Search

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest ZD: received consultancy fees/lecture fees/fees for attending advisory boards from ALK, Antabio, Foresee Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Hippo-Dx, QPS-Netherlands, Sanofi-Genzyme; she served as Director Respiratory & Allergy at QPS-NL and this CRO received research grants for clinical trials from HAL Allergy, Janssen Research & Development LLC, Patara pharma, Cerbios, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Foresee Pharmaceuticals and ERA4TB (IMI-project). MJ: ALK, Stallergenes-Greer, Chiesi, GSK, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca and SANOFI. NH: Received honoraria for serving as advisor or consultant for GSK, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Amgen, Genentech, Novartis and Teva. His institution received research grant support of his behalf from GSK, Genentech, Sanofi, Teva, Novartis, and AstraZeneca. LH: Has received grant funding, participated in advisory boards and given lectures at meetings supported by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, Hoffmann la Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Theravance, Evelo Biosciences, Sanofi, and Teva; he has received grants from MedImmune, Novartis UK, Roche/ Genentech Inc, and Glaxo Smith Kline, Amgen, Genentech/Hoffman la Roche, Astra Zeneca, MedImmune, Glaxo Smith Kline, Aerocrine and Vitalograph; he has received sponsorship for attending international scientific meetings from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK and Napp Pharmaceuticals; he has also taken part in asthma clinical trials sponsored by AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann la Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline for which his institution received remuneration; he is the Academic Lead for the Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine UK Consortium in Severe Asthma which involves industrial partnerships with a number of pharmaceutical companies including Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann la Roche, and Janssen. RD: Declares consulting fees from Synairgen, Sanofi and Galapagos, lecture fees from GSK, AZ and Airways Vista and he holds shares from Synairgen. DR: No COIs related to this work. SQ: ALK, Allergy Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK, Leti, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Teva. VB: Has worked as advisor, supervisor, investigator of pharmaceutical studies, unrestricted grants, and others with: AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD & Shering Plough, ALK-Abello; Chiesi,Novartis, Pharmaxis, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Aerocrine, Teva, Sanofi, Birk NPC as. MG: No COIs related to this work. IP: In the last 5 years IDP has received speaker’s honoraria for speaking at sponsored meetings from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Aerocrine, Almirall, Novartis, Teva, Chiesi, Sanofi/Regeneron, Menarini and GSK and payments for organising educational events from AZ, GSK, Sanofi/Regeneron and Teva. He has received honoraria for attending advisory panels with Genentech, Sanofi/ Regeneron, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Novartis, Teva, Merck, Circassia, Chiesi and Knopp and payments to support FDA approval meetings from GSK. He has received sponsorship to attend international scientific meetings from Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, AstraZeneca, Teva and Chiesi. He has received a grant from Chiesi to support a phase 2 clinical trial in Oxford. DAA: Has received honoraria as grants/contracts from Sociedad Española de Alergología e Inmunología Clínica (SEAIC), as consulting fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca, Chiesi and Gebro, as speaker from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Gebro, GSK, Leti Pharma, Mundipharma, Novartis, Roxall, Sanofi. AS: GSK support for an asthma biologic clinical trial 2021-ongoing. PB: Has received honoraria for presentations and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, ELPEN, GSK, Menarini, Novartis, Sanofi, and Gilead. AB: Takeda, Novartis, Viatris, ALK, Zentiva, MERCK, Stallergenes Greer, Ewopharma, Astra Zeneca, Chiesi, S&D Pharma, Mundipharma, Berlin Chemie. WB: GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Regeneron. JK: Grants and/or personal fees from ALK, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Boerhinger, Teva, Viatris, Stallergen, Abbot, all outside the submitted work. SL: Honorarium AstraZeneka, GSK, Chiesi Hellas, Sanofi, Elpen, Menarini, Guidoti. MVM: No COIs related to this work. PP: ALK, AstraZeneca, Stallergenes. HP: No COIs related to this work. AS: Reports lecture fees and/or consultancies from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, B.I., GSK, Merck, Novartis, Zambon, Sanofi. HS: No COIs related to this work. IS: No COIs related to this work. BT: No COIs related to this work. MKV: GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca. Diego Conti: No COIs related to this work. WF: The department of Otorhinolaryngology of the Amsterdam University Medical centre, location AMC received grants for research