKGROUND

Although the effectiveness of venom immunotherapy (VIT) in bee venom (BV) allergy has been well established over the past 30 years, no previous study has demonstrated its efficacy immediately after reaching the maintenance dose (MD). We examined the effectiveness of bee VIT within a week after the MD was achieved.

METHODS

Bee venom allergic patients underwent conventional or rush VIT. Within 1 week after reaching the 100 microg MD, patients were challenged with a live bee sting.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine of 107 patients (73.8%) who reached the MD agreed to be challenged. Seventy patients (88.6%) tolerated the sting uneventfully. Four patients (5.1%) developed a very mild local transient rash and continued to receive the 100 microg MD. In five patients (6.3%), the sting resulted in a mild-moderate systemic reaction. In four of these, the MD was increased to 200-250 microg. All four patients uneventfully tolerated a repeated sting that was performed within 1 week after achieving the increased MD in three patients and after 14 months in the fourth patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Bee VIT is effective in most patients immediately after the conventional MD has been reached. In the minority of patients who are not protected with this dose, an increased MD will provide appropriate protection immediately after it is achieved. Thus, the dosage of the MD seems to be the major factor affecting protection from re-stings rather than the accumulated venom dose or the duration on the MD.

Hymenoptera venom allergy: analysis of double positivity to honey bee and Vespula venom by estimation of IgE antibodies to species-specific major allergens Api m1 and Ves v5

BACKGROUND

In patients with hymenoptera venom allergy diagnostic tests are often positive with honey bee and Vespula venom causing problems in selection of venoms for immunotherapy.

METHODS

100 patients each with allergic reactions to Vespula or honey bee stings and positive i.e. skin tests to the respective venom, were analysed for serum IgE to bee venom, Vespula venom and crossreacting carbohydrate determinants (CCDs) by UNICAP (CAP) and ADVIA Centaur (ADVIA). IgE-antibodies to species specific recombinant major allergens (SSMA) Api m1 for bee venom and Ves v5 for Vespula venom, were determined by ADVIA. 30 history and skin test negative patients served as controls.

RESULTS

By CAP sensitivity was 1.0 for bee and 0.91 for Vespula venom, by ADVIA 0.99 for bee and 0.91 for Vespula venom. None of the controls were positive with either test. Double positivity was observed in 59% of allergic patients by CAP, in 32% by ADVIA. slgE to Api m1 was detected in 97% of bee and 17% of Vespula venom allergic patients, slgE to Ves v5 in 87% of Vespula and 17% of bee venom allergic patients. slgE to CCDs were present in 37% of all allergic patients and in 56% of those with double positivity and were more frequent in bee than in Vespula venom allergic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Double positivity of IgE to bee and Vespula venom is often caused by crossreactions, especially to CCDs. IgE to both Api m1 and Ves v5 indicates true double sensitization and immunotherapy with both venoms.

Honey as a topical treatment for wounds

BACKGROUND

Honey is a viscous, supersaturated sugar solution derived from nectar gathered and modified by the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Honey has been used since ancient times as a remedy in wound care. Evidence from animal studies and some trials has suggested honey may accelerate wound healing.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to determine whether honey increases the rate of healing in acute wounds (burns, lacerations and other traumatic wounds) and chronic wounds (venous ulcers, arterial ulcers, diabetic ulcers, pressure ulcers, infected surgical wounds).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (May 2008), CENTRAL (May 2008) and several other electronic databases (May 2008). Bibliographies were searched and manufacturers of dressing products were contacted for unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi randomised trials that evaluated honey as a treatment for any sort of acute or chronic wound were sought. There was no restriction in terms of source, date of publication or language. Wound healing was the primary endpoint.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data from eligible trials were extracted and summarised using a data extraction sheet by one author and independently verified by a second author.

MAIN RESULTS

19 trials (n=2554) were identified that met the inclusion criteria. In acute wounds, three trials evaluated the effect of honey in acute lacerations, abrasions or minor surgical wounds and nine trials evaluated the effect the honey in burns. In chronic wounds two trials evaluated the effect of honey in venous leg ulcers and one trial in pressure ulcers, infected post-operative wounds, and Fournier's gangrene respectively. Two trials recruited people with mixed groups of chronic or acute wounds. The poor quality of most of the trial reports means the results should be interpreted with caution, except in venous leg ulcers. In acute wounds, honey may reduce time to healing compared with some conventional dressings in partial thickness burns (WMD -4.68 days, 95%CI -4.28 to -5.09 days). All the included burns trials have originated from a single centre, which may have impact on replicability. In chronic wounds, honey in addition to compression bandaging does not significantly increase healing in venous leg ulcers (RR 1.15, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.38). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of honey compared with other treatments for burns or in other acute or chronic wound types.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Honey may improve healing times in mild to moderate superficial and partial thickness burns compared with some conventional dressings. Honey dressings as an adjuvant to compression do not significantly increase leg ulcer healing at 12 weeks. There is insufficient evidence to guide clinical practice in other areas.

Skin testing technique and precision in stinging insect allergy

AIM

We report on quantitative analysis of skin tests in patients undergoing Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy. The need for accuracy, coupled with a sound manual technique, in performing this procedure is emphasized. Involuntary errors may occur and pose serious problems with interpretation of results. A revealing example is reported and the strategy devised to analyse the flaws and overcome the resulting problems is presented and discussed.

