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.
BACKGROUND: Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy in allergicpatients 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 patientsallergic 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.
Authors: Ewa Cichocka-Jarosz; Piotr Brzyski; Ewa Swiebocka; Joanna Lange; Beata Tobiasz-Adamczyk; Grzegorz Lis; Urszula Jedynak-Wąsowicz; Marek Kulus; Maciej Kaczmarski; Teresa Małaczyńska; Barbara Klajna-Kraluk; Anna Bręborowicz; Zdzisława Kycler; Jacek J Pietrzyk Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2012-12-19 Impact factor: 3.318