Efficacy and safety of hymenoptera venom immunotherapy.

Background: Being stung by Hymenoptera species can cause life-threatening anaphylaxis. Although venom immunotherapy (VIT) seems to be the most effective treatment, its long-term efficacy, and risk factors for adverse events remain unclear. Objective: The objective was to investigate the long-term efficacy of VIT and evaluate adverse events and risk factors related to this. Method: Patients who received VIT in a tertiary-care adult allergy clinic between January 2005 and July 2022 were included. Patients' data were compared with those of individuals who had been diagnosed with bee and/or wasp venom allergy during the same period but had not received VIT and experienced field re-stings. Results: The study included 105 patients with venom allergy, of whom 68 received VIT and 37 did not receive VIT. Twenty-three patients (34%) completed 5 years of VIT, and the overall mean ± standard deviation VIT duration was 46.9 ± 20.9 months. Re-stings occurred in 5 of 23 patients who completed 5 years of VIT, and none of them developed a systemic reaction. Eighteen patients (40%) experienced re-stings after prematurely discontinuing VIT, of whom eight (44%) developed a systemic reaction. In the control group of patients who did not receive VIT, 26 patients (70.3%) experienced re-stings, and all had systemic reactions (100%), with no change in their median Mueller scores. There was a significant difference in the median Mueller score change between the patients who received VIT and the controls who did not (p = 0.016). A total of 13 patients (19%) experienced adverse events while receiving VIT, which were systemic reactions in nine honeybee VIT. The use of ß-blockers was determined as the most important risk factor (odds ratio 15.9 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-208.8]; p = 0.035). Conclusion: It was confirmed that VIT was effective in both reducing the incidence and the severity of re-sting reactions. These effects were more pronounced in the patients who completed 5 years of VIT.

Long-Term Administration of Vespa velutina nigrithorax Venom Ameliorates Alzheimer's Phenotypes in 5xFAD Transgenic Mice.

Alzheimer's disease (AD), the most prevalent neurodegenerative disease, is characterized by progressive and irreversible impairment of cognitive functions. However, its etiology is poorly understood, and therapeutic interventions are limited. Our preliminary study revealed that wasp venom (WV) from Vespa velutina nigrithorax can prevent lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammatory signaling, which is strongly implicated in AD pathogenesis. Therefore, we examined whether WV administration can ameliorate major AD phenotypes in the 5xFAD transgenic mouse model. Adult 5xFAD transgenic mice (6.5 months of age) were treated with WV by intraperitoneal injection at 250 or 400 µg/kg body weight once weekly for 14 consecutive weeks. This administration regimen improved procedural, spatial, and working memory deficits as assessed by the passive avoidance, Morris water maze, and Y-maze tasks, respectively. It also attenuated histological damage and amyloid-beta plaque formation in the hippocampal region and decreased expression levels of pro-inflammatory factors in the hippocampus and cerebrum, while it reduced oxidative stress markers (malondialdehyde in the brain and liver and 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine in the plasma). Overall, these findings suggest that long-term administration of WV may alleviate AD-related symptoms and pathological phenotypes.

Venom allergen immunotherapy.

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) with Hymenoptera venom extracts is highly effective in preventing large local, systemic allergic, and anaphylactic reactions to insect stings. VIT is not required for patients with cutaneous systemic or large local allergic reactions to stings because it is uncommon for reactions to become more severe. The clinical history, with confirmatory skin or serum tests for venom IgE, can clarify the risk for future anaphylaxis and the need for VIT. For initial treatment, rush regimens are recommended because they have the same or less risk of systemic reactions than slower traditional regimens. VIT is relatively safe with a low incidence of systemic reactions. Injection-site reactions can be bothersome but do not predict systemic reactions to venom injections. Patients who need VIT should be screened for baseline serum tryptase and possible underlying mast cell disorders. VIT can be discontinued after five years in most patients, but those with known high-risk factors should continue VIT indefinitely.

The Lights and the Shadows of Controlled Sting Challenge With Hymenoptera.

Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT) is effective for protecting individuals with systemic allergic reactions caused by Hymenoptera stings. The need for a tool that shows the degree of protection afforded by VIT and the lack of useful biomarkers have made the sting challenge test (SCT) the gold standard for this disorder, although its use has both lights and shadows. SCT with Hymenoptera involves causing a real sting in a patient diagnosed with allergy to the venom of the stinging insect and who is undergoing treatment with specific immunotherapy. In Spain, SCT is included in the list of services offered by some hospitals and forms part of their daily clinical practice. This review aims to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of this test and to describe the standardized procedure and necessary resources, based on the experience of a group of Spanish experts and a review of the literature.

