Search

BACKGROUND: Patients with a history of a serious anaphylactic reaction after a Hymenoptera sting are usually given venom immunotherapy. Because the natural history of Hymenoptera sting anaphylaxis is often of a declining severity, there is a chance of overtreatment. OBJECTIVE: Identification of patients at risk for a future anaphylactic reaction may reduce the number of patients who need venom immunotherapy. METHODS: We investigated the relation between the grade of hypersensitivity to an in-hospital sting challenge and the reaction to a subsequent accidental field sting. From 1982 through 1992, 348 patients with mild or no symptoms after a sting challenge were not given venom immunotherapy. All patients were asked by letter whether they had experienced a subsequent field sting. In case of a sting, the severity of the reaction was further evaluated. RESULTS: Information could be obtained from 327 patients: 129 had been re-stung, and 110 of them had only had a local reaction. Thirteen patients had experienced mild systemic symptoms, and six patients had experienced serious manifestations. In two of the latter group hypotension was observed. CONCLUSION: In 95% of patients with a previous anaphylactic reaction, the result of the in-hospital sting challenge provided a good prediction of tolerance to a subsequent Hymenoptera field sting. (J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL 1996;97:1058-63.)

Background: Venom immunotherapy is effective in preventing systemic reactions in patients with a history of an anaphylactic reaction to Hymenoptera stings. It is uncertain how long venom immunotherapy should be continued. Objective: We evaluated whether the duration of venom immunotherapy given to yellow jacket-sensitive patients related to the risk of an anaphylactic reaction to a later sting. Methods: Seventy-five yellow jacket-sensitive patients (29 male and 46 female) received a median number of three in-hospital sting challenges from a live insect in 3 subsequent years after discontinuation of venom immunotherapy. An anaphylactic reaction to one or more of the sting challenges was considered a relapse. We analyzed whether patients with and patients without a relapse differed in terms of gender, age, preimmunotherapy skin test data, preimmunotherapy level of venom-specific IgE, severity of the field-sting reaction that preceded immunotherapy, severity of the reaction to the sting challenge that preceded immunotherapy, adverse reactions to immunotherapy, changes in IgE and IgG"4 levels during immunotherapy, duration of immunotherapy, and presence of venom-specific IgE after cessation of therapy. Results: Venom immunotherapy was given for a median duration of 40 months (range, 7 to 120 months). Relapses were observed in six patients. In two of them, a rather severe anaphylactic reaction was observed after the second sting challenge. No relation was found between duration of venom immunotherapy and relapse risk. The relapse rate was higher among patients with high levels of specific IgE before and after immunotherapy. During therapy, the mean level of specific IgE decreased. This decline persisted in the 3 following years. No relapses of sting reactions were observed among patients without detectable specific IgE. Conclusion: Discontinuation of venom immunotherapy appears safe for patients with pretreatment IgE antibodies if these antibodies can no longer be detected during immunotherapy. For the remaining patients, a treatment period of 3 years may suffice. After discontinuation of immunotherapy, a clinical sting challenge can be considered to estimate the patient's current grade of hypersensitivity. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 1997;100:767-70.)