Hymenoptera Venom Immunotherapy: Tolerance and Efficacy of an Ultrarush Protocol Versus a Rush and a Slow Conventional Protocol

Overview

Journal J Allergy (Cairo)

Specialty Allergy & Immunology

Date 2012 Jun 14

PMID 22693521

Citations 8

Authors

Vincenzo Patella

Giovanni Florio

Ada Giuliano

Carmine Oricchio

Giuseppe Spadaro

Gianni Marone

Arturo Genovese

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background and Objective. Various venom immunotherapy (VIT) protocols are available for Hymenoptera allergy. Although adverse reactions (ADRs) to VIT are widely reported, controlled trials are still needed. We conducted a randomized prospective study to evaluate ADRs and the efficacy of three VIT regimens. Methods. 76 patients with Hymenoptera allergy, aged 16-76 years, were randomized to receive an ultrarush protocol (group A: 27 patients), a rush protocol (group B: 25), or a slow protocol (group C: 24). Aqueous venom extract was used in incremental phase and an adsorbed depot in maintenance phase. ADRs and accidental Hymenoptera stings during VIT were used to evaluate efficacy. Results. During incremental treatment, ADRs occurred in 1.99%, 3.7%, and 3.9% of patients in groups A, B, and C, and in 0.99%, 1.46%, and 2.7%, respectively, during maintenance. ADRs were significantly fewer in group A (incremental + maintenance phase) than in group C (1.29% versus 3.2%; P = 0.013). Reactions to accidental Hymenoptera stings did not differ among groups (1.1%, 1.2%, and 1.1%). Conclusion. Ultrarush was as effective as the rush and slow protocols and was associated with a low incidence of reactions to stings. This study indicates that ultrarush VIT is a valid therapeutic option for Hymenoptera allergy.

Citing Articles

A Model for Consolidating High-Risk Allergy Procedures in Clinic.

Hajirawala M, Hardeman A, Hein N, Carlson J Ochsner J. 2024; 24(4):273-278.

PMID: 39720816 PMC: 11666108. DOI: 10.31486/toj.24.0085.

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

Giannetti M, Nicoloro-SantaBarbara J, Godwin G, Middlesworth J, Espeland A, Douvas J Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(2).

PMID: 38247999 PMC: 10814166. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14020123.

Venom Immunotherapy: Immune Mechanisms of Induced Protection and Tolerance.

Luzar A, Korosec P, Kosnik M, Zidarn M, Rijavec M Cells. 2021; 10(7).

PMID: 34206562 PMC: 8306808. DOI: 10.3390/cells10071575.

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

Stock R, Fischer T, Amus K, Zoeller N, Ackermann H, Kaufmann R World Allergy Organ J. 2020; 14(1):100496.

PMID: 33376576 PMC: 7750415. DOI: 10.1016/j.waojou.2020.100496.

Clinical Utility of Rush Venom Immunotherapy: Current Status.

Gruzelle V, Mailhol C, Waters D, Guilleminault L J Asthma Allergy. 2020; 13:1-10.

PMID: 32021308 PMC: 6954838. DOI: 10.2147/JAA.S200917.

References

Larche M, Akdis C, Valenta R . Immunological mechanisms of allergen-specific immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol. 2006; 6(10):761-71. DOI: 10.1038/nri1934. View

Golden D, Marsh D, Freidhoff L, Kwiterovich K, Addison B, Lichtenstein L . Natural history of Hymenoptera venom sensitivity in adults. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998; 100(6 Pt 1):760-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0091-6749(97)70270-7. View

Di Lorenzo G, Mansueto P, Pacor M, Rizzo M, Castello F, Martinelli N . Evaluation of serum s-IgE/total IgE ratio in predicting clinical response to allergen-specific immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009; 123(5):1103-10, 1110.e1-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2009.02.012. View