Combining Discordant Serum IgE and Skin Testing Improves Diagnostic and Therapeutic Accuracy for Hymenoptera Venom Hypersensitivity Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of patients with hymenoptera venom hypersensitivity consists of elucidating clinical symptoms suggestive of systemic reaction (SR) and then confirmation of sensitization via intradermal skin testing (IDST) first and serum IgE assays such as ImmunoCAP (ICAP) as a complementary modality of diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: Determine the concordance between ICAP and IDST in patients with a clinical history suggestive of hymenoptera venom SR. Determine whether venom immunotherapy would change on the basis of IDST versus ICAP results. METHODS: A prospective diagnostic study was designed to test the concordance between IDST and ICAP venom testing in the diagnosis of hymenoptera venom hypersensitivity. This study entailed testing both IDST and ICAP for 5 hymenoptera venoms (honey bee, wasp, yellow jacket, yellow hornet, and white-faced hornet) in both a case group with SR to hymenoptera venom (N = 70) and a control group without SR (N = 51). RESULTS: Significant discordance was observed between positive IDST and ICAP results for any of the 5 hymenoptera venoms (McNemar test, P = .001). In the case group, there was significant discordance for wasp (P < .0001), yellow jacket (P = .002), and white-faced hornet (P = .02). More than 47% of the case patients would have different venom immunotherapy prescriptions if ICAP and IDST had been performed during initial diagnosis versus IDST alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows significant discordance between IDST and ICAP; however, they are complementary. On the basis of our data, we propose ICAP testing first followed by IDST for ICAP-negative venoms as an alternative and efficient diagnostic strategy.

The Lights and the Shadows of Controlled Sting Challenge With Hymenoptera

Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT) is effective for protecting individuals with systemic allergic reactions caused by Hymenopterastings. The need for a tool that shows the degree of protection afforded by VIT and the lack of useful biomarkers have made the stingchallenge test (SCT) the gold standard for this disorder, although its use has both lights and shadows. SCT with Hymenoptera involvescausing a real sting in a patient diagnosed with allergy to the venom of the stinging insect and who is undergoing treatment with specificimmunotherapy. In Spain, SCT is included in the list of services offered by some hospitals and forms part of their daily clinical practice. Thisreview aims to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of this test and to describe the standardized procedure and necessary resources,based on the experience of a group of Spanish experts and a review of the literature. (AU)

La inmunoterapia con veneno de himenóptero (ITV) es un tratamiento que se ha mostrado eficaz en la protección de sujetos con reaccionesalérgicas sistémicas por picaduras de himenópteros. La necesidad de una herramienta que demuestre el grado de protección proporcionadapor la ITV, y la ausencia de biomarcadores útiles, convierte a la Prueba de Provocación con Repicadura (PPR) en el gold standard en estapatología, con sus luces y sus sombras. La PPR con himenópteros es una prueba que consiste en provocar una picadura real, a un pacienteque ha sido diagnosticado de alergia al veneno del insecto picador y habitualmente está en tratamiento con inmunoterapia específica.En España, la PPR se incluye en la cartera de servicios de algunos hospitales, formando parte de su práctica clínica habitual. Esta revisióntrata de analizar las fortalezas y debilidades de esta prueba, integrando el procedimiento estandarizado y recursos necesarios, basándoseen la experiencia de un grupo de expertos españoles y en la revisión de la literatura. (AU)

The Honeybee Venom Major Allergen Api m 10 (Icarapin) and Its Role in Diagnostics and Treatment of Hymenoptera Venom Allergy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In Hymenoptera venom allergy, the research focus has moved from whole venoms to individual allergenic molecules. Api m 10 (icarapin) has been described as a major allergen of honeybee venom (HBV) with potentially high relevance for diagnostics and therapy of venom allergy. Here, we review recent studies on Api m 10 characteristics as well as its role in component-resolved diagnostics and potential implications for venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT). RECENT FINDINGS: Api m 10 is a major allergen of low abundance in HBV. It is an obviously unstable protein of unknown function that exhibits homologs in other insect species. Despite its low abundance in HBV, 35 to 72% of HBV-allergic patients show relevant sensitization to this allergen. Api m 10 is a marker allergen for HBV sensitization, which in many cases can help to identify primary sensitization to HBV and, hence, to discriminate between genuine sensitization and cross-reactivity. Moreover, Api m 10 might support personalized risk stratification in VIT, as dominant sensitization to Api m 10 has been identified as risk factor for treatment failure. This might be of particular importance since Api m 10 is strongly underrepresented in some therapeutic preparations commonly used for VIT. Although the role of Api m 10 in HBV allergy and tolerance induction during VIT is not fully understood, it certainly is a useful tool to unravel primary sensitization and individual sensitization profiles in component-resolved diagnostics (CRD). Moreover, a potential of Api m 10 to contribute to personalized treatment strategies in HBV allergy is emerging.

