Ronit Confino-Cohen1, Yossi Rosman2, Arnon Goldberg1. 1. Allergy and Clinical Immunology Unit, Meir Medical Center, Kfar-Saba, Israel; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. 2. Allergy and Clinical Immunology Unit, Meir Medical Center, Kfar-Saba, Israel; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. Electronic address: yossi.rosman@clalit.org.il.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rush venom immunotherapy (VIT) is highly effective in Hymenoptera venom allergy. Still, specific data regarding its safety and efficiency in children are rather sparse. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to better evaluate the safety and efficiency of rush VIT in this specific age group. METHODS: Children younger than 16 years with systemic reaction to insect sting involving, at least, one body system other than skin and children aged 16-18 years with any kind of systemic reaction were offered conventional or rush VIT with a build-up phase that lasted 3 days. RESULTS: Eighty-four of 127 children together with their caregivers chose to receive rush VIT. Seventy of them were allergic to bee venom only. There was no difference between the children receiving rush or conventional VIT in the incidence of systemic reactions during the build-up phase (19% and 23.2%, respectively), nor was there any difference in regard to the severity of these reactions. Efficiency was improved with rush VIT, as reflected by a higher number of patients achieving the 100 mcg maintenance dose with the primary protocol (83 of 84 patients, 98.8%, and 39 of 43, 90.7%, for rush and conventional, respectively, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Rush VIT in children is as safe as and more efficient than conventional VIT.
BACKGROUND: Rush venom immunotherapy (VIT) is highly effective in Hymenoptera venom allergy. Still, specific data regarding its safety and efficiency in children are rather sparse. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to better evaluate the safety and efficiency of rush VIT in this specific age group. METHODS:Children younger than 16 years with systemic reaction to insect sting involving, at least, one body system other than skin and children aged 16-18 years with any kind of systemic reaction were offered conventional or rush VIT with a build-up phase that lasted 3 days. RESULTS: Eighty-four of 127 children together with their caregivers chose to receive rush VIT. Seventy of them were allergic to bee venom only. There was no difference between the children receiving rush or conventional VIT in the incidence of systemic reactions during the build-up phase (19% and 23.2%, respectively), nor was there any difference in regard to the severity of these reactions. Efficiency was improved with rush VIT, as reflected by a higher number of patients achieving the 100 mcg maintenance dose with the primary protocol (83 of 84 patients, 98.8%, and 39 of 43, 90.7%, for rush and conventional, respectively, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Rush VIT in children is as safe as and more efficient than conventional VIT.