Search

Immune modulation is a key therapeutic approach for allergic diseases, asthma and autoimmunity. It can be achieved in an antigen-specific manner via allergen immunotherapy (AIT) or in an endotype-driven approach using biologicals that target the major pathways of the type 2 (T2) immune response: immunoglobulin (Ig)E, interleukin (IL)-5 and IL-4/IL-13 or non-type 2 response: anti-cytokine antibodies and B-cell depletion via anti-CD20. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination provides an excellent opportunity to tackle the global pandemics and is currently being applied in an accelerated rhythm worldwide. The vaccine exerts its effects through immune modulation, induces and amplifies the response against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Thus, as there may be a discernible interference between these treatment modalities, recommendations on how they should be applied in sequence are expected. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) assembled an expert panel under its Research and Outreach Committee (ROC). This expert panel evaluated the evidence and have formulated recommendations on the administration of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with allergic diseases and asthma receiving AIT or biologicals. The panel also formulated recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine in association with biologicals targeting the type 1 or type 3 immune response. In formulating recommendations, the panel evaluated the mechanisms of COVID-19 infection, of COVID-19 vaccine, of AIT and of biologicals and considered the data published for other anti-infectious vaccines administered concurrently with AIT or biologicals.

Asthma, rhinitis and atopic dermatitis (AD) are interrelated clinical phenotypes that partly overlap in the human interactome. The concept of "one-airway-one-disease", coined over 20 years ago, is a simplistic approach of the links between upper- and lower-airway allergic diseases. With new data, it is time to reassess the concept. This article reviews (i) the clinical observations that led to Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), (ii) new insights into polysensitisation and multimorbidity, (iii) advances in mHealth for novel phenotype definition, (iv) confirmation in canonical epidemiologic studies, (v) genomic findings, (vi) treatment approaches and (vii) novel concepts on the onset of rhinitis and multimorbidity. One recent concept, bringing together upper- and lower-airway allergic diseases with skin, gut and neuropsychiatric multimorbidities, is the "Epithelial Barrier Hypothesis". This review determined that the "one-airway-one-disease" concept does not always hold true and that several phenotypes of disease can be defined. These phenotypes include an extreme "allergic" (asthma) phenotype combining asthma, rhinitis and conjunctivitis. Rhinitis alone and rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity represent two distinct diseases with the following differences: (i) genomic and transcriptomic background (Toll-Like Receptors and IL-17 for rhinitis alone as a local disease; IL-33 and IL-5 for allergic and non-allergic multimorbidity as a systemic disease), (ii) allergen sensitisation patterns (mono- or pauci-sensitisation versus polysensitisation), (iii) severity of symptoms and (iv) treatment response. In conclusion, rhinitis alone (local disease) and rhinitis with asthma multimorbidity (systemic disease) should be considered as two distinct diseases, possibly modulated by the microbiome, and may be a model for understanding the epidemics of chronic and auto-immune diseases. authorsversion epub_ahead_of_print

Asthma, rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis (AD) are interrelated clinical phenotypes that partly overlap in the human interactome. The concept of “one-airway-one-disease,” coined over 20 years ago, is a simplistic approach of the links between upper- and lower-airway allergic diseases. With new data, it is time to reassess the concept. This article reviews (i) the clinical observations that led to Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), (ii) new insights into polysensitization and multimorbidity, (iii) advances in mHealth for novel phenotype definitions, (iv) confirmation in canonical epidemiologic studies, (v) genomic findings, (vi) treatment approaches, and (vii) novel concepts on the onset of rhinitis and multimorbidity. One recent concept, bringing together upper- and lower-airway allergic diseases with skin, gut, and neuropsychiatric multimorbidities, is the “Epithelial Barrier Hypothesis.” This review determined that the “one-airway-one-disease” concept does not always hold true and that several phenotypes of disease can be defined. These phenotypes include an extreme “allergic” (asthma) phenotype combining asthma, rhinitis, and conjunctivitis.