BACKGROUND

Skin testing plays a key role in the diagnosis of most allergic disease and in the assessment of allergen immunotherapy. Particularly, insect sting allergy requires implementation of complex and demanding skin testing protocols and a competent nursing practice.

METHODS

Sixteen patients were tested before starting the immunotherapy and after three years of treatment. Cutaneous response (expected to decline, following immunotherapy) was assessed as: (i) allergen-elicited wheal areas; (ii) ratios between allergen-elicited wheal areas and homologous histamine (positive controls) wheal areas.

RESULTS

By using allergen-elicited areas, the paradoxical result was obtained that skin reactivity had increased instead of decreasing, upon immunotherapy. Histamine response analysis suggested that this paradox might rather be the result of a technical flaw. Analysis of written notes of routine clinical meetings revealed that an important manual flaw had been detected (and corrected) some years earlier, affecting the results of the baseline testing (viz. the allergen was injected deeper in the skin, yielding a weaker response). Skin reactivity evaluation in terms of allergen-histamine ratio confirmed this interpretation, as, when the baseline ratios were compared with the three years immunotherapy ratios, a distinct decline in skin reactivity was detected, as expected.

CONCLUSIONS

Skin testing in insect sting allergy is a conceptually and manually complex procedure, which should be subjected to systematic quality control assessment, like a laboratory procedure. The personnel involved in the performance of this procedure should receive appropriate and extensive training.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Diagnosis of allergic diseases and monitoring of immunotherapy largely rely on impeccable skin testing technique.

Rush venom immunotherapy in patients experiencing recurrent systemic reactions to conventional venom immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

An unknown number of venom-allergic patients fail to reach the maintenance dose (MD) during the build-up period of conventional venom immunotherapy (VIT) due to recurrent systemic reactions (SRs).

OBJECTIVE

To establish an alternative VIT protocol that will enable these patients to reach a full protective MD.

METHODS

Venom-allergic patients who had experienced recurrent SRs during the build-up period of conventional VIT underwent rush VIT.

RESULTS

Of the 9 patients who participated in this study, the 6 who underwent 8 treatment courses tolerated the rush VIT well and reached the MD within 3 days. In 3 of these patients, mild cutaneous SRs were overcome with loratadine. In 2 patients who experienced recurrent and more severe SRs, the original 3-day rush VIT had to be modified and extended to 5 days until the MD was reached. In a single patient who experienced an anaphylactic reaction, VIT was discontinued.

CONCLUSIONS

Rush VIT is an appropriate therapeutic alternative that enables most patients with recurrent SRs throughout the build-up period of conventional VIT to reach a full protective MD.

Elevated basal serum tryptase and hymenoptera venom allergy: relation to severity of sting reactions and to safety and efficacy of venom immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Mastocytosis and/or elevated basal serum tryptase may be associated with severe anaphylaxis.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse Hymenoptera venom-allergic patients with regard to basal tryptase in relation to the severity of sting reactions and the safety and efficacy of venom immunotherapy.

METHODS

Basal serum tryptase was measured in 259 Hymenoptera venom-allergic patients (158 honey bee, 101 Vespula). In 161 of these (104 honey bee, 57 Vespula), a sting challenge was performed during venom immunotherapy.

RESULTS

Nineteen of the 259 patients had an elevated basal serum tryptase. Evidence of cutaneous mastocytosis as documented by skin biopsy was present in 3 of 16 patients (18.8%). There was a clear correlation of basal serum tryptase to the grade of the initial allergic reaction (P<0.0005). Forty-one of the 161 sting challenged patients reacted to the challenge, 34 to a bee sting and 7 to a Vespula sting. Thereof, 10 had an elevated basal serum tryptase, i.e. 1 (2.9%) of the reacting and 2 (2.9%) of the non-reacting bee venom (BV) allergic individuals, as compared to 3 (42.9%) of the reacting and 4 (8%) of the non-reacting Vespula venom-allergic patients. Thus, there was a significant association between a reaction to the sting challenge and an elevated basal serum tryptase in Vespula (chi2=6.926, P<0.01), but not in BV-allergic patients. Systemic allergic side-effects to venom immunotherapy were observed in 13.9% of patients with normal and in 10% of those with elevated basal serum tryptase.

CONCLUSIONS

An elevated basal serum tryptase as well as mastocytosis are risk factors for severe or even fatal shock reactions to Hymenoptera stings. Although the efficacy of venom immunotherapy in these patients is slightly reduced, most of them can be treated successfully. Based on currently available data, lifelong treatment has to be discussed in this situation.

Rush Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy: a safe and practical protocol for high-risk patients

BACKGROUND

Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy in allergic patients is a well-established treatment modality for the prevention of systemic anaphylactic reactions caused by insect stings. A variety of therapy regimens exists, from conventional to rush and ultrarush modalities that operate on continuous or intermittent schedules.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to report the 8-year experience with our rush venom immunotherapy regimen in predominantly high-risk patients and to compare data on safety and convenience with the results of 26 studies published from 1978 to 2001.

METHODS

One hundred one patients allergic to bee, yellow jacket, or hornet venom were treated with rush Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy. Diagnosis and selection of patients for venom immunotherapy were carried out according to the recommendations of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology. We used a 4-day regimen, and the incidence and nature of systemic reactions (SRs) were documented. Fifty-two patients were treated with honeybee venom, and 49 were treated with yellow jacket venom.

