Cargando…

Survey on practice of venom immunotherapy in France

INTRODUCTION: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the only efficient prevention for sting-induced anaphylaxis, but its application is not without risks and needs precautions and standardization. European guidelines were proposed in 2005, but recent practice surveys and more recent knowledge raise the need...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dzviga, Charles, Matevi, Catherine, Bonniaud, Philippe, Lavaud, François, Girodet, Bruno, Birnbaum, Joelle, Lambert, Claude
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4754376/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26925131
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2016.57591
_version_ 1782416004287037440
author Dzviga, Charles
Matevi, Catherine
Bonniaud, Philippe
Lavaud, François
Girodet, Bruno
Birnbaum, Joelle
Lambert, Claude
author_facet Dzviga, Charles
Matevi, Catherine
Bonniaud, Philippe
Lavaud, François
Girodet, Bruno
Birnbaum, Joelle
Lambert, Claude
author_sort Dzviga, Charles
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the only efficient prevention for sting-induced anaphylaxis, but its application is not without risks and needs precautions and standardization. European guidelines were proposed in 2005, but recent practice surveys and more recent knowledge raise the need for an update. The aim of this study was to analyze VIT practices in France, based on previous surveys in Europe but also extended to outcome event management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A paper questionnaire was sent widely to persons involved in venom treatment. RESULTS: Eighty-six responses could be included from physicians actively involved in VIT induction evenly distributed in France. The survey shows that VIT was engaged from grade III down to grade I reactions, starting preferentially with the ultra-rush protocol. Premedication was used by 42% only and risks induced by co-treatment with β-blockers were well known but not with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. However, side effects were very variably managed from arrest to enhancement in doses, time-delay or duration. Similarly, we observed a large discrepancy in treatment evaluation (skin tests, biology, timing and interpretation), decision making for treatment termination (when and how long to be prolonged) and post-treatment follow-up (adrenaline kit, event record) as well as procedures in case of late relapse (new induction, different doses). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that most recommendations were fully or partially followed and may need reminding, but many points need to be completed or updated with new tools and knowledge acquired during the last 10 years.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4754376
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Termedia Publishing House
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47543762016-02-26 Survey on practice of venom immunotherapy in France Dzviga, Charles Matevi, Catherine Bonniaud, Philippe Lavaud, François Girodet, Bruno Birnbaum, Joelle Lambert, Claude Arch Med Sci Public Health INTRODUCTION: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the only efficient prevention for sting-induced anaphylaxis, but its application is not without risks and needs precautions and standardization. European guidelines were proposed in 2005, but recent practice surveys and more recent knowledge raise the need for an update. The aim of this study was to analyze VIT practices in France, based on previous surveys in Europe but also extended to outcome event management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A paper questionnaire was sent widely to persons involved in venom treatment. RESULTS: Eighty-six responses could be included from physicians actively involved in VIT induction evenly distributed in France. The survey shows that VIT was engaged from grade III down to grade I reactions, starting preferentially with the ultra-rush protocol. Premedication was used by 42% only and risks induced by co-treatment with β-blockers were well known but not with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. However, side effects were very variably managed from arrest to enhancement in doses, time-delay or duration. Similarly, we observed a large discrepancy in treatment evaluation (skin tests, biology, timing and interpretation), decision making for treatment termination (when and how long to be prolonged) and post-treatment follow-up (adrenaline kit, event record) as well as procedures in case of late relapse (new induction, different doses). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that most recommendations were fully or partially followed and may need reminding, but many points need to be completed or updated with new tools and knowledge acquired during the last 10 years. Termedia Publishing House 2016-02-02 2016-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4754376/ /pubmed/26925131 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2016.57591 Text en Copyright © 2016 Termedia & Banach http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
spellingShingle Public Health
Dzviga, Charles
Matevi, Catherine
Bonniaud, Philippe
Lavaud, François
Girodet, Bruno
Birnbaum, Joelle
Lambert, Claude
Survey on practice of venom immunotherapy in France
title Survey on practice of venom immunotherapy in France
title_full Survey on practice of venom immunotherapy in France
title_fullStr Survey on practice of venom immunotherapy in France
title_full_unstemmed Survey on practice of venom immunotherapy in France
title_short Survey on practice of venom immunotherapy in France
title_sort survey on practice of venom immunotherapy in france
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4754376/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26925131
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2016.57591
work_keys_str_mv AT dzvigacharles surveyonpracticeofvenomimmunotherapyinfrance
AT matevicatherine surveyonpracticeofvenomimmunotherapyinfrance
AT bonniaudphilippe surveyonpracticeofvenomimmunotherapyinfrance
AT lavaudfrancois surveyonpracticeofvenomimmunotherapyinfrance
AT girodetbruno surveyonpracticeofvenomimmunotherapyinfrance
AT birnbaumjoelle surveyonpracticeofvenomimmunotherapyinfrance
AT lambertclaude surveyonpracticeofvenomimmunotherapyinfrance
AT surveyonpracticeofvenomimmunotherapyinfrance
AT surveyonpracticeofvenomimmunotherapyinfrance