Safety Of Venom Immunotherapy Research Articles

Updates and Recent Advances on Venom Immunotherapy.

Venom immunotherapy has been utilized to treat Hymenoptera venom allergy since the 1920s. Over the last century, significant advances in the fields of immunology and genetics have led to improvements in the practice of venom immunotherapy. This review encompasses recent advances in the use of venom immunotherapy to provide precise, patient-centered care. Research about the mechanism of action of venom immunotherapy continues to highlight the modification of both the innate and adaptive immune systems. Molecular techniques have allowed for the identification of specific venom allergens to improve the diagnostic accuracy and safety of venom immunotherapy. Research continues to support the safety of accelerated schedules which can impact the cost, adherence, and quality of life for patients receiving this treatment modality. Finally, significant advances have led to the elucidation of risk factors that place patients at risk for reactions during and after venom immunotherapy. Creation of risk profiles for venom-allergic patients can thus inform the process of immunotherapy in order to provide personalized and precise care. Significant progress in the use of venom immunotherapy makes the practice a dynamic and active field for continued research. Future research needs to build on these recent advances to continue to optimize and enhance this life-saving treatment.

The role of component-resolved diagnosis in Hymenoptera venom allergy in clinical practice

Background: Hymenoptera venom allergy is an immunoglobulin (Ig) E mediated hypersensitivity reaction to Hymenoptera venoms. Obvious identification of the culprit insect that causes the clinical symptoms and, hence, the accurate selection of venom for curative treatment, is of great importance for the effectiveness and safety of venom immunotherapy. Objective: In this study, the contribution of component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) is evaluated in the diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy. Method: Ninety-three patients from four different centers in Turkey were included in the study. Conventional tests, including prick and intradermal skin tests, with commercial venom extracts and serum specific IgE (sIgE) levels for whole venoms were performed. An sIgE analysis for venom allergen components, including rApi m 1, rApi m 2, rApi m 10, rVes v 1, rVes v 5, were evaluated by immunoblotting. Results: In conventional test results, 17 of 35 patients with bee venom allergy were positive to honey bee venom, whereas 18 patients were positive to bee and wasp venoms. In 28 of 35 patients with bee venom allergy, the diagnosis was confirmed with CRD. CRD revealed a sensitivity of 80% in patients with bee venom allergy. According to conventional tests, 7 of 24 patients with vespid venom allergy demonstrated sensitivity only to Vespula species, whereas 17 patients revealed double positivity. The total diagnostic sensitivity of Ves v 1 and Ves v 5 was calculated as 87.5%. Ten of 23 patients with a history of hypersensitivity to both venoms showed double sensitivity with CRD; one patient had cross-reactivity, one patient was found to be sensitive only to bee venom, and, eight patients were sensitive only to Vespula species. Eleven patients had an uncertain history in terms of the culprit insect type and six of them had double sensitivity in CRD. Conclusion: CRD seemed to be more helpful in diagnosing vespid venom allergy than bee venom allergy. It can also discriminate clinically significant sensitizations from irrelevant ones.

Stinging Insect Allergens.

Hymenoptera venom allergy is one of the common causes of anaphylaxis. However, when physicians make the diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy, the history of being stung is not always consistent with the results of venom-specific IgE. With the development of component-resolved diagnosis, it is possible to accurately localize an allergic reaction to certain sensitized proteins. This paper reviewed the studies that have addressed the identified allergenicity and cross-reactivity of Hymenoptera venom allergens accepted by the WHO/IUIS Nomenclature Sub-committee, the componentresolved diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy and its predictive values for the efficacy and safety of venom immunotherapy. Also special attention was paid to the spread of Hymenoptera venom allergy in Asian countries.

Venom immunotherapy in patients with clonal mast cell disorders: IgG4 correlates with protection.

Patients with clonal mast cell disorders (cMCD), systemic mastocytosis (SM) and monoclonal mast cell activation syndrome (MMAS), represent an increased risk for Hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis (HVA). Lifelong venom immunotherapy (VIT) is recommended; however, its efficacy and safety are controversial. Hence, we sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of VIT in HVA patients with cMCD. A retrospective study was conducted among 46 patients with Vespula venom allergy who had experienced severe HVA, 32 cMCD (22 with SM and 10 with MMAS) and 14 controls. There were no differences between cMCD patients and controls in age (58 vs 66) and duration of VIT (47 vs 48months), respectively. During VIT, 11 (34%) cMCD patients experienced adverse reactions (ARs) (7% in controls), including 1 anaphylaxis. There were 23 re-stings in 17 (53%) patients during VIT. Of episodes, four (17%) presented with anaphylaxis, 14 (60%) presented with local reaction, and five (23%) were asymptomatic. In 11 episodes (48%), the patient did not take epinephrine, of these 8 (73%) presented with local reaction, and 3 (27%) were asymptomatic. Patient-based protection from anaphylaxis was 76% (4/17) in cMCD vs. 100% in controls during VIT. The venom-specific IgG4 concentrations increased during VIT (P<.001) although tryptase and IgE were unaltered. Both safety and efficacy of VIT in cMCD patients were slightly reduced than controls. Severe ARs were rare. The elevated IgG4 levels may be a biomarker for efficacy of VIT in cMCD patients, as it correlates with protection from re-stings.

