Search

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is a rare, but severe complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It develops approximately four weeks after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and involves hyperinflammation with multisystem injury, commonly progressing to shock. The exact pathomechanism of MIS-C is not known, but immunological dysregulation leading to cytokine storm plays a central role. In response to the emergence of MIS-C, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) established a task force (TF) within the Immunology Section in May 2021. With the use of an online Delphi process, TF formulated clinical statements regarding immunological background of MIS-C, diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and the role of COVID-19 vaccinations. MIS-C case definition is broad, and diagnosis is made based on clinical presentation. The immunological mechanism leading to MIS-C is unclear and depends on activating multiple pathways leading to hyperinflammation. Current management of MIS-C relies on supportive care in combination with immunosuppressive and/or immunomodulatory agents. The most frequently used agents are systemic steroids and intravenous immunoglobulin. Despite good overall short-term outcome, MIS-C patients should be followed-up at regular intervals after discharge, focusing on cardiac disease, organ damage, and inflammatory activity. COVID-19 vaccination is a safe and effective measure to prevent MIS-C. In anticipation of further research, we propose a convenient and clinically practical algorithm for managing MIS-C developed by the Immunology Section of the EAACI.

Background Food allergen immunotherapy (FA-AIT) practice is known to vary globally. This project aims to identify and characterize European centres performing FA-AIT. Methods An EAACI task force conducted an online survey to gather relevant information regarding FA-AIT practice and setting-specific resources after reviewing the published literature and congress abstracts throughout Europe. Results We identified 102 FA-AIT centres in 18 countries; only Spain (n = 39) and France (n = 16) had ≥10 such centres. Overall, most facilities were hospital-based (77.5%), publicly funded (80.4%) and delivered FA-AIT as routine clinical care (80.4%). On average, departments had 3 allergists/paediatric allergists and 2 nurses. Surveyed centres had provided FA-AIT for a median of 9 years [1-24] to a median of 105 [5-2415] patients. The estimated total number of treated patients was 24875, of whom 41.3% received AIT for milk, 34.2% egg, 12.8% peanut and 11.7% other foods. Anaphylaxis to AIT doses requiring over 4-6 h of observation was reported by 70.6% of centres, ICU admissions by 10.8% and eosinophilic esophagitis by 45.1%. Quality of life and sustained unresponsiveness were evaluated in 20.6% and 54.9% of centres, respectively. The main contraindications for food AIT were severe asthma (57%-63%), eosinophilic esophagitis (56%-48%) and age below 5 years (47%-41%). Conclusions In Europe, FA-AIT is provided mostly in clinical practice. Significant variation is seen in the number of centres per country, facility characteristics and inclusion/exclusion criteria, and in certain aspects of protocols. Potential inequality in access to AIT has been identified as well as the need for education and guidance for treatment standardization.

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

BackgroundThe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has evolved as a pandemic infectious disease transmitted by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐)2. Allergists and other health care providers (HCPs) in the field of allergies and associated airway diseases are in the front line, taking care of patients potentially infected with SARS‐CoV‐2. Hence, strategies and practices to minimize risks of infection for both HCPs and treated patients have to be developed and followed by allergy clinics.MethodThe scientific information on COVID‐19 was analyzed by a literature search in Medline, Pubmed, national and international guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Cochrane Library and the Internet.ResultsBased on diagnostic and treatment standards developed by EAACI, on international information regarding COVID‐19, on guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organizations as well as on previous experience, a panel of experts including clinicians, psychologists, IT experts and basic scientists along with EAACI and the “Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)” inititiative have developed recommendations for the optimal management of allergy clinics during the current COVID‐19 pandemic. These recommendations are grouped into nine sections on different relevant aspects for the care of patients with allergies.ConclusionsThis international Position Paper provides recommendations on operational plans and procedures to maintain high standards in the daily clinical care of allergic patients whilst ensuring necessary safety in the current COVID‐19 pandemic.

Microbes, including bacteria, viruses, and fungi, have evolved and continue to live on and within humans. The massive presence of foreign microorganisms, known as microbiota, is allowed by the development of a delicate equilibrium between the colonizing microbes and the host immunity.1 Through this symbiotic relationship, the microbiota provides, among others, nutritional benefits and protection from infections.

