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

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



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.


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.


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%).


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


    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

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