We have located links that may give you full text access.
Analysis of the safety and tolerance of three buildup protocols of insect venom immunotherapy frequently used in Spain.
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 stages of treatment. We compared the tolerance to three buildup protocols of VIT and analyzed risk factors associated with adverse reactions occurring in this phase.
METHODS: We enrolled 165 patients divided into three groups based on the buildup protocol used (3, 4, 9 weeks). Severity of systemic reactions was evaluated according to World Allergy Organization model. Results were analyzed using exploratory descriptive statistics and variables were compared using analysis of variance.
RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (32%) experienced some form of adverse reaction, 43 were local and 10 systemic. Local reactions were immediate in 27 patients (63%) and delayed in 16 (37%). Severity of 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 appearance of local or systemic adverse reactions or the type of local reaction. We only found a statistically significant association of severity of the local reaction with female gender. As for the risk factors associated with systemic reactions at buildup phase, we found no significant differences in these values depending on 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 the 9-week schedule presented no systemic reactions, so it can be considered the safest protocol.
METHODS: We enrolled 165 patients divided into three groups based on the buildup protocol used (3, 4, 9 weeks). Severity of systemic reactions was evaluated according to World Allergy Organization model. Results were analyzed using exploratory descriptive statistics and variables were compared using analysis of variance.
RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (32%) experienced some form of adverse reaction, 43 were local and 10 systemic. Local reactions were immediate in 27 patients (63%) and delayed in 16 (37%). Severity of 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 appearance of local or systemic adverse reactions or the type of local reaction. We only found a statistically significant association of severity of the local reaction with female gender. As for the risk factors associated with systemic reactions at buildup phase, we found no significant differences in these values depending on 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 the 9-week schedule presented no systemic reactions, so it can be considered the safest protocol.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app