RESULTS

One hundred (99%) patients reached the maintenance dose. We observed 8 injection-related SRs (0.47% of all injections given) in 7 (6.9%) patients. The number of SRs was higher in patients treated with bee venom extract (12%) compared with in patients receiving yellow jacket venom extract (2%). There was no significant difference in the risk of SRs between female and male patients. The incidence of SRs was considerably lower than the average of 17.8% reported in the literature.

CONCLUSION

With a rush immunotherapy regimen over a time period of 8 years in predominantly high-risk patients, the incidence of SRs was low, despite the high number of patients with bee venom allergy, who are more likely to have side effects. Epinephrine as rescue medication was never necessary, and the regimen proved to be safe and convenient for both the patients and the medical staff.

Maintenance venom immunotherapy administered at 3-month intervals is both safe and efficacious

BACKGROUND

Maintenance venom immunotherapy (MVIT) is usually administered to patients with venom allergy at 4- to 6-week intervals for at least 3 to 5 years. The small number of studies assessing the possibility of extending the maintenance interval (MI) included either too small a population and patients with only vespid and not bee venom (BV) allergy or relied on reaction to field stings only.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the safety and efficacy of MVIT given at 3-month intervals to a large population of patients allergic to both yellow jacket venom and BV.

METHODS

In all patients undergoing venom immunotherapy, MI was gradually extended to 3 months. Systemic reactions (SRs) to immunotherapy injections or to field stings were regularly recorded. Some of the patients were also deliberately sting challenged during the 3-month interval. Patients discontinuing MVIT were interviewed regarding their responses to field re-stings, and in some of them, an in-hospital sting challenge was performed.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty patients mostly allergic to BV were enrolled in the study. Failure to reach the 3-month interval was observed in 6 (3.8%) patients, originating in failure to reach the full maintenance dose in most of them. SRs to MVIT administered at 3-month intervals were observed in 2.6% of the patients. One of 36 patients who experienced a field sting during the 3-month interval had an objective mild SR (2.8%). Two (4.5%) of 44 patients who were deliberately stung during the 3-month interval had mild SRs. After discontinuation of MVIT, 2 (8.3%) of 24 patients who experienced a field sting had an SR. Both were allergic to yellow jacket venom. Three to 82 months after discontinuation of MVIT, 22 patients allergic to BV were sting challenged. Only one (4.5%) patient had a mild objective SR.

CONCLUSIONS

The conventional 4- to 6-week MI can easily be extended to 3 months in most patients without any adverse events. MVIT given at a 3-month interval is safe and effective while being administered, as well as after its discontinuation. This fact should be applied to almost every patient allergic to insect venom.

Safety of a two-day ultrarush insect venom immunotherapy protocol in comparison with protocols of longer duration and involving a larger number of injections

BACKGROUND

Insect venom immunotherapy (VIT) is initiated by a dose increase protocol administered usually over 7 to 9 days. Shorter protocols have the advantage of reducing the patient's stay in the hospital. Very few data are currently available on the safety of shorter VIT dose increase protocols.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether a reduction in the duration of the VIT dose increase protocol from 7 to 9 days to 2 days causes an increase in the incidence and severity of adverse reactions.

METHODS

Between 1992 and 1997 we administered VIT to 1055 patients allergic to bee or wasp venom. We shortened the 7- to 9-day rush protocol stepwise to 2 days by reducing the number of injections and increasing the initial dose and compared the incidence and severity of adverse reactions. The patients were retrospectively divided into 3 cohorts: 20 injections over 7 to 9 days (cohort 1, 317 patients), 10 to 14 injections over 3 to 6 days (cohort 2, 335 patients), and 9 injections over 2 days (cohort 3, 403 patients).

RESULTS

We observed no severe adverse reactions in any of the cohorts during VIT. Adverse reactions were treated in 7.1% of the patients by oral and in 2.9% by intravenous antihistamines and in 0.8% by systemic corticosteroids. The incidence of adverse reactions declined significantly from 22.4% in cohort 1 to 13.7% in cohort 2 and 10.7% in cohort 3 with reduced number of injections (P <.001).

CONCLUSION

The incidence and severity of adverse reactions decline if the VIT dose increase protocol is shortened to 2 days.

Effectiveness of specific immunotherapy in the treatment of hymenoptera venom hypersensitivity: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

For most people, Hymenoptera stings produce a transient, local inflammatory reaction (pain, redness, swelling). However, for those who are allergic to components of this venom, the reactions can be severe, frightening, and sometimes fatal. Specific immunotherapy (SIT) has been the only means of desensitizing patients who have experienced a systemic reaction to this venom.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effects of SIT in the treatment of Hymenoptera venom hypersensitivity.

METHODS

All studies of SIT in the treatment of Hymenoptera venom hypersensitivity published in English between the years 1966 and 1996 were identified through a MEDLINE search. Because of the ethical difficulties involved in designing a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in this patient population, most of the studies were open and not placebo-controlled. One author (R.N.R.) extracted data from the studies. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from 8 studies involving 453 patients; 1 study was conducted in adults (n = 20), 2 in children (n = 188), and 5 in all ages (n = 245). The symptoms of Hymenoptera venom hypersensitivity were prevented in 80 (79%) of the 101 patients receiving SIT versus 49 (36%) of 136 comparison patients. The symptoms were not prevented in 21 (21%) of the patients receiving SIT versus 87 (64%) of the comparison patients (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.72 to 2.81).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this meta-analysis support the conclusion that SIT is effective in the treatment of Hymenoptera venom hypersensitivity.