Arthropod Venom Components and Their Potential Usage.

Arthropods comprise a predominant and well-succeeded phylum of the animal kingdom that evolved and diversified in millions of species grouped in four subphyla, namely, Chelicerata (arachnids), Crustacea, Myriapoda (centipedes), and Hexapoda (insects) [...].

Anti-tumoral effect of scorpion peptides: Emerging new cellular targets and signaling pathways.

Scorpion toxins have been the subject of many studies exploring their pharmacological potential. The high affinity and the overall selectivity to various types of ionic channels endowed scorpion toxins with a potential therapeutic effect against many channelopathies. These are diseases in which ionic channels play an important role in their development. Cancer is considered as a channelopathy since overexpression of some ionic channels was highlighted in many tumor cells and was linked to the pathology progression. Interestingly, an increasing number of studies have shown that scorpion venoms and toxins can decrease cancer growth in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore through their ability to penetrate the cell plasma membrane, certain scorpion toxins are able to enhance the efficiency of some clinical chemotherapies. These observations back-up the applicability of scorpion toxins as potential cancer therapeutics. In this review, we focused on the anti-cancer activity of scorpion toxins and their effect on the multiple hallmarks of cancer. We also shed light on effectors and receptors involved in signaling pathways in response to scorpion toxins effect. Until now, the anticancer mechanisms described for scorpion peptides consist on targeting ion channels to (i) inhibit cell proliferation and metastasis; and (ii) induce cell cycle arrest and/or apoptosis through membrane depolarization leading to hemostasis deregulation and caspase activation. Putative targets such as metalloproteinases, integrins and/or growth factor receptors, beside ion channels, have been unveiled to be affected by scorpion peptides.

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) triggered by wasp venom immunotherapy is rare but noteworthy

No disponible

Venom immunotherapy in patients with allergic reactions to insect stings.

INTRODUCTION: Allergy to Hymenoptera (Apis mellifera, Vespula species, Polistes species, Vespa crabro) venom can be safely and effectively treated by venom immunotherapy (VIT), which in the 40 years since its introduction has been able to prevent reactions to stings, and to treatment as well, though systemic reactions, occasionally severe, are possible. Areas covered: We reviewed the recent literature on VIT by searching in PubMed for the terms 'venom immunotherapy' and 'Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy' to highlight the current status of VIT and the likely development in the coming years. Expert commentary: VIT, provided the correct choice of the venom and adequate venom preparations and maintenance doses are used, is a treatment of great value in preventing systemic reactions to Hymenoptera stings. A 5-year duration ensures a prolonged tolerance to stings following VIT discontinuation, unless patients suffer from mastocytosis. In fact, due to reports of fatal reactions after stopping VIT, patients with mastocytosis, or with very severe reactions to stings, need an indefinite duration of treatment.

Key Issues in Hymenoptera Venom Allergy: An Update.

In this review, the Hymenoptera Allergy Committee of the SEAIC analyzes the most recent scientific literature addressing problems related to the diagnosis of hymenoptera allergy and to management of venom immunotherapy. Molecular diagnosis and molecular risk profiles are the key areas addressed. The appearance of new species of hymenoptera that are potentially allergenic in Spain and the associated diagnostic and therapeutic problems are also described. Finally, we analyze the issue of mast cell activation syndrome closely related to hymenoptera allergy, which has become a new diagnostic challenge for allergists given its high prevalence in patients with venom anaphylaxis.

American Academy of Asthma, Allergy & Immunology membership experience with venom immunotherapy in chronic medical conditions and pregnancy, and in young children.

