ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2018
Safety of specific immunotherapy using an ultra-rush induction regimen in bee and wasp allergy.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anaphylaxis after stings byHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Safety and Efficacy of VIT against Wasp Venom in Ultra-Rush Protocols in Patients Older Than 60 Years.Vaccines · 2024Article
- Challenges in Drug and Hymenoptera Venom Hypersensitivity Diagnosis and Management in Mastocytosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Breaking the mold: nontraditional approaches to allergen immunotherapy for environmental allergens.Immunotherapy · 2024Review
- Adverse reactions in venom immunotherapy protocols: conventional versus ultra-rush.Annals of medicine · 2022Article
- Safety and tolerability of venom immunotherapy: Evaluation of 581 rush- and ultra-rush induction protocols (safety of rush and ultra-rush venom immunotherapy).The World Allergy Organization journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpecific allergen immunotherapy to Hymenoptera venom (VIT) is a basic treatment for patients allergic to Hymenoptera venom. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety of an ultra-rush regimen compared with the rush and conventional protocols. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn 31 patients with an allergy to bee venom and 82 with an allergy to wasp venom, the allergic adverse reactions during VIT were monitored. Patients were selected based on the criteria established by EAACI (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) recommendations. Adverse reactions during the ultra-rush immunotherapy were measured, documented and classified according to the criteria of Mueller. Ultra-rush, rush or conventional protocols of the initial phase VIT using the Venomenhal vaccine (Hal Allergy, Leiden, Netherlands) were conducted.
resultsSix (13.7%) patients on the ultra-rush regimen, 5 (14.3%) patients on the rush regimen and 9 (26.5%) on conventional VIT experienced an allergic reaction. There were no associations between the adverse allergic reactions and the following factors: gender, total IgE and allergen-specific IgE to wasp or bee venom before the VIT and cardiological drugs that were used.
conclusionWe found that the ultra-rush protocol (similar to the rush protocol) using the Venomenhal vaccine is safer than the conventional protocol.
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.