Bee sting allergy in beekeepers

BACKGROUND

Beekeepers are strongly exposed to honey bee stings and therefore at an increased risk to develop IgE-mediated allergy to bee venom.

OBJECTIVE

We wondered whether bee venom-allergic beekeepers were different from normally exposed bee venom-allergic patients with regard to clinical and immunological parameters as well as their response to venom immunotherapy.

METHOD

Among the 459 bee venom-allergic patients seen over the 5 year period 1987-91, 62 (14%) were beekeepers and 44 (10%) family members of beekeepers. These two groups were compared with 101 normally exposed bee venom-allergic patients matched with the allergic beekeepers for age and sex, regarding clinical parameters, skin sensitivity, specific IgE and IgG antibodies to bee venom as well as safety and efficacy of venom immunotherapy.

RESULTS

As expected, allergic beekeepers had been stung most frequently before the first allergic reaction. The three groups showed a similar severity of allergic symptoms following bee stings and had an equal incidence of atopic diseases. Allergic beekeepers showed higher levels of bee venom-specific serum IgG, lower skin sensitivity and lower levels of bee venom specific serum IgE than bee venom-allergic control patients. A negative correlation between number of stings and skin sensitivity as well as specific IgE was found in allergic beekeepers and their family members, while the number of stings was positively correlated with specific IgG in these two groups. Venom immunotherapy was equally effective in the three groups, but better tolerated by allergic beekeepers than the two other groups. The majority of allergic beekeepers continued bee-keeping successfully under the protection of venom immunotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The lower level of sensitivity in diagnostic tests and the better tolerance of immunotherapy in allergic beekeepers is most likely related to the high level of specific IgG in this group.

Systemic T-cell unresponsiveness during rush bee-venom immunotherapy

By rush bee-venom immunotherapy, subjects reacting allergically to the venom can be effectively anergized, although the mechanism of action is not known. Here we analyzed the systemic effects of rush desensitization on the T cells of allergic patients. In most patients, we found reduced frequencies of T cells recalled to express CD69 and the cytokines interleukin (IL)-4 and interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) after stimulation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells with phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) and ionomycin, as compared with normal donors. These frequencies are progressively reduced during immunotherapy. The frequency of cells expressing IL-2 does not change. A few patients show a different response to immunotherapy: frequencies of cells expressing CD69, IL-4, or IFN-gamma do not change, and remain similar to those of normal donors. However, the frequency of cells able to express IL-2 is increased. The analysis of cytokine expression in CD45RO+ vs CD45RO- T-cell populations revealed differences between normal and allergic donors. In allergic patients, higher frequencies of IL-4- and IFN-gamma-expressing cells among the CD45RO- subpopulation were found than in normal donors. This situation is not modified by immunotherapy. The results reveal a certain degree of heterogeneity in the response of allergic patients to bee-venom rush immunotherapy; however, all are clearly differentiated from normal controls as judged by cytokine expression of CD45RO- T cells. In most allergic patients, a considerable percentage of Th cells become unresponsive to mitogenic stimulation, and may be responsible for the desensitization itself.

Evolution of lymphocyte transformation to wasp venom antigen during immunotherapy for wasp venom anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) has proven to be safe and effective in wasp venom anaphylaxis. However, there are no good parameters to indicate when to stop venom immunotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship of the lymphocyte transformation test (LTT) to history and specific IgE determination, and to address the time course of lymphocyte transformation responses to wasp (Vespula) venom during VIT and the possible utility of LTT to determine the duration of therapy.

METHODS

Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of 18 individuals with a history of wasp sting anaphylaxis and a positive serum-venom-specific IgE, were stimulated with wasp venom before immunotherapy, at the end of a 5-day semi-rush immunotherapy and at 24 months during venom immunotherapy. Results, expressed as stimulation index (SI), were compared with the SI in seven asymptomatic stung controls.

RESULTS

In controls the median (minimum-maximum) of the SI were 2.39 (0.52-3.39) before therapy and 2.39 (1.12-6.02) when repeated after 24 months. For patients the median (minimum-maximum) of the SI were 10.13 (1.19-44.88) before immunotherapy (d0), 2.73 (0.67-12.03) at the end of the build-up immunotherapy (d5) and 4.21 (0.88-14.66) at the end of 24 months of maintenance therapy (m24). The proliferation responses in vespid-allergic patients were significantly higher than in stung controls (P = 0.006) but only 13/18 patients showed a positive LTT result before the start of immunotherapy (sensitivity of the LTT 72%). When the LTT was repeated after a 5 day build-up hyposensitization course the SI significantly dropped as compared to the pre-treatment levels (P = 0.002). The SI of the LTT was negative in eight out of 18 patients at 24 months and the median values were significantly lower than before therapy (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Although, in the absence of sting challenge data it is not possible to draw conclusions about the predictive value of the LTT, our data may suggest that abolition of the LTT during VIT might indicate clinical insensitivity. Further studies, comparing the results of sting challenges, with the results of lymphocyte transformation will be necessary in order to evaluate the role of LTT in stopping immunotherapy.

