Search

Since the discovery of immunoglobulin E (IgE) as a mediator of allergic diseases in 1967, our knowledge about the immunological mechanisms of IgE-mediated allergies has remarkably increased. In addition to understanding the immune response and clinical symptoms, allergy diagnosis and management depend strongly on the precise identification of the elicitors of the IgE-mediated allergic reaction. In the past four decades, innovations in bioscience and technology have facilitated the identification and production of well-defined, highly pure molecules for component-resolved diagnosis (CRD), allowing a personalized diagnosis and management of the allergic disease for individual patients. The first edition of the "EAACI Molecular Allergology User's Guide" (MAUG) in 2016 rapidly became a key reference for clinicians, scientists, and interested readers with a background in allergology, immunology, biology, and medicine. Nevertheless, the field of molecular allergology is moving fast, and after 6 years, a new EAACI Taskforce was established to provide an updated document. The Molecular Allergology User's Guide 2.0 summarizes state-of-the-art information on allergen molecules, their clinical relevance, and their application in diagnostic algorithms for clinical practice. It is designed for both, clinicians and scientists, guiding health care professionals through the overwhelming list of different allergen molecules available for testing. Further, it provides diagnostic algorithms on the clinical relevance of allergenic molecules and gives an overview of their biology, the basic mechanisms of test formats, and the application of tests to measure allergen exposure., (© 2023 The Authors. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Not available., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

One hundred and ten years after Noon's first clinical report of the subcutaneous application of allergen extracts, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has evolved as the most important pillar of the treatment of allergic patients. It is the only disease-modifying treatment option available and the evidence for its clinical efficacy and safety is broad and undisputed. Throughout recent decades, more insights into the underlying mechanisms, in particular the modulation of innate and adaptive immune responses, have been described. AIT is acknowledged by worldwide regulatory authorities, and following the regulatory guidelines for product development, AIT products are subject to a rigorous evaluation before obtaining market authorization. Knowledge and practice are anchored in international guidelines, such as the recently published series of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI). Innovative approaches continue to be further developed with the focus on clinical improvement by, for example, the usage of adjuvants, peptides, recombinants, modification of allergens, new routes of administration, and the concomitant use of biologicals. In addition, real-life data provide complementary and valuable information on the effectiveness and tolerability of this treatment option in the clinical routine. New mobile health technologies and big-data approaches will improve daily treatment convenience, adherence, and efficacy of AIT. However, the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has also had some implications for the feasibility and practicability of AIT. Taken together, AIT as the only disease-modifying therapy in allergic diseases has been broadly investigated over the past 110 years laying the path for innovations and further improvement., (© 2021 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Progressive knowledge of allergenic structures resulted in a broad availability of allergenic molecules for diagnosis. Component-resolved diagnosis allowed a better understanding of patient sensitization patterns, facilitating allergen immunotherapy decisions. In parallel to the discovery of allergenic molecules, there was a progressive development of a regulation framework that affected both in vitro diagnostics and Allergen Immunotherapy products. With a progressive understanding of underlying mechanisms associated to Allergen immunotherapy and an increasing experience of application of molecular diagnosis in daily life, we focus in analyzing the evidences of the value provided by molecular allergology in daily clinical practice, with a focus on Allergen Immunotherapy decisions., (© 2021 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Adverse reactions to food or food ingredients are more often perceived than objectively verifiable. However, reliable laboratory tests are often lacking. As a result, people with perceived adverse reactions to food often follow extensive elimination diets for years and unnecessarily restrict their diet, as in the case of the frequently suspected histamine intolerance. In this condition, laboratory parameters such as the determination of diamine oxidase in serum have been shown to be inconclusive. The lack of symptom reproducibility calls into question the clinical picture of adverse reactions to ingested histamine. In order to approach persons with perceived histamine intolerance and to support them in moving from blanket restrictions, which are often unnecessarily strict, to effective personalized therapeutic strategies, the present guideline of the Working Group on Food Allergy of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in cooperation with the Medical Association of German Allergists (AeDA), the Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA) as well as the Swiss Society of Allergology and Immunology (SGAI) and the Austrian Society of Allergology and Immunology (ÖGAI) recommends a practicable diagnostic and therapeutic approach., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

