Search

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has evolved over the past 3+ years, and strategies to prevent illness and treat infection have changed over time. As COVID-19 transitions from a pandemic to an endemic infection, widespread nonpharmaceutical interventions such as mask mandates and governmental policies requiring social distancing have given way to more selective strategies for risk mitigation. Monoclonal antibody therapies used for disease prevention and treatment lost utility owing to the emergence of resistant viral variants. Oral antiviral medications have become the mainstay of treatment in nonhospitalized individuals, whereas systemic corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of therapy in those requiring supplemental oxygen. Emerging literature also supports the use of additional immune-modulating therapies in select admitted patients. Importantly, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted both unprecedented research and development of medical interventions while also drawing attention to significant pitfalls in the global response. This review provides a comprehensive update in prevention and management of COVID-19., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history., (Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

An evidence-based approach is considered the gold standard for health decision-making. Sometimes, a guideline panel might judge the certainty that the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh its undesirable effects as high, but the body of supportive evidence is indirect. In such cases, the application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach for grading the strength of recommendations is inappropriate. Instead, the GRADE Working Group has recommended developing ungraded best or good practice statement (GPS) and developed guidance under which circumsances they would be appropriate.Through an evaluation of COVID-1- related recommendations on the eCOVID Recommendation Map (COVID-19.recmap.org), we found that recommendations qualifying a GPS were widespread. However, guideline developers failed to label them as GPS or transparently report justifications for their development. We identified ways to improve and facilitate the operationalisation and implementation of the GRADE guidance for GPS.Herein, we propose a structured process for the development of GPSs that includes applying a sequential order for the GRADE guidance for developing GPS. This operationalisation considers relevant evidence-to-decision criteria when assessing the net consequences of implementing the statement, and reporting information supporting judgments for each criterion. We also propose a standardised table to facilitate the identification of GPS and reporting of their development. This operationalised guidance, if endorsed by guideline developers, may palliate some of the shortcomings identified. Our proposal may also inform future updates of the GRADE guidance for GPS., Competing Interests: Competing interests: This work was supported by grants from Canadian Institutes of Health (FRN VR4-172741 and GA3-177732) and WHO during the conduct of the study. EA, HJS and PA-C report contribution to the development of the original five criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing good practice statements. The remaining authors have nothing else to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Anaphylaxis is an acute systemic and potentially fatal allergic reaction. We evaluated trends in yearly rates of anaphylaxis in a pediatric Emergency Department (ED) in Montreal, Canada., Methods: A prospective and retrospective recruitment process was used to find families of children who had presented with anaphylaxis at the Montreal Children's Hospital between April 2011 and April 2021. Using a uniform recruitment form, data were collected. Anaphylaxis patterns were compared to clinical triggers using descriptive analysis., Results: Among 830,382 ED visits during the study period, 2726 (26% recruited prospectively) presented with anaphylaxis. The median age was 6 years (IQR: 0.2, 12.00), and 58.7% were males. The relative frequency of anaphylaxis cases doubled between 2011-2015, from 0.22% (95% CI, 0.19, 0.26) to 0.42 March 2020, the total absolute number of anaphylaxis cases and relative frequency declined by 24 cases per month (p < 0.05) and by 0.5% of ED visits (p < 0.05)., Conclusions: The rate of anaphylaxis has changed over the years, representing modifications in food introduction strategies or lifestyle changes. The decrease in the frequency of anaphylaxis presenting to the ED during the COVID pandemic may reflect decreased accidental exposures with reduced social gatherings, closed school, and reluctance to present to ED.