Ultra rush bee venom immunotherapy does not reduce cutaneous weal responses to bee venom and codeine phosphate

BACKGROUND

The rapid administration of bee venom in cumulative doses exceeding the quantity contained in one bee sting is well tolerated by most of the patients during 3.5 h of ultra-rush bee venom immunotherapy (VIT). The mechanism of this tolerance is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to verify the hypothesis that either slow mediator depletion of mast cells or blockade of their surface receptor mechanisms by increasing doses of allergen might be the major mechanisms of tolerance induced by ultra-rush VIT.

METHODS

Nine bee venom allergic patients with a history of severe systemic reactions after a bee sting, positive skin tests and bee venom specific serum IgE antibodies were treated as follows: on the first day a cumulative dose of 111 micrograms was administered over 3.5 h under intensive care conditions. Further injections were given on day 7, day 21 and thereafter at 4 week intervals. Intradermal tests with codeine phosphate (non-specific mast cell degranulation) and bee venom were performed before the initiation of VIT and 30 min after the last injection on the same day as well as before the subsequent bee venom injections.

RESULTS

No significant changes of skin reactivity to both codeine phosphate and bee venom were observed on day 1 (before initiation of VIT and after the last injection on the same day).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultra-rush VIT does not induce mediator depletion or surface receptor blockade in skin mast cells.

Subsequent insect stings in children with hypersensitivity to Hymenoptera

To investigate the risk of life-threatening reactions to future stings, we sequentially challenged 113 children (aged 2 to 17 years) allergic to insect stings with a sting by the relevant insect. The time interval between the challenges varied from 2 to 6 weeks. The history of the index stings was a large local reaction (LR) in 16% and a systemic reaction (SR) in 84% of the test subjects. On the first challenge, 76% had a normal LR, 11% a large LR, and 13% an SR. On the second challenge, 78% of the children had a normal LR, 5% a large LR, and 17% an SR. Thirty-nine of the untreated children were exposed to a field sting during the subsequent 3-year follow-up period. In comparison with other diagnostic evaluations such as skin-prick tests, determinations of specific IgE and IgG antibodies, and single-sting exposure, the dual sting challenge scheme appears to be the best predictor of reactions to subsequent stings. It also appears to be helpful in selecting patients with an uncertain sensitization status for venom immunotherapy.

Safety considerations in assessing the role of immunotherapy in allergic disorders

Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is accepted as an effective treatment of allergic diseases when high quality extracts are used. However, this form of treatment can cause untoward reactions among which systemic reactions are the most severe. Although life-threatening reactions are rare and deaths exceptionally reported, SIT should be prescribed by allergists to patients with well defined characteristics, and administered with care by (or under the close supervision of) physicians trained to deal rapidly with the reactions. Reactions with standardised extracts occur mostly during the dose increase phase but they can be prevented using adapted schedules and premedication. During maintenance injections or when vial batches are changed, standardised extracts of known shelf-life usually result in a low rate of systemic reactions. Patients with asthma are more prone to develop systemic reactions, and allergens should not be administered to patients with a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) under 70% of predicted or in those who have unstable or symptomatic asthma. Systemic reactions may be observed with all allergens and allergenic preparations although it appears that high molecular weight extracts may be safer.

Venom-specific IgG antibodies in bee and wasp allergy: lack of correlation with protection from stings

This paper investigates the relationship between venom IgG levels and protection from stings. Venom-specific IgG antibody levels have been measured by radioimmunoassay in untreated wasp-(n = 38) and bee-allergic (n = 16) patients presenting with systemic reactions to stings and in a sub-group of these (wasp = 15; bee = 9), before and after the initial course of venom immunotherapy (VIT). A history was taken of all reactions, the last systemic reaction being graded on a scale of 1-8 and of the number and timing of stings. In untreated patients venom IgG levels were much higher in bee-allergic patients (mean +/- s.e. = 68.2 +/- 7.1% positive pool) than in the wasp group (27.1 +/- 4.2%) (P < 0.05 Mann-Whitney U-test). There was a marked rise in venom IgG after the initial course of VIT in the wasp group (geometric mean and 95% confidence intervals = 40.5%, 28.8-54.3) but a much smaller rise in the bee group (15.3%, 6.6-24.1), with no overlap in the 95% confidence intervals. Bee patients, who were mainly beekeepers or their relatives, had been more heavily immunized with venom than wasp patients. They had received: (i) more stings (mean number of stings: bee, 26; wasp, 4; P < 0.001) and (ii) more stings per year. Wasp patients received their smaller number of stings over a much longer period, up to 40 yr. There was no correlation between the severity of the last systemic reaction and the venom IgG levels alone or venom IgG and IgE levels in combined analysis in either bee or wasp patients. This study shows that the pattern of IgG response differs in bee and wasp-allergic subjects, and that most bee-allergic subjects with systemic reactions have high levels of venom IgG. The degree of immunization with venom seems to be an important determinant of the venom IgG level. Our findings suggest that venom-specific IgG levels do not predict systemic reactions to stings and are not useful for monitoring VIT. If protection from stings is IgG-mediated, our observations suggest that the relevant immune response is more complex, possibly involving IgG sub-classes, IgG antibodies to individual venom antigens or antibody affinity, and not adequately reflected by measurement of the concentration of venom-specific IgG.

