ArticleAllergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology2026
Declining venom immunotherapy: patient characteristics and clinical outcomes.
Article in Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA largely unknown proportion of Hymenoptera venom-allergic patients do not undergo venom immunotherapy (VIT) despite positive allergy testing and counselling. We aimed to identify factors associated with the refusal of VIT, and evaluate the natural course of venom allergy in untreated individuals.
methodsOut of 1163 candidates for VIT, 271 (23.3%) declined or postponed treatment for at least 12 months. Complete data from 166 of these patients, who were interviewed and counselled during routine follow-up, were available for retrospective evaluation.
resultsPatients declining VIT were significantly more likely to be female (P = 0.012) and had a lower grade of index sting-induced anaphylaxis (P < 0.001) compared to those who accepted treatment. Main reasons for deciding against VIT were that it was considered too time-consuming (39.8%) or perceived as unnecessary (24.1%). A minority of patients (6.6%) declined VIT due to fear of side effects; 7.2% perceived the VIT-associated risk as high to extremely high. Most (69.9%) reported routinely carrying an epinephrine autoinjector. The re-sting rate was 39.2% over a median follow-up of 5 years. Among 65 re-exposed patients, 13 (20%) reported an anaphylactic sting-reaction, with only two cases classified as severe. In no case did a severe relapse occur following a mild index sting reaction.
conclusionIn venom-allergic patients hesitant about VIT, treatment choices should be guided by a shared decision-making process considering risk factors for severe anaphylaxis and the degree of sting exposure, together with the patient's personal needs and preferences.
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.