in Rhinology from: ALK, AllergyTherapeutics, Novartis, EU, GSK, MYLAN, Sanofi-Aventis, and Zon-MW; personal COIs: for consultation and/or speaker fees from Dianosic, GSK, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis/Regeneron. SL: Advisory Board Sanof-Aventis, GSK and Leo-Pharma. Honoraria by DBV Technologies, Allergopharma, Leti, Nutricia, Sanofi-Aventis. GKS: Honoraria for articles, speaker and advisory boards: ALK, AstraZeneca, Capnia, Church & Dwight, Circassia, Noucor, GSK, Meda/Mylan/Viatris, Merck, Sanofi- Regeneron, Stallergenes. Scientific Chief Editor, Rhinology Section, Frontiers in Allergy. Board Member, Lead for Allergic Rhinitis, EUFOREA. Chair of Data Monitoring Board for Paediatric AR trials of HDM SLIT. EVS: No COIs related to this work. PH: Recipient of research grants, honoraria and/or lecture fees of Sanofi, Regeneron, Viatris, GSK, and Novartis. LB: No COIs related to this work.

Allergen specific immunotherapy (AIT) is the only causal therapeutic option for allergic airway diseases including asthma and allergic rhinitis. AIT has been shown to restore the allergen immune tolerance, can modify both the early and late-onset allergen-specific airway hyperreactivity, helps to achieve disease control/remission and prevents new sensitisations. Recent real life data on long-term effectiveness of house dust mite (HDM) AIT in a large group of patients with HDM-driven asthma further underscored its unique therapeutic potential as well as confirmed previous data with pollen AIT. More widespread use of this causal treatment in select patient populations should further move this promising therapeutic field. In this mini-review, we discuss updates on new insights based on real world patient data., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The allergen provocation test is an established model of allergic airway diseases, including asthma and allergic rhinitis, allowing the study of allergen-induced changes in respiratory physiology and inflammatory mechanisms in sensitised individuals as well as their associations. In the upper airways, allergen challenge is focused on the clinical and pathophysiological sequelae of the early allergic response, and is applied both as a diagnostic tool and in research settings. In contrast, bronchial allergen challenge has almost exclusively served as a research tool in specialised research settings with a focus on the late asthmatic response and the underlying type 2 inflammation. The allergen-induced late asthmatic response is also characterised by prolonged airway narrowing, increased nonspecific airway hyperresponsiveness and features of airway remodelling including the small airways, and hence allows the study of several key mechanisms and features of asthma. In line with these characteristics, allergen challenge has served as a valued tool to study the cross-talk of the upper and lower airways and in proof-of-mechanism studies of drug development. In recent years, several new insights into respiratory phenotypes and endotypes including the involvement of the upper and small airways, innovative biomarker sampling methods and detection techniques, refined lung function testing as well as targeted treatment options further shaped the applicability of the allergen provocation test in precision medicine. These topics, along with descriptions of subject populations and safety, in line with the updated Global Initiative for Asthma 2021 document, will be addressed in this review., Competing Interests: G.M. Gauvreau declares grants from AstraZeneca, Biohaven, Novartis and Genentech; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Biohaven, Novartis, Sterna Biologicals and Certior Consulting; and payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genzyme and Genentech, all in the 36 months prior to manuscript submission. B.E. Davis declares no competing interests. G. Scadding declares support from ALK-Abelló (provision of active and placebo medication for the GRASS clinical trial referenced in the article) and the Immune Tolerance Network (NIAID, NIH, USA; sponsor of the GRASS clinical trial) related to the present manuscript; as well as payment for lectures from ALK-Abelló in 2020 and 2021; and support from GlaxoSmithKline for attendance at the 2021 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology meeting. L-P. Boulet declares research grants for participation in multicentre studies or research projects proposed by the investigator from Amgen, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi-Regeneron; royalties from UptoDate and Taylor & Francis; lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Covis, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Merck and Sanofi, all in the 36 months prior to manuscript submission; and the following unpaid contributions: Chair of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Board of Directors; President of the Global Asthma Organisation (Interasma); Member of the Canadian Thoracic Society Respiratory Guidelines Committee; and Laval University Chair on Knowledge Transfer, Prevention and Education in Respiratory and Cardiovascular Health. L. Bjermer declares no competing interests. A. Chaker