Comparison of two in vitro assays, RAST and CAP, when applied to the diagnosis of anaphylactic reactions to honeybee or yellow jacket venoms. Correlation with history and skin tests

We compared the results obtained with a new specific IgE assay (Pharmacia CAP system) to those of RAST and intradermal skin tests (ST) performed in 87 patients with a history of generalized reaction to honeybee or yellow jacket venom. When CAP and RAST were compared with positive ST performed with honeybee venom, CAP sensitivity was not significantly higher (98%) than that of RAST (95%). When yellow jacket venom was tested, CAP sensitivity (93%) was clearly superior to that of RAST (40%). When we compared the specificities of RAST and CAP to bee venom, RAST was positive in 21% of the 24 subjects with negative ST, and CAP in 42%. Among the 29 patients with negative ST to yellow jacket venom, RAST was positive in 17% and CAP in 28%. These results do not reflect a lower specificity of CAP, because CAP positivities could be inhibited in vitro, and because, in three patients with a history of anaphylactic reaction (one to honeybee, two to yellow jacket), CAP was the only positive test confirming the clinical observation. Among the 53 patients who were able to identify the offending insect (honeybee, 31; yellow jacket, 22), the cause of the anaphylactic reaction was usually confirmed by ST and CAP: honeybee venom 97% for both ST and CAP; yellow jacket venom 82% for ST, 86% for CAP. This was not the case for RAST, which confirmed honeybee venom hypersensitivity in 87% and yellow jacket venom hypersensitivity in only 41%. Thus, CAP is both more sensitive and more rapid than RAST, without losing specificity.

Immediate adverse reactions to immunotherapy in allergy

We report our experience of adverse reactions to immunotherapy (IT) in patients with insect venom allergy and inhalant respiratory allergy. Adverse reactions included large local reactions, generalized cutaneous reactions or systemic reactions. Among 87 patients treated for venom allergy, 43% had adverse reactions during the course of IT, averaging 2.5 reactions per patient and per course of IT. Nine had systemic reactions, of which 7 required adrenaline administration. Among 52 patients treated with inhalant allergen extracts, 40% had adverse reactions averaging 3 reactions per patient per course of treatment. Ten patients had systemic reactions but only 2 required adrenaline administration. There was no difference between the rate of adverse reactions in the venom and the inhalant treatment groups. IT has an inherent risk which has to be weighed against its benefits.

Allergy to honey: relation to pollen and honey bee allergy

To identify the allergenic components of honey we studied 22 patients with a history of systemic allergic symptoms following honey ingestion. The group of honey-allergic patients was compared with three control groups: 10 subjects sensitized to artemisia, 10 with honey bee venom allergy and 10 without a history of atopy or bee sting reactions. The allergological tests included skin tests and RAST with three different kinds of Swiss honey (dandelion, forest and rape), pollen of compositae species, celery tuber, extract of bee pharyngeal glands, honey bee venom and bee whole body extract. The results show that 3/4 of honey-allergics are sensitive to dandelion honey and 13 of 22 also to compositae pollen. Nine of the honey allergic patients were sensitized to honey bee venom, 3 also to bee pharyngeal glands and to bee whole body extract. Analysis of diagnostic tests and RAST inhibition studies suggest that besides compositae pollen other allergens, most likely of bee origin are important. In honey allergics primary sensitization may be due either to the honey itself, to airborne compositae pollen or even to cross-reacting bee venom components.

Reduction of side effects from rush-immunotherapy with honey bee venom by pretreatment with terfenadine

In a double-blind placebo-controlled trial on 52 patients with bee venom allergy we studied the effect of a pretreatment with terfenadine 120 mg twice daily on the occurrence of local and systemic allergic side effects from rush-immunotherapy. Large local reactions were significantly reduced by terfenadine pretreatment (P less than 0.01), while systemic side effects were observed with similar frequencies in both groups. Analysis of individual systemic allergic manifestations showed that cutaneous symptoms like itching (P less than 0.025) and urticaria/angioedema (P less than 0.05) were significantly reduced, while respiratory or cardiovascular symptoms were not influenced. A lower consumption of additional anti-allergic medication was found during terfenadine pretreatment (P less than 0.05). Pretreatment with antihistamines during immunotherapy may thus be helpful in the management of patients with cutaneous side effects.

Clinical characteristics of patients with repeated systemic reactions during specific immunotherapy with hymenoptera venoms. A retrospective study

In general, specific immunotherapy with hymenoptera venoms can be considered as safe, but occasionally there are patients who cannot reach the maintenance dose due to repeated systemic reactions (RSR) or who suffer from RSR during maintenance therapy. In a multicenter retrospective study comprising seven departments in Germany, Austria and Switzerland 23 patients with RSR were reported from approximately 3000 patients treated with hymenoptera venoms (bee and wasp venom to approximately equivalent frequency). From these, 22 were allergic to bee venom and only one to vespid venom. In general the clinical symptoms of RSR were milder than the initial reaction. But 4/23 (18%) exhibited cardiovascular reactions up to full shock. Neither anamnestic details, reactivity in skin tests or in vitro tests revealed a special pattern of patients with RSR. In some patients, however, an extremely high reactivity in the skin test was found and may indicate the possibility of further RSR.

