ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2021
Safety and tolerability of venom immunotherapy: Evaluation of 581 rush- and ultra-rush induction protocols (safety of rush and ultra-rush venom immunotherapy).
Article in The World Allergy Organization journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Indications for Biological Treatment Combined with Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy: Who Is It Really Intended for?Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A prospective cohort study of ultra-rush subcutaneous immunotherapy in dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2026Article
- Safety and Tolerability of a 3-h Build-Up Phase With Hymenoptera Venom Depot Extracts: Preliminary Results.Allergy · 2025Article
- Breaking the mold: nontraditional approaches to allergen immunotherapy for environmental allergens.Immunotherapy · 2024Review
- Allergen immunotherapy: past, present and future.Nature reviews. Immunology · 2023Review
- Immunologic, genetic, and ecological interplay of factors involved in allergic diseases.Frontiers in allergy · 2023Review
- Article
- Chinese Guideline on Allergen Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis: The 2022 Update.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2022Review
- A real-world retrospective study of safety, efficacy, compliance and cost of combination treatment with rush immunotherapy plus one dose of pretreatment anti-IgE in Chinese children with respiratory allergies.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Intralymphatic Immunotherapy (ILIT) With Bee Venom Allergens: A Clinical Proof-of-Concept Study and the Very First ILIT in Humans.Frontiers in allergy · 2022Article
- [Hymenoptera venom allergy: Management of venom extracts shortage or sanitary crisis (Covid-19 pandemic). Stinging Insects Task Force recommendations].Revue francaise d'allergologie (2009) · 2021Article
- Systemic reactions to subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy: real-world cause and effect modelling.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2021Article
- Impact of specific immunotherapy and sting challenge on the quality of life in patients with hymenoptera venom allergy.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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent literature is inconsistent regarding the risk of severe side effects using accelerated induction protocols in Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT). In addition, several data indicate the influence of purity grade of venom preparation on tolerability. We evaluated the safety and tolerability of ultra-rush and rush build-up protocols using purified and non-purified venom preparations.
methodsRetrospective single-center study of 581 VIT inductions (325 ultra-rush and 256 rush protocols) from 2005 to 2018 in 559 patients with bee and vespid venom allergy using aqueous purified (ALK SQ®) for ultra-rush protocol and aqueous non-purified (ALK Reless®) venom preparations for rush protocol.
resultsUrticaria (8% vs. 3.1%, p = 0,013) and dose reductions (4.3% vs. 1.2%, p = 0,026) were significantly more frequent in the ultra-rush group. Overall rate of moderate-to-severe side effects (anaphylaxis
conclusionRush and ultra-rush protocols show an excellent safety profile with only infrequent and mild anaphylactic reactions in bee and vespid venom allergy. Ultra-rush immunotherapy reduces the duration of the inpatient build-up phase setting and thus is viewed by the authors as preferred treatment in Hymenoptera venom allergic patients.
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.