For persons with immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, skin testing (ST) to the vaccine/excipients (polyethylene glycol[PEG] and polysorbate 80 [PS]) has been recommended, but has unknown accuracy. To assess vaccine/excipient ST accuracy in predicting all-severity immediate allergic reactions upon re-vaccination, systematic review was performed searching Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the WHO global coronavirus database (inception-Oct 4, 2021) for studies addressing immediate (≤4 h post-vaccination) all-severity allergic reactions to 2nd mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions. Cases evaluating delayed reactions, change of vaccine platform, or revaccination without vaccine/excipient ST were excluded. Meta-analysis of diagnostic testing accuracy was performed using Bayesian methods. The GRADE approach evaluated certainty of the evidence, and QUADAS-2 assessed risk of bias. Among 20 studies of mRNA COVID-19 first dose vaccine reactions, 317 individuals underwent 578 ST to any one or combination of vaccine, PEG, or PS, and were re-vaccinated with the same vaccine. Test sensitivity for either mRNA vaccine was 0.2 (95%CrI 0.01-0.52) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.9-1). PEG test sensitivity was 0.02 (95%CrI 0.00-0.07) and specificity 0.99 (95%CrI 0.96-1). PS test sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.0.11) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.91-1). Combined for use of any of the 3 testing agents, sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.08) and specificity was 0.98 (95%CrI 0.95-1.00). Certainty of evidence was moderate. ST has low sensitivity but high specificity in predicting all-severity repeat immediate allergic reactions to the same agent, among persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or excipient ST has limited risk assessment utility., (© 2022 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of awake prone positioning versus usual care in non-intubated adults with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to covid-19., Design: Systematic review with frequentist and bayesian meta-analyses., Study Eligibility: Randomized trials comparing awake prone positioning versus usual care in adults with covid-19 related hypoxemic respiratory failure. Information sources were Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 4 March 2022., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for the primary and secondary outcomes. Bayesian meta-analyses were performed for endotracheal intubation and mortality outcomes. GRADE certainty of evidence was assessed for outcomes., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes were mortality, ventilator-free days, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, escalation of oxygen modality, change in oxygenation and respiratory rate, and adverse events., Results: 17 trials (2931 patients) met the eligibility criteria. 12 trials were at low risk of bias, three had some concerns, and two were at high risk. Awake prone positioning reduced the risk of endotracheal intubation compared with usual care (crude average 24.2% v 29.8%, relative risk 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.94; high certainty). This translates to 55 fewer intubations per 1000 patients (95% confidence interval 87 to 19 fewer intubations). Awake prone positioning did not significantly affect secondary outcomes, including mortality (15.6% v 17.2%, relative risk 0.90, 0.76 to 1.07; high certainty), ventilator-free days (mean difference 0.97 days, 95% confidence interval -0.5 to 3.4; low certainty), ICU length of stay (-2.1 days, -4.5 to 0.4; low certainty), hospital length of stay (-0.09 days, -0.69 to 0.51; moderate certainty), and escalation of oxygen modality (21.4% v 23.0%, relative risk 1.04, 0.74 to 1.44; low certainty). Adverse events related to awake prone positioning were uncommon. Bayesian meta-analysis showed a high probability of benefit with awake prone positioning for endotracheal intubation (non-informative prior, mean relative risk 0.83, 95% credible interval 0.70 to 0.97; posterior probability for relative risk <0.95=96%) but lower probability for mortality (0.90, 0.73 to 1.13; <0.95=68%)., Conclusions: Awake prone positioning compared with usual care reduces the risk of endotracheal intubation in adults with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to covid-19 but probably has little to no effect on mortality or other outcomes., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022314856., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine Clinical Research Fund; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines., Design and Setting: Systematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic., Main Outcome Measures: We used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool., Results: 253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines' overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling., Conclusions: Statements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HJS, AS, VAW report grants from Canadian Instituites of Health during the conduct of the study—FRN VR4-172741 & GA3-177732. RAM reports grants from WHO, grants from ASH, grants from ACR, other from Boehringer ingelheim international, grants from NIDDK, outside the submitted work. EA, PA-C and HJS report contribution to the development of the original five criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing good practice statements. The remaining authors have nothing else to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To describe divergence between actionable statements issued by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) guideline developers cataloged on the "COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization" platform., Study Design and Setting: We defined divergence as at least two comparable actionable statements with different explicit judgments of strength, direction, or subgroup consideration of the population or intervention. We applied a content analysis to compare guideline development methods for a sample of diverging statements and to evaluate factors associated with divergence., Results: Of the 138 guidelines evaluated, 85 (62%) contained at least one statement that diverged from another guideline. We identified 223 diverging statements in these 85 guidelines. We grouped statements into 66 clusters. Each cluster addressed the same population, intervention, and comparator group or just similar