Three days rush venom immunotherapy in XXXX @entity566 : safe, inexpensive and instantaneously effective.

@entity1 @entity566 @entity56 @entity6587 @entity5157
BACKGROUND: Rush venom immunotherapy (VIT) is highly effective in vespid venom @entity566 , but comparable data regarding @entity5157 venom (BV) @entity566 are sparse. We evaluated its safety, efficacy and cost in BV- @entity56 @entity1 . METHODS: Conventional or rush VIT were offered to all @entity1 with systemic reaction to insect sting. Rush VIT was also given to @entity6587 @entity1 who failed to reach the maintenance dose with conventional VIT due to multiple systemic reactions. In BV- @entity56 @entity1 , @entity5157 sting challenge was performed within 1 week after reaching the maintenance dose. RESULTS: 179 @entity1 , some of them @entity56 to more than one venom, received 246 rush VIT courses. @entity5157 VIT was administered to 132 @entity1 (73.7%); 173 @entity1 (96.6%) reached the maintenance dose. The incidence of systemic reactions was 29.6%. They were more common in VIT with BV than with vespid venoms (31.1 and 16.3%, respectively, p = 0.01). After excluding the @entity6587 subgroup (n = 20), this difference was not significant (23.7 and 16%, respectively, p = 0.19). Despite the high incidence of systemic reactions (15 of 20, 75%) among @entity6587 @entity1 , 17 @entity1 (85%) achieved the maintenance dose. Sting challenges resulted in systemic reaction in 4 of 8 (50%) @entity6587 @entity1 and in 2 of 47 (4.3%) ordinary @entity1 . The cost of rush VIT was 41% of that of conventional VIT. CONCLUSIONS: Rush VIT with BV is safe, instantaneously effective, less expensive and enables most @entity1 with previous failures of conventional VIT to reach the maintenance dose.