declares grants or contracts, via Technical University Munich, from EIT Health (European Institute of Technology), BMBF (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research), AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Genzyme, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline and ALK-Abelló; payments or honoraria, via Technical University Munich, from ALK-Abelló, Allergopharma, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunotek, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Leti, Zeller and Bencard; travel reimbursement to attend European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology meetings (2018 and 2021 from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; 2019 from ALK-Abelló); patents, via Technical University Munich, relating to allergen-specific immunotherapy and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection; participation, via Technical University Munich, on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for ALK-Abelló, Allergopharma, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunotek, Novartis, Regeneron and Sanofi-Genzyme; and the following unpaid roles: Past Chair of the Allergy, Clinical Immunology and Environmental Medicine Section of the German ENT Society; board member at large of the German Allergy Society (DGAKI); scientific advisor/board member to the German Society for Applied Allergy (AeDA); board member of the Allergen Immuntherapy Interest Group, European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. D.W. Cockcroft reports the following research grants in the 36 months prior to manuscript submission: research grant Dept of Medicine University of Saskatchewan (Effect of tiotropium on airway response to allergen); Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (The effect of deep inhalation on mannitol responsiveness); AstraZeneca (A phase 2a double blind randomised parallel group placebo controlled multicentre study to evaluate the effect of AZD8154 administered via nebuliser once daily on allergen-induced inflammation in subjects with mild allergic asthma challenged with inhaled allergen); AllerGen NCE (Methacholine challenge comparison of a jet nebuliser and vibrating mesh nebuliser); Novartis (Inhaled CSJ117 in adult asthmatics with mild atopic asthma). B. Dahlén declares payment to their institution in 2004 for a clinical trial by AstraZeneca, related to the present work; and grants to support the Karolinska Severe Asthma Centre from GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; consulting fees from Teva, AstraZeneca and Sanofi; and payment for lectures from AstraZeneca and Sanofi, all in the 36 months prior to manuscript submission. W. Fokkens declares grants to their institution from ALK, Mylan, Allergy Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, Novartis and Chordate; consulting fees from Sanofi and Bioinspire; payment or honoraria from Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Lyra, Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline, all in the 36 months prior to manuscript submission; and that they are Secretary General of the European Rhinologic Society. P. Hellings declares no competing interests. N. Lazarinis declares no competing interests. P.M. O'Byrne reports grants from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Biohaven, Merck, Bayer and Novartis; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Covis, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen and Novartis; and payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Covis and Novartis, all in the 36 months prior to manuscript submission; and that they are a Section Editor of the European Respiratory Journal. E. Tufvesson declares no competing interests. S. Quirce declares consulting fees and payment or honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi and AstraZeneca; and payment or honoraria from Novartis, Chiesi, Mundipharma and Teva, all in the 36 months prior to manuscript submission. M. Van Maaren declares payment or honoraria from ALK-Abelló, Takeda and CSL Behring, in the 36 months prior to manuscript submission; and an unpaid role as Chairman of the Dutch Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology since 2020. F. H. de Jongh declares an unpaid role as European Respiratory Society Assessment Director. Z. Diamant reports that until May 2020 they worked as Research Director Respiratory & Allergy at a CRO (QPS-NL), which received funding from biotech and several pharma companies for conduct of phase I–II clinical studies (drug development); and declares consulting fees from ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca, Antabio, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL Allergy, QPS-NL and Sanofi-Genzyme; and payment or honoraria from BMR, Boehringer Ingelheim, European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases (EUFOREA), Merck Sharp & Dohme and Sanofi-Genzyme, all in the 36 months prior to manuscript submission; and unpaid roles as the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Asthma Section Chair (2017–2019) and EUFOREA Asthma Expert Panel Chair (since 2020)., (Copyright ©The authors 2022.)