interventions. Clinical practice statements were more likely to diverge in an explicit judgment of strength or direction compared to public health statements. Statements were more likely to diverge in strength than direction. The date of publication, used evidence, interpretation of evidence, and contextualization considerations were associated with divergence., Conclusion: More than half of the assessed guidelines issued at least one diverging statement. This study helps in understanding the types of differences between guidelines issuing comparable statements and factors associated with their divergence., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Importance: Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is a highly effective strategy to prevent infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes. The best strategy for a second dose of vaccine among persons who had an immediate allergic reaction to their first SARS CoV-2 vaccination is unclear., Objective: To assess the risk of severe immediate allergic reactions (eg, anaphylaxis) to a second dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine among persons with immediate allergic reactions to their first vaccine dose., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the World Health Organization Global Coronavirus database were searched from inception through October 4, 2021., Study Selection: Included studies addressed immediate allergic reactions of any severity to a second SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose in persons with a known or suspected immediate allergic reaction (<4 hours after vaccination) after their first SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose. Studies describing a second vaccine dose among persons reporting delayed reactions (>4 hours after vaccination) were excluded., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Paired reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects models were used for meta-analysis. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach evaluated certainty of the evidence., Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk of severe immediate allergic reaction and repeated severe immediate allergic reactions with a second vaccine dose. Reaction severity was defined by the reporting investigator, using Brighton Collaboration Criteria, Ring and Messmer criteria, World Allergy Organization criteria, or National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases criteria., Results: Among 22 studies of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines, 1366 individuals (87.8% women; mean age, 46.1 years) had immediate allergic reactions to their first vaccination. Analysis using the pooled random-effects model found that 6 patients developed severe immediate allergic reactions after their second vaccination (absolute risk, 0.16% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.94%]), 232 developed mild symptoms (13.65% [95% CI, 7.76%-22.9%]), and, conversely, 1360 tolerated the dose (99.84% [95% CI, 97.09%-99.99%]). Among 78 persons with severe immediate allergic reactions to their first SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination, 4 people (4.94% [95% CI, 0.93%-22.28%]) had a second severe immediate reaction, and 15 had nonsevere symptoms (9.54% [95% CI, 2.18%-33.34%]). There were no deaths. Graded vaccine dosing, skin testing, and premedication as risk-stratification strategies did not alter the findings. Certainty of evidence was moderate for those with any allergic reaction to the first dose and low for those with severe allergic reactions to the first dose., Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of case studies and case reports, the risk of immediate allergic reactions and severe immediate reactions or anaphylaxis associated with a second dose of an SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine was low among persons who experienced an immediate allergic reaction to their first dose. These findings suggest that revaccination of individuals with an immediate allergic reaction to a first SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine dose in a supervised setting equipped to manage severe allergic reactions can be safe.

Objective: To propose a taxonomy and framework that identifies and presents actionable statements in guidelines., Study Design and Setting: We took an iterative approach reviewing case studies of guidelines produced by the World Health Organization and the American Society of Hematology to develop an initial conceptual framework. We then tested it using randomly selected recommendations from published guidelines addressing COVID-19 from different organizations, evaluated its results, and refined it before retesting. The urgency and availability of evidence for development of these recommendations varied. We consulted with experts in research methodology and guideline developers to improve the final framework., Results: The resulting taxonomy and framework distinguishes five types of actional statements: formal recommendations; research recommendations; good practice statements; implementation considerations, tools and tips; and informal recommendations. These statements should respond to a priori established criteria and require a clear structure and recognizable presentation in a guideline. Most importantly, this framework identifies informal recommendations that differ from formal recommendations by how they consider evidence and in their development process., Conclusion: The identification, standardization and explicit labelling of actionable statements according to the framework may support guideline developers to create actionable statements with clear intent, avoid informal recommendations and improve their understanding and implementation by users., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Older adults, especially men and/or those with diabetes, hypertension, and/or obesity, are prone to severe COVID-19. In some countries, older adults, particularly those residing in nursing homes, have been prioritized to receive COVID-19 vaccines due to high risk of death. In very rare instances, the COVID-19 vaccines can induce anaphylaxis, and the management of anaphylaxis in older people should be considered carefully. An ARIA-EAACI-EuGMS (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma, European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and European Geriatric Medicine Society) Working Group has proposed some recommendations for older adults receiving the COVID-19 vaccines. Anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines is extremely rare (from 1 per 100,000 to 5 per million injections). Symptoms are similar in younger and older adults but they tend to be more severe in the older patients. Adrenaline is the mainstay treatment and should be readily available. A flowchart is proposed to manage anaphylaxis in the older patients., (© 2021 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Concerns for anaphylaxis may hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization efforts. We convened a multidisciplinary group of international experts in anaphylaxis composed of allergy, infectious disease, emergency medicine, and front-line clinicians to systematically develop recommendations regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immediate allergic reactions. