Search

Clinical and experimental studies have shown that estradiol (E2) confers protection against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Here, we investigated the underlying mechanism. Better protection in E2-treated mice, immunized against genital HSV-2, coincided with earlier recruitment and higher proportions of Th1 and Th17 effector cells in the vagina post-challenge, compared to placebo-treated controls. Vaginal APCs isolated from E2-treated mice induced 10-fold higher Th17 and Th1 responses, compared to APCs from progesterone-treated, placebo-treated, and estradiol-receptor knockout mice in APC-T cell co-cultures. CD11c+ DCs in the vagina were the predominant APC population responsible for priming these Th17 responses, and a potent source of IL-6 and IL-1β, important factors for Th17 differentiation. Th17 responses were abrogated in APC-T cell co-cultures containing IL-1β KO, but not IL-6 KO vaginal DCs, showing that IL-1β is a critical factor for Th17 induction in the genital tract. E2 treatment in vivo directly induced high expression of IL-1β in vaginal DCs, and addition of IL-1β restored Th17 induction by IL-1β KO APCs in co-cultures. Finally, we examined the role of IL-17 in anti-HSV-2 memory T cell responses. IL-17 KO mice were more susceptible to intravaginal HSV-2 challenge, compared to WT controls, and vaginal DCs from these mice were defective at priming efficient Th1 responses in vitro, indicating that IL-17 is important for the generation of efficient anti-viral memory responses. We conclude that the genital mucosa has a unique microenvironment whereby E2 enhances CD4+ T cell anti-viral immunity by priming vaginal DCs to induce Th17 responses through an IL-1-dependent pathway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Eczema is the most burdensome skin condition worldwide and topical anti‐inflammatory treatments are commonly used to control symptoms. The relative effectiveness and safety of different topical anti‐inflammatory treatments is uncertain. Design: Network meta‐analysis performed within a Cochrane systematic review to compare and statistically rank efficacy and safety of topical anti‐inflammatory eczema treatments. Data Sources: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries to June 2023. Eligibility Criteria for Selected Trials: Included trials were within‐participant or between‐participant randomised controlled trials. Participants had eczema that was not clinically infected and was not contact dermatitis, seborrheic eczema or hand eczema. Interventions were topical anti‐inflammatory treatments but not complementary treatments, antibiotics alone, wet wraps, phototherapy or systemic treatments. Comparators were no treatment/vehicle or another topical anti‐inflammatory. Results: We identified 291 trials (45,846 participants), mainly in high‐income countries. Most were industry‐funded with median 3 weeks treatment duration. Risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool was high in 89% of trials, mainly due to risk of selective reporting. Network meta‐analysis of binary outcomes ranked potent and/or very potent topical steroids, tacrolimus 0.1% and ruxolitinib 1.5% among the most effective treatments for improving patient‐reported symptoms (40 trials, all low confidence) and clinician‐reported signs (32 trials, all moderate confidence). For investigator global assessment, the Janus kinas inhibitors ruxolitinib 1.5%, delgocitinib 0.5% or 0.25%, very potent/potent topical steroids and tacrolimus 0.1% were ranked as most effective (140 trials, all moderate confidence). Continuous outcome data were mixed. Local application site reactions were most common with tacrolimus 0.1% (moderate confidence) and crisaborole 2% (high confidence) and least common with topical steroids (moderate confidence). Skin thinning was not increased with short‐term use of any topical steroid potency (low confidence) but skin thinning was reported in 6/2044 (0.3%) participants treated with longer‐term (6–60 months) topical steroids. Conclusion: Potent topical steroids, Janus kinase inhibitors and tacrolimus 0.1% were consistently ranked as among the most effective topical anti‐inflammatory treatments for eczema. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Anaphylaxis is an acute life-threatening allergy, most commonly provoked by food, venom, or drugs. There is limited data regarding differences in symptomatology between anaphylaxis provoked by different triggers. This study aimed to assess sociodemographic characteristics, clinical symptoms, and management of anaphylaxis, according to triggers in adults. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study recruiting adult patients with anaphylactic reactions across 8 emergency departments (EDs) and 1 electronic medical service (EMS) in Canada. Univariate and multivariate regression models were used to evaluate symptoms involving all patients with the outcome of drug-induced anaphylaxis (DIA), venom-induced anaphylaxis (VIA), peanut-induced anaphylaxis (PIA), shellfish-induced anaphylaxis, tree-nut induced anaphylaxis (TIA) and nut-induced anaphylaxis (NIA). We assessed comorbidities associated with severe reactions, stratified by triggers listed above. Additionally, we evaluated the association of each trigger with treatment through regression models involving all patients with medications used as outcome and anaphylaxis triggers used as independent variables. Results: From April 2011 to November 2023, 1,135 adults presenting with anaphylaxis to EDs were recruited. The median age was 35.5 (interquartile range 25.3–51.1). Most of the patients presented with FIA (50.3%). Regarding symptomatology, hypotension was more likely associated with DIA (aOR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.11–1.30, p < 0.01). When adjusted for age at reaction and male sex, alcohol was more likely associated (aOR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.04–2.19, p = 0.035) with NIA. Regarding management, TIA was more likely associated with inpatient epinephrine (aOR = 2.05, 95% CI = 1.16–3.64, p = 0.014). DIA was less likely associated with outpatient antihistamine (aOR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.48–0.89, p < 0.01) whereas TIA was more likely associated with outpatient antihistamine (aOR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.03–3.19, p = 0.040). Conclusion: Our study underscores associations between specific triggers, clinical manifestations and managements, such as the potential link between TIA and throat tightness and hypotension and VIA. Identifying such associations can aid with the prompt diagnosis of anaphylaxis in patients presenting to the ED, leading to swifter treatment initiation and improving overall outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In contrast with Th1 immune responses against pathogenic viruses and bacteria, the incipient events that generate Th2 responses remain less understood. One difficulty in the identification of universal operating principles stems from the diversity of entities against which cellular and molecular Th2 responses are produced. Such responses are launched against harmful macroscopic parasites and noxious substances, such as venoms, but also against largely innocuous allergens. This suggests that the established understanding about sense and recognition applied to Th1 responses may not be translatable to Th2 responses. This review will discuss processes and signals known to occur in Th2 responses, particularly in the context of food allergy. We propose that perturbations of homeostasis at barrier sites induced by external or internal subverters, which can activate or lower the threshold activation of the immune system, are the major requirement for allergic sensitization. Innate signals produced in the tissue under these conditions equip dendritic cells with a program that forms an adaptive Th2 response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: IgE‐mediated food allergy (FA) is a global health concern with substantial individual and societal implications. While diverse intervention strategies have been researched, inconsistencies in reported outcomes limit evaluations of FA treatments. To streamline evaluations and promote consistent reporting, the Core Outcome Measures for Food Allergy (COMFA) initiative aimed to establish a Core Outcome Set (COS) for FA clinical trials and observational studies of interventions. Methods: The project involved a review of published clinical trials, trial protocols and qualitative literature. Outcomes found as a result of review were categorized and classified, informing a two‐round online‐modified Delphi process followed by hybrid consensus meeting to finalize the COS. Results: The literature