Search

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and allergic rhinitis (AR) usually represent the latest manifestations of the atopic march, sharing a common type 2 inflammation response. A relevant prevalence of AR in EoE cohorts has been widely confirmed. An increasing literature assessed the involvement of aeroantigens in EoE pathogenesis, focusing foremost on the seasonality of new diagnoses, symptoms, and response to therapy. Unfortunately, no diriment direction has been achieved, probably due to the retrospective design of the studies so far available, which chose surrogate markers of EoE activity (mostly the date of new diagnosis) which may be affected by geographical, logistic and personal factors, probably not dependent by the disease itself. EoE exacerbations reported in the context of the pollen levels (preferably pollen counts) may represent a more reliable marker. AR might promote the onset and the re-exacerbation of EoE through mechanisms that are both local (ie, massive exposure to airborne antigens mediated by post-nasal drip) and systemic (type 2 inflammation). Furthermore, AR may facilitate EoE onset by predisposing to pollen food allergic syndrome (PFAS), and EoE patients with PFAS reported higher rate of AR, thus suggesting a bond among these 3 conditions whose causative relationship have still to be ascertained. In addition, because of its shifting activity from Th2 to Th1 inflammation, several case reports focused on the effect of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) employed to treat AR in EoE patients. Also in this instance, no certainties could be guaranteed, although sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is more frequently reported to exacerbate EoE, while SCIT is mostly described as a remission adjuvant. The real life experience reported from our allergy service appears to confirm such hypothesis. Finally, a watchful eye should be reserved to monoclonal antibodies as a potential future option for concomitant EoE and AR. In light of all this, an attentive evaluation of allergic history of EoE patients should be relevant. Future perspectives should be addressed on prospective studies targeted to shed light on causative relations among airborne antigens, AR and EoE, and to viable comprehensive treatments., Competing Interests: ER, FN, CL, GP and GS declare no conflict of interest. GWC has received research grants and lecture or advisory board fees from A. Menarini, Allergy – Therapeutics, AstraZeneca-MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti-Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL Allergy, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes-Greer, Thermo Fisher, Valeas, and Vifor Pharma in the last 3 years., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: Aging implies changes in terms of lung function, immune system, and respiratory and extra-respiratory comorbidities. Few studies have specifically addressed the relevance of age on severe asthma burden and control. We aimed to evaluate whether age acts as an independent determinant of asthma severity, in terms of clinical, functional, and inflammatory profile, and to explore potential cofactors that contribute to a more difficult disease control in different age groups., Methods: Patients from Severe Asthma Network Italy (SANI) registry were retrospectively divided in subgroups according to their age. Cutoffs for age were established according to quartiles in order to obtain a comparable number of patients for each group, and then rounded for the sake of simplicity., Results: Overall, 1805 severe asthma patients were analyzed. Lung function represented the most important age-related variable. On the opposite the level of asthma control was not differently distributed among age ranges. In young people the presence of atopy-related comorbidities (allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis) predominated, whilst systemic-metabolic and degenerative comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, anxious-depressive syndrome, and osteoporosis prevailed in elderly. Bronchiectasis and sleep disturbances were significantly associated with age., Conclusions: Despite that it cannot be considered a treatable trait, our study suggests that age should be evaluated within a personalized approach to severe asthma patients, in order to provide a better clinical profiling and a more tailored treatment strategy., Competing Interests: FB received financial grants from AstraZeneca Financial, Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A and Insmed Inc.; he worked as a paid consultant for Menarini and Zambon; and received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A., GlaxoSmithKline, Guidotti, Grifols, Insmed Inc., Menarini, Novartis AG, Sanofi-Genzyme, Viatris Inc., Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Zambon. MC received financial grants from AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi. GWC reports having received research grants as well as being lecturer or having received advisory board fees from: A. Menarini, Allergy Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Faes, Firma, Guidotti-Malesci, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hal Allergy, Innovacaremd, Novartis, OmPharma, RedMaple, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Stallergenes-Greer, Uriach Pharma, ThermoFisher, Valeas. EH received a research grant from GlaxoSmith&Kline, and fees for lectures from Sanofi, Regeneron, GlaxoSmith&Kline, Astrazeneca, Novartis, Chiesi, Stallergenes-Greer; and declares fees for advisory boards participation from Sanofi, Regeneron, Glaxo Smith Kline, Astrazeneca, Novartis, Chiesi, Almirall, Celltrion Healthcare, Bosch. PP received advisory board fees from Chiesi Farmaceutici, Glaxo Smith Kline, and Sanofi, and fees for educational activities from: AstraZeneca, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Glaxo