The basis of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the diagnosis of the eliciting allergen sources, which is a challenge, especially in the case of multiple sensitizations. Molecular allergy diagnostics can be of special help, since detection of "marker allergens", usually important major allergens, allows to distinguish between primary sensitization and cross-reactions. Thus, the indication and extract selection for AIT can be facilitated. While molecular diagnosis is particularly useful for double-sensitized hymenoptera venom and polysensitized pollen allergic patients, the benefit is probably lower in case of house dust mite allergy., (© 2021. Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Background: Vaccinations against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are intended to induce an immune response to protect against infection/disease. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is thought to induce a (different) immune response, e.g., to induce tolerance to allergens. In this position paper we clarify how to use AIT in temporal relation to COVID-19 vaccination. Four SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are currently approved in the EU, and their possible immunological interactions with AIT are described together with practical recommendations for use., Materials and Methods: Based on the internationally published literature, this position paper provides specific recommendations for the use of AIT in temporal relation to a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination., Results: AIT is used in 1) allergic rhinitis, 2) allergic bronchial asthma, 3) insect venom allergy, 4) food allergy (peanut)., Conclusion: For the continuation of an ongoing AIT, we recommend an interval of 1 week before and after vaccination for subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). For sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and oral immunotherapy (OIT), we recommend taking them up to the day before vaccination and a break of 2 - 7 days after vaccination. Initiation of a new SCIT, SLIT, or OIT should be delayed until 1 week after the day of the second vaccination. For SCIT, we generally recommend an interval of ~ 1 week to COVID-19 vaccination., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Not available., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Polysensitizations to tree, grass, and weed pollen are found in ~ 20% of pollen-allergic individuals. They are often based on broad IgE cross-reactivities to pollen panallergens belonging to highly conserved protein families: 1. profilins, 2. polcalcins (calcium-binding proteins in pollen), 3. cyclophilins. They represent highly conserved cross-reactive minor allergens present in all pollen species, but also in plant foods and other organisms. Despite being rarely clinically relevant they can hamper allergy diagnostic tests with extracts. In this situation, molecular allergy diagnosis is able to distinguish broad cross-reactivity due to allergen-specific IgE to pollen panallergens (i.e. profilins Bet v 2 or Phl p 12; polcalcins Bet v 4 or Phl p 7; and, in the future, cyclophilins Bet v 7 or Ole e 15) from primary IgE sensitizations to so-called marker allergens represented by important pollen major allergens: Bet v 1 for the birch and beech family ( Fagales ), Ole e 1 for olive and ash ( Oleaceae ), Phl p 1 for temperate climate grasses ( Poaceae ), Art v 1 for mugwort ( Artemisia ), Amb a 1 for Ambrosia species ( Ambrosia ). Five typical cases (A - E) with positive skin prick test results to tree, grass, and weed pollen extracts demonstrate typical patterns of IgE sensitization with a variable impact of pollen panallergens: A - profilins, B - polcalcins, C - profilins and polcalcins, D - presumably cyclophilins, E - primary polysensitization to tree, grass, and weed pollen without interference from profilins or polcalcins. Differences between pollen extract-based skin prick test diagnosis and molecular allergen-specific IgE testing are explained using the presented concept. This approach allows to reduce the number of allergen extracts - presuming they are also clinically relevant - for allergen immunotherapy (i.e., only tree and/or grass pollen extracts), particularly in pollen-polysensitized patients., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying treatment option for patients with type 1-mediated allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis with/without allergic asthma. Although many innovations have been developed since the first clinical report of Noon et al in 1911, the improvement of clinical efficacy and tolerability of this treatment is still an important unmet need. Hence, much progress has been made in the characterization of the cell types, cytokines, and intracellular signaling events involved in the development, maintenance, and regulation of allergic reactions, and also in the understanding of the mechanisms of tolerance induction in AIT. This comprehensive review aims to summarize the current innovative approaches in AIT, but also gives an outlook on promising candidates of the future. On the basis of an extensive literature review, integrating a clinical point of view, this article focuses on recent and future innovations regarding biologicals, allergen-derived peptides, recombinant allergens, "Toll"-like receptor agonists and other adjuvants, and novel application routes being developed for future AIT., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: After the beginning and during the worldwide pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2), patients with allergic and atopic diseases have felt and still feel insecure. Currently, four vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been approved by the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany, and vaccination campaigns have been started nationwide. In this respect, it is of utmost importance to give recommendations on possible immunological interactions and potential risks of immunomodulatory substances (monoclonal antibodies, biologicals) during concurrent vaccination with the approved vaccines., Materials and Methods: This position paper provides specific recommendations on the use of immunomodulatory drugs in the context of concurrent SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations based on current literature., Results: The recommendations are covering the following conditions in which biologicals are indicated and approved: 1) chronic inflammatory skin diseases (atopic dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria), 2) bronchial asthma, and 3) chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Patients with atopic dermatitis or chronic spontaneous urticaria are not at increased risk for allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination. Nevertheless, vaccination may result in transient eczema exacerbation due to general immune stimulation. Vaccination in patients receiving systemic therapy with biologicals can be performed. Patients with severe asthma and concomitant treatment with biologicals also do not have an increased risk of allergic reaction following COVID-19 vaccination which is recommended in these patients. Patients with CRSwNP are also not known to be at increased risk for allergic vaccine reactions, and continuation or initiation of a treatment with biologicals is also recommended with concurrent COVID-19 vaccination. In general, COVID-19 vaccination should be given within the interval between two applications of the respective biological, that is, with a time-lag of at least 1 week after the previous or at least 1 week before the next biological treatment planned., Conclusion: Biologicals for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, bronchial asthma, and CRSwNP should be continued during the current COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. However, the intervals of biological treatment may need to be slightly adjusted (DGAKI/AeDA recommendations as of March 22, 2021)., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

The placebo (Latin "I will please") effect commonly occurs in clinical trials. The psychological and physiological factors associated with patients' expectations about a treatment's positive and negative effects have yet to be well characterized, although a functional prefrontal cortex and intense bidirectional communication between the central nervous system and the immune system appear to be prerequisites for a placebo effect. The use of placebo raises certain ethical issues, especially if patients in a placebo group are denied an effective treatment for a long period of time. The placebo effect appears to be relatively large (up to 77%, relative to pretreatment scores) in controlled clinical trials of allergen immunotherapy (AIT), such as the pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) randomized clinical trials currently required by regulatory authorities worldwide. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) therefore initiated a Task Force, in order to better understand the placebo effect in AIT and its specific role in comorbidities, blinding issues, adherence, measurement time points, variability and the natural course of the disease. In this Position Paper, the EAACI Task Force highlights several important topics regarding the placebo effect in AIT such as a) regulatory aspects, b) neuroimmunological and psychological mechanisms, c) placebo effect sizes in AIT trials, d) methodological limitations in AIT trial design and e) potential solutions in future AIT trial design. In conclusion, this Position Paper aims to examine the methodological problem of placebo in AIT from different aspects and also to highlight unmet needs and possible solutions for future trials., (© 2020 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Severe allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. Single severe reactions have occurred worldwide after vaccination with the new mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. PEG2000 is discussed as a possible trigger. We provide guidance on risk assessment regarding COVID-19 vaccination in patients with allergic diseases and suggest a standardized, resource-oriented diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Reports of severe allergic reactions in the context of COVID-19 vaccination can be made via www.anaphylaxie.net using an online questionnaire., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

No abstract available., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Digital anamorphosis is used to define a distorted image of health and care that may be viewed correctly using digital tools and strategies. MASK digital anamorphosis represents the process used by MASK to develop the digital transformation of health and care in rhinitis. It strengthens the ARIA change management strategy in the prevention and management of airway disease. The MASK strategy is based on validated digital tools. Using the MASK digital tool and the CARAT online enhanced clinical framework, solutions for practical steps of digital enhancement of care are proposed., (© 2020 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only causally effective, disease-modifying form of therapy that, in addition to alleviating allergic symptoms, counteracts disease progression.This article provides an up-to-date overview of immunological, regulatory and practical aspects of AIT. Current literature was included and recent conceptual regulatory developments from the Division of Allergology at the higher federal authority (Paul-Ehrlich-Institut) are presented.The 62 AIT products currently approved in Germany and further 61 AIT products under the development program of the Therapy Allergen Ordinance (TAO) include 95 products for subcutaneous (SCIT) and 28 for sublingual (SLIT) treatment of birch/alder/hazel pollen, grass pollen, weed pollen, house dust mite and insect venom allergies. Native and chemically modified allergen extracts (allergoids) adsorbed to aluminium, tyrosine (partly monophosphoryl lipid A-adjuvanted) or lactose or based on lyophilisates are used as active ingredients.These 123 AIT products are subject to official state batch release testing. This does not apply to named patient products (NPPs) available for the treatment of less prevalent allergies (e.g. to olive pollen, animal hair, storage mites or moulds). There is a particular need for development of AIT products for children.As a new class of active ingredients, food allergens are in clinical phase II and III studies. A first food preparation for oral AIT of peanut allergy in children is currently undergoing a central European marketing authorization (MA) procedure. MA can only be granted if the benefit-risk balance is positive. Science and regulation are in continuous exchange on the development of AIT products that correspond to the current state of clinical research and regulation in the EU and enable early causal treatment of widespread allergies.

