Hoffman D R, Gillman S A, Cummins L H, Kozak P P, Oswald A
Ann Allergy. 1981 Jan;46(1):17-23.
A group of 25 honey bee venom allergic patients were treated with commercial honey bee venom at a monthly maintenance dose of 100 micrograms for approximately one year. At the end of one year 24 patients were intentionally challenged and one was accidentally challenged. Three patients experienced significant systemic reactions to challenge and three experienced minor reactions. Sera obtained before commencing therapy, at maintenance and before challenge were tested by radioallergosorbent test (RAST), double antibody technique and protein A RAST for IgE and IgG antibody levels to all five known honey bee venom allergens. All of the treatment failures experienced at least a two-fold rise in IgG antibody against phospholipase. The ratios of IgG to IgE antibodies in the pre-challenge specimens were analyzed by a graphical method. Four patients had inadequate responses to at least three of the five allergens and three of these patients were those who experienced severe reactions to challenge. Sixteen patients had adequate responses to all five allergens, four patients to four allergens and one patient to three allergens; three of these patients experienced minor or local reactions to challenge and the remainder no reaction. No single allergen identified only the three severe reactors but three allergens identified all three reactors. The diagnostic efficiency of the criteria used for assessing protection was 0.96. The only non-correlating case was classifying a single nonreactor as at risk. No patients were misclassified as protected.
一组25名对蜜蜂毒液过敏的患者接受了商业蜜蜂毒液治疗,每月维持剂量为100微克,持续约一年。一年结束时,24名患者接受了有意激发试验,1名患者意外接受了激发试验。3名患者在激发试验中出现了严重的全身反应,3名患者出现了轻微反应。在开始治疗前、维持治疗时以及激发试验前采集的血清,通过放射变应原吸附试验(RAST)、双抗体技术和蛋白A RAST检测了针对所有五种已知蜜蜂毒液过敏原的IgE和IgG抗体水平。所有治疗失败的患者针对磷脂酶的IgG抗体至少升高了两倍。通过图形方法分析了激发试验前标本中IgG与IgE抗体的比例。4名患者对五种过敏原中的至少三种反应不足,其中3名患者是在激发试验中出现严重反应的患者。16名患者对所有五种过敏原反应充分,4名患者对四种过敏原反应充分,1名患者对三种过敏原反应充分;这些患者中有3名在激发试验中出现轻微或局部反应,其余患者无反应。没有单一过敏原能仅识别出这三名严重反应者,但有三种过敏原能识别出所有三名反应者。用于评估保护作用的标准的诊断效率为0.96。唯一不相关的病例是将一名无反应者归类为有风险。没有患者被误分类为受保护。