山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报 ›› 2019, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (1): 63-66.doi: 10.6040/j.issn.1673-3770.1.2018.034

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

蜜蜂研究人群中蜂毒过敏患病率及相关危险因素分析

崔乐1,2,关凯1,2,李丽莎1,2,李俊达1,2,王子熹1,2,徐迎阳1,2,王良录1,2,尹佳1,2   

  1. 1.中国医学科学院 北京协和医学院 北京协和医院变态(过敏)反应科, 北京 100730;
    2.过敏性疾病精准诊疗研究北京市重点实验室, 北京 100730
  • 出版日期:2019-01-20 发布日期:2019-01-28
  • 基金资助:
    北京自然科学基金面上项目(7172179);公益性行业科研专项基金(201502012);北京协和医学院青年教师培养项目(2015zlgc0726)

Analysis of prevalence and related risk factors of bee venom in bee research population

CUI Le1,2, GUAN Kai1,2, LI Lisha1,2, LI Junda1,2, WANG Zixi1,2, XU Yingyang1,2, WANG Lianglu1,2, YIN Jia1,2   

  1. Beijing Key Laboratory of Precision Medicine for Diagnosis and Treatment on Allergic Diseases, Beijing 100730, China
  • Online:2019-01-20 Published:2019-01-28

HTML

PDF (PC)

265

摘要： 目的 蜂毒过敏是引发严重过敏反应的常见原因之一。在我国有关蜂毒过敏的研究较少,尤其缺乏蜂毒过敏高危人群的相关数据。调查了从事蜜蜂研究人群中蜂毒过敏的患病率和临床特征,并分析其危险因素。 方法 2018年9月,对中国农业科学院蜜蜂研究所和中国农业大学昆虫学系长期从事蜜蜂相关研究的人员进行横断面调查。 结果 共100人纳入研究:中位年龄28岁(19~56岁),女性占69.0%,其中34例(34.0%)报告在工作中发生过蜂毒过敏,大局部反应6例(6%),全身反应28例(28%)。在28例全身反应者中,1~4级全身反应分别有7、7、4、10例,4级全身反应即过敏性休克比例最高(35.7%)。 50%的全身反应者经历过最初被蜂蛰后表现为大局部反应。Logistic回归分析结果显示,暴露的水平即蜂蛰频率是蜂毒过敏的危险因素,相对于近1年蜂蛰频率为0次者,1~3次和≥4次者蜂毒过敏的OR值(95%CI)分别为6.362(2.014~20.092)和41.437(6.842~250.964)。过敏性鼻炎等患者本人或家人过敏史、蜂毒过敏家族史等反应特应性的指标与蜂毒过敏无统计学意义相关,OR(95%CI)分别为0.683(0.197~2.366),0.600( 0.131~2.749),2.582(0.201~33.099)。 结论 高危人群蜂毒过敏的情况不容忽视,尤需注意防护并配备急救药物和设备。

关键词: 蜂毒, 过敏反应, 患病率, 横断面调查, 危险因素

Abstract: Objective Allergic reactions to bee venom are one of the common causes of severe allergic reactions. There are few studies on bee venom allergy in China; particularly, there is a lack of data on people at high risk of bee venom allergy. This study investigated the prevalence and clinical characteristics of bee venom allergies in the bee study population and analyzed the risk factors. Methods In September 2018, a cross-sectional survey was conducted among people who had been engaged in bee-related research at the Bee Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and the Department of Entomology of China Agricultural University. Results A total of 100 people were included in the study: median age 28 years(range: 19-56 years); females accounted for 69.0%. Among them, 34 cases(34.0%)reported having had allergic reactions to bee venom at work, 6 cases(6%)had large local reactions, and 28 cases(28%)had systemic reaction reactions. Among the 28 systemic reaction responders, there were 7, 7, 4, and 10 cases of systemic reactions in grades 1-4, respectively. The systemic reaction of grade 4 was the commonest(35.7%). Fifty percent of systemic reaction responders experienced large local reactions after initial bee sting. Logistic regression showed that the level of exposure, that is, the frequency of bee stings was a risk factor for bee venom allergy. Compared with the respondents who were not been stung in the past year, the OR(95% CI)of bee venom allergy of 1-3 and ≥4 bee stings in the past year were 6.362 ［95% confidence interval(CI), 2.014-20.092］ and 41.437(95% CI, 6.842-250.964). There was no statistically significant correlation between respondents' personal or family history of allergies(e.g. allergic rhinitis), family history of bee venom allergy and bee venom allergy(odds ratios=0.683(95% CI, 0.197-2.366), 0.600(95% CI, 0.131-2.749)and 2.582(95% CI, 0.201-33.099), respectively). Conclusion The situation of bee venom allergy in high-risk population cannot be ignored. For high-risk groups, it is necessary to pay close attention to protection and provide emergency medicine and equipment.