17 Pág. Centro de Investigación Forestal (CIFOR), ModERFoRest es el acrónimo de Modelling Environmental Requirements for Forest Restoration (Modelización de los requerimientos ambientales para la restauración forestal), ya que es una aplicación especialmente diseñada para la elección de especie y el origen del material forestal de reproducción idóneos en tareas de restauración de la vegetación. Sin embargo, la actual versión ya disponible de la aplicación facilita, además, otra serie de funcionalidades como son: i) la modelización de la distribución de especies, con dos algoritmos diferentes, a partir de datos exclusivamente de presencias; ii) el cálculo masivo de hasta 38 variables climáticas a partir de datos de precipitación y temperaturas mensuales; y iii) la síntesis de hasta 23 variables edáficas a escala perfil derivados de los datos brutos de laboratorio por horizontes, incluyendo la generación de fichas hídricas. La aplicación se distribuye de manera gratuita y recoge toda la información sobre autoecología de 22 taxones arbóreos de relevancia en España, así como de los rodales semilleros selectos cuya caracterización ecológica completa está disponible hasta la fecha. ModERFoRest constituye una herramienta de fácil manejo, versátil, de uso libre y en continuo desarrollo que puede ser de utilidad tanto a gestores como investigadores del ámbito de la restauración de la vegetación.

Immune modulation is a key therapeutic approach for allergic diseases, asthma and autoimmunity. It can be achieved in an antigen-specific manner via allergen immunotherapy (AIT) or in an endotype-driven approach using biologicals that target the major pathways of the type 2 (T2) immune response: immunoglobulin (Ig)E, interleukin (IL)-5 and IL-4/IL-13 or non-type 2 response: anti-cytokine antibodies and B-cell depletion via anti-CD20. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination provides an excellent opportunity to tackle the global pandemics and is currently being applied in an accelerated rhythm worldwide. The vaccine exerts its effects through immune modulation, induces and amplifies the response against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Thus, as there may be a discernible interference between these treatment modalities, recommendations on how they should be applied in sequence are expected. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) assembled an expert panel under its Research and Outreach Committee (ROC). This expert panel evaluated the evidence and have formulated recommendations on the administration of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with allergic diseases and asthma receiving AIT or biologicals. The panel also formulated recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine in association with biologicals targeting the type 1 or type 3 immune response. In formulating recommendations, the panel evaluated the mechanisms of COVID-19 infection, of COVID-19 vaccine, of AIT and of biologicals and considered the data published for other anti-infectious vaccines administered concurrently with AIT or biologicals. © 2022 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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 desensitization. Finally, we identify unmet research needs and propose a concerted international roadmap towards precision diagnosis and management to minimize the risk of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate their broader and safer use.

Severe asthma imposes a significant burden on patients, families and healthcare systems. Management is difficult, due to disease heterogeneity, co-morbidities, complexity in care pathways and differences between national or regional healthcare systems. Better understanding of the mechanisms has enabled a stratified approach to the management of severe asthma, supporting the use of targeted treatments with biologicals. However, there are still many issues that require further clarification. These include selection of a certain biological (as they all target overlapping disease phenotypes), the definition of response, strategies to enhance the responder rate, the duration of treatment and its regimen (in the clinic or home-based) and its cost-effectiveness. The EAACI Guidelines on the use of biologicals in severe asthma follow the GRADE approach in formulating recommendations for each biological and each outcome. In addition, a management algorithm for the use of biologicals in the clinic is proposed, together with future approaches and research priorities. © 2020 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has evolved into a pandemic infectious disease transmitted by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Allergists and other healthcare providers (HCPs) in the field of allergies and associated airway diseases are on 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. Method: The scientific information on COVID-19 was analysed by a literature search in MEDLINE, PubMed, the National and International Guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Cochrane Library, and the internet. Results: Based on the 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, and 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)” initiative 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. Conclusions: This international Position Paper provides recommendations on operational plans and procedures to maintain high standards in the daily clinical care of allergic patients while ensuring the necessary safety measures in the current COVID-19 pandemic. © 2020 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy and safety of biologicals for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) compared with the standard of care. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs. Critical and important CRSwNP-related outcomes were considered. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. RCTs evaluated (dupilumab-2, omalizumab-4, mepolizumab-2, and reslizumab-1) included 1236 adults, with follow-up of 20-64 weeks. Dupilumab reduces the need for surgery (NFS) or oral corticosteroid (OCS) use (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.20-0.39, moderate certainty) and improves with high certainty smell evaluated with UPSIT score (mean difference (MD) +10.54; 95% CI +9.24 to +11.84) and quality of life (QoL) evaluated with SNOT-22 (MD -19.14; 95% CI -22.80 to -15.47), with fewer treatment-related adverse events (TAEs) (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.89-1.02, moderate certainty). Omalizumab reduces NFS (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.78-0.92, high certainty), decreases OCS use (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.10-1.38, moderate certainty), and improves high certainty smell (MD +3.84; 95% CI +3.64 to +4.04) and QoL (MD -15.65; 95% CI -16.16 to -15.13), with increased TAE (RR 1.73; 95% CI 0.60-5.03, moderate certainty). There is low certainty for mepolizumab reducing NFS (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.64-0.94) and improving QoL (MD -13.3; 95% CI -23.93 to -2.67) and smell (MD +0.7; 95% CI -0.48 to +1.88), with increased TAEs (RR 1.64; 95% CI 0.41-6.50). The evidence for reslizumab is very uncertain.

