Influencing factors on the safety and effectiveness of venom immunotherapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The safety profile of venom immunotherapy (VIT) is a relevant issue and considerable differences in safety and efficacy of VIT have been reported. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers during VIT, which has already been published. For a second analysis, data concerning premedication and venom preparations in relation to systemic adverse events (AE) during the up-dosing phase and the first year of the maintenance phase were evaluated as well as the outcome of field stings and sting challenges.

METHODS

The study was conducted as an open, prospective, observational, multicenter study. In total, 1,425 patients were enrolled and VIT was performed in 1,342 patients.

RESULTS

Premedication with oral antihistamines was taken by 52.1% of patients during the up-dosing and 19.7% of patients during the maintenance phase. Taking antihistamines had no effect on the frequency of systemic AE (p=0.11) but large local reactions (LLR) were less frequently seen (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.58-0.96; p=0.02). Aqueous preparations were preferentially used for up-dosing (73.0%) and depot preparations for the maintenance phase (64.5%). The type of venom preparation neither had an influence on the frequency of systemic AE nor on the effectiveness of VIT (p=0.26 and p=0.80, respectively), while LLR were less frequently seen when depot preparations were used (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment with oral antihistamines during VIT significantly reduces the frequency of LLR but not systemic AE. All venom preparations used were equally effective and did not differ in the frequency of systemic AE.

Immunological differences between insect venom-allergic patients with and without immunotherapy and asymptomatically sensitized subjects

BACKGROUND

Currently available tests are unable to distinguish between asymptomatic sensitization and clinically relevant Hymenoptera venom allergy. A reliable serological marker to monitor venom immunotherapy (VIT) does also not exist. Our aim was to find reliable serological markers to predict tolerance to bee and vespid stings.

METHODS

We included 77 asymptomatically sensitized subjects, 85 allergic patients with acute systemic sting reactions, and 61 allergic patients currently treated with VIT. Levels of sIgE and sIgG₄ to bee and vespid venom, rApi m 1, and rVes v 5 were measured immediately after allergic sting reactions or before sting challenges and 4 weeks later. All sting challenges were tolerated. The inhibitory activity was determined using BAT inhibition and ELIFAB assay.

RESULTS

Median sIgG₄ levels were 96-fold higher in VIT patients (P < .001) while sIgE/sIgG₄ ratios were consistently lower (P < .001). The ELIFAB assay was paralleled by low sIgE/sIgG₄ ratios in VIT patients, showing markedly higher allergen-blocking capacity (P < .001). An almost complete inhibition of the basophil response was seen in all patients treated with vespid venom, but not in those treated with bee venom. Four weeks after the sting, sIgE and sIgG₄ levels were increased in allergic and asymptomatically sensitized patients, but not in VIT patients.

CONCLUSION

Immunological responses after stings varied in bee and vespid venom-allergic patients. In patients under VIT, sIgE and sIgG₄ remained completely stable after sting challenges. Monitoring VIT efficacy was only possible in vespid venom allergy, and the sIgG₄ threshold for rVes v 5 had the highest sensitivity to confirm tolerance. The BAT inhibition test was the most reliable tool to confirm tolerance on an individual basis.

Questionable diagnostic benefit of the commercially available panel of bee venom components

For many years, only the major allergen rApi m 1 has been available on the ImmunoCAP system for routine diagnosis of bee venom (BV) allergy. Now, there are five components available, and we aimed to detect the sensitivity and specificity of rApi m 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 in BV-allergic patients. We further evaluated the sensitivity of rApi m 1 and 2 of an alternative platform and investigated possible differences in the sensitization profile between monosensitization and clinically relevant double sensitization. Analysis of the whole panel of BV allergens of the CAP system still resulted in a lower sensitivity than analysis of the combination of rApi m 1 and 2 of the Immulite (71.6% vs 85.8%). Sensitization rate of rApi m 5 was more than doubled in double-sensitized patients, while there was no difference for rApi m 2. The benefit of the commercially available panel of BV components is questionable, due to the insufficient sensitivity and still unavailable important cross-reacting allergens.