Bernstein J, Kagen S, Bernstein D, Bernstein I . Rapid venom immunotherapy is safe for routine use in the treatment of patients with Hymenoptera anaphylaxis. Ann Allergy. 1994; 73(5):423-8. View

Birnbaum J, Charpin D, Vervloet D . Rapid Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy: comparative safety of three protocols. Clin Exp Allergy. 1993; 23(3):226-30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.1993.tb00886.x. View

Patella V, Incorvaia C, Ricciardi L, Florio G, Saija A, Frati F . The adhesion molecule ICAM-1 is overexpressed in patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy and decreases after ultrarush venom immunotherapy. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2011; 25(3):465-8. View

REISMAN R . Natural history of insect sting allergy: relationship of severity of symptoms of initial sting anaphylaxis to re-sting reactions. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1992; 90(3 Pt 1):335-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0091-6749(05)80012-0. View

Kohli-Wiesner A, Stahlberger L, Bieli C, Stricker T, Lauener R . Induction of specific immunotherapy with hymenoptera venoms using ultrarush regimen in children: safety and tolerance. J Allergy (Cairo). 2011; 2012:790910. PMC: 3140184. DOI: 10.1155/2012/790910. View

Sturm G, Kranke B, Rudolph C, Aberer W . Rush Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy: a safe and practical protocol for high-risk patients. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002; 110(6):928-33. DOI: 10.1067/mai.2002.129124. View

10.

Pasaoglu G, Sin B, Misirligil Z . Rush hymenoptera venom immunotherapy is efficacious and safe. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2006; 16(4):232-8. View

11.

Schiavino D, Nucera E, Pollastrini E, De Pasquale T, Buonomo A, Bartolozzi F . Specific ultrarush desensitization in Hymenoptera venom-allergic patients. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2004; 92(4):409-13. DOI: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)61775-9. View

12.

Schuerwegh A, De Clerck L, Bridts C, Stevens W . Wasp venom immunotherapy induces a shift from IL-4-producing towards interferon-gamma-producing CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. Clin Exp Allergy. 2001; 31(5):740-6. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2222.2001.01066.x. View

13.

Oren E, Chegini S, Hamilos D . Ultrarush venom desensitization after systemic reactions during conventional venom immunotherapy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2006; 97(5):606-10. DOI: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)61088-5. View

14.

Goldberg A, Confino-Cohen R . Rush venom immunotherapy in patients experiencing recurrent systemic reactions to conventional venom immunotherapy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2003; 91(4):405-10. DOI: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)61689-4. View

15.

McHugh S, Deighton J, Stewart A, LACHMANN P, Ewan P . Bee venom immunotherapy induces a shift in cytokine responses from a TH-2 to a TH-1 dominant pattern: comparison of rush and conventional immunotherapy. Clin Exp Allergy. 1995; 25(9):828-38. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.1995.tb00025.x. View

16.

Bonifazi F, Jutel M, Bilo B, Birnbaum J, Muller U . Prevention and treatment of hymenoptera venom allergy: guidelines for clinical practice. Allergy. 2005; 60(12):1459-70. DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00960.x. View

17.

Bousquet J, Menardo J, Velasquez G, Michel F . Systemic reactions during maintenance immunotherapy with honey bee venom. Ann Allergy. 1988; 61(1):63-8. View

18.

Charpin D, Birnbaum J, Vervloet D . Epidemiology of hymenoptera allergy. Clin Exp Allergy. 1994; 24(11):1010-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.1994.tb02736.x. View

19.

Gillman S, CUMMINS L, KOZAK Jr P, Hoffman D . Venom immunotherapy: comparison of "rush" vs "conventional" schedules. Ann Allergy. 1980; 45(6):351-4. View

20.

Cadario G, Marengo F, Ranghino E, Rossi R, Gatti B, Cantone R . Higher frequency of early local side effects with aqueous versus depot immunotherapy for hymenoptera venom allergy. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2004; 14(2):127-33. View