Background The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of updating the guidelines on the diagnosis and management of food allergy. The existing guidelines are based on a systematic review of the literature until 30th September 2012. Therefore, a new systematic review must be undertaken to inform the new guidelines. This systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of index tests to support the diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy. Methods The databases Cochrane CENTRAL (Trials), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) will be searched for diagnostic test accuracy studies from 1st October 2012 to 30th June 2021. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be used to select appropriate studies. Data from these studies will be extracted and tabulated, and then reviewed for risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. All evaluation will be done in duplicate. Studies with a high risk of bias and low applicability will be excluded. Meta-analysis will be performed if there are three or more studies of the same index test and food. Results A protocol for the systematic review and meta-analyses is presented and was registered using Prospero prior to commencing the literature search. Discussion Oral food challenges are the reference standard for diagnosis but involve considerable risks and resources. This protocol for systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of various tests to diagnose food allergy, which can be useful in both clinical and research settings.

Anaphylaxis is a clinical emergency which all healthcare professionals need to be able to recognise and manage. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Anaphylaxis multidisciplinary Task Force has updated the 2014 guideline. The guideline was developed using the AGREE II framework and the GRADE approach. The evidence was systematically reviewed and recommendations were created by weighing up benefits and harms. The guideline was peer-reviewed by external experts and reviewed in a public consultation. The use of clinical criteria to identify anaphylaxis is suggested with blood sampling for the later measurement of tryptase. The prompt use of intramuscular adrenaline as first line management is recommended with the availability of adrenaline autoinjectors to patients in the community. Pharmacokinetic data should be provided for adrenaline autoinjector devices. Structured, comprehensive training for people at risk of anaphylaxis is recommended. Simulation training and visual prompts for healthcare professionals are suggested to improve the management of anaphylaxis. It is suggested that school policies reflect anaphylaxis guidelines. The evidence for the management of anaphylaxis remains mostly at a very low level. There is an urgent need to prioritise clinical trials with the potential to improve the management of patients at risk of anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a clinical emergency which all healthcare professionals need to be able to recognize and manage. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Anaphylaxis multidisciplinary Task Force has updated the 2014 guideline. The guideline was developed using the AGREE II framework and the GRADE approach. The evidence was systematically reviewed and recommendations were created by weighing up benefits and harms. The guideline was peer-reviewed by external experts and reviewed in a public consultation. The use of clinical criteria to identify anaphylaxis is suggested with blood sampling for the later measurement of tryptase. The prompt use of intramuscular adrenaline as first-line management is recommended with the availability of adrenaline autoinjectors to patients in the community. Pharmacokinetic data should be provided for adrenaline autoinjector devices. Structured, comprehensive training for people at risk of anaphylaxis is recommended. Simulation training and visual prompts for healthcare professionals are suggested to improve the management of anaphylaxis. It is suggested that school policies reflect anaphylaxis guidelines. The evidence for the management of anaphylaxis remains mostly at a very low level. There is an urgent need to prioritize clinical trials with the potential to improve the management of patients at risk of anaphylaxis.

Omalizumab is present in international guidelines for the control of severe asthma, but data on the long-term effects in children are limited. Our objective was to perform a 'real-life' long-term trial of omalizumab in children with allergic asthma.An observational single center 'real-life' study was performed. Data for treatment, lung function, side effect, asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations were recorded at six months and annually.Forty-eight patients18 years of age were enrolled. Median treatment period was 2.9 (0.5-6). Fluticasone dose for the maintenance treatment decreases significantly at six months (452mcg/day to 329.89mcg/day, respectively). This difference was maintained throughout the follow-up. Nobody used oral corticosteroid after six months. The rate of hospital admissions and visits to the emergency department for asthma exacerbations decreased significantly in the third years and fourth years follow-up, respectively. There was an improvement in lung function. Mean values of FEVOverall in 'real life' omalizumab in children reduces asthma exacerbations and hospitalizations, improves lung function, and decreases the maintenance therapy. It is shown to be safe for up to six years of treatment in children.

Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of updating the guidelines on the diagnosis and management of food allergy. The existing guidelines are based on a systematic review of the literature until 30th September 2012. Therefore, a new systematic review must be undertaken to inform the new guidelines. This systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of index tests to support the diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy. Methods: The databases Cochrane CENTRAL (Trials), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) will be searched for diagnostic test accuracy studies from 1st October 2012 to 30th June 2021. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be used to select appropriate studies. Data from these studies will be extracted and tabulated, and then reviewed for risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. All evaluation will be done in duplicate. Studies with a high risk of bias and low applicability will be excluded. Meta-analysis will be performed if there are three or more studies of the same index test and food. Results: A protocol for the systematic review and meta-analyses is presented and was registered using Prospero prior to commencing the literature search. Discussion: Oral food challenges are the reference standard for diagnosis but involve considerable risks and resources. This protocol for systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of various tests to diagnose food allergy, which can be useful in both clinical and research settings.

