Search

Introduction: In allergic asthma patients, one of the more common phenotypes might benefit from allergen immunotherapy (AIT) as add‐on intervention to pharmacological treatment. AIT is a treatment with disease‐modifying modalities, the evidence for efficacy is based on controlled clinical trials following standardized endpoint measures. However, so far there is a lack of a consensus for asthma endpoints in AIT trials. The aim of a task force (TF) of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is evaluating several outcome measures for AIT in allergic asthma. Methods: The following domains of outcome measures in asthmatic patients have been evaluated for this position paper (PP): (i) exacerbation rate, (ii) lung function, (iii) ICS withdrawal, (iv) symptoms and rescue medication use, (v) questionnaires (PROMS), (vi) bronchial/nasal provocation, (vii) allergen exposure chambers (AEC) and (viii) biomarkers. Results: Exacerbation rate can be used as a reliable objective primary outcome; however, there is limited evidence due to different definitions of exacerbation. The time after ICS withdrawal to first exacerbation is considered a primary outcome measure. Besides, the advantages and disadvantages and clinical implications of further domains of asthma endpoints in AIT trials are elaborated in this PP. Conclusion: This EAACI‐PP aims to highlight important aspects of current asthma measures by critically evaluating their applicability for controlled trials of AIT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vaccines are essential public health tools with a favorable safety profile and prophylactic effectiveness that have historically played significant roles in reducing infectious disease burden in populations, when the majority of individuals are vaccinated. The COVID‐19 vaccines are expected to have similar positive impacts on health across the globe. While serious allergic reactions to vaccines are rare, their underlying mechanisms and implications for clinical management should be considered to provide individuals with the safest care possible. In this review, we provide an overview of different types of allergic adverse reactions that can potentially occur after vaccination and individual vaccine components capable of causing the allergic adverse reactions. We present the incidence of allergic adverse reactions during clinical studies and through post‐authorization and post‐marketing surveillance and provide plausible causes of these reactions based on potential allergenic components present in several common vaccines. Additionally, we review implications for individual diagnosis and management and vaccine manufacturing overall. Finally, we suggest areas for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Therapeutic advances using targeted biologicals and small‐molecule drugs have achieved significant success in the treatment of chronic allergic, autoimmune, and inflammatory diseases particularly for some patients with severe, treatment‐resistant forms. This has been aided by improved identification of disease phenotypes. Despite these achievements, not all severe forms of chronic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases are successfully targeted, and current treatment options, besides allergen immunotherapy for selected allergic diseases, fail to change the disease course. T cell–based therapies aim to cure diseases through the selective induction of appropriate immune responses following the delivery of engineered, specific cytotoxic, or regulatory T cells (Tregs). Adoptive cell therapies (ACT) with genetically engineered T cells have revolutionized the oncology field, bringing curative treatment for leukemia and lymphoma, while therapies exploiting the suppressive functions of Tregs have been developed in nononcological settings, such as in transplantation and autoimmune diseases. ACT with Tregs are also being considered in nononcological settings such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, and chronic inflammatory disorders. After describing the general features of T cell–based approaches and current applications in autoimmune diseases, this position paper reviews the experimental models testing or supporting T cell–based approaches, especially Treg‐based approaches, in severe IgE‐mediated responses and chronic respiratory airway diseases, such as severe asthma and COPD. Along with an assessment of challenges and unmet needs facing the application of ACT in these settings, this article underscores the potential of ACT to offer curative options for patients with severe or treatment‐resistant forms of these immune‐driven disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In December 2019, China reported the first cases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). This disease, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), has developed into a pandemic. To date, it has resulted in ~9 million confirmed cases and caused almost 500 000 related deaths worldwide. Unequivocally, the COVID‐19 pandemic is the gravest health and socioeconomic crisis of our time. In this context, numerous questions have emerged in demand of basic scientific information and evidence‐based medical advice on SARS‐CoV‐2 and COVID‐19. Although the majority of the patients show a very mild, self‐limiting viral respiratory disease, many clinical manifestations in severe patients are unique to COVID‐19, such as severe lymphopenia and eosinopenia, extensive pneumonia, a "cytokine storm" leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome, endothelitis, thromboembolic complications, and multiorgan failure. The epidemiologic features of COVID‐19 are distinctive and have changed throughout the pandemic. Vaccine and drug development studies and clinical trials are rapidly growing at an unprecedented speed. However, basic and clinical research on COVID‐19–related topics should be based on more coordinated high‐quality studies. This paper answers pressing questions, formulated by young clinicians and scientists, on SARS‐CoV‐2, COVID‐19, and allergy, focusing on the following topics: virology, immunology, diagnosis, management of patients with allergic disease and asthma, treatment, clinical trials, drug discovery, vaccine development, and epidemiology. A total of 150 questions were answered by experts in the field providing a comprehensive and practical overview of COVID‐19 and allergic disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The specialties of allergy and clinical immunology have entered the era of precision medicine with the stratification of diseases into distinct disease subsets, specific diagnoses, and targeted treatment options, including biologicals and small molecules. This article reviews recent developments in research and patient care and future trends in the discipline. The section on basic mechanisms of allergic diseases summarizes the current status and defines research needs in structural biology, type 2 inflammation, immune tolerance, neuroimmune mechanisms, role of the microbiome and diet, environmental factors, and respiratory viral infections. In the section on diagnostic challenges, clinical trials, precision medicine and immune monitoring of allergic diseases, asthma, allergic and nonallergic rhinitis, and new approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of drug hypersensitivity reactions are discussed in further detail. In the third section, unmet needs and future research areas for the treatment of allergic diseases are highlighted with topics on food allergy, biologics, small molecules, and novel therapeutic concepts in allergen‐specific immunotherapy for airway disease. Unknowns and future research needs are discussed at the end of each subsection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Assessing patient's perspective provides useful information enabling a customized approach which has been advocated by current guidelines. In this multicentre cross-sectional study we evaluated personal viewpoints on allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) in patients treated with subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) immunotherapy. Methods: A survey of 28 questions assessing patient's knowledge, perceptions, expectations and satisfaction was developed by an expert panel and was applied by physicians from allergology centres in patients with respiratory allergy treated with SIT. Treating physicians independently reported their satisfaction level regarding SIT for each patient. Results: Fully completed surveys from 434 patients (55.3% male; 66.7% poly-sensitized, 74% SLIT) were analysed. Mean duration of SIT was 2.5 years with different allergens. Most patients acquired their SIT knowledge from their physician (95%) and consequently, their physicians' opinion in their choice to start with SIT was important. Most patients perceived SIT to be safe and easy to integrate into their daily routine. The main motivations for SIT were its supposed potential to alter the course of the disease (45.7%), less need of (28.2%), or dissatisfaction with current pharmacotherapy (19.3%). Both patients' and physicians' satisfaction was high (VAS-scores 74/100 and 78/100, respectively) and showed a significant correlation (SCIT: r = 0.612; SLIT: r = 0.608). No major difference was found in patients' answers based on the level of education. Conclusion: In this real life study evaluating different aspects of patient's perspective on SIT, the majority of patients had an adequate level of knowledge, perceptions, expectations and satisfaction about SIT, which corresponded well with the physician's perceptions and satisfaction. Our data warrant the use of patient's perspectives on chronic SIT treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]