Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Allergy (Cairo). 2012;2012:192192. doi: 10.1155/2012/192192. Epub 2012 May 24.

Hymenoptera Venom Immunotherapy: Tolerance and Efficacy of an Ultrarush Protocol versus a Rush and a Slow Conventional Protocol.

Author information

1
Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, Hospital of Agropoli, ASL, Salerno, 84043 Agropoli, Italy.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:

Various venom immunotherapy (VIT) protocols are available for Hymenoptera allergy. Although adverse reactions (ADRs) to VIT are widely reported, controlled trials are still needed. We conducted a randomized prospective study to evaluate ADRs and the efficacy of three VIT regimens.

METHODS:

76 patients with Hymenoptera allergy, aged 16-76 years, were randomized to receive an ultrarush protocol (group A: 27 patients), a rush protocol (group B: 25), or a slow protocol (group C: 24). Aqueous venom extract was used in incremental phase and an adsorbed depot in maintenance phase. ADRs and accidental Hymenoptera stings during VIT were used to evaluate efficacy.

RESULTS:

During incremental treatment, ADRs occurred in 1.99%, 3.7%, and 3.9% of patients in groups A, B, and C, and in 0.99%, 1.46%, and 2.7%, respectively, during maintenance. ADRs were significantly fewer in group A (incremental + maintenance phase) than in group C (1.29% versus 3.2%; P = 0.013). Reactions to accidental Hymenoptera stings did not differ among groups (1.1%, 1.2%, and 1.1%).

CONCLUSION:

Ultrarush was as effective as the rush and slow protocols and was associated with a low incidence of reactions to stings. This study indicates that ultrarush VIT is a valid therapeutic option for Hymenoptera allergy.

PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Hindawi Publishing Corporation Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center