Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Document Type
- Journal article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Keywords
- Anaphylaxis (1)
- Cutaneous metastatic Crohn’s disease (1)
- Double sensitization (1)
- Field sting (1)
- Honey bee (1)
- Hymenoptera venom (1)
- Immunotherapy (1)
- Relapse (1)
- Risk factor (1)
- Treatment failure (1)
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.
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.
Cutaneous metastatic Crohn’s disease (MCD) is a rare but challenging dermatologic manifestation of Crohn’s disease. It is histologically defined as the presence of non-caseating granulomas at skin sites separated from and non-contiguous to the gastrointestinal tract. Cutaneous metastatic Crohn’s disease should be distinguished from the much more frequent contiguous cutaneous manifestations of Crohn’s disease that present at perianal or, less common, peristomal sites with direct extension from the intestine to the adjacent skin. Versatile clinical presentation and the fact that occurrence can predate the initial diagnosis of Crohn’s disease may lead to misdiagnosis, delayed treatment and underreporting. As case numbers are small and randomized controlled studies on management are lacking, the therapeutic approach remains challenging and is often unsatisfactory. We here performed a systematic literature search identifying 264 published pediatric and adult cases of MCD and additionally report three of our own cases. Our review summarizes clinical characteristics, putative etiopathology, histologic findings, differential diagnoses and treatment options for MCD.