ArticlePloS one2017
Which immunotherapy product is better for patients allergic to Polistes venom? A laboratory and clinical study.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Two-Sided Experimental Model of ImmunoCAP Inhibition Test as a Useful Tool for the Examination of Allergens Cross-Reactivity on the Example of α-Gal and Mammalian Meat Sensitization-A Preliminary Study.Current issues in molecular biology · 2023Article
- Experimental Research Models to Assess the Cross-Reactivity between Can f 5 and Human PSA-Two Different Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Article
- Review
- IgE allergy diagnostics and other relevant tests in allergy, a World Allergy Organization position paper.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenom immunotherapy (VIT) is highly effective in preventing allergic reactions to insect stings, but the appropriate venom must be used to achieve clinical protection. In patients with multiple positive results to venoms, molecular allergy diagnostics or CAP-inhibition may identify the causative venom. Concerning allergy to venom from Polistes spp. it has been proposed that only the European species P. dominulus should be used for VIT. However, this recommendation is not present in any international guideline. Using both laboratory and clinical data, we aimed to evaluate the reliability of this proposal.
methodsWe performed an in vitro study using CAP-inhibition to determine sensitization of 19 patients allergic to Polistes venom. The clinical study included 191 patients with positive tests to Polistes treated with VIT, 102 were treated with P. dominulus and 89 were treated with a mix of American Polistes (mAP).
resultsThe difference in % of inhibition was significant concerning inhibition of P. dominulus sIgE by P. dominulus venom (79.8%) compared with inhibition by mAP venom (64.2%) and not significant concerning the inhibition of mAP sIgE by P. dominulus venom (80.1%) and by mAP venom (73.6%). Instead, the clinical protection from stings was not statistically different between the two kinds of venom.
conclusionThe data from CAP inhibition would suggest that the choice of either P. dominulus venom or mAP venom for VIT is appropriate in patients with CAP inhibition higher than 70%, but the clinical data show the same odds of protection from stings using for VIT P. dominulus or mAP venom.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.