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

The first approved COVID‐19 vaccines include Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162B2, Moderna mRNA‐1273 and AstraZeneca recombinant adenoviral ChAdOx1‐S. Soon after approval, severe allergic reactions to the mRNA‐based vaccines that resolved after treatment were reported. Regulatory agencies from the European Union, Unites States and the United Kingdom agree that vaccinations are contraindicated only when there is an allergy to one of the vaccine components or if there was a severe allergic reaction to the first dose. This position paper of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) agrees with these recommendations and clarifies that there is no contraindication to administer these vaccines to allergic patients who do not have a history of an allergic reaction to any of the vaccine components. Importantly, as is the case for any medication, anaphylaxis may occur after vaccination in the absence of a history of allergic disease. Therefore, we provide a simplified algorithm of prevention, diagnosis and treatment of severe allergic reactions and a list of recommended medications and equipment for vaccine centres. We also describe potentially allergenic/immunogenic components of the approved vaccines and propose a workup to identify the responsible allergen. Close collaboration between academia, regulatory agencies and vaccine producers will facilitate approaches for patients at risks, such as incremental dosing of the second injection or desensitisation. Finally, we identify unmet research needs and propose a concerted international roadmap towards precision diagnosis and management to minimise the risk of allergic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccines and to facilitate their broader and safer use.

Background: As in many fields of medical care, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in an increased uncertainty regarding the safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Therefore, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) aimed to analyze the situation in different countries and systematically collect all information available regarding tolerability and possible amendments in daily practice of sublingual AIT (SLIT), subcutaneous AIT (SCIT) for inhalant allergies and venom AIT.Method: Under the framework of the EAACI, a panel of experts in the field of AIT coordinated by the Immunotherapy Interest Group (IT IG) set-up a web-based retrospective survey (SurveyMonkey®) including 27 standardized questions on practical and safety aspects on AIT in worldwide clinical routine. Results: 417 respondents providing AIT to their patients in daily routine answered the survey. For patients (without any current symptoms to suspect COVID-19), 60% of the respondents informed of not having initiated SCIT (40% venom AIT, 35% SLIT) whereas for the maintenance phase of AIT, SCIT was performed by 75% of the respondents (74% venom AIT, 89% SLIT). No tolerability concern arises from this preliminary analysis. 16 physicians reported having performed AIT despite (early) symptoms of COVID-19 and/or a positive test result for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Conclusions: This first international retrospective survey in atopic diseases investigated practical aspects and tolerability of AIT during the COVID-19 pandemic and gave no concerns regarding reduced tolerability under real-life circumstances. However, the data indicate an undertreatment of AIT, which may be temporary, but could have a long-lasting negative impact on the clinical care of allergic patients. Keywords: COVID-19, allergen immunotherapy (AIT), SARS-CoV-2, practicability, survey, safety, pandemic

BACKGROUND: This systematic review used the GRADE approach to compile evidence to inform the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) anaphylaxis guideline.METHODS: We searched five bibliographic databases from 1946 to 20 April 2020 for studies about the diagnosis, management and prevention of anaphylaxis. We included 50 studies with 18 449 participants: 29 randomized controlled trials, seven controlled clinical trials, seven consecutive case series and seven case-control studies. Findings were summarized narratively because studies were too heterogeneous to conduct meta-analysis.RESULTS: It is unclear whether the NIAID/FAAN criteria or Brighton case definition are valid for immediately diagnosing anaphylaxis due to the very low certainty of evidence. There was also insufficient evidence about the impact of most anaphylaxis management and prevention strategies. Adrenaline is regularly used for first-line emergency management of anaphylaxis but little robust research has assessed its effectiveness. Newer models of adrenaline autoinjectors may slightly increase the proportion of people correctly using the devices and reduce time to administration. Face-to-face training for laypeople may slightly improve anaphylaxis knowledge and competence in using autoinjectors. We searched for but found little or no comparative effectiveness evidence about strategies such as fluid replacement, oxygen, glucocorticosteroids, methylxanthines, bronchodilators, management plans, food labels, drug labels and similar.CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening condition but, due to practical and ethical challenges, there is a paucity of robust evidence about how to diagnose and manage it.

In December 2019, China reported the first cases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This disease, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has developed into a pandemic. To date it has resulted in ~5.6 million confirmed cases and caused 353,334 related deaths worldwide. Unequivocally, the COVID-19 pandemic is the gravest health and socio-economic crisis of our time. In this context, numerous questions have emerged in demand of basic scientific information and evidence-based medical advice on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Although the majority of the patients show a very mild, self-limiting viral respiratory disease, many clinical manifestations in severe patients are unique to COVID-19, such as severe lymphopenia and eosinopenia, extensive pneumonia, a “cytokine storm” leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome, endothelitis, thrombo-embolic complications and multiorgan failure. The epidemiologic features of COVID-19 are distinctive and have changed throughout the pandemic. Vaccine and drug development studies and clinical trials are rapidly growing at an unprecedented speed. However, basic and clinical research on COVID-19-related topics should be based on more coordinated high-quality studies. This paper answers pressing questions, formulated by young clinicians and scientists, on SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 and allergy, focusing on the following topics: virology, immunology, diagnosis, management of patients with allergic disease and asthma, treatment, clinical trials, drug discovery, vaccine development and epidemiology. Over 140 questions were answered by experts in the field providing a comprehensive and practical overview of COVID-19 and allergic disease.