Key words: Bee venom, Allergic reaction, Prevalence, Cross-sectional survey, Risk factors

中图分类号: 

  • R392.8
[1] Casale TB, Burks AW. Clinical practice. Hymenoptera-sting hypersensitivity[J]. N Engl J Med, 2014, 370(15):1432-1439. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp1302681.
[2] Bilo BM, Rueff F, Mosbech H, et al. Diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy[J]. Allergy, 2005, 133960(11):1339-1349. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00963.x.-1349.
[3] Ring J,Messmer K. Incidence and severity of anaphylactoid reactions to colloid volume substitutes [J]. Lancet(London, England), 1977, 1(8009):466-469. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(77)91953-5.
[4] Incorvaia C, Mauro M, Pravettoni V, et al. Hypersensitivity to Hymenoptera venom: advances in diagnosis and implications for treatment[J]. Recent Pat Inflamm Allergy Drug Discov, 2011, 5(2):128-135.
[5] Mueller HL. Diagnosis and treatment of insect sensitivity[J]. J Asthma Res, 1966, 3(4):331-333.
[6] Bilò MB. Anaphylaxis caused by Hymenoptera stings: from epidemiology to treatment[J]. Allergy, 2011, 66(Suppl 95):35-37. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2011.02630.x.
[7] Fernandez J, Blanca M, Soriano V, et al. Epidemiological study of the prevalence of allergic reactions to Hymenoptera in a rural population in the Mediterranean area[J]. Clin Exp Allergy, 1999, 29(8):1069-1074.
[8] Romero-Gómez, M., G.E. Suárez and F.M. Castro, Hymenoptera stings in conscripts[J]. Allergy, 1997, 52(6):680-681.
[9] Hayashih Y, Hirata H, Watanabe M, et al. Epidemiologic investigation of hornet and paper wasp stings in forest workers and electrical facility field workers in japan[J]. Allergol Int, 2014, 63(1):21-26. doi:10.2332/allergolint.13-OA-0556.
[10] Kochuyt AM, Van Hoeyveld E, Stevens EA. Occupational allergy to bumble bee venom[J]. Clin Exp Allergy, 1993, 23(3):190-195.
[11] Bonadonna P, Schiappoli M, A DM, et al. Is hymenoptera venom allergy an occupational disease?[J]. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2008, 65(3):217-218. doi:10.1136/oem.2007.036400.
[12] Pumphrey RS. Lessons for management of anaphylaxis from a study of fatal reactions[J]. Clin Exp Allergy, 2000, 30(8):1144-1150.
[13] 关凯, 李丽莎, 王瑞琦, 等. 蜜蜂蜂毒致严重过敏反应临床特征[J]. 中华临床免疫和变态反应杂志, 2016, 10(3):197-201. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-8705.2016.03.003. GUAN Kai, LI Lisha, WANG Ruiqi, et al. Clinical characteristics of anaphylaxis induced by honeybee venom[J]. Chinese Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, 2016, 10(3):197-201. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-8705.2016.03.003.
[14] 崔乐, 王子熹, 关凯, 等. 蜂疗致蜂毒过敏的临床特征及影响因素[J]. 中华临床免疫和变态反应杂志, 2018, 12(3):277-282. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-8705.2018.03.004. CUI Le, WANG Zixi, GUAN Kai, et al. Clinical manifestations and risk factors of honeybee venom allergy induced by apitherapy[J]. Chinese Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, 2018, 12(3):277-282. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1673-8705.2018.03.004.
[15] Birnbaum J, Vervloet D, Charpin D. Atopy and systemic reactions to hymenoptera stings[J]. Allergy Proc, 1994,15(2):49-52.