Smith Kline, Guidotti and Sanofi. GS received financial grants from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Sanofi. AM, AV, GA, GG, JM, MM, PM and RV declared no relevant conflicts of interest. All authors reported no financial interests or potential conflicts of interest related to this study., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Hypereosinophilic syndromes (HES) represent a group of rare dis-immune conditions characterized by blood hyper-eosinophilia and eosinophilic related burden. Especially the idiopathic subtype (I-HES) is particularly difficult to diagnose because of its heterogeneous clinical presentation, the lack of specific findings on physical exam, lab tools, and imaging informative enough to unequivocally confirm the diagnosis and the overlap with other entities, including eosinophilic organ-diseases or systemic dis-immune conditions other than I-HES (from atopy to eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis [EGPA], the last often extremely difficult to distinguish from HES). Taken together, all the features mentioned above account for an extremely difficult early recognition HES and on-time referral to a specialized centre. The referral itself is challenging due to a not univocal specialist identification, because of the variability of physicians managing HES in different settings (including allergist/clinical immunologist, haematologist, internal medicine doctors, pulmonologist, rheumatologist). Furthermore, the approach in terms of personalized treatment identification and follow-up plan (timing, organ assessment), is poorly standardized. Further translational and clinical research is needed to address the mentioned unmet needs, but on practical grounds increasing the overall clinicians' awareness on HES and implementing healthcare pathways for HES patients represent a roadmap that every clinician might try to realize in his specific setting. The present review aims at providing an overview about the current challenges and unmet needs in the practical approach to HES and rare hypereosinophilic allergo-immunological diseases, including a proposal for an innovative multidisciplinary organizational model., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests in relation to the topic of the manuscript., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

There is a lack of consensus over the description and severity assignment of allergic adverse reactions to immunotherapy, although there seems to be a consensus at least in terms of using the World Allergy Organization (WAO) grading systems to describe local adverse events for Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT) and Systemic Allergic Reactions (SARs) to Subcutaneous Immunotherapy (SCIT) amongst the major national/regional allergy societies. In this manuscript, we propose a modification of the previous WAO Grading system for SARs, which aligns with the newly-proposed Consortium for Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions in Food Allergy (version 3.0). We hope this can facilitate a unified grading system appropriate to SARs due to allergen immunotherapy, independent of allergen and route of administration, and across clinical and research practice., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: Anaphylaxis is the most severe clinical presentation of acute systemic allergic reactions and can cause death. Given the prevalence of anaphylaxis within healthcare systems, it is a high priority public health issue. However, management of anaphylaxis - both acute and preventative - varies by region., Methods: The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Anaphylaxis Committee and the WAO Junior Members Steering Group undertook a global online survey to evaluate local practice in the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis across regions., Results: Responses were received from WAO members in 66 countries. While intramuscular epinephrine (adrenaline) is first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, some countries continue to recommend alternative routes in contrast to guidelines. Epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) devices, prescribed to individuals at ongoing risk of anaphylaxis in the community setting, are only available in 60% of countries surveyed , mainly in high-income countries. Many countries in South America, Africa/Middle-East and Asian-Pacific regions do not have EAI available, or depend on individual importation. In countries where EAIs are commercially available, national policies regarding the availability of EAIs in public settings are limited to few countries (16%). There is no consensus regarding the time patients should be observed following emergency treatment of anaphylaxis., Conclusion: This survey provides a global snapshot view of the current management of anaphylaxis, and highlights key unmet needs including the global availability of epinephrine for self-injection as a key component of anaphylaxis management., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interests related to the contents of this article., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) can be considered the etiological therapy for allergic rhinitis and hymenoptera venom allergy. Its role is increasingly emerging in the context of IgE mediated food allergy, where the achievement of tolerance, or the permanent resolution of an allergy, represents the optimal goal of AIT. AIT treatment, indicated in adults and children with allergic rhinitis, has a preventative effect on the development of asthma and can also be used when asthma is associated to rhinitis; however, it is not the first choice for treatment of isolated asthma. While knowledge on immunological mechanisms, efficacy, and safety of AIT is known, an intriguing line of investigation has arisen on how the action of AIT is modulated by the use of probiotics, starting