Vespa crabro immunotherapy versus Vespula-venom immunotherapy in Vespa crabro allergy: a comparison study in field re-stings

Background In ascertained allergic sensitization to Vespa crabro (VC) venom, the European guidelines still consider venom immunotherapy (VIT) with Vespula (VE) venom sufficient to achieve an adequate protection against VC. However, antigen 5 immunoblotting studies showed that a genuine sensitization to VC venom may exist. In such cases, a specific VC venom would be preferable for VIT treatment. Since in the last few years, VC venom extracts became available for diagnosis and desensitization, we assessed the efficacy and safety of VIT with a VC-VIT, compared to VE extract.Methods Patients stung by VC, and carefully diagnosed for specific sensitization and indication to VIT underwent a 5-year course of immunotherapy with either VE or VC extracts. The severity of reactions at the first sting (pre-VIT) and after field re-stings (during VIT) were compared.Results Eighty-three patients, treated with VE extract and 130 patients treated with VC extract completed the 5-year course of VIT. Only a fraction of those patients (43,8%) were field-re-stung by VC: 64 patients on VC VIT and 69 on VE VIT. In the VC VIT group, reactions at re-sting were: 50 negative, 12 large local reactions, 4 systemic reactions (Muller grade I). In this group the VC VIT efficacy was 93,8%. In the VE VIT treated group the reactions at VC re-sting were: 51 negative, 10 large local reactions and 9 systemic reactions (5 Muller I, 3 Mueller III, 1 Muller IV). In this group the overall efficacy of VIT was 87,0%. The difference in efficacy between the two groups was not statistically significant, as previously reported in literature. Nonetheless, field sting systemic reactions Muller III and IV were recorded only in those patients receiving VE VIT.Conclusion This observation suggests that in patients with ascertained VC-induced allergic reactions a specific VC VIT, where available, would be more adequate, at least concerning the safety profile.

Safety of 100\xa0\xb5g venom immunotherapy rush protocols in children compared to adults

BackgroundThere is a paucity of studies examining the safety of venom immunotherapy (VIT) in children. We aimed to assess the incidence of anaphylactic side effects during rush VIT in a cohort of pediatric patients and adult controls.Methods72 consecutive cycles of VIT-buildup in 71 children/adolescents aged 7–17 years were retrospectively evaluated and compared to an adult control group (n = 981) with regard to baseline parameters (sex, causative venom, severity of index sting reaction, results of allergy testing, comorbidities) and the incidence of anaphylactic adverse reactions.ResultsCompared to adults, severe index sting-induced anaphylaxis was significantly less common in children (P = .001). Children were more likely to suffer from bee venom allergy (P < .001) and showed higher levels of bee venom-specific IgE (P = .013), but lower serum tryptase concentrations (P = .014). The overall rate of VIT-induced anaphylactic reactions was higher in children than in adults (6.9% vs 2.5%, P = .046 by univariate analysis). In the final binary logistic regression model, however, only bee VIT (P = .039; odds ratio 2.25; confidence interval 1.04–4.87) and 5-day compared to 3-day buildup protocols (P = .011; odds ratio 2.64; confidence interval 1.25–5.57) were associated with an increased risk of treatment-induced anaphylaxis. All pediatric patients finally reached and tolerated the target maintenance dose of 100 µg.ConclusionsThe higher anaphylactic reaction rate observed in pediatric patients may be attributed to a greater prevalence of bee venom allergy. VIT-induced anaphylaxis in children is usually mild and does not affect further updosing and maintenance of VIT.

Sex-related clinical aspects in insect venom anaphylaxis.

