Diagnosis and treatment of Hymenoptera venom allergy
DGAKI · 2023 · Germany
Source and licence
- Authors
- Franziska Ruëff, Andrea Bauer, Sven Becker et al.
- Title
- Diagnosis and treatment of Hymenoptera venom allergy
- Journal
- Allergologie Select, 2023
- Licence
- CC BY 2.5
- Changes
- Verbatim excerpts; formatting adapted
Full text retrieved 2026-10-27 from Europe PMC · PMC10580978
Licence statement of the original publication
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
This page reproduces excerpts of the original publication; the original is authoritative. It has not been reviewed by a physician, does not state a recommendation of Medelix and does not replace medical advice. The guideline may have been updated since.
Open the original publication →Full text on Europe PMC
Recommendations
Verbatim, with grade of recommendation or strength of consensus where given.
2.3. Epidemiology of large local and systemic Hymenoptera sting reactions
- In a review of several studies, on average a quarter (18 – 42%) of the SAR induced by Hymenoptera stings in adults are severe (grade III or IV) [26]. In children, the proportion of moderate to severe reactions has been reported to be between 10% [27] and up to 20% [28, 29].
4.3. Systemic allergic reactions
- An EAACI expert group has worked intensively on the indication and composition of the necessary emergency self-medication for patients suffering from insect venom allergy [86] and has formulated recommendations for the prescription of an AAI before, during, and after VIT. These recommendations have also been incorporated into the European guideline for the treatment of insect sting allergy [4] and the German guideline for the acute treatment and management of anaphylaxis [43]. If there is a plausible history of HVA, the indication for an emergency kit with an AAI depends on whether VIT has already been started or successfully completed and whether there are anamnestic risk factors for severe anaphylaxis after insect stings, for treatment failure of VIT, or for increased sting exposure (Table 6). Even with a history of mild SAR (grade I), an AAI may be prescribed after individual consultation with the patient, especially if there is a high risk of re-exposure. An AAI may not be prescribed if the risk of a subsequent systemic sting reaction is approximately comparable to that of the normal population [4]. This can be assumed in the case of successful VIT and a tolerated sting reaction either after a field sting or after a sting provocation.
- Whether an AAI can be omitted in certain groups of patients who have already reached the maintenance dose of VIT is judged differently [86]. Considering that most patients are already protected at this point [87], the authors of the EAACI guideline on insect sting allergy have recommended that in the case of mild to moderate SAR (severity grade I – II) and in the absence of additional risk factors, the prescription of AAI may be discontinued once the maintenance dose has been reached [4]. After successful completion of VIT (maintenance dose achieved without complications, regular and well-tolerated maintenance therapy), an AAI may be omitted in patients who have developed only moderate systemic symptoms (grade II) and who have no additional risk factors for non-response to VIT (see 5.6.) [86]. If severe anaphylaxis (grade III or IV) was present initially, or if there are additional risk factors for non-response to immunotherapy (see below), the emergency kit should continue to be carried during the insect flight season even after VIT has been completed.
5.7. Therapy duration
- Maintenance therapy should be given every 4 – 6 weeks (up to every 8 weeks for depot preparations) for at least 3 and usually 5 years in adults, and 3 – 5 years in children. In children and adolescents who initially had a mild to moderate systemic reaction (grade I or II), VIT may be discontinued after 3 years.
Abstract
Hymenoptera venom (HV) is injected into the skin during a sting by Hymenoptera such as bees or wasps. Some components of HV are potential allergens and can cause large local and/or systemic allergic reactions (SAR) in sensitized individuals. During their lifetime, ~ 3% of the general population will develop SAR following a Hymenoptera sting. This guideline presents the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to SAR following Hymenoptera stings. Symptomatic therapy is usually required after a severe local reaction, but specific diagnosis or allergen immunotherapy (AIT) with HV (VIT) is not necessary. When taking a patient’s medical history after SAR, clinicians should discuss possible risk factors for more frequent stings and more severe anaphylactic reactions. The most important risk factors for more severe SAR are mast cell disease and, especially in children, uncontrolled asthma. Therefore, if the SAR extends beyond the skin (according to the Ring and Messmer classification: grade > I), the baseline serum tryptase concentration shall be measured and the skin shall be examined for possible mastocytosis. The medical history should also include questions specific to asthma symptoms. To demonstrate sensitization to HV, allergists shall determine concentrations of specific IgE antibodies (sIgE) to bee and/or vespid venoms, their constituents and other venoms as appropriate. If the results are negative less than 2 weeks after the sting, the tests shall be repeated (at least 4 – 6 weeks after the sting). If only sIgE to the total venom extracts have been determined, if there is double sensitization, or if the results are implausible, allergists shall determine sIgE to the different venom components. Skin testing may be omitted if in-vitro methods have provided a definitive diagnosis. If neither laboratory diagnosis nor skin testing has led to conclusive results, additional cellular testing can be performed. Therapy for HV allergy includes prophylaxis