Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35386649›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in allergy2022

Intralymphatic Immunotherapy (ILIT) With Bee Venom Allergens: A Clinical Proof-of-Concept Study and the Very First ILIT in Humans.

Alexandra Chabot, Gabriela Senti, Iris Erdmann, Bettina M Prinz, Brunello Wüthrich, Lara Šošić, Thomas M Kündig, Pål Johansen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in allergy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Local control of T cell fate in lymph nodes safely and durably reverses myelin-driven autoimmunity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Immunology of allergen immunotherapy.Immunotherapy advances · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alexandra ChabotDepartment of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Gabriela SentiDepartment of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Iris ErdmannDepartment of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Bettina M PrinzDepartment of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Brunello WüthrichDepartment of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Lara ŠošićDepartment of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Thomas M KündigDepartment of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Pål JohansenDepartment of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
University of Zurich · CHUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Subcutaneous venom immunotherapy (VIT) represents an effective treatment against bee venom allergy. However, it involves long treatment times, high costs, and the risk of adverse events (AEs). Shorter, safer, and cheaper treatment options are therefore pursued. Objective: To determine the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of bee venom intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT). Methods: In an open pilot study, 12 patients received bee venom ILIT in three sessions with 14-day intervals: 0.1-5 μg/dose. Ultrasound imaging was applied to guide an injection and to document the lymph node structure. In a second study, 67 patients from 15 centers in Europe and Australia were randomized to receive four doses of either 10- or 20-μg bee venom ILIT with 28-day intervals. Clinical endpoints included specific IgE and IgG and protection after a bee sting challenge. These studies were performed in the years 2000-2003. Results: In a proof-of-concept study, no serious AEs were observed. An increase in allergen-specific IgG1 but no IgG4 and IgE was observed. ILIT induced the protection against a bee sting challenge in 7 out of 8 challenged patients. In a multicenter study, an increase in allergen-specific IgG and IgE was observed, with the highest increase in patients receiving a higher ILIT dose. The study was terminated due to several serious AEs upon the sting challenge provocation after the completion of treatment. However, out of 45 patients challenged, 15 (65%) and 18 (82%) patients in the 10- and 20-μg group, respectively, showed an improvement of two grades or more. No correlation was observed between antibody levels and sting protection. Conclusions: While a pilot study suggested the safety and efficacy of bee venom ILIT, a high number of AEs seen after the sting challenge following a randomized study indicate that the immunology protection offered by bee venom ILIT is insufficient. Of note, the bee venom allergen extract used in the two studies were from the two different providers. While the first study used a formulation approved for use in subcutaneous VIT, the second study used a nonapproved formulation never tested in humans. Further studies on approved formulations should be performed to generate conclusive results regarding the safety and efficacy of bee venom ILIT.

Indexed as

bee venomclinical trialhymenopteraimmunotherapyintralymphatic administration

Identifiers

PMID35386649
PMCPMC8974761
OpenAlexW4221104902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.