immunotherapy versus -venom immunotherapy in allergy: a comparison study in field re-stings.

BACKGROUND

In ascertained allergic sensitization to (VC) venom, the European guidelines still consider venom immunotherapy (VIT) with (VE) venom sufficient to achieve an adequate protection against VC. However, antigen 5 immunoblotting studies showed that a genuine sensitization to VC venom may exist. In such cases, a specific VC venom would be preferable for VIT treatment. Since in the last few years, VC venom extracts became available for diagnosis and desensitization, we assessed the efficacy and safety of VIT with a VC-VIT, compared to VE extract.

METHODS

Patients stung by VC, and carefully diagnosed for specific sensitization and indication to VIT underwent a 5-year course of immunotherapy with either VE or VC extracts The severity of reactions at the first sting (pre-VIT) and after field re-stings (during VIT) were compared.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients, treated with VE extract and 130 patients treated with VC extract completed the 5-year course of VIT. Only a fraction of those patients (43,8%) were field-re-stung by VC: 64 patients on VC VIT and 69 on VE VIT. In the VC VIT group, reactions at re-sting were: 50 negative, 12 large local reactions, 4 systemic reactions (Muller grade I). In this group the VC VIT efficacy was 93,8%. In the VE VIT treated group the reactions at VC re-sting were: 51 negative, 10 large local reactions and 9 systemic reactions (5 Muller I, 3 Mueller III, 1 Muller IV). In this group the overall efficacy of VIT was 87,0%. The difference in efficacy between the two groups was not statistically significant, as previously reported in literature. Nonetheless, field sting systemic reactions Muller III and IV were recorded only in those patients receiving VE VIT.

CONCLUSION

This observation suggests that in patients with ascertained VC-induced allergic reactions a specific VC VIT, where available, would be more adequate, at least concerning the safety profile.