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, the World Health Organizstion (WHO) global coronavirus database, and the gray literature (inception, March 19, 2021) were systematically searched. Paired reviewers independently selected studies addressing anaphylaxis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate allergy, and accuracy of allergy testing for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy. Random effects models synthesized the data to inform recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, agreed upon using a modified Delphi panel. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine anaphylaxis is 7.91 cases per million (n = 41,000,000 vaccinations; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.02-15.59; 26 studies, moderate certainty), the incidence of 0.15 cases per million patient-years (95% CI 0.11-0.2), and the sensitivity for PEG skin testing is poor, although specificity is high (15 studies, very low certainty). We recommend vaccination over either no vaccination or performing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient screening allergy testing for individuals without history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient, and a shared decision-making paradigm in consultation with an allergy specialist for individuals with a history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient. We recommend further research to clarify SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/vaccine excipient testing utility in individuals potentially allergic to SARS-CoV2 vaccines or their excipients., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although there are many asymptomatic patients, one of the problems of COVID-19 is early recognition of the disease. COVID-19 symptoms are polymorphic and may include upper respiratory symptoms. However, COVID-19 symptoms may be mistaken with the common cold or allergic rhinitis. An ARIA-EAACI study group attempted to differentiate upper respiratory symptoms between the three diseases., Methods: A modified Delphi process was used. The ARIA members who were seeing COVID-19 patients were asked to fill in a questionnaire on the upper airway symptoms of COVID-19, common cold and allergic rhinitis., Results: Among the 192 ARIA members who were invited to respond to the questionnaire, 89 responded and 87 questionnaires were analysed. The consensus was then reported. A two-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in the symptom intensity between the three diseases (p < .001)., Conclusions: This modified Delphi approach enabled the differentiation of upper respiratory symptoms between COVID-19, the common cold and allergic rhinitis. An electronic algorithm will be devised using the questionnaire., (© 2021 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings., Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047., Findings: Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; p interaction =0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12-16-layer cotton masks; p interaction =0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD -10·6%, 95% CI -12·5 to -7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings., Interpretation: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance., Funding: World Health Organization., (© 2020 World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.)

Network meta‐analyses (NMAs) simultaneously estimate the effects of multiple possible treatment options for a given clinical presentation. For allergists to benefit optimally from NMAs, they must understand the process and be able to interpret the results. Through a worked example published in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, we summarize how to identify credible NMAs and interpret them with a focus on recent innovations in the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). NMAs build on traditional systematic reviews and meta‐analyses that consider only direct paired comparisons by including indirect evidence, thus allowing the simultaneous assessment of the relative effect of all pairs of competing alternatives. Our framework informs clinicians of how to identify credible NMAs and address the certainty of the evidence. Trustworthy NMAs fill a critical gap in providing key inferences using direct and indirect evidence to inform clinical decision making when faced with more than two competing courses of treatment options. This document will help allergists to identify trustworthy NMAs to enhance patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although there are many asymptomatic patients, one of the problems of COVID‐19 is early recognition of the disease. COVID‐19 symptoms are polymorphic and may include upper respiratory symptoms. However, COVID‐19 symptoms may be mistaken with the common cold or allergic rhinitis. An ARIA‐EAACI study group attempted to differentiate upper respiratory symptoms between the three diseases. Methods: A modified Delphi process was used. The ARIA members who were seeing COVID‐19 patients were asked to fill in a questionnaire on the upper airway symptoms of COVID‐19, common cold and allergic rhinitis. Results: Among the 192 ARIA members who were invited to respond to the questionnaire, 89 responded and 87 questionnaires were analysed. The consensus was then reported. A two‐way ANOVA revealed significant differences in the symptom intensity between the three diseases (p <.001). Conclusions: This modified Delphi approach enabled the differentiation of upper respiratory symptoms between COVID‐19, the common cold and allergic rhinitis. An electronic algorithm will be devised using the questionnaire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]