BackgroundHymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT) is a clinically effective treatment. However, little is known about its long-term clinical efficacy and biological effects. Several mechanisms have been proposed to account for VIT efficacy, including reduction of specific IgE and induction of allergen-specific IgG4, but the overall picture remains elusive. We investigated Vespula VIT clinical efficacy up to 8 years after discontinuation and the kinetics of Vespula-specific IgE and IgG4. Out of 686 consecutive patients we retrospectively selected and analysed a series of 23 patients with Vespula allergy that underwent a 5-year IT course, followed by a prolonged follow-up.MethodsClinical efficacy of VIT was assessed as number and severity of reactions to Vespula re-stinging events. The presence of Vespula-specific IgE and IgG4 was also monitored over time.ResultsDuring the VIT treatment, patients were protected, reporting no reactions or mild reactions in occasion of re-stinging events. This protection was entirely maintained during the follow-up, up to 8 years. Skin reactivity (reflecting mast cell-bound Vespula-specific IgE) and circulating Vespula-specific IgE levels declined substantially during VIT. Notably, this reduction was maintained over time during the follow-up. Moreover, all the patients were analysed for IgG4. A robust induction of Vespula-specific IgG4 was observed during the VIT course, with a substantial decline during the follow-up.ConclusionsWe conclude that Vespula VIT is a clinically effective treatment, which induces long-term protection after discontinuation. The reduction of specific IgE, assessed by skin tests and RAST, closely matches the VIT- induced protection, while the IgG4 induction seems not to be associated with VIT clinical efficacy in the long term.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12948-017-0079-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundBrentuximab vedotin (BV) is an antibody–drug conjugate formed by an anti-CD30 chimeric IgG1 conjugated with monomethyl-auristatin-E. BV targets the CD30+ cells, which characterize Hodgkin lymphoma as well as anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Once bound to the CD30+ cells BV exerts its cytotoxic effect via the monomethyl-auristatin-E moiety. So far, accounts on immediate adverse reactions to BV remain anecdotal. Moreover, few reports exist on desensitization for BV.Case presentationA 20-year old male patient was diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma in July 2014. The first line treatment with adriblastine, bleomicine, vinblastine and dacarbazine lead to a partial remission. Thus, a treatment with BV was started. However, during the second BV infusion, he developed generalized urticaria and dyspnea. In order not to discontinue the treatment with BV, we performed a thorough allergological workup and designed a 12-step rapid desensitization protocol. Overall the desensitization procedure was well tolerated and no major adverse reactions occurred.ConclusionRapid desensitization is a suitable and safe option in the case of BV allergy and prevents the BV treatment withdrawal.

No abstract