BACKGROUND: Extension of the intervals at which @entity22 ( @entity22 ) is administered has been attempted for many years. However, published evidence on its effect, especially in intervals of longer than 3 months, is sparse. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the administration of a @entity5157 venom (BV) maintenance dose at 6-month intervals is safe and efficacious. METHODS: The 3-month intervals at which venom- @entity56 @entity1 were receiving their @entity22 were gradually extended to 6 months. Systemic reactions (SRs) to immunotherapy injections or to field stings were regularly recorded. @entity1 who were @entity56 to BV alone or also to other venoms were deliberately sting challenged by a @entity5157 after reaching the 6-month interval. RESULTS: The 3-month intervals were extended in 47 @entity1 . A single @entity1 (2%) developed an SR after receiving the injection at an interval of 4 months. Two field stings in 2 @entity1 resulted in a mild SR in 1 @entity1 . Of 14 sting-challenged @entity1 , 3 (21%) developed an SR after the challenge. The 3 SRs occurred only among the 8 @entity1 (38%) who were @entity56 to BV alone. The 3 @entity1 with the SR to the challenge continued to receive the regular maintenance dose at monthly intervals 3 to 5 more times. Repeated sting challenges were then well tolerated in all 3 @entity1 . CONCLUSION: The administration of @entity22 at 6-month intervals does not provide suitable protection in BV- @entity56 @entity1 , and they should continue @entity22 at the accepted 1- to 3-month intervals.

Effectiveness of maintenance XXXX venom immunotherapy administered at 6-month intervals.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['Patients', 'patients', 'patient'] @entity56 :: ('MESH:D004342', 'Disease') :: ['allergic'] @entity5157 :: ('7460', 'Species') :: ['honeybee', 'bee'] @entity22 :: ('MESH:D007319', 'Disease') :: ['maintenance venom immunotherapy', 'MVIT']
@entity5157 :: (7460,Species) :: ['bee']
