Hymenoptera ultra‐rush venom immunotherapy (210 min): a safety study and risk factors

Birnbaum, J.; Ramadour, M.; Magnan, A.; Vervloët, D.

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2003.01564.x

Cited by 76 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, we did not identify any of the significant risk factors proposed by other authors [14,16,22]. No significant differences were found for the species responsible (P=.45), although 6 of the 10 patients with systemic reactions were receiving immunotherapy with bee venom.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

“…Standard protocols (lasting 8-15 weeks), rush protocols (4-7 days), and ultrarush protocols (1-2 days) can all be used. Ultrarush protocols have been shown to be safe [9,12,[15][16][17]; however, other prospective studies have shown a rapid increase in dose to be an independent risk factor for adverse systemic reactions [13,18]. In the case of ultrarush protocols, this risk is increased 1.8-fold, although the protocols are costeffective [19,20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Insect Venom Immunotherapy: Analysis of the Safety and Tolerance of 3 Buildup Protocols Frequently Used in Spain

Fernández

Moreno-Ancillo

Melendez³

et al. 2016

J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT) is an effective treatment but not one devoid of risk, as both local and systemic adverse reactions may occur, especially in the initial phases. We compared the tolerance to 3 VIT buildup protocols and analyzed risk factors associated with adverse reactions during this phase. Materials and Methods: We enrolled 165 patients divided into 3 groups based on the buildup protocol used (3, 4, and 9 weeks). The severity of systemic reactions was evaluated according to the World Allergy Organization model. Results were analyzed using exploratory descriptive statistics, and variables were compared using analysis of variance. Results: Adverse reactions were recorded in 53 patients (32%) (43 local and 10 systemic). Local reactions were immediate in 27 patients (63%) and delayed in 16 (37%). The severity of the local reaction was slight/moderate in 15 patients and severe in 13. Systemic reactions were grade 1-2. No significant association was found between the treatment modality and the onset of local or systemic adverse reactions or the type of local reaction. We only found a statistically significant association between severity of the local reaction and female gender. As for the risk factors associated with systemic reactions during the buildup phase, we found no significant differences in values depending on the protocol used or the insect responsible. Conclusions: The buildup protocols compared proved to be safe and did not differ significantly from one another. In the population studied, patients undergoing the 9-week schedule presented no systemic reactions. Therefore, this protocol can be considered the safest approach.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insect Venom Immunotherapy: Analysis of the Safety and Tolerance of 3 Buildup Protocols Frequently Used in Spain

Fernández

Moreno-Ancillo

Melendez³

et al. 2016

J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the safety and efficacy of this treatment is controversially discussed. Data concerning its use in children are very scarce.Adverse systemic reactions under ultra-rush immunotherapy for more than 210 minutes were described by Birnbaum et al [3]. The reactions were mainly those on the skin, such as urticaria, and/or angioedema.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The ultra-rush procedure is the briefest one for initiation of VIT and was first described by Zwan et al [12]. It has been used frequently in the last few years, especially in adult patients with insect venom allergy [2,3,13,14]. However, the safety and efficacy of this treatment is controversially discussed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%