Short-term decrease of skin-test sensitivity after rush desensitization in Hymenoptera venom hypersensitivity

Thirty-seven patients with a history of systemic anaphylactic stings were desensitized by the rush method. Patients were evaluated by skin testing twice, before and 6 weeks after desensitization. An additional control group of 10 patients, not yet desensitized, were tested for skin test technique reproducibility at 6-week intervals. Results were compared with IgE and IgG antibody levels, and with platelet reactivity towards specific Hymenoptera venom. Before desensitization, the maximum skin-test sensitivity was observed at 10(-5) micrograms venom/ml in 56% of patients and decreased to 10(-1) micrograms venom/ml after desensitization (48.6% of patients). Decrease of cutaneous tests was observed in 28/37 patients (75%) (P less than 0.001) and was not associated with significant variations of specific IgE or IgG antibody levels, but was correlated with the decrease of platelet reactivity (P less than 0.05). Conversely, variations of skin-test sensitivity in the control group was not significant.

Predictive value of venom-specific IgE, IgG and IgG subclass antibodies in patients on immunotherapy with honey bee venom

Sixty-seven patients with a history of severe systemic reactions following honey bee stings were treated by immunotherapy (IT) with honey bee venom. During maintenance therapy all were submitted to a sting challenge under clinical conditions. 15 developed mostly minor symptoms of a systemic reaction while 52 showed only a local swelling at the sting site. Phospholipase A2-specific IgE, IgG and IgG subclass serum antibodies were estimated in samples obtained before IT and immediately before the challenge. Specific IgE decreased in reactors and in non-reactors. There was no difference between the two groups at any time. Specific total IgG, IgG1 and IgG4 increased in both reactors and non-reactors during IT. An early increase of specific IgG1, was observed while specific IgG4 remained elevated throughout the treatment. Specific total IgG was higher in reactors than non-reactors before the challenge, specific IgG1 higher in reactors before treatment and specific IgG4 higher in reactors than non-reactors both before treatment and before challenge. In the individual patient, no single antibody estimation or combination of various antibodies was predictive of the outcome of a sting challenge.

Immunotherapy with Hymenoptera venoms. Position paper of the Working Group on Immunotherapy of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Immunotherapy with Hymenoptera venoms is widely used throughout the world and is accepted as an effective treatment for most patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy. There are, however, still some unresolved problems with this form of treatment. At present there is no definite test which makes it possible to identify patients at risk - and thus candidates for immunotherapy - unequivocally. On the basis of prospective studies on the natural history of Hymenoptera allergy, venom immunotherapy is indicated in adults with severe systemic anaphylaxis. It is usually not necessary in patients with large local reactions only. Children with mild systemic reactions, e.g. urticaria, will need immunotherapy only in case of repeated reactions and/or a high risk of re-exposure. The selection of venoms for immunotherapy may lead to some confusion owing to common antigenic determinants shared by venoms of various Hymenoptera species. Many different regimens for immunotherapy have been proposed. At present, the three main are: rush, stepwise or clustered and classical. The maintenance dose of 100 micrograms usually protects from life-threatening reactions. However, in some patients 200 micrograms are necessary for complete protection. The usual interval between maintenance injections is 4 to 6 weeks. In many patients a strong increase of venom specific serum IgG-antibodies usually parallels clinical protection induced by venom immunotherapy, although many exceptions have been reported. Allergic side effects of venom immunotherapy are not rare, especially with honey bee venom and during the initial phase of dose increase. The question of the duration of venom immunotherapy is handled differently: although some authors recommend treatment for life, most suggest treating patients until skin tests and RAST become negative.

Diagnosis and immunotherapy of mould allergy. V. Clinical efficacy and side effects of immunotherapy with Cladosporium herbarum

A placebo-controlled, double-blind study of immunotherapy with the mould species Cladosporium was performed in 22 adult asthmatics. The diagnosis of Cladosporium allergy was based on a combination of bronchial provocation test and daily symptom score in the Cladosporium season. An aqueous preparation of a potent, biologically standardized and purified extract was used in a clustered dose-increase regimen. The clinical efficacy was evaluated by a combination of symptoms (asthma score + peak flow) and consumption of antiasthmatic medication. The mean changes in symptoms and medication consumption over a 10-week registration period (peak Cladosporium season) in 1982 after 5-7 months of immunotherapy were compared with the corresponding 1981 pretreatment 10-week period. A significant (P = 0.03) difference in terms of "improved", "unchanged" and "deteriorated" patients in favour of Cladosporium treatment was found. Approximately 80% in the Cladosporium group showed improved/unchanged symptoms contrary to 30% of the placebo treated. Side effects were observed frequently but only in the Cladosporium-treated. About 70% experienced a large local reaction and 100% had episodes of asthma during dose-increase phase. Only a few severe systemic reactions occurred. Based on the clinical efficacy of the treatment we consider immunotherapy with Cladosporium feasible for highly specialized clinics.