BACKGROUND: Few data exist regarding the use of venom immunotherapy (VIT) in specific high-risk chronic medical conditions and pregnancy, and in young children. METHODS: A Web-based survey was sent to American Academy of Asthma Allergy & Immunology members to explore their VIT experience in potential high-risk medical conditions and pregnancy, and in young children. Major problems were defined as "activation of underlying disease and/or VIT not well tolerated (systemic adverse events) and/or VIT discontinued for medical reasons." Results were expressed descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 697 of 5123 surveys (14%) were completed: 87% of the respondents were based in the United States, and 28% worked in an academic setting. Most respondents (71%) believed that pregnancy was a contraindication for starting VIT. Most were comfortable continuing VIT (51%) if the woman became pregnant after starting therapy. Of the allergists who treated children, many would give VIT down to age 5 years (42%) or younger, ages 1-4 years (35%). The following list is of the specific medical condition, the number of allergists who used VIT in patients with this condition, and the percentage who reported major problems: severe asthma, 212 (4.2%); hypertension, 287 (1.1%); coronary artery disease, 222 (3.6%); arrhythmias, 136 (3.4%); cerebrovascular disease, 104 (5.1%); cancer in remission, 166 (0%); cancer stable but still under treatment, 44 (7.2%); a history of bone marrow transplantation, 15 (4.9%); a history of solid organ transplantation, 29 (3.6%); human immunodeficiency virus, 53 (1.4%); acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, 24 (6.2%); stable autoimmune disease, 164 (2.8%); mastocytosis, 66 (18.4%); elevated serum tryptase, 101 (10.8%); immunodeficiency 59 (2.5%). CONCLUSION: Many allergists were comfortable using VIT in young children and continuing but not starting pregnant women on VIT. VIT was commonly used in patients with hypertension, coronary artery disease, arrhythmias, cancer in remission, and stable autoimmune disease. Major problems were most frequently reported in use with mastocytosis, elevated tryptase, and cancer still under treatment.

Specific immunotherapy in hymenoptera venom allergy and concomitant malignancy: a retrospective follow-up focusing on effectiveness and safety

Introduction: Malignancies are often considered a contraindication for allergen-specific immunotherapy. Consequently, patients with severe Hymenoptera venom allergy and cancer require specific care. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy and cancer undergoing venom immunotherapy (VIT). Methodology: The study population comprised all patients referred for evaluation of Hymenoptera venom allergy or for a routine check-up during VIT from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2008. Results: Of the patients assessed, 2% (51 of 2594) had a documented Hymenoptera venom allergy and cancer (25 female, 26 male; mean age 58 years). Of these, 42 patients received VIT (82%): 25 patients had a previously diagnosed malignancy, 16 were diagnosed with malignancy during VIT, and 1 patient was diagnosed with cancer after completion of VIT. The most frequent type of tumor was breast cancer in female patients (60%) and prostate cancer in male patients (39%). Systemic allergic reactions during VIT were recorded in 7% of patients. A total of 19 patients experienced a field sting or underwent a sting challenge test during VIT: 95% tolerated the sting well. VIT was halted definitively in 9 patients (new diagnosis of cancer in 7 patients, reactivation of cancer in 1, and progressive polyneuropathy in 1). Conclusion: The effectiveness and adverse effects of VIT in patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy and cancer in remission are comparable to those of patients without malignancy. Our findings show that patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy and cancer are eligible for VIT (AU)

Introducción: Las neoplasias malignas se consideran a menudo una contraindicación para la administración de inmunoterapia con alérgenos. Este aspecto es especialmente importante en los pacientes con alergia grave al veneno de himenópteros y cáncer. El objetivo de este estudio retrospectivo fue el revisar todos los pacientes diagnosticados de alergia al veneno de himenópteros, inmunoterapia con venenos (VIT) y malignidades. Metodología: Se han incluido todos los pacientes que fueron remitidos para el estudio de alergia al veneno de himenópteros o para el control durante la VIT, desde el 1 de enero de 2004 al 31 de diciembre de 2008. Resultados: El 2% de los pacientes (51 de 2594) con alergia al veneno de himenópteros (25 mujeres, 26 hombres, edad media 58 años) tuvieron un diagnóstico adicional de malignidad. Se administró VIT a 42 pacientes (82%): 25 pacientes con cáncer conocido, 16 con aparición de una neoplasia maligna durante la VIT y uno diagnosticado de cáncer tras haber finalizado la VIT. El tipo de tumor más frecuente fue el cáncer de mama en mujeres (60%) y el cáncer de próstata en varones (39%). El 7% de los pacientes con VIT presentó reacciones alérgicas sistémicas durante la administración de la VIT. Un subgrupo de 19 pacientes sufrió una picadura espontánea o fueron sometidos a la prueba de re-picadura durante la VIT, con buena tolerancia de la misma en el 95% de los casos. La VIT se suspendió definitivamente en 9 pacientes debido a: un nuevo cáncer (7 pacientes), reactivación de cáncer conocido (1 paciente) y polineuropatía progresiva (1 paciente). Conclusión: En pacientes con alergia al veneno de himenópteros y cáncer, la eficacia y los efectos secundarios de la VIT son comparables a aquellos pacientes sin malignidad si el cáncer se encuentra en remisión. Este estudio muestra que estos pacientes también son candidatos para la administración de VIT (AU)