Approximately 70% of birch pollen allergic patients in Europe experience hypersensitivity reactions to Immunoglobulin E (IgE) cross-reactive food sources. This so-called pollen-food syndrome (PFS) is defined by allergic symptoms elicited promptly by the ingestion of fruits, nuts, or vegetables in these patients. So far, in the literature, less attention has been given to Bet v 1 cross-reactive symptoms caused by pear ( Pyrus communis ). In the Netherlands, pears are widely consumed. The primary objective of this study was to measure the type and severity of allergic symptoms during pear challenges in birch pollen allergic patients, with a positive history of pear allergy, using two different pear varieties. Fifteen patients were included, skin prick test (SPT), prick-to-prick test (PTP), specific Immunoglobulin E (sIgE), and single-blind oral challenges were performed with two pear ( Pyrus communis ) varieties: the 'Cepuna' (brand name Migo ® ) and the 'Conference' pears. All patients were sensitized to one or both pear varieties. A total of 12 out of 15 participants developed symptoms during the 'Cepuna' food challenge and 14/15 reacted during the 'Conference' challenge. Challenges with the 'Cepuna' pears resulted in less objective symptoms ( n = 2) in comparison with challenges with 'Conference' pears ( n = 7). Although we did not find significance between both varieties in our study, we found a high likelihood of fewer and less severe symptoms during the 'Cepuna' challenges. Consequently selected pear sensitized patients can try to consume small doses of the 'Cepuna' pear outside the birch pollen season.

Machine Learning (ML) can improve the diagnosis, treatment decisions, and understanding of cancer. However, the low explainability of how "black box" ML methods produce their output hinders their clinical adoption. In this paper, we used data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry to generate a ML-based model to predict 10-year overall survival of breast cancer patients. Then, we used Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to interpret the model's predictions. We found that, overall, LIME and SHAP tend to be consistent when explaining the contribution of different features. Nevertheless, the feature ranges where they have a mismatch can also be of interest, since they can help us identifying "turning points" where features go from favoring survived to favoring deceased (or vice versa). Explainability techniques can pave the way for better acceptance of ML techniques. However, their evaluation and translation to real-life scenarios need to be researched further.

Introduction: Information regarding the effects of resection of the primary tumor in stage IV inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is scarce. We analyzed the impact of resection of the primary tumor on overall survival (OS) in a large stage IV IBC population., Materials and Methods: Patients diagnosed with stage IV IBC between 2005 and 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, excluding patients without any treatment. To correct for immortal time bias, we performed a landmark analysis including patients alive at least six months after diagnosis. With propensity score matching, patients undergoing surgery of the primary tumor were matched to patients not receiving surgery. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to determine the association between treatment strategy and OS in the non-matched and matched cohort., Results: Of the 580 included patients after landmark analysis, 441 patients (76%) received only non-surgical treatments and 139 (24%) underwent surgery (96% mastectomy). Median follow-up was 28.8 and 20.0 months in the surgery and no surgery group, respectively. Surgery in the non-matched cohort was independently associated with better survival (HR0.56[95%CI:0.42-0.75]). In the matched cohort (n = 202), surgically treated patients had improved survival over nonsurgically treated patients (p < 0.005). Multivariable analysis of the matched cohort revealed that surgery was still associated with better survival (HR0.62[95%CI:0.44-0.87])., Conclusion: Although residual confounding and confounding by severity cannot be ruled out, this study suggests that surgery of the primary tumor is associated with improved OS and should be considered as part of the treatment strategy in stage IV IBC., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has drastically increased over the past decades. Because DCIS is resected after diagnosis similar to invasive breast cancer, the natural cause and behaviour of DCIS is not well known. We aimed to determine breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) according to grade in DCIS patients after surgical treatment in the Netherlands., Patients and Methods: All DCIS patients diagnosed between 1999 and 2012 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The