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.

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.

Background\ud Food allergy is thought to develop through transcutaneous sensitization, especially in the presence of skin barrier impairment and inflammation. Regular moisturizer application to infant skin could potentially promote transcutaneous sensitization and the development of food allergy.\ud \ud Objectives\ud We tested this hypothesis in the Enquiring About Tolerance (EAT) study population.\ud \ud Methods\ud The EAT study was a population-based randomized clinical trial conducted from January 15, 2008, to August 31, 2015, and recruited 1303 exclusively breastfed 3-month-old infants and their families from England and Wales. At enrollment at 3 months, families completed a questionnaire that included questions about frequency and type of moisturizer applied, use of corticosteroid creams, and parental report of dry skin or eczema. Infants were examined for visible eczema at the enrollment visit.\ud \ud Results\ud A statistically significant dose-response relationship was observed between parent-reported moisturization frequency at 3 months of age and the subsequent development of food allergy. Each additional moisturization per week was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.20 (95% CI, 1.13-1.27; P < .0005) for developing food allergy. For infants with no visible eczema at the enrollment visit, the corresponding adjusted odds ratio was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.07-1.30; P = .001) and for those with eczema at the enrollment visit, 1.20 (95% CI, 1.11-1.31; P < .0005). Moisturizer frequency showed similar dose-response relationships with the development of both food and aeroallergen sensitization at 36 months.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud These findings support the notion that regular application of moisturizers to the skin of young infants may promote the development of food allergy through transcutaneous sensitization.

This study presents scenarios on how demand and supply for biobased chemicals and materials could grow to 2030, and provides roadmaps with actions required to increase the deployment of chemical and material driven biorefineries in the EU. The study also presents the key elements of the analysis which have supported the preparation of the scenarios and roadmaps. This includes a biorefinery classification system, a database of operational or announced biorefineries (developed in collaboration with the Joint Research Centre) for the EU and 10 non-EU countries, a detailed opportunities and barriers analysis and a market outlook to 2030 with a focus on eleven biorefinery pathways. The study was developed by E4tech (lead), BTG, Wageningen Research, FNR and ICONS with the support of over 100 stakeholders from the bio-based industry, the chemicals and materials industries, academia & research institutions, the investment community and policy makers through active participation in stakeholder workshops, meetings and interviews.

Background: The heterogeneity and lack of validation of existing severity scores for food allergic reactions limit standardization of case management and research advances. We aimed to develop and validate a severity score for food allergic reactions. Methods: Following a multidisciplinary experts consensus, it was decided to develop a food allergy severity score (FASS) with ordinal (oFASS) and numerical (nFASS) formats. oFASS with 3 and 5 grades were generated through expert consensus, and nFASS by mathematical modeling. Evaluation was performed in the EuroPrevall outpatient clinic cohort (8232 food reactions) by logistic regression with request of emergency care and medications used as outcomes. Discrimination, classification, and calibration were calculated. Bootstrapping internal validation was followed by external validation (logistic regression) in 5 cohorts (3622 food reactions). Correlation of nFASS with the severity classification done by expert allergy clinicians by Best-Worst Scaling of 32 food reactions was calculated. Results: oFASS and nFASS map consistently, with nFASS having greater granularity. With the outcomes emergency care, adrenaline and critical medical treatment, oFASS and nFASS had a good discrimination (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [ROC-AUC]>0.80), classification (sensitivity 0.87–0.92, specificity 0.73–0.78), and calibration. Bootstrapping over ROC-AUC showed negligible biases (1.0 × 10−6–1.23 × 10−3). In external validation, nFASS performed best with higher ROC-AUC. nFASS was strongly correlated (R 0.89) to best-worst scoring of 334 expert clinicians. Conclusion: FASS is a validated and reliable method to measure severity of food allergic reactions. The ordinal and numerical versions that map onto each other are suitable for use by different stakeholders in different settings. © 2021 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The placebo (Latin “I will please”) effect commonly occurs in clinical trials. The psychological and physiological factors associated with patients’ expectations about a treatment's positive and negative effects have yet to be well characterized, although a functional prefrontal cortex and intense bidirectional communication between the central nervous system and the immune system appear to be prerequisites for a placebo effect. The use of placebo raises certain ethical issues, especially if patients in a placebo group are denied an effective treatment for a long period of time. The placebo effect appears to be relatively large (up to 77%, relative to pretreatment scores) in controlled clinical trials of allergen immunotherapy (AIT), such as the pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) randomized clinical trials currently required by regulatory authorities worldwide. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) therefore initiated a Task Force, in order to better understand the placebo effect in AIT and its specific role in comorbidities, blinding issues, adherence, measurement time points, variability and the natural course of the disease. In this Position Paper, the EAACI Task Force highlights several important topics regarding the placebo effect in AIT such as a) regulatory aspects, b) neuroimmunological and psychological mechanisms, c) placebo effect sizes in AIT trials, d) methodological limitations in AIT trial design and e) potential solutions in future AIT trial design. In conclusion, this Position Paper aims to examine the methodological problem of placebo in AIT from different aspects and also to highlight unmet needs and possible solutions for future trials. © 2020 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Background: Discovered and described 40 years ago, non-specific lipid transfer proteins (nsLTP) are present in many plant species and play an important role protecting plants from stressors such as heat or drought. In the last 20 years, sensitization to nsLTP and consequent reactions to plant foods has become an increasing concern. Aim: The aim of this paper is to review the evidence for the structure and function of nsLTP allergens, and cross-reactivity, sensitization, and epidemiology of nsLTP allergy. Materials and Methods: A Task Force, supported by the European Academy of Allergy & Clinical Immunology (EAACI), reviewed current evidence and provide a signpost for future research. The search terms for this paper were “Non-specific Lipid Transfer Proteins”, “LTP syndrome”, “Pru p 3”, “plant food allergy”, “pollen-food syndrome”. Results: Most nsLTP allergens have a highly conserved structure stabilised by 4-disulphide bridges. Studies on the peach nsLTP, Pru p 3, demonstrate that nsLTPs are very cross-reactive, with the four major IgE epitopes of Pru p 3 being shared by nsLTP from other botanically related fruits. These nsLTP allergens are to varying degrees resistant to heat and digestion, and sensitization may occur through the oral, inhaled or cutaneous routes. In some populations, Pru p 3 is the primary and sole sensitizing allergen, but many are poly-sensitised both to botanically un-related nsLTP in foods, and non-food sources of nsLTP such as Cannabis sativa, Platanus acerifolia, (plane tree), Ambrosia artemisiifolia (ragweed) and Artemisia vulgaris (mugwort). Initially, nsLTP sensitization appeared to be limited to Mediterranean countries, however more recent studies suggest clinically relevant sensitization occurs in North Atlantic regions and also countries in Northern Europe, with nsLTP sensitisation profiles being broadly similar. Discussion: These robust allergens have the potential to sensitize and provoke symptoms to a large number of plant foods, including those which are raw, cooked or processed. It is unknown why some sensitized individuals develop clinical symptoms to foods whereas others do not, or indeed what other allergens besides Pru p 3 may be primary sensitising allergens. It is clear that these allergens are also relevant in non-Mediterranean populations and there needs to be more recognition of this. Conclusion: Non-specific LTP allergens, present in a wide variety of plant foods and pollens, are structurally robust and so may be present in both raw and cooked foods. More studies are needed to understand routes of sensitization and the world-wide prevalence of clinical symptoms associated with sensitization to these complex allergens. © 2021 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Allergy published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.