ArticlePediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology2025
Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous venom immunotherapy in children: A 24-year experience in a pediatric tertiary care center.
Article in Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous venom immunotherapy in children: A 24-year experience in a pediatric tertiary care center.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHymenoptera venom allergy is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, also in pediatric patients, highlighting the importance of effective management through venom immunotherapy (VIT). This study aimed to evaluate the safety profile of VIT, identify factors associated with adverse reactions (ARs), assess the accuracy of insect identification and its impact on VIT extract selection, and determine treatment efficacy by analyzing ARs following re-sting.
methodsThe medical charts of patients followed up at the Allergy Unit of Meyer Children's Hospital IRCCS, Florence, Italy, who completed a VIT cycle between 1997 and 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. VIT extract selection was guided by a diagnostic workup following the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines and the Italian Consensus on Hymenoptera venom allergy management. We implemented a cluster protocol and adjusted it as needed for ARs during VIT.
resultsFifty-eight patients, from a total of 60 VIT (2 patients underwent VIT for both Vespula and Polistes) were included, using the following extracts: 17 Apis mellifera (28.4%), 20 Vespula (33.3%), 20 Polistes (33.3%), and 3 Vespa crabro (5.0%). Upon the 3739 injections administered, 355 ARs (9.5%) occurred: local reactions (LRs), 306 (8.2%); extended local reactions (ELRs), 34 (0.9%); and systemic reactions (SRs), 15 (0.4%). The build-up phase was associated with a higher number of ARs and LRs compared with the maintenance phase during VIT (p < .0001), normalized by the number of injections. No other significant factors related to the risk of developing any ARs were highlighted. The highest SR rate was found in the VIT for Polistes, with no significant differences in AR proportions among the venom extracts. Thirty patients reported 51 re-stings following VIT, with only 2 of 51 (3.9%) resulting in SRs. These reactions occurred in individuals stung by a different Hymenoptera species from the one targeted during the VIT.
conclusionCluster protocol VIT is safe and effective in pediatric 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.