[16] Johansson SG, Bieber T, Dahl R, et al. Revised nomenclature for allergy for global use: Report of the Nomenclature Review Committee of the World Allergy Organization, October 2003[J]. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 2004, 113(5):832-836. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2003.12.591.
[17] Siracusa A, Folletti I, Gerth van Wijk R, et al. Occupational anaphylaxis-an EAACI task force consensus statement[J]. Allergy, 2015,70(2):141-152. doi: 10.1111/all.12541.
[1] 刘传合. 我国儿童哮喘患病与诊治现状[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2019, 33(1): 28-32.
[2] 沈翎,林宗通,林兴,杨中婕. 儿童阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停低通气综合征危险因素的[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2018, 32(2): 25-29.
[3] 王国强, 赵春红, 霍红, 龚志云, 宋伟伟, 严丽霞, 李雪华, 王伟丽. 早产儿听力筛查结果及其听力障碍危险因素[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2015, 29(4): 7-10.
[4] 刘志高, 颜世龙, 胡尊霞, 孙同鑫, 杨明, 王玉. 济南市农村白内障患者糖尿病及糖尿病视网膜眼底病变患病率调查分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2015, 29(1): 38-39.
[5] 葛星, 吕玲双, 潘铭, 时巧梅, 许建峰, 林友结, 孙雅慧, 神平. 打鼾相关流行病学现状及其影响因素调查研究——以徐州地区为例[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2014, 28(5): 10-13.
[6] 李学忠, 刘洪英, 李心沁, 蔡晓岚. 睡眠呼吸紊乱成人患者健康相关危险因素调查[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2014, 28(4): 6-10.
[7] 赵源庆1，郭家亮1综述张峰2审校. OSAHS与心血管疾病研究进展[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2014, 28(2): 33-37.
[8] 梅芳，陈志钧. 超低和极低出生体质量儿早产儿视网膜病变及其影响因素[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2013, 27(4): 76-78.
[9] 高荣莉1，丁见2，臧延伟3，闫舒1，刘婷婷1，刘赞刚4，宫相贵5，周晓彬6，李娜1，张念凯1. 青岛地区变应性鼻炎流行病学调查研究[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2012, 26(2): 55-60.
[10] 李烨，陆美萍，唐少文，沈冲. 大学生打鼾的危险因素分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2009, 23(1): 1-3 .
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 公 蕾,孙 洁,薛子超,李敬华,薛卫国 . 鼻腔鼻窦恶性肿瘤细胞周期的DNA分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(3): 193 -195 .
[2] 汪晓锋,林 昶,程金妹 . 不同龄小鼠内耳中ABAD的表达及临床意义[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(3): 207 -211 .
[3] 刘 艳,刘新义,王金平,李大健 . 后鼓室解剖结构测量观察及临床意义[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(3): 218 -221 .
[4] 于青青 综述,王跃建 审校 . 硬质耳内镜的临床应用进展[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(3): 222 -224 .
[5] 杨淑娟,袁 英,刘付星,秦海平 . 美宝湿润烧伤膏联合蛋膜贴补治疗外伤性鼓膜穿孔40例[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(3): 227 -227 .
[6] 林峰,梁勇,卢永田,万丽霞 . 鼻内翻性乳头状瘤临床分型和术式选择[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(3): 231 -233 .
[7] 于志良,王卫卫,王明华 . 耳鼻喉综合动力系统切除会厌囊肿23例[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(3): 278 -279 .
[8] 殷国华,钟 笑 . 激光减容术治疗舌扁桃体肥大的远期疗效[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(3): 280 -282 .
[9] 蔡 谦,苏振忠,文卫平,柴丽萍,叶 辉,滕以书,吴 旋 . 成人打鼾与口咽腔狭窄评分的相关性[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(4): 289 -292 .
[10] 孙 岩,张庆泉,张 华,宋西成,赵利敏,王 艳,姜绍红,王 强 . 异种（牛）脱细胞真皮基质修复膜在耳鼻咽喉头颈外科术后缺损修复的应用[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(4): 316 -319 .
网站版权所有 © 2018 《山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报》编辑部　
地址：山东省济南市山大南路27号（250100）电话：+86-0531-88366912 E-mail: ebhxb@sdu.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发