The purpose of this review is to define the classification, diagnosis, and management in adults and children with allergic conjunctivitis with emphasis on recent findings. Current literature divides allergic conjunctivitis according to severity and frequency, facilitating its diagnosis, study, and treatment choices. Novel pharmacological therapies aim at inhibiting inflammatory pathways at a specific molecular level and include selective glucocorticoid receptor agonists, kinase inhibitors, and IL-1 receptor antagonists. Ocular allergies are a group of heterogeneous diseases with varied immunological mechanisms and clinical presentation. Allergic conjunctivitis is an immune-mediated type I hypersensitivity disorder of the eye’s surface. Clinical presentation is characterized by bilateral ocular itching, conjunctival erythema, and ocular edema. Diagnosis is fundamentally clinical and should be supported by evidence of an IgE-mediated mechanism using skin prick tests and/or serum antigen-specific IgE. Treatment encompasses non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches. The preferred pharmacological medications are topical dual-acting agents, which have both local antihistamine and mast cell stabilizing properties.

In December 2019, China reported the first cases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). This disease, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), has developed into a pandemic. To date, it has resulted in ~9 million confirmed cases and caused almost 500 000 related deaths worldwide. Unequivocally, the COVID‐19 pandemic is the gravest health and socioeconomic crisis of our time. In this context, numerous questions have emerged in demand of basic scientific information and evidence‐based medical advice on SARS‐CoV‐2 and COVID‐19. Although the majority of the patients show a very mild, self‐limiting viral respiratory disease, many clinical manifestations in severe patients are unique to COVID‐19, such as severe lymphopenia and eosinopenia, extensive pneumonia, a “cytokine storm” leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome, endothelitis, thromboembolic complications, and multiorgan failure. The epidemiologic features of COVID‐19 are distinctive and have changed throughout the pandemic. Vaccine and drug development studies and clinical trials are rapidly growing at an unprecedented speed. However, basic and clinical research on COVID‐19–related topics should be based on more coordinated high‐quality studies. This paper answers pressing questions, formulated by young clinicians and scientists, on SARS‐CoV‐2, COVID‐19, and allergy, focusing on the following topics: virology, immunology, diagnosis, management of patients with allergic disease and asthma, treatment, clinical trials, drug discovery, vaccine development, and epidemiology. A total of 150 questions were answered by experts in the field providing a comprehensive and practical overview of COVID‐19 and allergic disease., NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship, Grant/ Award Number: GNT1117687; Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Grant/Award Number: IJCI-2016-27619; Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Grant/Award Number: JR19/0029

BACKGROUND: Patterns of sensitization to house dust mites depend on geographic area and are important in clinical practice. However, the role of molecular diagnosis is not currently defined. We sought to characterize a pediatric population by focusing on sensitization to different mite species and major mite components in order to assess the clinical relevance of sensitization to allergenic components in our practice. METHODS: Consecutive children with respiratory allergy sensitized to house dust mites (determined by skin prick test [SPT]) were recruited. We determined specific IgE to nDer p 1, rDer p 2, and rDer p 23 using ImmunoCAP and sIgE using ImmunoCAP-ISAC microarray. Patients were followed up for 3 years. RESULTS: A total of 276 children were recruited. The frequency of sensitization was 86.6% for nDer p 1, 79.3% for rDer p 2, and 75.8% for rDer p 23. Lepidoglyphus species was the most common storage mite detected by SPT. Twenty-six patients (9.4%) were not sensitized to Der p 1 or Der p 2. It is noteworthy that IgE binding to Der p 23 was positive in 14 (53.8%). Asthmatic patients, especially those with a persistent moderate-severe phenotype, more frequently recognized the 3 major allergens. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with mite allergy were sensitized to the major allergens Der p 1, Der p 2, and Der p 23. Of the allergens evaluated, 5% were sensitized to Der p 23 but not to Der p 1 or Der p 2. Sensitization to Der p 23 should be considered in the diagnosis and treatment of mite allergy, especially in patients with moderate-severe asthma, because it may worsen the clinical phenotype.