cause of death was obtained from 'Statistics Netherlands'. BCSS and OS were estimated using multivariable Cox regression in the entire cohort and stratified for grades., Results: In total, 12,256 patients were included, of whom 1509 (12.3%) presented with grade I, 3675 (30.0%) with grade II, 6064 (49.5%) with grade III and 1008 (8.2%) with an unknown grade. During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 1138 (9.3%) deaths were observed, and 179 (1.5%) were breast cancer-related. Of these, 10 patients had grade I; 46 grade II; 95 grade III and 28 an unknown grade. After adjustment for confounding, grade II and III were related to worse BCSS than grade I with hazard ratios of 1.92 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.97-3.81) and 2.14 (95% CI: 1.11-4.12), respectively. No association between grades and OS was observed., Conclusion: BCSS and OS in DCIS patients were excellent. Because superior rates were observed for low-grade DCIS, it seems justified to investigate whether active surveillance may be a balanced alternative for conventional surgical treatment., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a major cause of hypersensitivity reactions. Several distinct clinical syndromes are described regarding NSAID hypersensitivity. Such a reaction is generally caused by a non-immunological mechanism. In susceptible patients, COX-1 inhibition leads to an imbalance in lipid mediators such as leukotrienes and prostaglandins. It is essential to distinguish multiple nonspecific NSAID hypersensitivity from single NSAID hypersensitivity, since the management of these respective syndromes is essentially different. This review provides an overview on all the aspects of NSAID hypersensitivity reactions, from pathophysiology to clinical symptoms, leading practical recommendations.

Background: PREDICT version 2.0 is increasingly used to estimate prognosis in breast cancer. This study aimed to validate this tool in specific prognostic subgroups in the Netherlands., Methods: All operated women with non-metastatic primary invasive breast cancer, diagnosed in 2005, were selected from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Predicted and observed 5- and 10-year overall survival (OS) were compared for the overall cohort, separated by oestrogen receptor (ER) status, and predefined subgroups. A >5% difference was considered as clinically relevant. Discriminatory accuracy and goodness-of-fit were determined using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the Chi-squared-test., Results: We included 8834 patients. Discriminatory accuracy for 5-year OS was good (AUC 0.80). For ER-positive and ER-negative patients, AUCs were 0.79 and 0.75, respectively. Predicted 5-year OS differed from observed by -1.4% in the entire cohort, -0.7% in ER-positive and -4.9% in ER-negative patients. Five-year OS was accurately predicted in all subgroups. Discriminatory accuracy for 10-year OS was good (AUC 0.78). For ER-positive and ER-negative patients AUCs were 0.78 and 0.76, respectively. Predicted 10-year OS differed from observed by -1.0% in the entire cohort, -0.1% in ER-positive and -5.3 in ER-negative patients. Ten-year OS was overestimated (6.3%) in patients ≥75 years and underestimated (-13.%) in T3 tumours and patients treated with both endocrine therapy and chemotherapy (-6.6%)., Conclusions: PREDICT predicts OS reliably in most Dutch breast cancer patients, although results for both 5-year and 10-year OS should be interpreted carefully in ER-negative patients. Furthermore, 10-year OS should be interpreted cautiously in patients ≥75 years, T3 tumours and in patients considering endocrine therapy and chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The diagnosis of food allergy is established in cases where an immediate allergic reaction has occurred in the last year to a clearly identifiable allergenic food combined with sensitisation to this allergenic food. In all other cases, a food challenge test is required to establish or reject the diagnosis of food allergy. Although the double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) test is considered the gold standard, false-positive and false-negative outcomes occur. The incidence of false-positive outcomes is unknown because the results of DBPCFC tests cannot be further confirmed by other tests. If possible, it is important to perform double-blind challenges with recipes that have been validated for blinding and to use challenge procedures that have been proven safe in clinical practice, in order to reduce the risk of unwanted false-positive and false-negative outcomes and severe challenge reactions. The national guideline of the Dutch Society of Allergology describes when challenges are indicated and contraindicated, how food challenges are best conducted and how patients could best be managed and followed-up after the challenge tests have been completed.