Outcome survey of insect venom allergic patients with venom immunotherapy in a rural population

Venom Immunotherapy: From Proteins to Product to Patient Protection

In this review, we outline and reflect on the important differences between allergen-specific immunotherapy for inhalant allergies (i.e., aeroallergens) and venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT), with a special focus on Venomil® Bee and Wasp. Venomil® is provided as a freeze-dried extract and a diluent to prepare a solution for injection for the treatment of patients with IgE-mediated allergies to bee and/or wasp venom and for evaluating the degree of sensitivity in a skin test. While the materials that make up the product have not changed, the suppliers of raw materials have changed over the years. Here, we consolidate relevant historical safety and efficacy studies that used products from shared manufacture supply profiles, i.e., products from Bayer or Hollister-Stier. We also consider the characterization and standardization of venom marker allergens, providing insights into manufacturing controls that have produced stable and consistent quality profiles over many years. Quality differences between products and their impacts on treatment outcomes have been a current topic of discussion and further research. Finally, we review the considerations surrounding the choice of depot adjuvant most suitable to augmenting VIT.

Impact of specific immunotherapy and sting challenge on the quality of life in patients with hymenoptera venom allergy

Background

An experienced life-threating anaphylactic reaction to hymenoptera venom can sustainably impair patients’ quality of life (QoL). Besides carrying emergency medication, venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT) exists as a causal treatment of allergy.

Objective

This study aimed to examine QoL, anxiety, depression, and physical and mental health in patients allergic to hymenoptera venom before and during VIT and the impact of a tolerated sting challenge (SC).

Methods

Between July 2017 and August 2017, 142 patients with venom allergy were analyzed using validated questionnaires as the: Vespid Allergy Quality for Life Questionnaire" (VQLQ-d), the "Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale" (HADS-D) and the "Short Form 36" (SF-36). To evaluate the impact of VIT and SC on the QoL, patients were divided into 3 groups: (A) VIT and tolerated SC (n = 45), (B) VIT before carrying out SC (n = 73), and (C) therapy-naïve before VIT (n = 20). Further parameters like gender, age, insect species, and severity of the anaphylactic reaction were assessed.

Results

A significant correlation between the health-related QoL and the parameters of gender and state of treatment was seen. Especially male patients, as well as patients allergic to yellow jacket venom, benefit from a SC in terms of a significant increase in their QoL. In the total study cohort, a clear trend was observed towards a higher QoL in patients under VIT who tolerated a SC. Overall, neither the patients’ age nor the insect species exerted a relevant influence on QoL, depression or anxiety. However, women showed a lower QoL combined with higher anxiety and depression scores than men.

Conclusion

Immunotherapy leads to an improved QoL, which can be further increased by a SC. A tolerated SC conceivably reassures the patients by objectifying the treatment success. Female patients appear to have a stronger impaired QoL per se. Taken together, a SC can be performed during VIT to strengthen the patients’ QoL.

Venom immunotherapy: clinical efficacy, safety and contraindications

Venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT) is considered for the treatment of patients with IgE-mediated systemic allergic reactions (SARs) after developing a Hymenoptera venom allergy. Tolerance is achieved in a majority of patients after only a few days or even hours of rush immunotherapy. After VIT discontinuation, the allergy returns in up to 15% of patients. During VIT, the majority of patients have local reactions at the site of venom injections. SARs to VIT are much more frequent in honeybee-treated patients than in wasp-treated patients. Increased baseline serum tryptase and increased allergen-specific sensitivity of basophils are other factors that might be associated with systemic reactions (SRs) during VIT. Severe SRs occur mainly during the build-up phase but can also occur in the maintenance phase of the VIT, even in patients with a well-tolerated dose-increase phase. Pre-treatment with humanized anti-IgE antibodies (omalizumab) is effective in patients with repeated SARs; however, this use of omalizumab is off-label. In highly exposed patients with a history of very severe reactions, there are virtually no absolute contraindications for VIT.

Importance of basophil activation testing in insect venom allergy

BACKGROUND

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the only effective treatment for prevention of serious allergic reactions to bee and wasp stings in sensitized individuals. However, there are still many questions and controversies regarding immunotherapy, like selection of the appropriate allergen, safety and long term efficacy.

METHODS

Literature review was performed to address the role of basophil activation test (BAT) in diagnosis of venom allergy.

RESULTS

In patients with positive skin tests or specific IgE to both honeybee and wasp venom, IgE inhibition test can identify sensitizing allergen only in around 15% and basophil activation test increases the identification rate to around one third of double positive patients. BAT is also diagnostic in majority of patients with systemic reactions after insect stings and no detectable IgE. High basophil sensitivity to allergen is associated with a risk of side effects during VIT. Persistence of high basophil sensitivity also predicts a treatment failure of VIT.

CONCLUSION

BAT is a useful tool for better selection of allergen for immunotherapy, for identification of patients prone to side effects and patients who might be treatment failures. However, long term studies are needed to evaluate the accuracy of the test.