Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 10, 2026
Author Spotlight: Optimizing Scorpion Venom Extraction for Antivenom Production
Published on: October 6, 2023
Rush Venom Immunotherapy in Children
Ronit Confino-Cohen1, Yossi Rosman1, Arnon Goldberg1
1Allergy and Clinical Immunology Unit, Meir Medical Center, Kfar-Saba, Israel; Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Insights
Rush venom immunotherapy (VIT) offers a safe and effective treatment for Hymenoptera venom allergies in children. This rapid approach proved as safe as conventional VIT but demonstrated superior efficiency in achieving treatment goals.
Area of Science:
- Allergy and Immunology
- Pediatric Medicine
- Clinical Research
Background:
- Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT) is a proven treatment for venom allergies.
- Data on the safety and efficacy of rush VIT in pediatric populations are limited.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the safety and effectiveness of rush VIT in children and adolescents.
- To compare rush VIT with conventional VIT in a pediatric cohort.
Main Methods:
- A 3-day build-up phase was used for both conventional and rush VIT.
- Participants included children under 16 with systemic reactions (beyond skin) and 16-18 year olds with any systemic reaction.
- Eighty-four children opted for rush VIT, with 70 allergic to bee venom.
Main Results:
- No significant difference in the incidence or severity of systemic reactions during the build-up phase between rush and conventional VIT.
- Rush VIT showed improved efficiency, with a higher percentage of patients reaching the 100 mcg maintenance dose (98.8% vs. 90.7%).
- P-value of .04 indicated a statistically significant difference in achieving the maintenance dose.
Conclusions:
- Rush VIT is a safe alternative to conventional VIT for pediatric patients.
- Rush VIT demonstrates enhanced efficiency in treating Hymenoptera venom allergy in children.
Background:
Rush venom immunotherapy (VIT) is highly effective in Hymenoptera venom allergy. Still, specific data regarding its safety and efficiency in children are rather sparse.
Objectives:
The objective of this study was to better evaluate the safety and efficiency of rush VIT in this specific age group.
Methods:
Children younger than 16 years with systemic reaction to insect sting involving, at least, one body system other than skin and children aged 16-18 years with any kind of systemic reaction were offered conventional or rush VIT with a build-up phase that lasted 3 days.
Results:
Eighty-four of 127 children together with their caregivers chose to receive rush VIT. Seventy of them were allergic to bee venom only. There was no difference between the children receiving rush or conventional VIT in the incidence of systemic reactions during the build-up phase (19% and 23.2%, respectively), nor was there any difference in regard to the severity of these reactions. Efficiency was improved with rush VIT, as reflected by a higher number of patients achieving the 100 mcg maintenance dose with the primary protocol (83 of 84 patients, 98.8%, and 39 of 43, 90.7%, for rush and conventional, respectively, P = .04).
Conclusions:
Rush VIT in children is as safe as and more efficient than conventional VIT.
Related Concept Videos
01:30Allergic Reactions: Anaphylaxis
01:26Pharmaceutical Poisoning: Treatment Strategies
02:06Allergic Reactions
00:42Cross-reactivity
01:30Drug Toxicity: Allergic Reactions
01:26Anticholinesterase Agents: Poisoning and Treatment
Irreversible agents form a strong bond with the cholinesterase enzyme, making it inactive. The breakdown of the phosphorylated enzyme is...