Competing Interests: Jörg Kleine-Tebbe bezieht neben Einnahmen aus selbständiger Praxis- und klinischer Forschungstätigkeit Autorenhonorare (Allergopharma, Dustri-Verlag, Springer International, Springer Medizin, Thieme Verlag), Vortragshonorare (Allergopharma, Allergy Therapeutics, ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca, Bencard, Dr. Pfleger, HAL Allergy, InfectoPharm, Leti, Lofarma, Novartis, Roxall, Sanofi, Stallergenes-Greer, ThermoFisher), institutionelle Forschungsmittel (Allergopharma, ALK-Abelló, HAL Allergy, Glaxo, LETI, Novartis, Paraxel International, Stallergenes-Greer) und Beratungshonorare (Allergen Online – Allergen-Datenbank, Allergy Therapeutics, Bencard, ALK-Abelló, Circassia, LETI, Lofarma, Merck (US), Novartis, Sanofi, Stallergenes-Greer, ThermoFisher

Competing Interests: R. Buhl gibt Folgendes an: Vorträge und/oder Beratungen für AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi und Teva; Forschungsunterstützung der Universitätsmedizin Mainz: Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis und Roche – außerhalb der vorliegenden Arbeit.R. Brehler gibt Folgendes an: Vortragstätigkeit für ALK, Allergopharma, Almirall, AstraZeneca, Bencard, Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Dermatologischen Forschung und Fortbildung, Gesellschaft für Information und Organisation, GSK, Dr. Pfleger, HAL, Leti, Merck, Novartis, Oto-Rhino-Laryngologischer Verein, Pierre Fabre, Pohl Boskamp, Stallergenes, Thermo-Fischer; Beratertätigkeit für Allergopharma, Bencard, HAL, Leti, Novartis; klinische Studien fürAllergopharma, Bencard, Biotech Tools, Genentech, Leti, Novartis, Circassia – außerhalb der vorliegenden Arbeit.U. Darsow war Referent, Prüfarzt und Berater für ALK Abello, Bencard and Novartis Pharma – außerhalb der vorliegenden Arbeit.T. Jakob hat Zuschüsse, Honorare oder nichtfinanzielle Unterstützung von Novartis, ALK-Abelló, Bencard/Allergy Therapeutics, Allergopharma, Thermo Fisher Scientific und Celgene erhalten – außerhalb der vorliegenden Arbeit.M. Jutel gibt an, Honorare von ALK Abello, Allergopharma, Stallergenes, Anergis, Allergy Therapeutics, Circassia, Leti, Biomay und HAL erhalten zu haben – während der Durchführung der Studie. Außerdem gibt er an, Honorare von AstraZeneka, nGSK, Novartis, Teva, Vectura, UCB, Takeda, Roche, Janssen, Medimmune und Chiesi erhalten zu haben – außerhalb der vorliegenden Arbeit.L. Klimek gibt an, Zuschüsse und/oder Honorare von Allergopharma, MEDA/Mylan, HAL Allergie, ALK Abelló, Leti, Stallergenes, Quintiles, Sanofi, ASIT bio tech, Lofarma, Allergy Therapeut., Astra- Zeneca, GSK, Inmunotk erhalten zu haben – außerhalb der vorliegenden Arbeit. Außerdem ist er Mitglied bei folgenden Organisationen: AeDA, DGHNO, Deutsche Akademie für Allergologie und Klinische Immunologie, HNO-BV GPA, EAACI.S. Lau war beratend für Allergopharma tätig.P. Matricardi gibt an, Zuschüsse und/oder Honorare von DFG, Hycor, Omron, Stallergens, Euroimmun, Novartis, TPS, Stallergenes- Greer erhalten zu haben – außerhalb der vorliegenden Arbeit. Außerdem hat er nichtfinanzielle Unterstützung von Thermo Fisher Scientific erhalten – ebenfalls außerhalb der vorliegenden Arbeit.O. Pfaar gibt an, für die letzten 36 Monate Forschungsmittel und/oder Honorare von ALK-Abelló, Allergopharma, Stallergenes Greer, HAL Allergy Holding B. V./HAL Allergie GmbH, Bencard Allergie GmbH/ Allergy Therapeutics, Lofarma, Biomay, Circassia, ASIT Biotech Tools S. A., Laboratorios LETI/LETI Pharma, MEDA Pharma/MYLAN, Anergis S. A., Mobile Chamber Experts (a GA2LEN Partner), Indoor Biotechnologies, Glaxo Smith Kline, Astellas Pharma Global, EUFOREA, Roxall, Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, Med Update Europe GmbH und streamedup! GmbH erhalten zu haben – alle außerhalb der vorliegenden Arbeit.P. Schmid-Grendelmeier gibt Honorare für Teilnahme an Adboards von Allergopharma, ALK-Abello, Bencard u. Stallergenes an.R. Valenta hat Forschungsgelder von Viravaxx, Vienna, Austria und HVD Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria erhalten. Außerdem war er als Berater für Viravaxx tätig.M. Worm erklärt den Erhalt von Honoraren und/oder Beratungsgebühren von folgenden Unternehmen: ALK Abelló Arzneimittel GmbH, Mylan Deutschland GmbH, Leo Pharma GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, DBV Technologies SA, Stallergenes GmbH, HAL Allergie GmbH, Allergopharma GmbH & Co.KG, Bencard Allergie GmbH, Aimmune Therapeutics UK Limited, Actelion Pharmaceuticals Deutschland GmbH, Novarits AG und Biotest AG.M. Wagenmann gibt an, Forschungsmittel und/oder Honorare von folgenden Firmen erhalten zu haben: ALKAbelló, Allergopharma, AstraZeneca, Bencard, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline,HAL Allergie, LETI Pharma, MEDA Pharma, Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, Stallergenes und Teva.T. Werfel gibt Folgendes an: Adboards, honorierte Vorträge für ALK Scherax, Bencard, Leti und Stallergens.T. Zuberbier war als Berater tätig für Bayer Health Care, FAES, Novartis und Henkel; er hat Forschungsgelder erhalten von Novartis und Henkel. Außerdem hat er Vortragshonorare erhalten von AstraZeneca, AbbVie, ALK, Almirall, Astellas, Bayer Health Care, Bencard, Berlin Chemie, FAES, HAL, Leti, Meda, Menarini, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Stallergenes, Takeda, Teva, UCB, Henkel, Kryolan und L’Oréal – außerhalb der vorliegenden Arbeit.S. Wöhrl gibt Advisory boards bei Bencard und ALK-Abelló und bezahlte Vorträge für Bencard, ALK-Abelló und Allergopharma an.W. Aberer, C. Akdis, M. Akdis, S. Becker, K.-C. Bergmann, T. Bieber, T. Biedermann, J. Bousquet, J. Buters, A. Chaker, W. Czech, A. Fink-Wagner, T. Fuchs, M. Gerstlauer, E. Hamelmann, K. Hoffmann-Sommergruber, F. Horak, K. Jung, T. Keil, N. Khaltaev, J. Kleine-Tebbe, M. Maurer, H. Merk, J.-P. Michel, R. Mösges, N. Mülleneisen, K. Nemat, L. Nicod, V. Niederberger- Leppin, I. Pali- Schöll, W. Pohl, K. Rabe, U. Rabe, J. Ring,R. Roller-Wirnsberger, J. Saloga, W. Schlenter, F. Spertini, O. Spranger, P. Staubach, P. Stute, C. Taube, P.- V. Tomazic, C. Vogelberg, C. Vogelmeier, W. Wehrmann und H. Wrede erklären, dass keine Interessenkonflikte bestehen.

