Verburg M, Oldhoff J M, Klemans R J B, Lahey-de Boer A, de Bruin-Weller M S, Röckmann H, Sanders C, Bruijnzeel-Koomen C A F M, Pasmans S G M A, Knulst A C
Department of Dermatology/Allergology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Department of Dermatology/Allergology University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. Phone: +31 88 7553 235 E-mail:
Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015 Nov;47(6):192-6.
Patients with mastocytosis and wasp venom allergy (WA) may benefit from venom immunotherapy (VIT). However, fatal insect sting reactions have been described in mastocytosis patients despite previous immunotherapy. We investigated the safety and efficacy of (rush) VIT in patients with mastocytosis and WA.
To investigate the safety and efficacy of (rush) VIT in patients with mastocytosis and WA.
We describe nine patients with cutaneous mastocytosis and WA who received VIT. Cutaneous mastocytosis was confirmed by histopathology and systemic mastocytosis was diagnosed according to World Health Organization criteria. VIT was given according to a rush protocol. Given the difference in safety and efficacy of VIT in patients with WA and honeybee venom allergy, we reviewed the literature for VIT with the focus on WA patients with mastocytosis and addressed the difference between patients with cutaneous versus systemic mastocytosis.
Nine patients had WA and mastocytosis, of whom six had cutaneous mastocytosis, two combined cutaneous and systemic mastocytosis and one systemic mastocytosis. All patients received rush IT with wasp venom. Most patients had only mild local side effects, with no systemic side effects during the course of VIT. One patient had a systemic reaction upon injection on one occasion, during the updosing phase, with dyspnoea and hypotension, but responded well to treatment. Immunotherapy was continued after temporary dose adjustment without problems. Two patients with a previous anaphylactic reaction were re-stung, without any systemic effects.
VIT is safe in cutaneous mastocytosis patients with WA, while caution has to be made in case of systemic mastocytosis. VIT was effective in the patients who were re-stung.
肥大细胞增多症患者和黄蜂毒液过敏(WA)患者可能从毒液免疫疗法(VIT)中获益。然而,尽管先前进行了免疫疗法,但肥大细胞增多症患者中仍有致命的昆虫叮咬反应的报道。我们研究了(快速)VIT在肥大细胞增多症和WA患者中的安全性和有效性。
研究(快速)VIT在肥大细胞增多症和WA患者中的安全性和有效性。
我们描述了9例接受VIT的皮肤肥大细胞增多症和WA患者。通过组织病理学确诊皮肤肥大细胞增多症,并根据世界卫生组织标准诊断系统性肥大细胞增多症。VIT按照快速方案给予。鉴于VIT在WA患者和蜜蜂毒液过敏患者中的安全性和有效性存在差异,我们回顾了以WA合并肥大细胞增多症患者为重点的VIT文献,并探讨了皮肤肥大细胞增多症与系统性肥大细胞增多症患者之间的差异。
9例患者患有WA和肥大细胞增多症,其中6例为皮肤肥大细胞增多症,2例为皮肤合并系统性肥大细胞增多症,1例为系统性肥大细胞增多症。所有患者均接受了黄蜂毒液快速免疫疗法。大多数患者仅出现轻度局部副作用,在VIT过程中无全身副作用。1例患者在剂量增加阶段注射时出现1次全身反应,伴有呼吸困难和低血压,但治疗反应良好。在临时调整剂量后继续进行免疫疗法,未出现问题。2例既往有过敏反应的患者再次被蜇,未出现任何全身反应。
VIT对皮肤肥大细胞增多症合并WA患者是安全的,而对于系统性肥大细胞增多症患者则需谨慎。VIT对再次被蜇的患者有效。