of reexposure, patient self treatment measures (including use of rescue medication) in the event of re-stings, and VIT. Following a grade I SAR and in the absence of other risk factors for repeated sting exposure or more severe anaphylaxis, it is not necessary to prescribe an adrenaline auto-injector (AAI) or to administer VIT. Under certain conditions, VIT can be administered even in the presence of previous grade I anaphylaxis, e.g., if there are additional risk factors or if quality of life would be reduced without VIT. Physicians should be aware of the contraindications to VIT, although they can be overridden in justified individual cases after weighing benefits and risks. The use of β-blockers and ACE inhibitors is not a contraindication to VIT. Patients should be informed about possible interactions. For VIT, the venom extract shall be used that, according to the patient’s history and the results of the allergy diagnostics, was the trigger of the disease. If, in the case of double sensitization and an unclear history regarding the trigger, it is not possible to determine the culprit venom even with additional diagnostic procedures, VIT shall be performed with both venom extracts. The standard maintenance dose of VIT is 100 µg HV. In adult patients with bee venom allergy and an increased risk of sting exposure or particularly severe anaphylaxis, a maintenance dose of 200 µg can be considered from the start of VIT. Administration of a non-sedating H1-blocking antihistamine can be considered to reduce side effects. The maintenance dose should be given at 4-weekly intervals during the first year and, following the manufacturer’s instructions, every 5 – 6 weeks from the second year, depending on the preparation used; if a depot preparation is used, the interval can be extended to 8 weeks from the third year onwards. If significant recurrent systemic reactions occur during VIT, clinicians shall identify and as possible eliminate co-factors that promote these reactions. If this is not possible or if there are no such co-factors, if prophylactic administration of an H1-blocking antihistamine is not effective, and if a higher dose of VIT has not led to tolerability of VIT, physicians should should consider additional treatment with an anti IgE antibody such as omalizumab as off lable use. For practical reasons, only a small number of patients are able to undergo sting challenge tests to check the success of the therapy, which requires in-hospital monitoring and emergency standby. To perform such a provocation test, patients must have tolerated VIT at the planned maintenance dose. In the event of treatment failure while on treatment with an ACE inhibitor, physicians should consider discontinuing the ACE inhibitor. In the absence of tolerance induction, physicians shall increase the maintenance dose (200 µg to a maximum of 400 µg in adults, maximum of 200 µg HV in children). If increasing the maintenance dose does not provide adequate protection and there are risk factors for a severe anaphylactic reaction, physicians should consider a co-medication based on an anti-IgE antibody (omalizumab; off-label use) during the insect flight season. In patients without specific risk factors, VIT can be discontinued after 3 – 5 years if maintenance therapy has been tolerated without recurrent anaphylactic events. Prolonged or permanent VIT can be considered in patients with mastocytosis, a history of cardiovascular or respiratory arrest due to Hymenoptera sting (severity grade IV), or other specific constellations associated with an increased individual risk of recurrent and/or severe SAR (e.g., hereditary α-tryptasemia). In cases of strongly increased, unavoidable insect exposure, adults may receive VIT until the end of intense contact. The prescription of an AAI can be omitted in patients with a history of SAR grade I and II when the maintenance dose of VIT has been reached and tolerated, provided that there are no additional risk factors. The same holds true once the VIT has been terminated after the regular treatment period. Patients with a history of SAR grade ≥ III reaction, or grade II reaction combined with additional factors that increase the risk of non response or repeated severe sting reactions, should carry an emergency kit, including an AAI, during VIT and after regular termination of the VIT.
Contents of the original publication
The section headings of the original.
- 1. Preliminary remarks
- 1.1. Objective and development of the guideline
- 1.2. Participating professional societies and consensus building
- 1.3. Recommendations and consensus
- 2. Triggers, clinic, and epidemiology of exaggerated sting reactions
- 2.1. Hymenoptera
- 2.2. Clinical symptoms of sting reactions
- 2.3. Epidemiology of large local and systemic Hymenoptera sting reactions
- 3. Diagnosis
- 3.1. Indication for diagnostic procedures
- 3.2. Medical history
- 3.3. Determination of Hymenoptera venom-specific IgE antibodies
- 3.4. Skin tests
- 3.5. Sting provocation
- 3.6. Evaluation of diagnostic results
- 4. Symptomatic therapy and general measures
- 4.1. Local reactions
- 4.2. Non-specific general symptoms
- 4.3. Systemic allergic reactions
- 5. Allergen-specific immunotherapy
- 5.1. Indication
- 5.2. Contraindications
- 5.3. Practical aspects of Hymenoptera venom-specific immunotherapy: patient education, updosing
- 5.4. Side effects of VIT
- 5.5. Control of therapeutic efficacy, sting provocation
- 5.6. Therapeutic failure: risk factors and management
- 5.7. Therapy duration
- 5.8. Follow-up after completion of Hymenoptera venom specific immunotherapy
- Currently unresolved questions and problems
A question about this guideline?
Medelix answers clinical questions from guidelines and studies – every statement with its source.
Are you the rights holder and object to this reproduction? Write to contact@medelix.ai and we will take the page down promptly. Imprint