毒液免疫:VIPRBITEM队列的IgG/IgE滴度、安全性、风险和方法

Journal of biological methods Pub Date : 2024-10-24 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.14440/jbm.2024.0038
Brian P Hanley, Gustavo Gross
{"title":"毒液免疫:VIPRBITEM队列的IgG/IgE滴度、安全性、风险和方法","authors":"Brian P Hanley, Gustavo Gross","doi":"10.14440/jbm.2024.0038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This is the first study to examine a cohort that engages in the practice of immunization with snake venoms. In this practice, either fresh wet venom or venom reconstituted from freeze-dried form is used in vaccination protocols to produce hyper-immunity to venom.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective community-initiated collaborative research (CICR) project that collated the records of venom immunization. Records of schedules, formulations, photographs, medical records, and diaries were collated from existing practitioners and evaluated by inspection and interviews. One accidental bite was observed over 3 days, with vital signs, and photographic records of swelling taken to verify reality of the bite. Over 74 snake-genera man-years, and 24 man-years of injection data from 8 participants, for 22 species of venomous snakes from Elapidae and Viperidae are represented. Six of those participants had detailed records of date, dose and effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>IgG titers to 6 venoms for 4 cohort members tested of 8 included 2 with clear hyper-immune status. IgE titers were elevated for some. In 861 injections, records showed a rate of atopy/anaphylaxis of 4.3%, an infection rate of 0.58% and an abscess rate of 1.51% . Serious adverse reactions were rare and these appeared to be linked to overly aggressive immunization schedules and formulation accidents. We note that greater cross-immunity of IgE over IgG is suggested. Two basic protocols were followed, one was an approximate one month interval, the other was one or more injection(s) per week. In 176 envenomations, 175 were without antivenom treatment, two hospitalizations occurred, and one received full antivenom treatment. Dry bites were not included in our dataset. Envenomations showed a 1.14% rate of atopy/anaphylaxis, a 0.57% rate of infection and a 1.7% rate of abscess.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Immunization of humans to snakebite is effective, and reasonably safe with care. Injection records suggest immune cross-reactivity between ophidians within the same family, and better cross-reactivity within the same genera. A cohort participant was pronounced dead based on EEG, and then recovered without treatment. A neurotoxin case with \"brain death\" EEG should stay on life support for 6 weeks to allow time for the immune system to clear venom.</p>","PeriodicalId":73618,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biological methods","volume":"11 4","pages":"e99010026"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11744060/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Venom immunization: IgG/IgE titers, safety, risk, and methods of the VIPRBITEM cohort.\",\"authors\":\"Brian P Hanley, Gustavo Gross\",\"doi\":\"10.14440/jbm.2024.0038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This is the first study to examine a cohort that engages in the practice of immunization with snake venoms. In this practice, either fresh wet venom or venom reconstituted from freeze-dried form is used in vaccination protocols to produce hyper-immunity to venom.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective community-initiated collaborative research (CICR) project that collated the records of venom immunization. Records of schedules, formulations, photographs, medical records, and diaries were collated from existing practitioners and evaluated by inspection and interviews. One accidental bite was observed over 3 days, with vital signs, and photographic records of swelling taken to verify reality of the bite. Over 74 snake-genera man-years, and 24 man-years of injection data from 8 participants, for 22 species of venomous snakes from Elapidae and Viperidae are represented. Six of those participants had detailed records of date, dose and effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>IgG titers to 6 venoms for 4 cohort members tested of 8 included 2 with clear hyper-immune status. IgE titers were elevated for some. In 861 injections, records showed a rate of atopy/anaphylaxis of 4.3%, an infection rate of 0.58% and an abscess rate of 1.51% . Serious adverse reactions were rare and these appeared to be linked to overly aggressive immunization schedules and formulation accidents. We note that greater cross-immunity of IgE over IgG is suggested. Two basic protocols were followed, one was an approximate one month interval, the other was one or more injection(s) per week. In 176 envenomations, 175 were without antivenom treatment, two hospitalizations occurred, and one received full antivenom treatment. Dry bites were not included in our dataset. Envenomations showed a 1.14% rate of atopy/anaphylaxis, a 0.57% rate of infection and a 1.7% rate of abscess.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Immunization of humans to snakebite is effective, and reasonably safe with care. Injection records suggest immune cross-reactivity between ophidians within the same family, and better cross-reactivity within the same genera. A cohort participant was pronounced dead based on EEG, and then recovered without treatment. A neurotoxin case with \\\"brain death\\\" EEG should stay on life support for 6 weeks to allow time for the immune system to clear venom.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73618,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of biological methods\",\"volume\":\"11 4\",\"pages\":\"e99010026\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11744060/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of biological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14440/jbm.2024.0038\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biological methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14440/jbm.2024.0038","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:这是第一项研究,以检查一个队列,从事免疫实践与蛇毒。在这种做法中,在疫苗接种方案中使用新鲜的湿毒液或从冻干形式重组的毒液来产生对毒液的超免疫。方法:回顾性社区发起的合作研究(CICR)项目,对蛇毒免疫记录进行整理。对现有从业人员的时间表、配方、照片、病历和日记等记录进行整理,并通过检查和访谈进行评价。一次意外咬伤观察超过3天,有生命体征,并采取肿胀的照片记录,以证实咬伤的真实性。本文介绍了来自蛇科和蛇科22种毒蛇的74个属人年和来自8个参与者的24个人年注射数据。其中6名参与者有详细的日期、剂量和效果记录。结果:4名队列成员检测了6种毒液的IgG滴度,其中8名有明显的超免疫状态。部分患者的IgE滴度升高。在861例注射中,记录显示过敏性反应率为4.3%,感染率为0.58%,脓肿率为1.51%。严重的不良反应是罕见的,这些似乎与过度积极的免疫计划和配方事故有关。我们注意到IgE的交叉免疫高于IgG。遵循两种基本方案,一种是大约一个月的间隔,另一种是每周一次或多次注射。在176例中毒中,175例未接受抗蛇毒血清治疗,2例住院治疗,1例接受了全面的抗蛇毒血清治疗。我们的数据集中没有包括干咬伤。毒副反应发生率1.14%,感染发生率0.57%,脓肿发生率1.7%。结论:人对蛇咬伤进行免疫接种是有效的,并且是合理安全的。注射记录显示同一科蛇属之间存在免疫交叉反应性,同一属之间的交叉反应性更好。一名队列参与者根据脑电图被宣布死亡,然后未经治疗而恢复。脑电图显示“脑死亡”的神经毒素病例应该保持生命维持6周,以便免疫系统有时间清除毒液。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Venom immunization: IgG/IgE titers, safety, risk, and methods of the VIPRBITEM cohort.