Background: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases has faced major challenges. Recommendations for "social distancing" and the fear of patients becoming infected during a visit to a medical facility have led to a drastic decrease in personal doctor-patient contacts. This affects both acute care and treatment of the chronically ill. The immune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection is so far only insufficiently understood and could be altered in a favorable or unfavorable way by therapy with monoclonal antibodies. There is currently no evidence for an increased risk of a severe COVID-19 course in allergic patients. Many patients are under ongoing therapy with biologicals that inhibit type 2 immune responses via various mechanisms. There is uncertainty about possible immunological interactions and potential risks of these biologicals in the case of an infection with SARS-CoV-2., Materials and Methods: A selective literature search was carried out in PubMed, Livivo, and the internet to cover the past 10 years (May 2010 - April 2020). Additionally, the current German-language publications were analyzed. Based on these data, the present position paper provides recommendations for the biological treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic., Results: In order to maintain in-office consultation services, a safe treatment environment must be created that is adapted to the pandemic situation. To date, there is a lack of reliable study data on the care for patients with complex respiratory, atopic, and allergic diseases in times of an imminent infection risk from SARS-CoV-2. Type-2-dominant immune reactions, as they are frequently seen in allergic patients, could influence various phases of COVID-19, e.g., by slowing down the immune reactions. Theoretically, this could have an unfavorable effect in the early phase of a SARS-Cov-2 infection, but also a positive effect during a cytokine storm in the later phase of severe courses. However, since there is currently no evidence for this, all data from patients treated with a biological directed against type 2 immune reactions who develop COVID-19 should be collected in registries, and their disease courses documented in order to be able to provide experience-based instructions in the future., Conclusion: The use of biologicals for the treatment of bronchial asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and spontaneous urticaria should be continued as usual in patients without suspected infection or proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. If available, it is recommended to prefer a formulation for self-application and to offer telemedical monitoring. Treatment should aim at the best possible control of difficult-to-control allergic and atopic diseases using adequate rescue and add-on therapy and should avoid the need for systemic glucocorticosteroids. If SARS-CoV-2 infection is proven or reasonably suspected, the therapy should be determined by weighing the benefits and risks individually for the patient in question, and the patient should be involved in the decision-making. It should be kept in mind that the potential effects of biologicals on the immune response in COVID-19 are currently not known. Telemedical offers are particularly desirable for the acute consultation needs of suitable patients., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Since its discovery in 1967, IgE antibody detection in skin and blood has identified a state of allergic sensitization and served as a necessary but not sufficient risk factor that requires objective symptoms to make the definitive diagnosis of human allergic disease. More recently, quantitative IgE antibody levels in serum against allergenic extracts, molecules, and epitopes have pushed its application into more accurately identifying the specificity of the allergic response for targeting immunotherapy, predicting allergic symptom severity after allergen exposure, and attempting to distinguish tolerance from food allergy. This review examines new in vivo and in vitro developments in the design, performance, interference, and application of the methods used to identify allergic sensitization. The increasing accepted applications of molecular allergen and allergen epitope-based IgE antibody measurements, especially as applied to food allergy diagnosis and management, are highlighted as state-of-the-art advances. Despite these major advances in allergic sensitization documentation, their ultimate value requires integration by the clinician with the patient's history and pretest probability of disease., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Ragweed sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet reduces symptoms and symptom-relieving medication use in adults with allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis (AR/C) but has not been evaluated in children., Objective: This international, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of ragweed SLIT-tablet in children with AR/C., Methods: Children (N = 1025; 77.7% polysensitized) aged 5 to 17 years with ragweed pollen-induced AR/C with or without asthma (FEV 1 ≥80% predicted) were randomized 1:1 to daily ragweed SLIT-tablet (12 Amb a 1-Unit) or placebo for up to 28 weeks (NCT02478398). The primary end point was the average total combined score (TCS; sum of rhinoconjunctivitis daily symptom score [DSS] and daily medication score [DMS]) during peak ragweed pollen season (RPS). Key secondary end points were TCS during the entire RPS, and DSS and DMS during the peak RPS., Results: Relative TCS (95% CI) improvements with ragweed SLIT-tablet versus placebo were -38.3% (-46.0% to -29.7%; least square [LS] mean difference, -2.73; P < .001) during peak RPS and -32.4% (-40.7% to -23.3%; LS mean difference, -1.86; P < .001) during the entire RPS. DSS and DMS during peak RPS improved with SLIT-tablet versus placebo by -35.4% (-43.2% to -26.1%; LS mean difference, -1.40; P < .001) and -47.7% (-59.8% to -32.5%; LS mean difference, -1.84; P < .001), respectively. Asthma DSS, short-acting β-agonist use, and nocturnal awakenings during peak RPS improved with SLIT-tablet versus placebo by -30.7%, -68.1%, and -75.1%, respectively (all nominal P ≤ .02). No events of anaphylaxis, airway compromise, or severe treatment-related systemic allergic reactions were reported., Conclusions: Ragweed SLIT-tablet significantly improved symptoms and decreased symptom-relieving medication use in children with ragweed pollen-induced AR/C and was well tolerated., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Pollen from various Fagales tree species prolongs the season and makes tree pollen allergy a major health problem. Despite involving the same causative allergens, allergy immunotherapy (AIT) treatment habits differ significantly across different geographical regions. Diagnosis and treatment with AIT in patients allergic to tree pollen were discussed by a group of German medical experts who give practical recommendations based on the available data. Regulatory perspective: According to current guidelines on allergen products, birch pollen are the representative allergen source of the birch homologous group including several Fagales trees based on sequence and structural similarity of their allergen proteins. Immunological perspective: A high level of IgE cross-reactivity towards allergens from the birch homologous group has been observed in basic research and clinical trials. Clinical perspective: Clinical trial data show that the efficacy of birch pollen AIT is not only related to birch pollen allergy but extends to pollen from other trees, especially alder, hazel and oak. In order to optimize diagnosis and treatment of tree pollen allergy, the experts recommend to focus diagnosis and respective treatment with AIT primarily to birch as the representative allergen of the Fagales tree homologous group, but further diagnostics may be needed for some patients to determine adequate treatment., (© 2019 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

