Adverse reactions in venom immunotherapy protocols: conventional versus ultra-rush

被引:2
|
作者
Selcuk, Ali [1 ]
Baysan, Abdullah [1 ]
Yesillik, Sait [1 ]
Demirel, Fevzi [1 ]
Kartal, Ozgur [1 ]
Gulec, Mustafa [1 ]
Musabak, Ugur [1 ]
Sener, Osman [1 ]
机构
[1] Gulhane Training & Res Hosp, Dept Immunol & Allergy, TR-06018 Ankara, Turkey
关键词
Hymenoptera venom allergy; safety; insect sting; effectiveness; HYMENOPTERA VENOM; SAFETY; BEE;
D O I
10.1080/07853890.2022.2112969
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is an effective treatment in the patients at high risk of anaphylaxis or life-threatening systemic reactions due to Hymenoptera venom allergy. But, systemic and large local reactions can be observed, especially during the build-up phase of VIT. We evaluated the safety of conventional and ultra-rush build-up protocols. Materials and methods Two protocols in 71 patients (39 conventional and 32 ultra-rush protocols) with honeybee and wasp venom allergy were evaluated retrospectively. Patients were diagnosed and selected for VIT according to the criteria established by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. The severity of systemic reactions was evaluated according to the criteria of Mueller. Results Build-up phases were tolerated in 66.2% (n = 47) without any reaction. Allergic adverse reactions were observed in 33.8% (n = 24): large local reactions 22.5% (n = 16) and systemic reactions 11.3% (n = 8). There was no significant difference in the number of adverse reactions comparing patients receiving conventional and ultra-rush protocol. In addition, no association was found between allergic adverse reactions and the following factors: sex, previous systemic sting reactions, honeybee and wasp venom extract. Conclusion We found that both protocols were tolerated in patients with honeybee and wasp venom allergy. Ultra-rush protocol will be preferred for patients and clinicians because of its advantages in terms of time and costs. KEY MESSAGES VIT is the only curative treatment method that reduces the risk of severe reactions after a bee sting and improves the quality of life in patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy. Ultra-rush VIT protocol has advantages such as few injection and time savings. Both ultra-rush and conventional VIT are safe treatments to prevent potentially life-threatening reactions in patients with honeybee and wasp venom allergy.
引用
收藏
页码:2321 / 2325
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Venom Immunotherapy: a 20-year experience with an ultra-rush protocol (210-min)
    Cosme, J.
    Spinola-Santos, A.
    Pereira-Santos, M. C.
    Pereira-Barbosa, M.
    EUROPEAN ANNALS OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 2019, 51 (03) : 122 - 128
  • [22] Wasp venom allergy: a protocol for ultra-rush sublingual desensitisation
    Nucera, E.
    Buonomo, A.
    Lombardo, C.
    Roncallo, C.
    Pollastrini, E.
    Aruanno, A.
    Decinti, M.
    Pecora, V
    Musumeci, S.
    Schiavino, D.
    Patriarca, G.
    ALLERGY, 2008, 63 : 13 - 13
  • [23] Safety of ultra-rush perlingual immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis
    Giovanni, T.
    Allievi, E.
    Origgi, D.
    Piacentini, G.
    Serradori, L.
    Martelli, A.
    ALLERGY, 2012, 67 : 411 - 411
  • [24] Blood basophils are influenced by ultra-rush bee venom immunotherapy: Changes in histamine release and leukotriene secretion
    Jutel, M
    Muller, UR
    Rihs, S
    Fricker, M
    Pichler, WJ
    Dahinden, C
    JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 1996, 97 (01) : 186 - 186
  • [25] Safety of Repeated Imported Fire Ant Ultra-Rush Protocols
    Adams, Karla E.
    Johnson, Kimberly S.
    MILITARY MEDICINE, 2019, 184 (5-6) : E483 - E485
  • [26] Safety comparison of two different ultra-rush cluster non-conventional protocols with subcutaneous depot (IR/ml) allergen immunotherapy
    Garcia, M. A.
    Sanchez, M. C.
    Hinojosa, B.
    Orovigt, A.
    Maravi, A.
    Rodriguez, M.
    ALLERGY, 2014, 69 : 564 - 565
  • [27] Good tolerability when switching from an aqueous ultra-rush Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy to a depot preparation
    Scarpone, Roberta
    Oestmann, Elsbeth
    Kraft, Magdalena
    Worm, Margitta
    ALLERGY, 2020, 75 (07) : 1800 - 1802
  • [28] Safety of modified ultra-rush venom immunotherapy with lyophilized extracts in children-A retrospective and prospective analysis
    Becker, M.
    Steiss, J.
    ALLERGY, 2020, 75 : 145 - 145
  • [29] Pru p 3 sublingual immunotherapy-rush protocol versus ultra-rush protocol: Comparing safety
    Silva, M., I
    Paulino, M.
    Duarte, F. C.
    Barbosa, M. P.
    Costa, C.
    ALLERGY, 2020, 75 : 133 - 133
  • [30] SAFETY OF REPEATED IMPORTED FIRE ANT ULTRA-RUSH PROTOCOLS
    Adams, K. E.
    Johnson, K. S.
    ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY, 2013, 111 (05) : A30 - A30