Immunotherapy with yellow jacket venom. A comparative study including three different extracts, one adsorbed to aluminium hydroxide and two unmodified

Thirty-two patients with previous systemic allergic reaction to yellow jacket stings were randomly allocated to three groups receiving immunotherapy with different preparations of yellow jacket venom: 1) extract adsorbed to aluminium hydroxide (Alutard-SQ), 2) Pharmalgen extract or 3) non-adsorbed extract from Allergologisk Laboratorium (ALK aq.). Regular examinations showed a decrease in skin prick test size in nearly all patients. Specific IgE-antibody (RAST and CRIE scores) showed a similar, but not significant tendency to decrease in all three groups. Specific IgG-antibody increased considerably in the Alutard group only; after 2 years, however, no difference could be detected between the three groups. During dose increase, patients treated with ALK aq. generally had smaller local reactions to injections than those treated with Pharmalgen. Few systemic reactions occurred in all three groups. Nineteen patients treated for 2 1/2-3 1/2 years were challenged in-hospital with stings from yellow jackets. No systemic and only minor local reactions occurred. Consequently, with the dose regimens applied all three extracts seem effective even though no common changes in either specific IgE or IgG could be demonstrated.

A preliminary study of immunotherapy with a monomethoxy polyethylene glycol modified honey bee venom preparation

Monomethoxy polyethylene glycol (mPEG) modified honey bee venom (HBV) immunotherapy (IT) has been studied in 14 patients allergic to honey bee venom. Doses could be increased more rapidly and higher doses were reached compared to regular venom immunotherapy. No general side effects were seen, although large local swellings were found somewhat more often than with regular HBV. Most patients could easily be switched from the modified to the unmodified venom. Eight patients experienced and tolerated field stings. Skin testing showed a decreased allergenicity of the mPEG-HBV. The mean HBV-specific IgE level was below pre-treatment level already after only 6 weeks of IT. The HBV-specific IgG response was very good.

The subclass nature and clinical significance of the IgG antibody response in patients undergoing allergen-specific immunotherapy

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the methodological difficulties in quantitation of human IgG subclass antibodies to allergens, to describe the subclass nature of the IgG antibody response in patients undergoing allergen-specific immunotherapy, and to discuss the possible immunological functions and clinical significance of allergen-specific IgG antibodies of different subclasses. Based on results obtained by use of assays with documented specificity it is concluded that the IgG antibody response during allergen-specific immunotherapy is IgG1 and IgG4 restricted, although low levels of IgG2 and IgG3 antibodies to some allergens may occur. In most patients the early IgG antibody response is IgG1 dominated and the late IgG4 dominated. A too early or too pronounced IgG4 dominated antibody response seems to indicate a poor clinical outcome of immunotherapy with inhalant allergens, whereas a pronounced early IgG1 antibody production has been found to be associated with a decrease in synthesis of IgE antibodies to an insect venom. It is therefore proposed that an early IgG1 dominated response is necessary to induce suppression of the ongoing IgE antibody production, which in its turn may be a prerequisite for long-lasting clinical effect. The possibility of induction of an early IgG1 dominated response in every patient by use of alternative immunotherapy procedures is discussed.

Discontinuation of bee venom immunotherapy in children and adolescents

Sixty-six patients with a history of systemic allergy reactions to bee stings, positive skin prick test to less than or equal to 100 micrograms/ml bee venom, and positive radioallergosorbent test (RAST) results were given venom immunotherapy. IgE and IgG antibodies to bee venom were measured by RAST and enzyme-linked immunosorbent test (ELISA), respectively. IgE and IgG anti-bee venom levels rose initially, but subsequently fell during immunotherapy. In 31 patients in whom specific IgE fell to low (less than 6% counts bound) or unmeasurable levels, immunotherapy was discontinued, and sting challenge was carried out 1 to 3 years later. All patients tolerated sting challenge well. The specific IgE and IgG antibody levels did not change significantly after treatment was stopped. Our data suggest that hyposensitization treatment can be stopped when specific IgE serum concentrations have fallen to low or unmeasurable levels and specific IgG antibody values are maintained, and that in a considerable number of patients venom immunotherapy has a lasting therapeutic and immunologic effect.

Clustered immunotherapy with Yellow Jacket venom. Evaluation of the influence of time interval on in vivo and in vitro parameters

To evaluate difference in clinical efficacy, side effects, in vivo and in vitro parameters, 25 patients allergic to Yellow Jacket were treated with clustered immunotherapy using either 7 or 14 days interval between clusters. Twenty-one patients completed the 6 months' treatment period and four were withdrawn due to adverse reactions (2 cases of anaphylactic shock). Sixteen patients were challenged by in-hospital sting and the clinical efficacy was complete. Local side effects were observed in the majority of patients, but only rarely limited the course of immunotherapy. Skin sensitivity estimated as the venom concentration eliciting a wheal equal to histamine HCl 0.1 mg/ml using intradermal test was significantly reduced after 6 months of treatment. Specific IgE showed an initial increase, thereafter declining to pretreatment levels. IgG subclasses were determined by a triple antibody assay. Only subclasses 1 and 4 showed response. Subclass 4 showed a steady increase contrary to subclass 1 which decreased after reaching maintenance dose. No unambiguous relation between either the absolute value or the change of IgG1 and IgG4 at the time of challenge was observed in the patients who tolerated a sting. Furthermore, the IgG response was not correlated to the cumulative dose of venom administered. No simple regulatory function of IgG subclasses in the skin and IgE response was found, and the occurrence of local side effects did not seem to be determined by IgG antibodies. We conclude that clustered immunotherapy with Yellow Jacket venom is highly effective and that the frequency of side effects is acceptable.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)