Venom Immunotherapy in High-Risk Patients: The Advantage of the Rush Build-Up Protocol

被引:9
作者
Rosman, Yossi [1 ,2 ]
Confino-Cohen, Ronit [1 ,2 ]
Goldberg, Arnon [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Meir Med Ctr, Allergy & Clin Immunol Unit, IL-44261 Kefar Sava, Israel
[2] Tel Aviv Univ, Sackler Sch Med, Tel Aviv, Israel
关键词
Venom immunotherapy; Hymenoptera allergy; Bee venom allergy; ANAPHYLAXIS; TRYPTASE; BLOCKERS; BLOCKADE; SAFE;
D O I
10.1159/000479692
中图分类号
R392 [医学免疫学];
学科分类号
100102 ;
摘要
Background: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is considered to be the gold standard treatment for patients with hymenoptera venom allergy. This treatment induces systemic reactions (SR) in a significant number of patients. Objective: To evaluate the outcome of VIT in patients with known risk factors for VIT-induced SR and to compare rush VIT (RVIT) and conventional VIT (CVIT). Methods: All of the patients who received VIT and had at least one of the following risk factors were included: current cardiovascular disease, uncontrolled asthma, high basal serum tryptase, current treatment with beta-blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and age > 70 or < 5 years. Results: Sixty-four patients were included, and most of them (52; 81.5%) were allergic exclusively to bee venom. Thirty-five (54.7%) patients underwent RVIT and 29 CVIT. The incidence of patients who developed SR during the build-up phase was similar for RVIT and CVIT (25.7 and 27.5%, respectively; p = 1). However, the incidence of SR per injection was significantly higher in CVIT than in RVIT (5.6 and 2.75%, respectively; p = 0.01). Most reactions (79.1%) were mild, limited to the skin. Most of the patients (92.1%) reached the full maintenance dose of 100 mu g. This dose was reached by a significantly larger number of patients receiving RVIT compared to CVIT (100 and 82.7%, respectively; p = 0.01). None of the patients experienced exacerbation of their concurrent chronic disease during VIT. Conclusion: VIT can be performed safely and efficiently in patients with risk factors for immunotherapy. In these patients RVIT appears to be safer and more efficient than CVIT. (C) 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
引用
收藏
页码:45 / 51
页数:7
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
AWAI LE, 1984, ANN ALLERGY, V53, P48
[2]   Safety and tolerability during build-up phase of a rush venom immunotherapy [J].
Bernkopf, Kathleen ;
Roensch, Henriette ;
Spornraft-Ragaller, Petra ;
Neumeister, Volker ;
Bauer, Andrea .
ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY, 2016, 116 (04) :360-365
[3]   Venom immunotherapy for preventing allergic reactions to insect stings [J].
Boyle, Robert J. ;
Elremeli, Mariam ;
Hockenhull, Juliet ;
Cherry, Mary Gemma ;
Bulsara, Max K. ;
Daniels, Michael ;
Elberink, J. N. G. Oude .
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2012, (10)
[4]   Clinical features and severity grading of anaphylaxis [J].
Brown, SGA .
JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 2004, 114 (02) :371-376
[5]  
Cichocka-Jarosz E, 2011, J INVEST ALLERG CLIN, V21, P260
[6]   Rush Venom Immunotherapy in Children [J].
Confino-Cohen, Ronit ;
Rosman, Yossi ;
Goldberg, Arnon .
JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY-IN PRACTICE, 2017, 5 (03) :799-803
[8]   Rush venom immunotherapy in patients experiencing recurrent systemic reactions to conventional venom immunotherapy [J].
Goldberg, A ;
Confino-Cohen, R .
ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY, 2003, 91 (04) :405-410
[9]   Three Days Rush Venom Immunotherapy in Bee Allergy: Safe, Inexpensive and Instantaneously Effective [J].
Goldberg, Arnon ;
Yogev, Ayala ;
Confino-Cohen, Ronit .
INTERNATIONAL ARCHIVES OF ALLERGY AND IMMUNOLOGY, 2011, 156 (01) :90-98
[10]   Stinging insect hypersensitivity A practice parameter update 2016 [J].
Golden, David B. K. ;
Demain, Jeffrey ;
Freeman, Theodore ;
Graft, David ;
Tankersley, Michael ;
Tracy, James ;
Blessing-Moore, Joann ;
Bernstein, David ;
Dinakar, Chitra ;
Greenhawt, Matthew ;
Khan, David ;
Lang, David ;
Nicklas, Richard ;
Oppenheimer, John ;
Portnoy, Jay ;
Randolph, Christopher ;
Schuller, Diane ;
Wallace, Dana .
ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY, 2017, 118 (01) :28-54