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

Biologicals have transformed the management of severe disease phenotypes in asthma, atopic dermatitis, and chronic spontaneous urticaria. As a result, the number of approved biologicals for the treatment of atopic diseases is continuously increasing. Although atopic diseases are among the most common diseases in the reproductive age, investigations, and information on half-life, pharmacokinetics defining the neonatal Fc receptors (FcRn) and most important safety of biologicals in pregnancy are lacking. Given the complex sequence of immunological events that regulate conception, fetal development, and the intrauterine and postnatal maturation of the immune system, this information is of utmost importance. We conducted a systematic review on biologicals in pregnancy for indications of atopic diseases. Evidence in this field is scarce and mainly reserved to reports on the usage of omalizumab. This lack of evidence demands the establishment of a multidisciplinary approach for the management of pregnant women who receive biologicals and multicenter registries for long-term follow-up, drug trial designs suitable for women in the reproductive age, and better experimental models that represent the human situation. Due to the very long half-life of biologicals, preconception counseling and healthcare provider education are crucial to offer the best care for mother and fetus. This position paper integrates available data on safety of biologicals during pregnancy in atopic diseases via a systematic review with a detailed review on immunological considerations how inhibition of different pathways may impact pregnancy. © 2020 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against interleukin-4 receptor alpha, is approved as add-on maintenance treatment for inadequately controlled type 2 severe asthma. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy, safety and economic impact of dupilumab compared to standard of care for uncontrolled severe asthma. PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs and health economic evaluations. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. Three RCTs including 2735 subjects >12 years old and 24-52 weeks of follow-up were included. Dupilumab reduced with high certainty severe asthma exacerbations (Incidence rate ratio 0.51; 95% CI 0.45-0.59) and the percentage use of oral corticosteroid use (mean difference (MD) -28.2 mg/d; 95% CI -40.7 to -15.7). Asthma control (ACQ-5), quality of life (AQLQ) and rescue medication use [puffs/d] improved, without reaching the minimal important clinical difference: ACQ-5 MD -0.28 (95% CI -0.39 to -0.17); AQLQ MD +0.28 (95% CI 0.20-0.37); and rescue medication MD -0.35 (95% CI -0.73 to +0.02). FEV1 increased (MD +0.15; 95% CI +0.11 to +0.18) (moderate certainty). There was an increased rate of dupilumab-related adverse events (AEs) (moderate certainty) and of drug-related serious AEs (low certainty). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dupilumab versus standard therapy was 464 000$/QALY (moderate certainty). More data on long-term safety are needed both for children and for adults, together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.

Allergic asthma is a frequent asthma phenotype. Both IgE and type 2 cytokines are increased, with some degree of overlap with other phenotypes. Systematic reviews assessed the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab (alphabetical order) vs standard of care for patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. All three biologicals reduced with high certainty the annualized asthma exacerbation rate: benralizumab incidence rate ratios (IRR) 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 − 0.81); dupilumab IRR 0.58 (95%CI 0.47 − 0.73); and omalizumab IRR 0.56 (95%CI 0.42 − 0.73). Benralizumab and dupilumab improved asthma control with high certainty and omalizumab with moderate certainty; however, none reached the minimal important difference (MID). Both benralizumab and omalizumab improved QoL with high certainty, but only omalizumab reached the MID. Omalizumab enabled ICS dose reduction with high certainty. Benralizumab and omalizumab showed an increase in drug-related adverse events (AEs) with low to moderate certainty. All three biologicals had moderate certainty for an ICER/QALY value above the willingness to pay threshold. There was high certainty that in children 6-12 years old omalizumab decreased the annualized exacerbation rate [IRR 0.57 (95%CI 0.45-0.72)], improved QoL [relative risk 1.43 (95%CI 1.12 −1.83)], reduced ICS [mean difference (MD) −0.45 (95% CI −0.58 to −0.32)] and rescue medication use [MD −0.41 (95%CI −0.66 to −0.15)]. © 2020 John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

