Clinical Trials Center, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2013;160(1):86-92. doi: 10.1159/000338942. Epub 2012 Sep 1.
Venom immunotherapy is highly efficacious in preventing anaphylactic sting reactions. However, there is an ongoing discussion regarding patient selection and whether and how to apply a cost-benefit analysis of venom immunotherapy. In order to help decision-making, we investigated the re-sting frequency of hymenoptera-venom-allergic patients to single out those at high risk.
In this retrospective study, re-sting data of 96 bee-venom-allergic patients and 95 vespid-venom-allergic patients living mainly in a rural area of Switzerland were analyzed. Hymenoptera venom allergy status was rated according to the classification system of H.L. Mueller [J Asthma Res 1966;3:331-333]. Different risk-groups were defined according to sting exposure and their median sting-free interval was calculated.
The risk factors for a wasp or bee re-sting were outdoor occupation, beekeeping and habitation close to a bee-house. Half of all vespid-venom-allergic outdoor workers were re-stung within 3.75 years compared to 7.5 years for indoor workers. Similarly, 50% of the bee-venom-allergic beekeepers or subjects with a bee-house in the vicinity suffered a bee re-sting within 5.25 years compared to 10.75 years for individuals who were not beekeepers.
The high degree of exposure of vespid-venom-allergic outdoor workers and bee-venom-allergic beekeepers and subjects living close to bee-houses underlines the high benefit of venom immunotherapy for these patients even if they suffered a non-life-threatening grade II reaction. Yet, bee-venom-allergic individuals with no proximity to bee-houses and with an indoor occupation face a very low exposure risk, which justifies epinephrine rescue treatment for these patients especially if they have suffered from grade II sting reactions.
毒液免疫疗法在预防过敏性蜇伤反应方面非常有效。然而,目前仍在讨论患者选择问题,以及是否以及如何应用毒液免疫疗法的成本效益分析。为了帮助决策,我们调查了膜翅目毒液过敏患者的蜇伤复发频率,以确定哪些患者属于高风险。
在这项回顾性研究中,分析了 96 例蜜蜂毒液过敏患者和 95 例大黄蜂毒液过敏患者的蜇伤复发数据。膜翅目毒液过敏状态根据 H.L. Mueller 的分类系统[J Asthma Res 1966;3:331-333]进行评估。根据蜇伤暴露情况定义了不同的风险组,并计算了他们的中位无蜇伤间隔。
被黄蜂或蜜蜂蜇伤的危险因素是户外职业、养蜂和居住在蜂房附近。一半的户外大黄蜂毒液过敏劳动者在 3.75 年内再次被蜇,而室内劳动者则为 7.5 年。同样,50%的蜜蜂毒液过敏养蜂者或附近有蜂房的个体在 5.25 年内再次被蜜蜂蜇伤,而不养蜂的个体则为 10.75 年。
大黄蜂毒液过敏户外劳动者和蜜蜂毒液过敏养蜂者以及居住在蜂房附近的个体暴露程度高,这强调了毒液免疫疗法对这些患者的高获益,即使他们发生了非危及生命的 II 级反应。然而,没有接近蜂房且从事室内职业的蜜蜂毒液过敏个体面临的暴露风险非常低,这证明了这些患者特别如果发生了 II 级蜇伤反应,肾上腺素急救治疗是合理的。