TY - JOUR A1 - Stoevesandt, Johanna A1 - Hofmann, Bernd A1 - Hain, Johannes A1 - Kerstan, Andreas A1 - Trautmann, Axel T1 - Single venom-based immunotherapy effectively protects patients with double positive tests to honey bee and Vespula venom JF - Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology N2 - Background Referring to individuals with reactivity to honey bee and Vespula venom in diagnostic tests, the umbrella terms “double sensitization” or “double positivity” cover patients with true clinical double allergy and those allergic to a single venom with asymptomatic sensitization to the other. There is no international consensus on whether immunotherapy regimens should generally include both venoms in double sensitized patients. Objective We investigated the long-term outcome of single venom-based immunotherapy with regard to potential risk factors for treatment failure and specifically compared the risk of relapse in mono sensitized and double sensitized patients. Methods Re-sting data were obtained from 635 patients who had completed at least 3 years of immunotherapy between 1988 and 2008. The adequate venom for immunotherapy was selected using an algorithm based on clinical details and the results of diagnostic tests. Results Of 635 patients, 351 (55.3%) were double sensitized to both venoms. The overall re-exposure rate to Hymenoptera stings during and after immunotherapy was 62.4%; the relapse rate was 7.1% (6.0% in mono sensitized, 7.8% in double sensitized patients). Recurring anaphylaxis was statistically less severe than the index sting reaction (P = 0.004). Double sensitization was not significantly related to relapsing anaphylaxis (P = 0.56), but there was a tendency towards an increased risk of relapse in a subgroup of patients with equal reactivity to both venoms in diagnostic tests (P = 0.15). Conclusions Single venom-based immunotherapy over 3 to 5 years effectively and long-lastingly protects the vast majority of both mono sensitized and double sensitized Hymenoptera venom allergic patients. Double venom immunotherapy is indicated in clinically double allergic patients reporting systemic reactions to stings of both Hymenoptera and in those with equal reactivity to both venoms in diagnostic tests who have not reliably identified the culprit stinging insect. KW - Anaphylaxis KW - Double sensitization KW - Field sting KW - Honey bee KW - Hymenoptera venom KW - Immunotherapy KW - Relapse KW - Risk factor KW - Treatment failure KW - Vespula Y1 - 2013 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-96808 UR - http://www.aacijournal.com/content/9/1/33 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Stoevesandt, Johanna A1 - Hosp, Christine A1 - Kerstan, Andreas A1 - Trautmann, Axel T1 - Safety of 100 µg venom immunotherapy rush protocols in children compared to adults JF - Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology N2 - Background: There 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. Methods: 72 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. Results: Compared 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. Conclusions: The 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. KW - anaphylaxis KW - bee KW - buildup phase KW - hymenoptera KW - pediatric KW - risk factor KW - vespula Y1 - 2017 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-157830 VL - 13 IS - 32 ER -