Rush immunotherapy for wasp venom allergy seems safe and effective in patients with mastocytosis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mastocytosis and wasp venom allergy (WA) may benefit from venom immunotherapy (VIT). However, fatal insect sting reactions have been described in mastocytosis patients despite previous immunotherapy. We investigated the safety and efficacy of (rush) VIT in patients with mastocytosis and WA. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of (rush) VIT in patients with mastocytosis and WA. METHODS: We describe nine patients with cutaneous mastocytosis and WA who received VIT. Cutaneous mastocytosis was confirmed by histopathology and systemic mastocytosis was diagnosed according to World Health Organization criteria. VIT was given according to a rush protocol. Given the difference in safety and efficacy of VIT in patients with WA and honeybee venom allergy, we reviewed the literature for VIT with the focus on WA patients with mastocytosis and addressed the difference between patients with cutaneous versus systemic mastocytosis. RESULTS: Nine patients had WA and mastocytosis, of whom six had cutaneous mastocytosis, two combined cutaneous and systemic mastocytosis and one systemic mastocytosis. All patients received rush IT with wasp venom. Most patients had only mild local side effects, with no systemic side effects during the course of VIT. One patient had a systemic reaction upon injection on one occasion, during the updosing phase, with dyspnoea and hypotension, but responded well to treatment. Immunotherapy was continued after temporary dose adjustment without problems. Two patients with a previous anaphylactic reaction were re-stung, without any systemic effects. CONCLUSIONS: VIT is safe in cutaneous mastocytosis patients with WA, while caution has to be made in case of systemic mastocytosis. VIT was effective in the patients who were re-stung.

Brassica oleracea pollen, a new source of occupational allergens.

BACKGROUND: Vegetable pollen is a rare source of occupational allergens. Occupational allergy has only been described in the case of paprika pollen and tomato pollen. We describe a new source of occupational pollen allergy. AIM: To study the incidence and the impact of broccoli and cauliflower pollen allergy in employees involved in classical plant breeding. METHODS: Fifty-four employees of five companies working with cauliflower (Brassica oleracea botrytis) and broccoli (B. oleracea italica/cymosa) pollen were eligible for complete evaluation. Allergy to cauliflower and broccoli pollen was evaluated by questionnaire and determination of sensitization by radioallergosorbent test (RAST) and skin-prick tests (SPT). SPT and RAST were performed with a panel of commercial and homemade extracts from cauliflower and broccoli pollen. RESULTS: Work-related symptoms such as rhinitis, conjunctivitis, asthma and urticaria caused by B. oleracea pollen were reported by 44% of the participants (24/54), of whom all but one had positive SPT for cauliflower- and/or broccoli-pollen/flower extracts and 58% (14/24) had positive RAST results. Symptoms had developed within the first 2 years in 33% of the patients. Six patients had to stop or change work. CONCLUSIONS: Brassica oleracea pollen is a new source of occupational allergen with strong allergenic potential leading to symptoms in almost half of the exposed employees.