ABSTRACT
Background: Venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT) is a major treatment for patients allergic to Hymenoptera venom. Thus, correct diagnosis of sensitization, identification of the risk factors, and choice of venom for the treatment are the key issues. Objective: We aimed to describe diagnostic and treatment experience data of VIT performed in a single center in Lithuania. Methods: In this retrospective study, we analyzed 9 years of clinical data (severity of the allergic reaction, recognition of the culprit insects, diagnostics, VIT protocol safety and efficacy, sting challenge outcomes) of patients treated with cluster VIT. Sting challenge helped to reveal the influence of venom preparation quality and to adjust the dosage of venom. Results: Data from 83 patients were analyzed. Double sensitization confirmed by component diagnosis was found in 39.4% (13/33), and double immunotherapy was initiated in 9.1% (n = 3/33). The cluster immunotherapy protocol was used in 81 patients. Systemic reactions occurred in 7.4% (n = 6/81) patients during the build-up phase. VIT failure was related to bee venom immunotherapy and systemic reactions during a build-up phase. The efficacy in the short term of our approach to cluster VIT was confirmed by the sting challenge in 97% (42/43). Nine patients (10.8%, n = 9/83) voluntarily stopped the treatment due to a lack of motivation. Conclusion: Our protocol regarding the investigation and treatment of patients allergic to Hymenoptera venom has been safe and effective. Patient's motivation to continue VIT is one of the concerns, but the biggest challenge is the patients with bee venom allergy and repeated systemic reactions during VIT.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Iodinated contrast media (ICM) is a frequently used compound in radiology. Non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) appear when a patient leaves the department and usually are undocumented. True hypersensitivity in this group is rarely proved. METHODS: Single-centre 2014-2018 data were retrospectively analysed. HSR to ICM were classified and investigated according to the time of occurrence (immediate <1 hour, non-immediate >1 hour). ENDA questionnaire and skin tests (prick or intradermal test) were performed according to ENDA/EAACI recommendations. RESULTS: 69 patients with a clinical history of HSR to ICM were identified, 72.46% were females (n = 50). The average age was 56 (SD ± 13.16) years. Non-immediate HSR occurred in 28.99% (n = 20) patients. The suspected culprit drugs were: iodixanol 20% (n = 4), iopromide 5% (n = 1), diatrizoate 10% (n = 2) and iohexol 10% (n = 2). Among non-immediate HSR 96.00% (n = 19) of patients had skin rashes. A statistically significant correlation was found between the clinical symptoms and the type of reaction (p-value <0.05): isolated skin manifestations mostly occurred in non-immediate HSR 75.00% (n = 15). Only 13.04% (n = 9) of all the patients were proved to be allergic to a certain ICM after the proposed diagnostic workup. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of the hypersensitivity reactions investigated were classified as non-immediate type. Most of them manifested with isolated skin symptoms. The most frequent culprit drug encountered was iodixanol. The overall non-immediate hypersensitivity confirmation rate after diagnostic evaluation was only 15%.