No abstract available., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

Spring and Summer 2020 are unique in that the challenges of care for those suffering from pollen allergy coincide with the COVID-19 pandemic. Several considerations are important to allow optimal care of allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma and hence prevention of coronavirus spread through sneezing, rhinorrhoea, and coughing. This compact overview of recommendations by the EUFOREA expert teams on allergic airway diseases and allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is based on investigation of the current COVID-19 literature in association with the key words above and shared clinical experience of the experts involved. It deals with similarities and differences between AR and coronavirus infection, specific recommendations for allergic disease care in the COVID-19 era, including guidance on AIT., (Crown Copyright © 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of World Allergy Organization.)

The selection of pharmacotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis aims to control the disease and depends on many factors. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines have considerably improved the treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, there is an increasing trend toward use of real-world evidence to inform clinical practice, especially because randomized controlled trials are often limited with regard to the applicability of results. The Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un Vieillissement Actif (MACVIA) algorithm has proposed an allergic rhinitis treatment by a consensus group. This simple algorithm can be used to step up or step down allergic rhinitis treatment. Next-generation guidelines for the pharmacologic treatment of allergic rhinitis were developed by using existing GRADE-based guidelines for the disease, real-world evidence provided by mobile technology, and additive studies (allergen chamber studies) to refine the MACVIA algorithm., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. All rights reserved.)

Phase II studies on allergen immunotherapy (AIT) should define the dose with the best balance between efficacy and safety ("optimal dose"). Their key role is based on dose selection for subsequent pivotal studies (phase III, field studies). Since products for AIT differ in composition and unit definitions, phase II trials are mandatory for new products and preparations being developed according to the German Therapy Allergen Ordinance ("Therapie-Allergeneverordnung", TAV) due to current EMA guidelines since 2009. The latter permit various in-vivo models and endpoints for phase II studies, e.g., AIT-induced changes in skin test, nasal, conjunctival or bronchial provocation, or in exposure chamber or field trials. Selection and graduation of the doses, minimization of placebo effects, and sufficient numbers of patients are a challenge. Effort, required time, and costs are important variables for the initiators of phase II trials. Risks are characterized by e.g., a) too small doses without relevant differences compared to placebo, b) missing true dose-response relationships, c) strong placebo effect and consequently small "therapeutic window", d) large heterogeneity and missing distinct differences (compared to placebo), e) too small effects in field studies due to low allergen exposure, f) missing dose-related increase (in case of too high doses). In the view of the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute, the unambiguous phase II trials with TAV products performed until today were not able to confirm the marketed doses for AIT. Regardless of the utilized model, more raw and single data should illustrate the individual outcome of AIT during phase II trials, facilitating an improved and more intuitive interpretation of the data (placebo effects? scattering?). In the medium term, evidence regarding AIT efficacy will considerably increase due to phase II trials as a prerequisite for subsequent phase III field studies. This affects all manufacturers offering AIT products in Germany and Europe., (© Dustri-Verlag Dr. K. Feistle.)