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

The outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2-induced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic re-shaped doctor-patient interaction and challenged capacities of healthcare systems. It created many issues around the optimal and safest way to treat complex patients with severe allergic disease. A significant number of the patients are on treatment with biologicals, and clinicians face the challenge to provide optimal care during the pandemic. Uncertainty of the potential risks for these patients is related to the fact that the exact sequence of immunological events during SARS-CoV-2 is not known. Severe COVID-19 patients may experience a “cytokine storm” and associated organ damage characterized by an exaggerated release of pro-inflammatory type 1 and type 3 cytokines. These inflammatory responses are potentially counteracted by anti-inflammatory cytokines and type 2 responses. This expert-based EAACI statement aims to provide guidance on the application of biologicals targeting type 2 inflammation in patients with allergic disease. Currently, there is very little evidence for an enhanced risk of patients with allergic diseases to develop severe COVID-19. Studies focusing on severe allergic phenotypes are lacking. At present, noninfected patients on biologicals for the treatment of asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, or chronic spontaneous urticaria should continue their biologicals targeting type 2 inflammation via self-application. In case of an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, biological treatment needs to be stopped until clinical recovery and SARS-CoV-2 negativity is established and treatment with biologicals should be re-initiated. Maintenance of add-on therapy and a constant assessment of disease control, apart from acute management, are demanded. © 2020 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well-recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab (alphabetical order) compared to standard of care for severe eosinophilic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated for each of the biologicals. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. 19 RCTs (three RCTs for benralizumab, three RCTs for dupilumab, three RCTs for mepolizumab, five RCTs for omalizumab and five RCTs for reslizumab), including subjects 12 to 75 years old (except for omalizumab including also subjects 6-11 years old), ranging from 12 to 56 weeks were evaluated. All biologicals reduce exacerbation rates with high certainty of evidence: benralizumab incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.72), dupilumab (IRR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.59), mepolizumab IRR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.66), omalizumab (IRR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) and reslizumab (IRR) 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.58). Benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab reduce the daily dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) with high certainty of evidence. All evaluated biologicals probably improve asthma control, QoL and FEV1, without reaching the minimal important difference (moderate certainty). Benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab slightly increase drug-related adverse events (AE) and drug-related serious AE (low to very low certainty of evidence). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year value is above the willingness to pay threshold for all biologicals (moderate certainty). Potential savings are driven by decrease in hospitalizations, emergency and primary care visits. There is high certainty that all approved biologicals reduce the rate of severe asthma exacerbations and for benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab for reducing OCS. There is moderate certainty for improving asthma control, QoL, FEV1. More data on long-term safety are needed together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population. © 2020 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against interleukin-4 receptor α, is approved as add-on maintenance treatment for inadequately controlled type 2 severe asthma. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy, safety and economic impact of dupilumab compared to standard of care for uncontrolled severe asthma. PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs and health economic evaluations. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. Three RCTs including 2735 subjects >12 years old and 24-52 weeks of follow-up were included. Dupilumab reduced with high certainty severe asthma exacerbations (Incidence rate ratio 0.51; 95% CI 0.45-0.59) and the percentage use of oral corticosteroid use (mean difference (MD) −28.2 mg/d; 95% CI −40.7 to −15.7). Asthma control (ACQ-5), quality of life (AQLQ) and rescue medication use [puffs/d] improved, without reaching the minimal important clinical difference: ACQ-5 MD −0.28 (95% CI −0.39 to −0.17); AQLQ MD +0.28 (95% CI 0.20-0.37); and rescue medication MD −0.35 (95% CI −0.73 to +0.02). FEV1 increased (MD +0.15; 95% CI +0.11 to +0.18) (moderate certainty). There was an increased rate of dupilumab-related adverse events (AEs) (moderate certainty) and of drug-related serious AEs (low certainty). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dupilumab versus standard therapy was 464 000$/QALY (moderate certainty). More data on long-term safety are needed both for children and for adults, together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population. © 2020 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.