{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,24]],"date-time":"2025-04-24T04:28:41Z","timestamp":1745468921121,"version":"3.40.4"},"reference-count":18,"publisher":"S. Karger AG","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2017,1,1]],"date-time":"2017-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1483228800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Services\/SiteLicenses"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2017,1,1]],"date-time":"2017-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1483228800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Services\/SiteLicenses"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Int Arch Allergy Immunol"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017]]},"abstract":"<b><i>Background:<\/i><\/b> Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is considered to be the gold standard treatment for patients with hymenoptera venom allergy. This treatment induces systemic reactions (SR) in a significant number of patients. <b><i>Objective:<\/i><\/b> To evaluate the outcome of VIT in patients with known risk factors for VIT-induced SR and to compare rush VIT (RVIT) and conventional VIT (CVIT). <b><i>Methods:<\/i><\/b> All of the patients who received VIT and had at least one of the following risk factors were included: current cardiovascular disease, uncontrolled asthma, high basal serum tryptase, current treatment with \u03b2-blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and age >70 or <5 years. <b><i>Results:<\/i><\/b> Sixty-four patients were included, and most of them (52; 81.5%) were allergic exclusively to bee venom. Thirty-five (54.7%) patients underwent RVIT and 29 CVIT. The incidence of patients who developed SR during the build-up phase was similar for RVIT and CVIT (25.7 and 27.5%, respectively; <i>p<\/i> = 1). However, the incidence of SR per injection was significantly higher in CVIT than in RVIT (5.6 and 2.75%, respectively; <i>p<\/i> = 0.01). Most reactions (79.1%) were mild, limited to the skin. Most of the patients (92.1%) reached the full maintenance dose of 100 \u03bcg. This dose was reached by a significantly larger number of patients receiving RVIT compared to CVIT (100 and 82.7%, respectively; <i>p<\/i> = 0.01). None of the patients experienced exacerbation of their concurrent chronic disease during VIT. <b><i>Conclusion:<\/i><\/b> VIT can be performed safely and efficiently in patients with risk factors for immunotherapy. In these patients RVIT appears to be safer and more efficient than CVIT.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1159\/000479692","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2017,9,26]],"date-time":"2017-09-26T21:02:21Z","timestamp":1506459741000},"page":"45-51","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":7,"title":["Venom Immunotherapy in High-Risk Patients: The Advantage of the Rush Build-Up Protocol"],"prefix":"10.1159","volume":"174","author":[{"given":"Yossi","family":"Rosman","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Ronit","family":"Confino-Cohen","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Arnon","family":"Goldberg","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"127","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2017,9,27]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/14651858.CD008838.pub2"},{"key":"ref2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.all.0000136754.13077.fc"},{"key":"ref3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.anai.2016.10.031"},{"key":"ref4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/all.12638"},{"key":"ref5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jaci.2010.04.025"},{"key":"ref6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jaci.2004.04.029"},{"key":"ref7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1159\/000322258"},{"key":"ref8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S1081-1206(10)61689-4"},{"key":"ref9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.1984.03340350026019"},{"key":"ref10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0091-6749(90)90111-G"},{"key":"ref11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.anai.2016.02.014"},{"key":"ref12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jaci.2004.11.012"},{"key":"ref13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.anai.2015.03.001"},{"key":"ref14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1161\/01.CIR.72.6.1226"},{"key":"ref15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0091-6749(81)90170-6"},{"key":"ref16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/cea.12275"},{"key":"ref17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jaci.2008.06.007"},{"key":"ref18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jaip.2016.10.011"}],"container-title":["International Archives of Allergy and Immunology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Article\/Pdf\/479692","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Article\/Pdf\/479692","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,23]],"date-time":"2025-04-23T16:47:48Z","timestamp":1745426868000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/karger.com\/article\/doi\/10.1159\/000479692"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2017]]},"references-count":18,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2017,10,24]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2017,10,24]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1159\/000479692","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["1018-2438","1423-0097"],"issn-type":[{"type":"print","value":"1018-2438"},{"type":"electronic","value":"1423-0097"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2017]]}}}