The seventh "Future of the Allergists and Specific Immunotherapy (FASIT)" workshop held in 2019 provided a platform for global experts from academia, allergy clinics, regulatory authorities and industry to review current developments in the field of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Key domains of the meeting included the following: (a) Biomarkers for AIT and allergic asthma; (b) visions for the future of AIT; (c) progress and data for AIT in asthma and the updates of GINA and EAACI Asthma Guidelines (separated for house dust mite SCIT, SLIT tablets and SLIT drops; patient populations) including a review of clinically relevant endpoints in AIT studies in asthma; (d) regulatory prerequisites such as the "Therapy Allergen Ordinance" in Germany; (e) optimization of trial design in AIT clinical research; (f) challenges planning and conducting phase III (field) studies and the future role of Allergen Exposure Chambers (AEC) in AIT product development from the regulatory point of view. We report a summary of panel discussions of all six domains and highlight unmet needs and possible solutions for the future., (© 2019 The Authors. Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a proven therapeutic option for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. Many guidelines or national practice guidelines have been produced but the evidence-based method varies, many are complex and none propose care pathways. This paper reviews care pathways for AIT using strict criteria and provides simple recommendations that can be used by all stakeholders including healthcare professionals. The decision to prescribe AIT for the patient should be individualized and based on the relevance of the allergens, the persistence of symptoms despite appropriate medications according to guidelines as well as the availability of good-quality and efficacious extracts. Allergen extracts cannot be regarded as generics. Immunotherapy is selected by specialists for stratified patients. There are no currently available validated biomarkers that can predict AIT success. In adolescents and adults, AIT should be reserved for patients with moderate/severe rhinitis or for those with moderate asthma who, despite appropriate pharmacotherapy and adherence, continue to exhibit exacerbations that appear to be related to allergen exposure, except in some specific cases. Immunotherapy may be even more advantageous in patients with multimorbidity. In children, AIT may prevent asthma onset in patients with rhinitis. mHealth tools are promising for the stratification and follow-up of patients., (© 2019 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Background: In all societies, the burden and cost of allergic and chronic respiratory diseases are increasing rapidly. Most economies are struggling to deliver modern health care effectively. There is a need to support the transformation of the health care system into integrated care with organizational health literacy., Main Body: As an example for chronic disease care, MASK (Mobile Airways Sentinel NetworK), a new project of the ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) initiative, and POLLAR (Impact of Air POLLution on Asthma and Rhinitis, EIT Health), in collaboration with professional and patient organizations in the field of allergy and airway diseases, are proposing real-life ICPs centred around the patient with rhinitis, and using mHealth to monitor environmental exposure. Three aspects of care pathways are being developed: (i) Patient participation, health literacy and self-care through technology-assisted "patient activation", (ii) Implementation of care pathways by pharmacists and (iii) Next-generation guidelines assessing the recommendations of GRADE guidelines in rhinitis and asthma using real-world evidence (RWE) obtained through mobile technology. The EU and global political agendas are of great importance in supporting the digital transformation of health and care, and MASK has been recognized by DG Santé as a Good Practice in the field of digitally-enabled, integrated, person-centred care., Conclusion: In 20 years, ARIA has considerably evolved from the first multimorbidity guideline in respiratory diseases to the digital transformation of health and care with a strong political involvement., Competing Interests: Competing interestsDr. Ansotegui reports personal fees from Mundipharma, Roxall, Sanofi, MSD, Faes Farma, Hikma, UCB, Astra Zeneca, outside the submitted work. Dr. Bosnic-Anticevich reports grants from TEVA, personal fees from TEVA, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Mylan, outside the submitted work. Dr. Bousquet reports personal fees and others from Chiesi, Cipla, Hikma, Menarini, Mundipharma, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, Teva, Uriach, others from Kyomed, outside the submitted work. Dr. Boulet reports and Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest—last 3 years. Research grants for participation to multicentre studies, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman La Roche, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Sanofi, Takeda. Support for research projects introduced by the investigator AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Takeda. Consulting and advisory boards Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Methapharm. Royalties Co-author of “Up-To-Date” (occupational asthma). Nonprofit grants for production of educational materials AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Frosst, Novartis. Conference fees AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis. Support for participation in conferences and meetings Novartis, Takeda. Other participations Past president and Member of the Canadian Thoracic Society Respiratory Guidelines Committee; Chair of the Board of Directors of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA). Chair of Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Guidelines Dissemination and Implementation Committee; Laval University Chair on Knowledge Transfer, Prevention and Education in Respiratory and Cardiovascular Health; Member of scientific committees for the American College of Chest Physicians, American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society and the World Allergy Organization; 1st Vice-President of the Global Asthma Organization “InterAsma”. Dr. Casale reports grants and non-financial support from Stallergenes, outside the submitted work. Dr. Cruz reports grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees from Boehrinher Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merk, Sharp & Dohme, MEDA Pharma, EUROFARMA, Sanofi Aventis, outside the submitted work. Dr. Ebisawa reports personal fees from DBV Technologies, Mylan EPD maruho, Shionogi & CO., Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Thermofisher Diagnostics, Pfizer, Beyer, Nippon Chemifar, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., MSD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Ivancevich reports personal fees from Euro Farma Argentina, Faes Farma, non-financial support from Laboratorios Casasco, outside the submitted work. Dr. Haahtela reports personal fees from Mundipharma, Novartis, and Orion Pharma, outside the submitted work. Dr. Klimek reports grants and personal fees from ALK Abelló, Denmark, Novartis, Switzerland, Allergopharma, Germany, Bionorica, Germany, GSK, Great Britain, Lofarma, Italy, personal fees from MEDA, Sweden, Boehringer Ingelheim, Germany, grants from Biomay, Austria, HAL, Netherlands, LETI, Spain, Roxall, Germany, Bencard, Great Britain, outside the submitted work. V.KV has received payment for consultancy from GSK and for lectures from StallergensGreer, Berlin-CHemie and sponsorship from MYLAN for in the following professional training: ARIA masterclass in allergic rhinitis participation. Dr. Larenas Linnemann reports personal fees from GSK, Astrazeneca, MEDA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Grunenthal, UCB, Amstrong, Siegfried, DBV Technologies, MSD, Pfizer., grants from Sanofi, Astrazeneca, Novartis, UCB, GSK, TEVA, Chiesi, Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mösges reports personal fees from ALK, grants from ASIT biotech, Leti, BitopAG, Hulka, Ursapharm, Optima; personal fees from allergopharma, Nuvo, Meda, Friulchem, Hexal, Servier, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, Klosterfrau, GSK, MSD, FAES, Stada, UCB, Allergy Therapeutics; grants and personal fees from Bencard, Stallergenes; grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Lofarma; non-financial support from Roxall, Atmos, Bionorica, Otonomy, Ferrero; personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis; Dr. Okamoto reports personal fees from Eizai Co., Ltd., Shionogi Co., Ltd., Torii Co., Ltd., GSK, MSD, Kyowa Co., Ltd., grants and personal fees from Kyorin Co., Ltd., Tiho Co., Ltd., grants from Yakuruto Co., Ltd., Yamada Bee Farm, outside the submitted work. Dr. Papadopoulos reports grants from Gerolymatos, personal fees from Hal Allergy B.V., Novartis Pharma AG, Menarini, Hal Allergy B.V., outside the submitted work. Dr. Pépin reports grants from AIR LIQUIDE FOUNDATION, AGIR à dom, ASTRA ZENECA, FISHER & PAYKEL, MUTUALIA, PHILIPS, RESMED, VITALAIRE, other from AGIR à dom, ASTRA ZENECA, BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, JAZZ PHARMACEUTICAL, NIGHT BALANCE, PHILIPS, RESMED, SEFAM, outside the submitted work. Dr. Pfaar reports grants and personal fees from ALK-Abelló, Allergopharma Stallergenes Greer, HAL Allergy Holding B.V./HAL Allergie GmbH, Bencard Allergie GmbH/Allergy Therapeutics, Lofarma, grants from Biomay, ASIT Biotech Tools S.A, Laboratorios LETI/LETI Pharma, Anergis S.A., grants from Nuvo, Circassia, Glaxo Smith Kline, personal fees from Novartis Pharma, MEDA Pharma, Mobile Chamber Experts (a GA2LEN Partner), Pohl-Boskamp, Indoor Biotechnologies, grants from, outside the submitted work. Dr. Todo-Bom reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, Mundipharma, GSK Teva Pharma, personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants from Leti, outside the submitted work. Dr. Tsiligianni reports advisory boards from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis and a grant from GSK, outside the submitted work. Dr. Wallace reports and Indicates that she is the co-chair of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, a task force composed of 12 members of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. Dr. Waserman reports other from CSL Behring, Shire, AstraZeneca,Teva, Meda, Merck, outside the submitted work. Dr. Zuberbier reports and Organizational affiliations: Commitee member: WHO-Initiative “Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma” (ARIA). Member of the Board: German Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI). Head: European Centre for Allergy Research Foundation (ECARF). Secretary General: Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN). Member: Committee on Allergy Diagnosis and Molecular Allergology, World Allergy Organization (WAO).

