ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2025
Patient preference in allergen immunotherapy - Understanding the patient's view.
Article in The World Allergy Organization journal, 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.
- Microcrystalline tyrosine as a novel depot-forming agent in venom immunotherapy: a pre-clinical evaluation in bee-venom allergic mice.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) is an effective treatment for patients with pollen, house dust mite, or venom allergy, but treatment adherence can be challenging. Patient preferences play a crucial role in acceptance and adherence to AIT, but little is known about these preferences. This study aimed to understand patient preferences for AIT and how these preferences influence treatment acceptance. Methods: A conjoint analysis was conducted among 750 participants from 7 European countries who were allergic to pollen (n = 700) or Hymenoptera venom (n = 50) and had not previously received AIT. Participants were asked to choose between hypothetical AIT products with different attributes, including product type, initial up-dosing posology, potential future risks, and side effects. The relative importance of each attribute was calculated, and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of specific attribute levels on patient preference. Results: Potential future risk is the attribute with the strongest impact on the importance score for patient preference in both pollen (44%) and venom (41%) allergic patients, followed by side effects (24% for pollen and 35% for venom allergy). Product type was less important, with a 22% importance score in both populations, and dosing schedules were not important at all, with a 2% importance score for pollen and an 11% importance score for venom-allergic patients. Accumulation of foreign material/substance in the body had the largest negative impact on patient preference, with drops of -24.7% (pollen) and -23.6% (venom), respectively. Conclusions: Understanding patient preferences is essential for optimizing the design and delivery of AIT. Different side effects and risk profiles of AIT products can influence patient treatment acceptance the most, and healthcare professionals may not always be aware of it. Future research should focus on developing AIT products that align with patient preferences with simultaneously very high effectiveness to improve adherence and treatment outcomes.
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.