Background： Venom allergy is significantly underestimated in China. Venom-specific IgE may not provide accurate clinical reactions. Our conducted retrospective analysis observes alternative diagnostic considerations ...Background： Venom allergy is significantly underestimated in China. Venom-specific IgE may not provide accurate clinical reactions. Our conducted retrospective analysis observes alternative diagnostic considerations in assessing confirmation and severity of honeybee veuom allergy, Methods： Retrospective review of honeybee venom allergy versus nonallergy patients presenled v,ith positive honeybee venom （iI） sIgE results. According to clinically observed reactions caused by a honeybee sting, patients were divided into three groups. Patient residence and exposure types were analyzed. The slgE/T-IgE among allergy and control groups was compared, Results： Gender ratio male：female was 32：22： median age was 39 years （31. 50）. 48% （26/54） of patients live in urban areas. 52% （28/54） in rural areas. Based on bee sting reactions, patients were divided into common localized reactions （32/54）. large localized reactions （7/54）, and systemic reactions （15/54）, In the systemic reaction group, patients presented as Type Ⅱ （6/15）, Type Ⅲ （6/15）. There is significant difference （P 〈 0,001 ） between the three groups in regards to exposure types. In the systemic reaction group. 8.7% （13/15） of patients are beekeepers. A significant difference （P 〈 0.001 ） was observed between allergic and control groups based on slgE/T-lgE results. As well as significant difference observed between the systemic reaction group to the other two reaction groups in regards to slgE/T-IgE results. Six systemic reaction patients presented with large localized reactions before onset of system symptoms 1 month to 1year of being stung. Conclusions： Occupational exposure is the most common cause in honeybee venom allergy induced systemic reactions. The use of sIgE/T-IgE results is a useful diagnostic parameter in determining honeybee venom allergy,展开更多
文摘Background： Venom allergy is significantly underestimated in China. Venom-specific IgE may not provide accurate clinical reactions. Our conducted retrospective analysis observes alternative diagnostic considerations in assessing confirmation and severity of honeybee veuom allergy, Methods： Retrospective review of honeybee venom allergy versus nonallergy patients presenled v,ith positive honeybee venom （iI） sIgE results. According to clinically observed reactions caused by a honeybee sting, patients were divided into three groups. Patient residence and exposure types were analyzed. The slgE/T-IgE among allergy and control groups was compared, Results： Gender ratio male：female was 32：22： median age was 39 years （31. 50）. 48% （26/54） of patients live in urban areas. 52% （28/54） in rural areas. Based on bee sting reactions, patients were divided into common localized reactions （32/54）. large localized reactions （7/54）, and systemic reactions （15/54）, In the systemic reaction group, patients presented as Type Ⅱ （6/15）, Type Ⅲ （6/15）. There is significant difference （P 〈 0,001 ） between the three groups in regards to exposure types. In the systemic reaction group. 8.7% （13/15） of patients are beekeepers. A significant difference （P 〈 0.001 ） was observed between allergic and control groups based on slgE/T-lgE results. As well as significant difference observed between the systemic reaction group to the other two reaction groups in regards to slgE/T-IgE results. Six systemic reaction patients presented with large localized reactions before onset of system symptoms 1 month to 1year of being stung. Conclusions： Occupational exposure is the most common cause in honeybee venom allergy induced systemic reactions. The use of sIgE/T-IgE results is a useful diagnostic parameter in determining honeybee venom allergy,
