A prospective Italian survey on the safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy for respiratory allergy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous immunotherapy is effective for the treatment of respiratory allergy, and it is largely used in Italy, but no systematic safety assessment has been carried out so far. OBJECTIVE: To assess prospectively the safety of injection immunotherapy in a multicentre, real-life survey. METHODS: Eleven Italian allergy departments recorded the clinical characteristics of systemic reactions (SRs) due to immunotherapy. Vaccines were prescribed according to guidelines; only standardized depot extracts were used. SRs were graded according to the EAACI recommendations, and were classified as immediate or delayed. RESULTS: One thousand seven hundred and thirty-eight patients (847 males, age range 5-71) received immunotherapy from eight different manufacturers, for a total of 2038 courses (300 patients received two extracts). A total of 60 785 injections were given over a mean immunotherapy duration of 3 years. Overall, 95 reactions were observed in 57 patients (3.28%), corresponding to 4.7% of the courses and 1.56/1000 injections. Twenty-five patients experienced more than one adverse event. There were 34 grade 2, 60 grade 3 and one grade 4 reactions and no fatality. SRs occurred more frequently in patients with asthma than in patients with rhinitis alone (4.1% vs. 1.1%), and were equally distributed between the build-up and the maintenance phase. Ragweed and grass extracts caused significantly more side effects than other allergens. CONCLUSION: In this large prospective study, the rate of SRs was low, thus confirming that injection immunotherapy has an acceptable risk/benefit ratio when prescribed and carried out according to recommendations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".