review, taxonomy mapping and iterative discussions with diverse COMFA group yielded an initial list of 39 outcomes. The iterative online and in‐person meetings reduced the list to 13 outcomes for voting in the formal Delphi process. One more outcome was added based on participant suggestions after the first Delphi round. A total of 778 participants from 52 countries participated, with 442 participating in both Delphi rounds. No outcome met a priori criteria for inclusion, and one was excluded as a result of the Delphi. Thirteen outcomes were brought to the hybrid consensus meeting as a result of Delphi and two outcomes, 'allergic symptoms' and 'quality of life' achieved consensus for inclusion as 'core' outcomes. Conclusion: In addition to the mandatory reporting of adverse events for FA clinical trials or observational studies of interventions, allergic symptoms and quality of life should be measured as core outcomes. Future work by COMFA will define how best to measure these core outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Breastfeeding has long been associated with numerous benefits for both mothers and infants. While some observational studies have explored the relationship between breastfeeding and mental health outcomes in mothers and children, a systematic review of the available evidence is lacking. The purpose of this study is to systematically evaluate the association between breastfeeding and mental health disorders in mothers and children. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to June 2, 2023. The inclusion criteria consisted of all studies evaluating links between breastfeeding and development of mental health disorders in children and mothers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) while grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. A random-effects meta-analysis was used if possible, to estimate the odds ratio for the association between breastfeeding and mental health outcomes. The Mantel–Haenszel method was utilised for pooling ORs across studies. Study heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Results: Our review identified twenty-one original study. Of these, 18 focused on the association between breastfeeding and child health, assessing depressive disorders, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, eating disorders and borderline personality disorder. Three studies evaluated the associations between breastfeeding and maternal mental health disorders. Three studies looking at outcomes in children showed no significant association between breastfeeding and occurrence of schizophrenia later in life (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.57–1.71; I2 = 29%). For depressive disorders (5 studies) and anxiety disorders (3 studies), we found conflicting evidence with some studies showing a small protective effect while others found no effect. The GRADE certainty for all these findings was very low due to multiple limitations. Three studies looking at association between breastfeeding and maternal mental health, were too heterogeneous to draw any firm conclusions. Conclusions: We found limited evidence to support a protective association between breastfeeding and the development of mental health disorders in children later in life. The data regarding the association between breastfeeding and maternal mental health beyond the postnatal period is also limited. The methodological limitations of the published literature prevent definitive conclusions, and further research is needed to better understand the relationship between breastfeeding and mental health in mothers and children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key Points: Question: Is the use of gefapixant to treat refractory or unexplained chronic cough associated with greater benefits or harms compared with placebo? Findings: In this dose-response meta-analysis that included 9 randomized clinical trials and 2980 patients, compared with placebo, use of gefapixant (45 mg orally twice daily) reduced cough frequency by 17.6%, decreased cough severity by 6.2 mm on the 100-mm visual analog scale, and improved cough quality of life by 1 point on the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (score range, 3-21). Patients treated with gefapixant (45 mg orally twice daily) had, however, a 32% increase in taste-related adverse events compared with placebo. Meaning: Gefapixant may provide benefit to some patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough, but the magnitude is likely small and the risk of adverse events, particularly taste-related, remains substantial. Importance: Gefapixant represents an emerging therapy for patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gefapixant for the treatment of adults with refractory or unexplained chronic cough. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from November 2014 to July 2023. Study Selection: Two reviewers independently screened for parallel and crossover randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared, in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough, either gefapixant with placebo, or 2 or more doses of gefapixant with or without placebo. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data. A frequentist random-effects dose-response meta-analysis or pairwise meta-analysis was used for each outcome. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in whether patients would perceive the effects as important (greater than the minimal important difference [MID]) or small (less than the MID). Main Outcomes and Measures: Cough frequency (measured using the VitaloJAK cough monitor; MID, 20%), cough severity (measured using the 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]; higher score is worse; MID, 30 mm), cough-specific quality of life (measured using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire [LCQ]; score range, 3 [maximal impairment] to 21 [no impairment]; MID, 1.3 points), treatment-related adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, and taste-related adverse events. Results: Nine RCTs including 2980 patients were included in the primary analysis. Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg twice daily) had small effects on awake cough frequency (17.6% reduction [95% CI, 10.6%-24.0%], moderate certainty), cough severity on the 100-mm VAS (mean difference, −6.2 mm [95% CI, −4.1 to −8.4]; high certainty), and cough-specific quality of life on the LCQ (mean difference, 1.0 points [95% CI, 0.7-1.4]; moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg twice daily) probably caused an important increase in treatment-related adverse events (32 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 13-64 more], moderate certainty) and taste-related adverse events (32 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 22-46 more], high certainty). High-certainty evidence suggests that gefapixant (15 mg twice daily) had small effects on taste-related adverse events (6 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 5-8 more]). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg orally twice daily) led to modest improvements in cough frequency, cough severity, and cough-specific quality of life but increased taste-related adverse events. This systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and tolerability of gefapixant, a new P2X3 antagonist, for the treatment of adults with refractory or unexplained chronic cough. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: The optimal inhaled reliever therapy for asthma remains unclear., Objective: To compare short-acting β agonists (SABA) alone with SABA combined with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and with the fast-onset, long-acting β agonist formoterol combined with ICS for asthma., Data Sources: The MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 1, 2020, to September 27, 2024, without language restrictions., Study Selection: Pairs of reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials evaluating (1) SABA alone, (2) ICS with formoterol, and (3) ICS with SABA (combined or separate inhalers)., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses synthesized outcomes. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence., Main Outcomes and Measures: Asthma symptom control (5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire; range, 0-6, lower scores indicate better asthma control; minimum important difference [MID], 0.5 points), asthma-related quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; range, 1-7, higher scores indicate better quality of life; MID, 0.5 points), risk of severe exacerbations, and risk of serious adverse events., Results: A total of 27 randomized clinical trials (N = 50 496 adult and pediatric patients; mean age, 41.0 years; 20 288 male [40%]) were included. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with fewer severe exacerbations (ICS-formoterol risk ratio [RR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60-0.72]; risk difference [RD], -10.3% [95% CI, -11.8% to -8.3%]; ICS-SABA RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.73-0.95]; RD, -4.7% [95% CI, -8.0% to -1.5%]) with high certainty. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with improved asthma control (ICS-formoterol RR improvement [MID] in total score, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.04-1.10]; RD, 4.1% [95% CI, 2.3%-5.9%]; ICS-SABA RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03-1.15]; RD, 5.4% [95% CI, 1.8%-8.5%]) with high certainty. In an indirect comparison with ICS-SABA, ICS-formoterol was associated with fewer severe exacerbations (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]; RD, -5.5% [95% CI, -8.4% to -2.0%]) with moderate certainty. Compared with SABA alone, ICS-formoterol (RD, -0.6% [95% CI, -1.3% to 0%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (high certainty) and ICS-SABA (RD, 0% [95% CI, -1.1% to 1.2%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (moderate certainty)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this network meta-analysis of patients with asthma, ICS combined with formoterol and ICS combined with SABA were each associated with reduced asthma exacerbations and improved asthma control compared with SABA alone.

Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Background: Previous guidelines recommend prompt epinephrine administration, followed by observation in the emergency department (ED). The need for transfer in all cases of anaphylaxis has recently been challenged., Objective: To evaluate the need for additional ED treatment among children with anaphylaxis who received prehospital epinephrine., Methods: Between 2011 and 2023, data were collected on symptoms, triggers, comorbidities, and prehospital and in-hospital management from children (<18 years) with food-induced anaphylaxis who received at least 1 dose of prehospital epinephrine presenting at 7 pediatric EDs. Multivariable logistic regression assessed factors associated with the use of 2 or more prehospital epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs), epinephrine use in the ED, and hospital admission., Results: Of the 1127 children (mean 8.1 ± 5.3 years; 60.6% male sex) with food-induced anaphylaxis who used at least 1 EAI prehospital, the most common trigger was peanuts (25.3%). There were 209 (18.5%) children who received additional epinephrine in the ED, most of whom (88.0%) received 1 dose. A total of 30 (2.7%) patients were admitted to hospital. Among all patients, severe reactions (cardiovascular instability/cyanosis/loss of consciousness) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.22; 95% CI 1.12-1.33) and reactions to tree nuts (aOR 1.09; 95% CI 1.03-1.16) were associated with increased odds of in-hospital epinephrine use. Prehospital inhaled β-agonists (aOR 1.08; 95% CI 1.01-1.16) use and severe reactions (aOR 1.13; 95% CI 1.05-1.22) were associated with the use of 2 or more EAI prehospital., Conclusion: A minority of anaphylaxis cases that used prehospital EAIs required additional treatment, supporting that shared decision making about transfer to ED works for most patients., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Atopic dermatitis is a common chronic inflammatory skin disorder, with a complex pathogenesis. It is characterized by eczematous skin lesions, pruritus, and recurrent skin infections and has a negative impact on patients' and caregivers' quality of life. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force Atopic Dermatitis Guideline Panel recently released updated AD guidelines. This guideline focuses on addressing clinical questions using trustworthy guideline development standards, including mitigating the potential influence of financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A multidisciplinary panel used systematic reviews and meta-analyses to inform specific recommendations addressing optimal use of topical treatments, dilute bleach bath, dietary avoidance/elimination, allergen immunotherapy, and systemic treatments. The comprehensive recommendations, emphasizing the third principle of evidence-based medicine-that evidence alone is never enough, and that patient values and preferences must be carefully considered when determining optimal treatments for patients and populations-provide a framework to support clinicians in selecting an optimal treatment plan for each patient. This review provides an overview of the guideline and discusses how those recommendations relate to current practice., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The benefits and harms of adding antileukotrienes to H 1 antihistamines (AHs) for the management of urticaria (hives, itch, and/or angioedema) remain unclear., Objective: We sought to systematically synthesize the treatment outcomes of antileukotrienes in combination with AHs versus AHs alone for acute and chronic urticaria., Methods: As part of updating American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters urticaria guidelines, we searched Medline, Embase, Central, LILACS, WPRIM, IBECS, ICTRP, CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, US Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency databases from inception to December 18, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antileukotrienes and AHs versus AHs alone in patients with urticaria. Paired reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects models pooled effect estimates for urticaria activity, itch, wheal, sleep, quality of life, and harms. The GRADE approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. The study was registered at the Open Science Framework (osf.io/h2bfx/)., Results: Thirty-four RCTs enrolled 3324 children and adults. Compared to AHs alone, the combination of a leukotriene receptor antagonist with AHs probably modestly reduces urticaria activity (mean difference, -5.04; 95% confidence interval, -6.36 to -3.71; 7-day urticaria activity score) with moderate certainty. We made similar findings for itch and wheal severity as well as quality of life. Adverse events were probably not different between groups (moderate certainty); however, no RCT reported on neuropsychiatric adverse events., Conclusion: Among patients with urticaria, adding leukotriene receptor antagonists to AHs probably modestly improves urticaria activity with little to no increase in overall adverse events. The added risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events in this population with leukotriene receptor antagonists is small and uncertain., Competing Interests: Disclosure statement This work was commissioned and funded by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) and the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) through the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters to inform upcoming guidance on the management of CU. The task force contributed to defining the scope of the review but otherwise had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, or data interpretation. The funder received a copy of the report before submission. The review team had the ability, but not the obligation, to consider the funders’ feedback. Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: M. Ben-Shoshan reports consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron and Novartis. S. Waserman reports consulting fees from Medexus Pharmaceuticals and Miravo Healthcare. S. K. Mathur reports consulting fees from Novartis. E. T. Oliver reports consulting fees from Novartis and Sanofi/Regeneron. R. N. Asiniwasis reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Medexus Pharmaceuticals. S. Eftekhari is employed by the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, a nonprofit patient organization, which has received grants for patient education and unbranded initiatives from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Sanofi/Regeneron. T. Winders reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speaker bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merek, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron. J. Bernstein reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Sanofi/Regeneron, and Pfizer; and leadership role in the AAAAI and the US Hereditary Angioedema Association. The rest of the authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Topical corticosteroids are widely used as a treatment for itch and wheals (urticaria), but their benefits and harms are unclear., Objective: To systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of topical corticosteroids for the treatment of urticaria., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from database inception to March 23, 2024, for randomized trials comparing topical corticosteroids with placebo for patients with urticaria (either chronic spontaneous or inducible urticaria or acute urticaria elicited from skin/intradermal allergy testing). Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses addressed urticaria severity, itch severity (numeric rating scale; range 0-10; higher is worse), and adverse events. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023455182., Results: A total of 19 randomized controlled trials enrolled 379 participants with a median of mean age of 30.1 (range 21.1-44.0) years. Compared with placebo, topical corticosteroids may reduce wheal size (ratio of means 0.47, 95% CI 0.38-0.59; low certainty) and itch severity (mean difference -1.30, 95% CI -5.07 to 2.46; very low certainty). Topical corticosteroids result in little to no difference in overall adverse events (94 fewer patients per 1000, 95% credible intervals 172 fewer to 12 more; high certainty)., Conclusion: Compared with placebo, topical corticosteroids may result in a reduction of wheal size and little to no difference in overall adverse events. Topical corticosteroids may reduce itch severity, but the evidence is very uncertain. Future large, randomized trials addressing the use of topical corticosteroids would further support optimal urticaria management., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is the most complex and common food allergy in infants. Elimination of cow's milk from the diet and replacement with a specialized formula for infants with cow's milk allergy who cannot be breastfed is an established approach to minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions while avoiding nutritional deficiencies. Given the availability of multiple options, such as extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk-based formula (eHF-CM), aminoacid formula (AAF), hydrolyzed rice formula (HRF), and soy formula (SF), there is some uncertainty regarding which formula might represent the most suitable choice with respect to health outcomes. The addition of probiotics to a specialized formula has also been proposed as a potential approach to possibly increase the benefit. We systematically reviewed specialized formulas for infants with CMA to inform the updated World Allergy Organization (WAO) DRACMA guidelines., Objective: To systematically review and synthesize the available evidence about the use of specialized formulas for the management of individuals with CMA., Methods: We searched from inception PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the websites of selected allergy organizations, for randomized and non-randomized trials of any language investigating specialized formulas with or without probiotics. We included all studies irrespective of the language of the original publication. The last search was conducted in January 2024. We synthesized the identified evidence quantitatively or narratively as appropriate and summarized it in the evidence profiles. We conducted this review following the PRISMA, Cochrane methods, and the GRADE approach., Results: We identified 3558 records including 14 randomized trials and 7 observational studies. Very low certainty evidence suggested that in infants with IgE-mediated CMA, eHF-CM, compared with AAF, might have higher probability of outgrowing CMA (risk ratio (RR) 2.32; risk difference (RD) 25 more per 100), while showing potentially lower probability of severe vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.88; RD 23 fewer per 100, 95% CI 3 to 26) and developing food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.82; RD 34 fewer per 100, 95% CI 7 to 39). We also found, however, that eHF-CM might be inferior to AAF in supporting a physiological growth, with respect to both weight (-5.5% from baseline, 95%CI -9.5% to -1.5%) and length (-0.7 z-score change, 95%CI -1.15 to -0.25) (very low certainty). We found similar effects for eHF-CM, compared with AAF, also in non-IgE CMA. When compared with SF, eHF-CM might favor weight gain for IgE CMA infants (0.23 z-score change, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.45), and tolerance acquisition (RR 1.86, 95%CI 1.03 to 3.37; RD 27%, 95%CI 1%-74%) for non-IgE CMA (both at very low certainty of the evidence (CoE)). The comparison of eHF-CM vs. HRF, and HRF vs. SF, showed no difference in effect (very low certainty). For IgE CMA patients, low certainty evidence suggested that adding probiotics ( L. rhamnosus GG, L. casei CRL431 and B. lactis Bb-12) might increase the probability of developing CMA tolerance (RR 2.47, 95%CI 1.03 to 5.93; RD 27%, 95%CI 1%-91%), and reduce the risk of severe wheezing (RR 0.12, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.95; RD -23%, 95%CI -8% to -0.4%). However, in non-IgE CMA infants, the addition of probiotics ( L. rhamnosus GG) showed no significant effect, as supported by low to very low CoE., Conclusions: Currently available studies comparing eHF-CM, AAF, HRF, and SF provide very low certainty evidence about their effects in infants with IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated CMA. Our review revealed several limitations in the current body of evidence, primarily arising from concerns related to the quality of studies, the limited size of the participant populations and most importantly the lack of diversity and standardization in the compared interventions. It is therefore imperative for future studies to be methodologically rigorous and investigate a broader spectrum of available interventions. We encourage clinicians and researchers to review current World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines for suggestions on how to use milk replacement formulas in clinical practice and what additional research would be the most beneficial., Competing Interests: HJS and JLB, on behalf of McMaster University, received a research grant from the World Allergy Organization to conduct this review that was deposited into the university research account. RS participated as a clinical investigator, and/or advisory board member, and/or consultant, and/or speaker for Abbott, Else, and Nestlé. HS serves as a board member of the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP), an unpaid and voluntary role. They have participated as a clinical investigator, advisory board member, consultant, and speaker for several companies, including Arla, BioGaia, Biocodex, Danone, Dicofarm, Nestlé, NNI, Nutricia, Mead Johnson, and Novalac. YV has participated as a clinical investigator, and/or advisory board member, and/or consultant, and/or speaker for Abbott Nutrition, Alba Health, Arla, Ausnutria, Biogaia, By Heart, CHR Hansen, Danone, ELSE Nutrition, Friesland Campina, Nestle Health Science, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Nutricia, Mead Johnson Nutrition, Pileje, Sanulac, United Pharmaceuticals (Novalac), Yakult, Wyeth. SW is the president of the Canadian Allergy Asthma and Immunology Foundation, and participated as a clinical investigator, and/or advisory board member, and/or consultant, and/or speaker for Pfizer, Kaleo, Bausch Health, GSK, AZ, Sanofi, CSL Behring, Leo, AbbVie, Takeda, Medexus Pharma, MiravoHealth, BioCryst, ALK, Novartis. They also covered the positions of: BOD Asthma Canada, CHAEN. MS works for Allergy & Anaphylaxis Australis, which receives unrestricted educational grants from infant formula companies. AW works for Allergy UK works with corporate partners including those providing foods for special medical purposes, such as Nutricia/Danone, Abbott, Reckitt Benckiser/Mead Johnson. They have been a speakers for 2 Nutricia symposia, with honoraria being paid to the charity. All other authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Background: Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha subunit, thus blocking the effects of IL-4 and IL-13, and has shown efficacy in treating various conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and others. Because of its immune modulatory effects, clinical trials that studied dupilumab did not allow patients to receive live vaccines during the clinical trials because of an abundance of caution, and thus package inserts recommend that patients who are being treated with dupilumab should avoid live vaccines. Because dupilumab is now approved for use in patients from 6 months of age for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, this reported contraindication is now posing a clinical dilemma for patients and clinicians., Objective: To perform a systematic review of