Experimental studies, epidemiological data, and clinical observations suggest that the gender factor is involved in the development and manifestation of IgE-dependent allergic diseases. We intend to answer the question if sex-related factors may play a role in Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA). In the majority of recent studies the frequency of HVA symptoms with respect to both LL and SYS reactions is similar for men and women, while proven sensitization to insect venom is less frequent in women. Studies assessing clinical reactivity in HVA indicate that male sex and vespid venom allergy are factors increasing the risk of severe allergic reactions. Regarding the risk of adverse events associated with gender in the course of venom immunotherapy (VIT), the results of two large EAACI multicenter studies are discordant. In the first study, women showed increased risk of VIT adverse events. In the latter, systemic allergic side effects were not associated with gender. Despite theoretical premises and certain clinical observations indicating an important role of estrogens in allergic diseases, their influence on stinging insects' venom hypersensitivity is not unequivocal and remains still open. Further studies on the safety of VIT in females seem to be advisable.

Hypersensitivity to Hymenoptera Venom: Advances in Diagnosis and Implications for Treatment

Diagnosis and treatment of hypersensitivity to Hymenoptera venom took a landmark step forward in the late 1970s with the introduction of venom as an adequate material instead of whole body extracts. Since then, venom immunotherapy (VIT) has provided allergic subjects with a complete protection from fatal anaphylaxis and prevented about 90% of all reactions to stings. The cross-reactivity among some venom components, particularly important in the case of cross-reacting carbohydrate determinants, has often made it difficult to recognize the true causative venom to be used in VIT. Recently, the introduction of purified and recombinant allergens, such as Api m 1 from honeybee venom, Ves v 5 from yellow jacket venom, and Pol d 5 from wasp venom, have allowed a more precise diagnosis with identification of the causative venom component. This paves the way for a patient-tailored VIT in the near future. Another issue which needs to be addressed is the improvement in the safety of VIT with honeybee venom, which is significantly less favourable in comparison to vespid venom. A number of molecular approaches are under investigation in order to achieve this objective. Alternative routes of administration, such as the sublingual and the intralymphatic, have also been proposed, but there are not yet sufficient data available to demonstrate their feasibility. This review also presents patents on new trends in therapies for the management of hypersensitivity to hymenoptera venom.

Safety and effectiveness of immunotherapy in patients with indolent systemic mastocytosis presenting with Hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis after Hymenoptera sting has been described in patients with mastocytosis. Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is a safe and effective way to treat patients with Hymenoptera anaphylaxis, but few studies have addressed its usefulness in patients with systemic mastocytosis. To study the effectiveness and safety of VIT in patients with systemic mastocytosis having anaphylaxis after Hymenoptera sting. A total of 21 mastocytosis patients-4 women (19%) and 17 men (81%) with a median age of 50 years (range, 29-74 years)-with Hymenoptera sting anaphylaxis who were treated with VIT and followed for a median of 52 months (range, 2-250 months) were studied. In 18 of 21 patients-16 of them lacking skin involvement-anaphylaxis was the presenting symptom. Six patients (29%) experienced adverse reactions during VIT, 3 during initiation and 3 during maintenance. Twelve patients (57%) were resting while undergoing VIT; 9 (75%) presented local reactions and 3 (25%) systemic reactions, 1 of which required intubation. The Hymenoptera specific IgE decreased from 4.15 kU/L (range, 0.44-100 kU/L) before immunotherapy to 1.2 kU/L (range, 0.34-69.4 kU/L) after 4 years (P < .003). Venom immunotherapy is effective to treat IgE-mediated Hymenoptera anaphylaxis in patients with mastocytosis. Its use is recommended despite a relatively high risk of adverse reactions during the build-up phase because it provides protection from anaphylaxis in around 3/4 of the patients.

Safety of Venom Immunotherapy in Patients Pretreated with Antihistamines—A Retrospective Study

Immunotherapy is the only effective method of treatment of allergy to Hymenoptera venom. Pretreatment with antihistamines diminishes the incidence of adverse reactions (AR) such as large local and mild systemic reactions but it is suggested that it may mask a development of serious allergic reactions. The aim of the study was a retrospective evaluation of the incidence and nature of AR during venom immunotherapy in patients receiving pretreatment with antihistamines in the Department of Pneumonology and Allergy of the Medical University of Lodz. 50 patients started "ultra-rush" immunotherapy in our center, 8 were taken in our care after the initiation phase had been conducted elsewhere. During the dose increase phase 10 systemic adverse reactions were observed. 50% of them were only subjective and the rest mild objective reactions. During the maintenance phase 10 systemic reactions were noted, among them 2 cases of the anaphylactic shock. The incidence of systemic adverse reactions was 1 per 86 injections. Late as well as unusual reactions appeared twice. Venom immunotherapy combined with pretreatment with antihistamines is safe. A vast majority of systemic adverse reactions is of subjective and mild objective nature and appropriate treatment leads to containment of severe reactions.