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is currently available as liquid drops and tablets for treatment of allergic patients. Because several allergens are available and many patients are polyallergic, it is possible to treat patients with multiple clinically relevant allergies by >1 SLIT product. Austrian, German, and Swiss medical experts discussed the available data on allergen uptake at the oral mucosa and recently published data on coadministration of a grass and a ragweed tablet. The experts agreed on a schedule considering data from a North American trial on sequential administration of 2 SLIT-tablets with different allergens and their own experiences made during initiation of treatment with >1 SLIT-tablet in their clinics and subsequent self-administration by the patient and discussed the handling and management of potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs). According to the medical experts' opinion, tolerability at each phase of administration and patient preference should be taken into consideration to ensure a high level of adherence to treatment. Local ADRs that are uncomfortable for the patient may be alleviated by a 2- to 4-week course of antihistamine pretreatment. ADRs with severe swelling and/or systemic ADRs need the physician's particular attention and a decision together with the patient on continuation of treatment with SLIT or possible alternative routes of administration., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is thought to be clinically effective and safe in treating allergic rhinitis, asthma, and stinging insect allergy in Europe and North America. However, there are intercontinental differences in AIT therapeutic products in terms of their application and regulation. In North America unmodified standardized and nonstandardized aqueous aeroallergen extracts are approved and used almost exclusively for subcutaneous immunotherapy, whereas more product options are available in Europe, including adsorbed allergens, chemically modified allergens, or both. Both liquid extracts and tablets are approved for sublingual immunotherapy in Europe. Nevertheless, within the European Union, there are major differences in AIT products approved and used in individual countries. There are major differences in the clinical approach to subcutaneous immunotherapy in polysensitized patients; in the United States mixed extracts containing multiple aeroallergens are used, whereas European allergists preferably administer separate injections of single allergen sources or homologous groups deemed to be clinically relevant. Moreover, the regulatory approach differs between the European Union and United States. In contrast to the United States, where common allergen standards exist based on biologic activity, no common standards exist in Europe. In terms of development of new investigational products, the United States has followed the European example for phase II and III studies; no formal US Food and Drug Administration guidance has been issued., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a safe, effective treatment for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and allergic asthma. However, AIT's clinical effect is still contested-primarily due to heterogeneity in clinical trial designs, study populations, therapeutic formulations, and efficacy criteria. After discussing current concepts and unmet needs, an international panel of experts made several recommendations: (i) explore and validate definitions for (clinical) responders in AIT trials; (ii) use of well-documented, standardized provocation tests prior to inclusion of subjects with relevant diseases in AIT trials; (iii) monitoring neo-sensitizations and occurrence of new allergy in extended AIT trials, and exclusion of polyallergic participants; (iv) validation of allergen exposure chambers with regard to natural exposure; (v) in studies of seasonal allergies, focus on peak exposure but also consider organizing two parallel, geographically distinct but otherwise identical trials; (vi) discuss adaptive trial designs with the regulatory authorities; (vii) use e-health and m-health technologies to capture more information on individual exposure to allergens; (viii) initiate research on potential psychological, biochemical, immune, neural, and even genomic markers of the placebo response; (ix) identify trial designs and primary endpoints that will give children with allergies easier, faster access to AIT formulations; and (x) promote and apply standardized methods for reporting systemic and local adverse events. The latest technologies and trial designs may provide novel, ethical ways of reducing bias and heterogeneity in AIT clinical trials. There is scope for physicians, patient organizations, companies, and regulators to improve clinical trials in AIT and, ultimately, to provide patients with better treatments., (© 2018 The Authors. Allergy Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

A systematic nomenclature for allergens originated in the early 1980s, when few protein allergens had been described. A group of scientists led by Dr. David G. Marsh developed a nomenclature based on the Linnaean taxonomy, and further established the World Health Organization/International Union of Immunological Societies (WHO/IUIS) Allergen Nomenclature Sub-Committee in 1986. Its stated aim was to standardize the names given to the antigens (allergens) that caused IgE-mediated allergies in humans. The Sub-Committee first published a revised list of allergen names in 1986, which continued to grow with rare publications until 1994. Between 1994 and 2007 the database was a text table online, then converted to a more readily updated website. The allergen list became the Allergen Nomenclature database (www.allergen.org), which currently includes approximately 880 proteins from a wide variety of sources. The Sub-Committee includes experts on clinical and molecular allergology. They review submissions of allergen candidates, using evidence-based criteria developed by the Sub-Committee. The review process assesses the biochemical analysis and the proof of allergenicity submitted, and aims to assign allergen names prior to publication. The Sub-Committee maintains and revises the database, and addresses continuous challenges as new "omics" technologies provide increasing data about potential new allergens. Most journals publishing information on new allergens require an official allergen name, which involves submission of confidential data to the WHO/IUIS Allergen Nomenclature Sub-Committee, sufficient to demonstrate binding of IgE from allergic subjects to the purified protein., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis (AR/C) is common, necessitating evaluation of SQ house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet efficacy in various subgroups., Objective: To evaluate 12 SQ-HDM efficacy and safety across subgroups, and the onset, duration, and recurrence of local application site reactions., Methods: Subgroup (age, sex, race, asthma status, and allergen sensitization) efficacy was assessed using pooled data from 2 previously described trials of daily 12 SQ-HDM vs placebo for AR/C (n = 2,138). Efficacy was measured by average total combined rhinitis score (TCRS; rhinitis daily symptom plus medication score) during the last 8 weeks of treatment. Safety in subgroups and local application site reaction onset, duration, and recurrence were evaluated using pooled data from 5 previously described trials of SQ HDM SLIT-tablet (n = 2,923)., Results: Significant (based on 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) reduction in TCRS was seen with 12 SQ-HDM relative to placebo across all subgroups, with TCRS improvements ranging from 15% to 25%. The AE profile was generally similar within subgroups. Approximately 95% of local application site reactions were mild to moderate in severity. Median duration on day 1 of treatment for the most common local application site reactions (throat irritation, oral pruritus, ear pruritus, and lip swelling) ranged from 30 to 60 minutes; median first day of onset ranged from days 1 to 4 of treatment; median days that reactions recurred ranged from 3 to 12 days., Conclusion: Treatment with 12 SQ-HDM consistently improved symptoms and was well tolerated in relevant subgroups of subjects with HDM AR/C. Local application site reactions to 12 SQ-HDM were typically mild to moderate and transient., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Anaphylaxis is a serious systemic allergic reaction with rapid onset and potentially life-threatening. We report in detail a case of severe nocturnal anaphylaxis due to pigeon tick bite showing the diagnostic value of the extract and the recombinant allergen in the diagnostic procedures (basophil activation test, IgE immunoblot, and experimental ImmunoCAP). Apart from the presented case, we describe that during the last 10 years, we have collected 28 cases of allergy to Argas reflexus from several European countries. We suspect that this allergy is underdiagnosed because of the lack of diagnostic reagents. Because of the growing number of pigeons in Middle and Southern Europe cities, some cases of idiopathic anaphylaxis could potentially be caused by A. reflexus in those countries. The identification of pigeon ticks as a trigger of anaphylaxis would greatly improve medical care and advice for these patients as the parasite can be exterminated by eradication measures to avoid further incidents., (© 2017 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Within the last decade, non-celiac gluten/wheat sensitivity (NCGS) has been increasingly discussed not only in the media but also among medical specialties. The existence and the possible triggers of NCGS are controversial. Three international expert meetings which proposed recommendations for NCGS were not independently organized and only partially transparent regarding potential conflicts of interest of the participants. The present position statement reflects the following aspects about NCGS from an allergist's and nutritionist's point of view: (A) Validated diagnostic criteria and/or reliable biomarkers are still required. Currently, this condition is frequently self-diagnosed, of unknown prevalence and non-validated etiology. (B) Gluten has not been reliably identified as an elicitor of NCGS because of high nocebo and placebo effects. Double-blind, placebo-controlled provocation tests are of limited value for the diagnosis of NCGS and should be performed in a modified manner (changed relation of placebo and active substance). (C) Several confounders hamper the assessment of subjective symptoms during gluten-reduced or gluten-free diets. Depending on the selection of food items, e.g., an increased vegetable intake with soluble fibers, diets may induce physiological digestive effects and can modify gastrointestinal transit times independent from the avoidance of gluten. (D) A gluten-free diet is mandatory in celiac disease based on scientific evidence. However, a medically unjustified avoidance of gluten may bear potential disadvantages and risks. (E) Due to a lack of diagnostic criteria, a thorough differential diagnostic work-up is recommended when NCGS is suspected. This includes a careful patient history together with a food-intake and symptom diary, if necessary an allergy diagnostic workup and a reliable exclusion of celiac disease. We recommend such a structured procedure since a medically proven diagnosis is required before considering the avoidance of gluten., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