Background: This is the first study to examine a cohort that engages in the practice of immunization with snake venoms. In this practice, either fresh wet venom or venom reconstituted from freeze-dried form is used in vaccination protocols to produce hyper-immunity to venom.

Methods: This is a retrospective community-initiated collaborative research (CICR) project that collated the records of venom immunization. Records of schedules, formulations, photographs, medical records, and diaries were collated from existing practitioners and evaluated by inspection and interviews. One accidental bite was observed over 3 days, with vital signs, and photographic records of swelling taken to verify reality of the bite. Over 74 snake-genera man-years, and 24 man-years of injection data from 8 participants, for 22 species of venomous snakes from Elapidae and Viperidae are represented. Six of those participants had detailed records of date, dose and effects.

Results: IgG titers to 6 venoms for 4 cohort members tested of 8 included 2 with clear hyper-immune status. IgE titers were elevated for some. In 861 injections, records showed a rate of atopy/anaphylaxis of 4.3%, an infection rate of 0.58% and an abscess rate of 1.51% . Serious adverse reactions were rare and these appeared to be linked to overly aggressive immunization schedules and formulation accidents. We note that greater cross-immunity of IgE over IgG is suggested. Two basic protocols were followed, one was an approximate one month interval, the other was one or more injection(s) per week. In 176 envenomations, 175 were without antivenom treatment, two hospitalizations occurred, and one received full antivenom treatment. Dry bites were not included in our dataset. Envenomations showed a 1.14% rate of atopy/anaphylaxis, a 0.57% rate of infection and a 1.7% rate of abscess.

Conclusions: Immunization of humans to snakebite is effective, and reasonably safe with care. Injection records suggest immune cross-reactivity between ophidians within the same family, and better cross-reactivity within the same genera. A cohort participant was pronounced dead based on EEG, and then recovered without treatment. A neurotoxin case with "brain death" EEG should stay on life support for 6 weeks to allow time for the immune system to clear venom.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信