literature on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in patients who are receiving dupilumab and to provide expert guidance on the use of vaccines in patients who are receiving dupilumab., Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed, and an expert Delphi Panel was assembled., Results: The available literature on patients who received vaccinations while using dupilumab overall suggests that live vaccines are safe and that the vaccine efficacy, in general, is not affected by dupilumab. The expert Delphi panel agreed that the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab was likely safe and effective., Conclusion: Vaccines (including live vaccines) can be administered to patients receiving dupilumab in a shared decision-making capacity., Competing Interests: Disclosures J.A.L. served as consultant for ARS, Aquestive, Bryn, ALK, and Novartis and Co-Chair Joint Task Force for Practice Parameters; received research money to institution from DBV and adjudication for Abvie and Siolta. T.E.D. the project described was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), under Award Number 2UL1TR001425 - 05A1; the content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. E.M.A. is and employee of Public Health Agency of Canada, but the views in any paper are her own and not those of Public Health Agency of Canada. Board member of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and Head of Allergy Section, Canadian Pediatric Society. A.A. received institutional funding (Novartis) and consultation/speaker fees (ALK, EPG Health, MJH, Adelphi, Genentech, FARE, and Medscape) and served as advisory board member (Ready, Set, Food; Novartis; and Genentech). K.G.B. received grants from NIH (R01AI150295), AHRQ (R01HS029319), and Thermo Fisher Scientific and royalties from UpToDate and is consulting for Denali Therapeutics. M.B. serves as investigator and advisory board member for Regeneron and Sanofi. N.M.C. serves as clinical investigator; received research support from AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Kenota Health; serves as advisor, consultant, and/or speaker for Amgen, ARS Pharma, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Bryn Pharma LLC, Freed AI, Genentech, GSK, Hikma, Incyte, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi. D.B.K.G. is a consultant for Novartis, Aquestive, CellDex, and Kokua; received clinical trials support from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, GSK, Merck, Regeneron, Allergy Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, and AstraZeneca and royalties from UpToDate. N.L.H. is a speaker for Adma Bio and Takeda; speaker and advisor for Pharming, Horizon/Amgen, Horizon; advisory board member and speaker for Pharmaceuticals/Amgen. M.G.L. received research money to institution from Regeneron. S.S.M. is speaker for Genentech, Regeneron/Sanofi, GSK, and AstraZeneca and received grant from Takeda. J.J.O. consultant/advisor: GSK, Aquestive, Amgen, and ARS; adjudication/DSMB: AZ, Novartis, GSK, Sanofi, and AbbVie; reviewer/editor and executive editor: Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; reviewer: UpToDate; executive editor: Medscape; research/grants: NIH. A.R. speakers bureau member for Sanofi/Regeneron, GSK, and AstraZeneca. N.L.R. received funding from the Jeffrey Modell Foundation (58293-I), the NIH (R21AI164100), and Takeda Pharmaceuticals; is consultant for Takeda, Pharming Healthcare, and CSL Behring; received royalties from Wolters Kluwer and UpToDate. L.S. is clinical investigator for Regeneron and DBV Technologies and advisor for Sanofi and Leo pharmaceuticals. M.S.S. is member and co-chair of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters; serves on the editorial board of The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice; is an associate editor of Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology; serves on the board of directors of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (views expressed are his own); has participated in research that has received funding from DBV. J.M.S. received grant support from and is consultant for Regeneron/Sanofi. C.A.S. recipient of a AAAAI Foundation Faculty Development Award. The views expressed in this work are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the AAAAI. D.R.S. is consultant to ARS. J.W. received research support from NIAID, Aimmune, DBV Technologies, and Siolta and consultancy fees from ALK Abello, DBV Technologies, and Novartis. M.J.G. is consultant for Aquestive; is a member of physician/medical advisory boards for DBV Technologies, Sanofi/Regeneron, Nutricia, Novartis, Acquestive, Allergy Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, ALK-Abello, Bryn, Genentech, and Prota; is an unpaid member of the scientific advisory council for the National Peanut Board and medical advisory board of the International Food Protein Induced Enterocolitis Syndrome Association; is a member of the Brighton Collaboration Criteria Vaccine Anaphylaxis 2.0 working group; is the senior associate editor for the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology; is member of the Joint Taskforce on Allergy Practice Parameters; received honorarium for lectures from ImSci, Red Nucleus, Medscape, Paradigm Medical Communications, Kaplan, Food Allergy Research and Education, and multiple state/local allergy societies. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Eczema (atopic dermatitis) is the most burdensome skin condition worldwide and cannot currently be prevented or cured. Topical anti-inflammatory treatments are used to control eczema symptoms, but there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and safety of different topical anti-inflammatory treatments., Objectives: To compare and rank the efficacy and safety of topical anti-inflammatory treatments for people with eczema using a network meta-analysis., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries on 29 June 2023, and checked the reference lists of included studies., Selection Criteria: We included within-participant or between-participant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people of any age with eczema of any severity, but excluded trials in clinically infected eczema, seborrhoeic eczema, contact eczema, or hand eczema. We included topical anti-inflammatory treatments used for at least one week, compared with another anti-inflammatory treatment, no treatment, or vehicle/placebo. Vehicle is a 'carrier system' for an active pharmaceutical substance, which may also be used on its own as an emollient for dry skin. We excluded trials of topical antibiotics used alone, complementary therapies, emollients used alone, phototherapy, wet wraps, and systemic treatments., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were patient-reported eczema symptoms, clinician-reported eczema signs and investigator global assessment. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, long-term control of eczema, withdrawal from treatment/study, and local adverse effects (application-site reactions, pigmentation changes and skin thinning/atrophy were identified as important concerns through patient and public involvement). We used CINeMA to quantify our confidence in the evidence for each outcome., Main Results: We included 291 studies involving 45,846 participants with the full spectrum of eczema severity, mainly conducted in high-income countries in secondary care settings. Most studies included adults, with only 31 studies limited to children aged < 12 years. Studies usually included male and female participants, multiple ethnic groups but predominantly white populations. Most studies were industry-funded (68%) or did not report their funding sources/details. Treatment duration and trial participation were a median of 21 and 28 days (ranging from 7 days to 5 years), respectively. Interventions used were topical corticosteroids (TCS) (172), topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) (134), phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitors (55), janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (30), aryl hydrocarbon receptor activators (10), or other topical agents (21). Comparators included vehicle (170) or other anti-inflammatory treatments. The risk of bias was high in 242 of the 272 (89.0%) trials contributing to data analyses, most commonly due to concerns about selective reporting. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was only possible for short-term outcomes. Patient-reported symptoms NMA of 40 trials (6482 participants) reporting patient-reported symptoms as a binary outcome ranked tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 6.27, 95% CI 1.19 to 32.98), potent TCS (OR 5.99, 95% CI 2.83 to 12.69), and ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 5.64, 95% CI 1.26 to 25.25) as the most effective, all with low confidence. Mild TCS, roflumilast 0.15%, and crisaborole 2% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and was more effective than mild TCI and PDE-4 inhibitors. NMA of 29 trials (3839 participants) reporting patient-reported symptoms as a continuous outcome ranked very potent TCS (SMD -1.99, 95% CI -3.25 to -0.73; low confidence) and tacrolimus 0.03% (SMD -1.57, 95% CI -2.42 to -0.72; moderate confidence) the highest. Direct information for tacrolimus 0.03% was based on one trial of 60 participants at high risk of bias. Roflumilast 0.15%, delgocitinib 0.25% or 0.5%, and tapinarof 1% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors and mild/moderate TCS was less effective than mild TCI. A further 50 trials (9636 participants) reported patient-reported symptoms as a continuous outcome but could not be included in NMA. Clinician-reported signs NMA of 32 trials (4121 participants) reported clinician signs as a binary outcome and ranked potent TCS (OR 8.15, 95% CI 4.99, 13.57), tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 8.06, 95% CI 3.30, 19.67), ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 7.72, 95% CI 4.92, 12.10), and delgocitinib 0.5% (OR 7.61, 95% CI 3.72, 15.58) as most effective, all with moderate confidence. Mild TCS, roflumilast 0.15%, crisaborole 2%, and tapinarof 1% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS more effective than potent TCI, mild TCI, JAK inhibitors, PDE-4 inhibitors; and mild TCS and PDE-4 inhibitors had similar effectiveness. NMA of 49 trials (5261 participants) reported clinician signs as a continuous outcome and ranked tacrolimus 0.03% (SMD -2.69, 95% CI -3.36, -2.02) and very potent TCS (SMD -1.87, 95% CI -2.69, -1.05) as most effective, both with moderate confidence; roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 0.3% and tapinarof 1% were ranked as least effective. Direct information for tacrolimus 0.03% was based on one trial in 60 participants with a high risk of bias. For some sensitivity analyses, potent TCS, tacrolimus 0.1%, ruxolitinib 1.5%, delgocitinib 0.5% and delgocitinib 0.25% became some of the most effective treatments. Class-level analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors, and moderate/mild TCS was more effective than mild TCI. A further 100 trials (22,814 participants) reported clinician signs as a continuous outcome but could not be included in NMA. Investigator Global Assessment NMA of 140 trials (23,383 participants) reported IGA as a binary outcome and ranked ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 9.34, 95% CI 4.8, 18.18), delgocitinib 0.5% (OR 10.08, 95% CI 2.65, 38.37), delgocitinib 0.25% (OR 6.87, 95% CI 1.79, 26.33), very potent TCS (OR 8.34, 95% CI 4.73, 14.67), potent TCS (OR 5.00, 95% CI 3.80, 6.58), and tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 5.06, 95% CI 3.59, 7.13) as most effective, all with moderate confidence. Mild TCS, crisaborole 2%, pimecrolimus 1%, roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 0.3% and 1%, and tacrolimus 0.03% were the least effective. In a sensitivity analysis of low risk of bias information (12 trials, 1639 participants), potent TCS, delgocitinib 0.5% and delgocitinib 0.25% were most effective, and pimecrolimus 1%, roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 1% and difamilast 0.3% least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors and were more effective than PDE-4 inhibitors; mild/moderate TCS were less effective than potent TCI and had similar effectiveness to mild TCI. Longer-term outcomes over 6 to 12 months showed a possible increase in effectiveness for pimecrolimus 1% versus vehicle (4 trials, 2218 participants) in a pairwise meta-analysis, and greater treatment success with mild/moderate TCS than pimecrolimus 1% (based on 1 trial of 2045 participants). Local adverse effects NMA of 83 trials (18,992 participants, 2424 events) reporting application-site reactions ranked tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.53, 3.17; moderate confidence), crisaborole 2% (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.18, 3.81; high confidence), tacrolimus 0.03% (OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.10, 2.09; low confidence), and pimecrolimus 1% (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.01, 2.04; low confidence) as most likely to cause site reactions. Very potent, potent, moderate, and mild TCS were least likely to cause site reactions. NMA of eight trials (1786 participants, 3 events) reporting pigmentation changes found no evidence for increased pigmentation changes with TCS and crisaborole 2%, with low confidence for mild, moderate or potent TCS and moderate confidence for crisaborole 2%. NMA of 25 trials (3691 participants, 36 events) reporting skin thinning found no evidence for increased skin thinning with short-term (median 3 weeks, range 1-16 weeks) use of mild TCS (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.12, 4.31), moderate TCS (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.16, 5.33), potent TCS (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.21, 4.43) or very potent TCS (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.31, 2.49), all with low confidence. Longer-term outcomes over 6 to 60 months showed increased skin thinning with mild to potent TCS versus TCI (3 trials, 4069 participants, 6 events with TCS)., Authors' Conclusions: Potent TCS, JAK inhibitors and tacrolimus 0.1% were consistently ranked as amongst the most effective topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema and PDE-4 inhibitors as amongst the least effective. Mild TCS and tapinarof 1% were ranked amongst the least effective treatments in three of five efficacy networks. TCI and crisaborole 2% were ranked most likely to cause local application-site reactions and TCS least likely. We found no evidence for increased skin thinning with short-term TCS but an increase with longer-term TCS., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Atopic dermatitis (AD) or eczema is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by dry, itchy, and inflamed skin. We review emerging concepts and clinical evidence addressing the pathogenesis and prevention of AD. We examine several interventions ranging from skin barrier enhancement strategies to probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics; and conversely, from antimicrobial exposure to vitamin D and omega fatty acid supplementation; breastfeeding and hydrolyzed formula; and house dust mite avoidance and immunotherapy. We appraise the available evidence base within the context of the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We also contextualize our findings in relation to concepts relating AD and individual-patient allergic life trajectories versus a linear concept of the atopic march and provide insights into future knowledge gaps and clinical trial design considerations that must be addressed in forthcoming research. Finally, we provide implementation considerations to detect population-level differences in AD risk. Major international efforts are required to provide definitive evidence regarding what works and what does not for preventing AD., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is the most common food allergy in infants. The replacement with specialized formulas is an established clinical approach to ensure adequate growth and minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions when breastfeeding is not possible. Still, given the availability of multiple options, such as extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk protein formula (eHF-CM), amino acid formula (AAF), hydrolyzed rice formula (HRF) and soy formulas (SF), there is some uncertainty as to the most suitable choice with respect to health outcomes. Furthermore, the addition of probiotics to a formula has been proposed as a potential approach to maximize benefit., Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the World Allergy Organization (WAO) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about the use of milk specialized formulas, with and without probiotics, for individuals with CMA., Methods: WAO formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of all stakeholders and to minimize potential biases from competing interests. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to review by stakeholders., Results: After reviewing the summarized evidence and thoroughly discussing the different management options, the WAO guideline panel suggests: a) using an extensively hydrolyzed (cow's milk) formula or a hydrolyzed rice formula as the first option for managing infants with immunoglobulin E (IgE) and non-IgE-mediated CMA who are not being breastfed. An amino-acid formula or a soy formula could be regarded as second and third options respectively; b) using either a formula without a probiotic or a casein-based extensively hydrolyzed formula containing Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) for infants with either IgE or non-IgE-mediated CMA.The issued recommendations are labeled as "conditional" following the GRADE approach due to the very low certainty about the health effects based on the available evidence., Conclusions: If breastfeeding is not available, clinicians, patients, and their family members might want to discuss all the potential desirable and undesirable consequences of each formula in infants with CMA, integrating them with the patients' and caregivers' values and preferences, local availability, and cost, before deciding on a treatment option. We also suggest what research is needed to determine with greater certainty which formulas are likely to be the most beneficial, cost-effective, and equitable., Competing Interests: The conduction of these guidelines was funded by WAO and the McMaster University GRADE Centre. Direct funding by for-profit companies was not accepted. The guideline panel members received travel reimbursement for attendance at in-person meetings but received no other payments. The funding was also used as salary support for the information scientist running the original searches, and for research assistants and students conducting the systematic reviews. Some members of the method team who contributed to the systematic review conduction participated without remuneration to fulfill requirements of an academic degree or program. COIs of all participants were managed according to WAO policies based on guidance by the National Academy of Medicine2 and GIN3. Before commencing the project, all the participants were asked to disclose any financial and nonfinancial interests relevant to the guidelines by completing the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of interest forms. An independent and anonymous WAO committee revised the disclosed interests looking for COIs. The revision committee reviewed the forms and deliberated on including panel members aiming to achieve a diversity of expertise and perspectives, while minimizing the inclusion of panel members with the same or similar conflicts. Specifically, the committee placed a high value on addressing conflicts from direct financial interests from for-profit companies related to the guidelines' field. Throughout the guidelines’ development, the members of the panel and method team were asked to update the interest disclosure forms, which were again revised by the WAO committee. At the time of appointment, most of the guideline panel, including one of the guideline panel co-chair (HJS), had no conflicts of interest. The other co-chair (AF) was aware of economic support by for-profit entities provided to WAO in the form of educational grants; therefore, he abstained from voting on all recommendations in the DRACMA guidelines. The method team members deemed to have a real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest related to the topic of a systematic review were excluded from partaking in that review. Likewise, guideline panel members with manageable real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest abstained from voting on recommendations related to that interest, while being still able to provide intellectual input and clinical expertise. The Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) tables for each recommendation list individuals who were excused from voting. One proposed panel member was found with disqualifying competing interests and was excluded from the DRACMA project entirely.S Arasi, S Bahna, A Bognanni, J Brozek, D Chu, L Dahdah, P Dziechciarz, E Galli, R Kamenwa, H Li, A Martelli, R Pawankar, H Schunemann, R Targino, L Terracciano, and A Warner have no conflicts to disclose. Relationships reported related to the submitted work: IJ Anstotegui – Abbott, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bial, Faes Farma, Hikma, Menarini, Merck, Mundipharma, Roxall, Sanofi, Stallergenes, UCB. A Assa'ad – Aimmune Therapeutics, DBV Technologies, Astella, ABBVIE, Novartis, Sanofi, FARE, NIH and an intellectual property patent licensed to Hoth. R Berni Canani – Ch.Hansen, Danone, DVB, Humana, iHealth, Kraft Heinz, Mead Johnson, Nestlè, Novalac, Nutricia, Sanofi. M Bozzola – Danone. C Dupont – Nestle Health Science, Nestle France, Nutricia, Novalac, Sodilac, Abbott, Danone, and stock ownership at DBV Technologies. M Ebisawa – DBV Technologies, Mylan, ARS Pharmaceuticals, Novartis. A Fiocchi – Abbott, Danone. G Lack – FARE, National Peanut Board (NPB), The Davis Foundation, Action Medical Research, UK Food Standards Agency, Medical Research Council, DBV Technologies, Mission Mighty Me, Novartis, Sanofi-Genyzme, Regeneron, ALK-Abello, Lurie Children's Hospital. A Nowak-Wegrzyn – Nestle, Nutricia, Novartis, Gerber, Aimmune. N Papadopoulos – Novartis, Nutricia, HAL Allergy, Menarini/Faes Farma, Sanofi, Mylan/Meda, Biomay, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, ASIT Biotech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gerolymatos International SA, Capricare. M Said – Nestle, Nutricia, Abbott, Bayer for Anaphylaxis Australia. R Shamir - Abbott, Else, Nestle. J Spergel – DBV Technologies, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Aimmune. H Szajewska – Ausnutria, Cargill, Danone, Else Nutrition, Hipp, Nestle, and Nestle Nutrition Institute. Y Vandenplas – Abbott Nutrition, Biogaia, Biocodex, By Heart, CHR Hansen, Danone, ELSE Nutrition, Friesland Campina, Hero, Hypocrata, Nestle Health Science, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Nutricia, Mead Johnson Nutrition, Orafti, Phacobel, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Sari Husada, United Pharmaceuticals (Novalac), Wyeth, Yakult. C Venter – Reckitt Benckiser, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Danone, Abbott Nutrition, Else Nutrition, and Before Brands, DBV Technologies. A Warner - Nutricia/Danone, Abbott, Reckitt Benckiser/Mead Johnson, Nutricia/Danone for Allergy UK. S Waserman – Novartis-basic science work on peanut allergy, Aimmune-peanut OIT trial, Medical Advisor to Food Allergy Canada, and Pfizer, Bausch, Kaleoconsultant for epinephrine autoinjectors. GWK Wong – Nestle, Danone., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Background: Guidance addressing atopic dermatitis (AD) management, last issued in 2012 by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force, requires updating as a result of new treatments and improved guideline and evidence synthesis methodology., Objective: To produce evidence-based guidelines that support patients, clinicians, and other decision-makers in the optimal treatment of AD., Methods: A multidisciplinary guideline panel consisting of patients and caregivers, AD experts (dermatology and allergy/immunology), primary care practitioners (family medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine), and allied health professionals (psychology, pharmacy, nursing) convened, prioritized equity, diversity, and inclusiveness, and implemented management strategies to minimize influence of conflicts of interest. The Evidence in Allergy Group supported guideline development by performing systematic evidence reviews, facilitating guideline processes, and holding focus groups with patient and family partners. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. Evidence-to-decision frameworks, subjected to public comment, translated evidence to recommendations using trustworthy guideline principles., Results: The panel agreed on 25 recommendations to gain and maintain control of AD for patients with mild, moderate, and severe AD. The eAppendix provides practical information and implementation considerations in 1-2 page patient-friendly handouts., Conclusion: These evidence-based recommendations address optimal use of (1) topical treatments (barrier moisturization devices, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, PDE4 inhibitors [crisaborole], topical JAK inhibitors, occlusive [wet wrap] therapy, adjunctive antimicrobials, application frequency, maintenance therapy), (2) dilute bleach baths, (3) dietary avoidance/elimination, (4) allergen immunotherapy, and (5) systemic treatments (biologics/monoclonal antibodies, small molecule immunosuppressants [cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, JAK inhibitors], and systemic corticosteroids) and UV phototherapy (light therapy)., Competing Interests: Disclosures Detailed in the Methods and eAppendix, the Guidelines followed JTFPP policies and international standards for addressing potential conflicts of interest. All JTFPP members’ COI are available publicly at https://www.allergyparameters.org., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Disparities in environmental and social determinants of health (DOH) are associated with morbidity in atopic dermatitis (AD). The socioecological model (SEM) is a framework that can be applied to better understand how such DOH impacts patients with AD. We include a case scenario of a remote Indigenous patient reflective of real-world situations of living with AD and examine relevant impact, gaps in knowledge, and further research needs. This review highlights a variety of social and environmental exposures as important DOH which must be addressed to achieve optimal management in AD. The "rainbow model" is a modified framework to help illustrate how complex environmental and social forces impact both AD presentation and therapeutic success. However, practical applications and outcome metrics for health promotion are limited. An inter- and transdisciplinary approach is paramount to address the complex challenges associated with AD care, as well as multistakeholder approach integrating culturally-competent equitable health frameworks. This review underscores the importance of expanding the focus of AD management beyond basic science and clinical trials to recognize and address health disparities and to promote optimal health and well-being in patients with AD, and contributes a working approach to mapping the complex interventions and patient-oriented research needed using a focus on remote North American Indigenous patients affected by AD., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary., Competing Interests: Disclosures The JTFPP members and workgroup members’ conflict of interest disclosure forms can be found at www.allergyparameters.org. Dr Golden: clinical trial support from Genentech, ThermoFisher, Novartis, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Regeneron; consulting fees from Aquestive, Novartis, ThermoFisher, ALK-Abello, Allergy Therapeutics; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr Wang: clinical trials support (money to institution) from NIH, Aimmune, DBV Technologies, Regeneron, and Siolta; consulting fees from ALK-Abello, Jubilant HollisterStier; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr Waserman: consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, CSL Behring, Pfizer Canada, Sanofi Canada, AstraZeneca, Takeda, ALK-Abello, Teva, Medexus, MiravoHealth, Mylan, Bausch Lomb, AbbVie, Avir Pharma, and Leo Pharma; research funding from Pfizer Canada, ALK-Abello, Aimmune; and president of Canadian Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Foundation. Dr Akin: consulting fees from Blueprint Medicine, Cogent, and Novartis; research support from Blueprint Medicines and Cogent; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr Campbell: consulting fees from Bryn and royalties from UpToDate. Dr Ellis: advisory boards for ALK-Abello, AstraZeneca, Aralez, Bausch Health, Leo Pharma, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer; speakers’ bureaus for ALK-Abello, AstraZeneca, Miravo, Medexus, and Mylan; research support (paid to institution) from ALK-Abello, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer LLC, Medexus, Novartis, and Regeneron; independent consultant to Bayer LLC and Regeneron; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr Greenhawt: consultant for Aquestive; advisory boards for DBV Technologies, Sanofi/Regeneron, Nutricia, Novartis, Aquestive, Allergy Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, ALK-Abello, and Prota; scientific advisory council (unpaid) for the National Peanut Board and medical advisory board (unpaid) of the International Food Protein Induced Enterocolitis Syndrome Association; Working Group Member of the Brighton Collaboration Criteria Vaccine Anaphylaxis; senior associate editor for Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; member of the Joint Task Force on Allergy Practice Parameters; and speaker honoraria from ImSci, MedLearningGroup, RMEI Medical Education and multiple state/local allergy societies. Dr Lang: honoraria, consultant, and/or clinical research support from AstraZeneca, Genentech, Novartis, and Sanofi-Regeneron; Guest Associate Editor of JACI:In Practice; and editorial board of DynaMed. Dr Ledford: contributor to UpToDate for Perioperative Anaphylaxis; contributing editor for Ask the Expert (AAAAI); research support from AstraZeneca and Novartis (paid to institution); consultant for AstraZeneca; speaker bureau/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi/Regeneron; and legal opinion indoor fungal exposure, drug allergy, anaphylaxis. Dr Lieberman: contracted research (paid to institution) for Aimmune, DBV, Regeneron, and Novartis; adjudication/DSMB for AbbVie and Siolta; consultant/advisor for Aquestive, ALK-Abello, Novartis, and DBV. Dr Oppenheimer: Executive Editor of Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; reviewer for UpToDate; adjudication and data safety monitoring board for AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi; consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Aquestive, and Aimmune; NIH grant for the IDEA study. Dr Shaker: editorial board of The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice; associate editor of Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; member of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters; and research support from DBV. Dr Wallace: consulting fees from AbbVie, Bryn, Sanofi, and Kaleo. Dr Abrams: employee of Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC); views expressed are my own and not those of PHAC. Dr Bernstein: principal investigator, consultant, and speaker for Novartis, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Sanofi Regeneron, Takeda/Shire, CSL Behring, Pharming, BioCryst, and Merck; consultant for Kalvista, Ionis, Celldex, Allakos, Amgen, Biomarin, and Blueprint Medicine; principal investigator and speaker for GlaxoSmithKline; speaker for Optinose; consultant for Ono, Astria, Incyte, Cycle, and Escient; and royalties from UpToDate, British Medical Journal, Taylor & Francis, and Elsevier. Dr Stukus: consultant for ARS Pharmaceuticals, Before Brands, Novartis, and ParentMD; research support from DBV Technologies; social media editor for the AAAAI; member, board of regents for the ACAAI; and Associate Editor, Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Heather Cruickshank: grant support from AllerGen NCE and medical writer for Healthline Media. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interests to report., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects., Objective: We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical treatments., Methods: For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s)., Results: The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus., Conclusions: For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes., Objective: We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD systemic treatments., Methods: For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and GREAT databases from inception to November 29, 2022, for randomized trials addressing systemic treatments and phototherapy for AD. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/e5sna)., Results: The 149 included trials (28,686 patients with moderate-to-severe AD) evaluated 75 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, high-dose upadacitinib was among the most effective for 5 of 6 patient-important outcomes; high-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib were among the most effective for 2 outcomes. These Janus kinase inhibitors were among the most harmful in increasing adverse events. With high-certainty evidence, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab were of intermediate effectiveness and among the safest, modestly increasing conjunctivitis. Low-dose baricitinib was among the least effective. Efficacy and safety of azathioprine, oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, phototherapy, and many novel agents are less certain., Conclusions: Among individuals with moderate-to-severe AD, high-certainty evidence demonstrates that high-dose upadacitinib is among the most effective in addressing multiple patient-important outcomes, but also is among the most harmful. High-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib are effective, but also among the most harmful. Dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab are of intermediate effectiveness and have favorable safety., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)