The Future of the Allergists and Specific Immunotherapy (FASIT) workshop provides a regular platform for global experts from academia, allergy clinics, regulatory authorities and industry to review developments in the field of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). The most recent meeting, held in February 2017, had two main themes: advances in AIT and hot topics in AIT from the regulatory point of view. The first theme covered opportunities for personalized AIT, advances in adjuvants and delivery systems, and the development of new molecules and future vaccines for AIT. Key topics in the second part of the meeting were the effects of the enactment of European Directive 2001/83 on the availability of allergens for therapy and diagnosis across the EU, the challenges of conducting Phase 3 studies in the field, the future role of allergen exposure chambers in AIT studies and specific considerations in performing AIT studies in the paediatric population. Finally, the group highlighted the forthcoming EAACI guidelines and their particular importance for the standardization of practice in the treatment of allergies. This review presents a comprehensive insight into those panel discussions and highlights unmet needs and also possible solutions to them for the future., (© 2018 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Allergic diseases are common and frequently coexist. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a disease-modifying treatment for IgE-mediated allergic disease with effects beyond cessation of AIT that may include important preventive effects. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) has developed a clinical practice guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations for AIT for the prevention of (i) development of allergic comorbidities in those with established allergic diseases, (ii) development of first allergic condition, and (iii) allergic sensitization. This guideline has been developed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) framework, which involved a multidisciplinary expert working group, a systematic review of the underpinning evidence, and external peer-review of draft recommendations. Our key recommendation is that a 3-year course of subcutaneous or sublingual AIT can be recommended for children and adolescents with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR) triggered by grass/birch pollen allergy to prevent asthma for up to 2 years post-AIT in addition to its sustained effect on AR symptoms and medication. Some trial data even suggest a preventive effect on asthma symptoms and medication more than 2 years post-AIT. We need more evidence concerning AIT for prevention in individuals with AR triggered by house dust mites or other allergens and for the prevention of allergic sensitization, the first allergic disease, or for the prevention of allergic comorbidities in those with other allergic conditions. Evidence for the preventive potential of AIT as disease-modifying treatment exists but there is an urgent need for more high-quality clinical trials., (© 2017 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Treatment with SQ (standardised quality) house dust mite sublingual tablet for 1 year resulted in a decreased probability of having an allergic rhinitis (AR) exacerbation day (from 11% [placebo] to 5% [SQ house dust mite sublingual tablet]) and an increased probability of having a mild AR day (from 16% [placebo] to 34% [SQ house dust mite sublingual tablet])., (© 2017 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Food allergens are frequent causes of anaphylaxis. In particular in children and adolescents they are the most frequent elicitors of severe allergic reactions, and in adults food allergens rank third behind insect venom and drugs. Since July 2006 severe allergic reactions from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland are collected in the anaphylaxis registry. Currently 78 hospitals and private practises are connected. From July 2006 until February 2009 1,156 severe allergic reactions were registered. Among children and adolescents (n = 187, age range from 3 months to 17 years) food allergens were the most frequent triggers, comprising 58% of cases. In the adult group (n = 968, 18 - 85 years) food allergens were in the third position (16.3%) behind insect venom and drugs. In children legumes (31%) and in particular peanuts were frequently responsible food allergens, followed by tree nuts (25%) with hazelnut being the most frequent elicitor. In adults fruits (13.4%) most often induced severe food-dependent anaphylaxis, but also animal products (12.2%); among these most frequently crustaceans and molluscs. Cofactors were often suspected in food-dependent anaphylaxis, namely in 39% of the adult group and in 14% of the pediatric group. In adults drugs (22%) and physical activity (10%) were reported to be the most frequent cofactors, in children physical activity was suspected in 8.7% and drugs in 2.6%. Concomitant diseases like atopic dermatitis, allergic asthma, or allergic rhinoconjunctivitis were reported in 78% of children and adolescents and in 67% of the adults. In conclusion, food-induced anaphylaxis, its cofactors and concomitant diseases are age-dependent. The data offers to identify risk factors of anaphylaxis.