from awareness that the microbiome is altered in allergic conditions: the use of probiotics in inducing the stimulation of innate immunity via toll-like receptor activation, thus acting as adjuvants in AIT, is hereby examined. Therefore, by analyzing literature on AIT and probiotics, we intend to draw attention to how the role and use of AIT are emerging as being increasingly important for both the short- and long-term management of allergic diseases and how recourse probiotics may represent an additional therapeutic strategy to modulate the effectiveness of AIT. However, further investigations are needed to better identify which probiotics to use, the dosage, and the optimal duration to obtain correct immunomodulation, and how to best customize their use, including a "AIT + probiotics" strategy in the field of precision medicine., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

In the recent years, it was recognized that type-2 inflammation links many forms of nasal polyposis with severe asthma. Thus, some biological drugs developed for severe asthma appeared to exert an effect on nasal polyposis. So far, there are several trials supporting this concept; therefore, some monoclonal antibodies for severe asthma were assessed also in polyposis, with promising results. Since different specialists are involved in the management of nasal polyposis (eg, pulmonologists, ENT, allergists), it was felt that an educational and informative document was needed to better identify the indications of biologicals in nasal polyposis. We collected the main Italian Scientific Societies, and prepared (under the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma, ARIA) a document endorsed by all Societies, to provide a provisional statement for the future use of monoclonal antibodies as a medical treatment for polyposis. It is the first nationwide endorsed document on this aspect. The current pathogenic knowledge and the experimental evidence are herein reviewed, and some suggestions for a correct prescription and follow-up are provided., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest reported for any of the authors., (© 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of World Allergy Organization.)

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak brought an unprecedented challenge to the world. Knowledge in the field has been increasing exponentially and the main allergy societies have produced guidance documents for better management of allergic patients during this period. However, few publications so far have provided real-life data from the allergy community concerning allergy practice during the COVID-19 outbreak. Therefore, we proposed an international survey on the management of allergic patients during the current pandemic., Methods: We performed an online survey undertaken to reach out the worldwide allergy community by e-mail and social media. The web-based questionnaire contained 24 questions covering demographic data from the participants, clinical practice during this period, and questions related to the new international classification and coding tools addressed for COVID-19. It was circulated for 8 weeks and had anonymous and volunteer context., Results: Data are presented for 635 participants from 78 countries of all continents. Allergists with long-term professional experience were the main audience. As expected, we received many responses as "I have no data" or "I don't know" to the questions of the survey. However, most with more experience on managing allergic patients during the pandemic agreed that patients suffering from allergic or hypersensitivity conditions have no increased risk of contracting COVID-19 or developing SARS CoV-2. Also, participants mentioned that none of the allergy treatments (inhaled corticosteroids, allergen immunotherapy, biological agents) increased the risk of contracting COVID-19 infection including severe presentations., Conclusion: The data presented are a starting point in the process of getting feedback on all the recommendations provided by the allergy societies; it could also be the basis of new strategies to support health professionals while new COVID-19 specific treatments and vaccines are being explored. The information here presented intends to be helpful to the community but represents a course of action in a highly specific situation due to the state of emergency, and it should be helpful to health systems., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they do not have conflict of interests related to the contents of this article., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Vaccines against COVID-19 (and its emerging variants) are an essential global intervention to control the current pandemic situation. Vaccines often cause adverse events; however, the vast majority of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) are a consequence of the vaccine stimulating a protective immune response, and not allergic in etiology. Anaphylaxis as an AEFI is uncommon, occurring at a rate of less than 1 per million doses for most vaccines. However, within the first days of initiating mass vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2, there were reports of anaphylaxis from the United Kingdom and United States. More recent data imply an incidence of anaphylaxis closer to 1:200,000 doses with respect to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. In this position paper, we discuss the background to reactions to the current COVID-19 vaccines and relevant steps to mitigate against the risk of anaphylaxis as an AEFI. We propose a global surveillance strategy led by allergists in order to understand the potential risk and generate data to inform evidence-based guidance, and thus provide reassurance to public health bodies and members of the public., Competing Interests: Dr. Ansotegui reports personal fees from Mundipharma, Roxall, Sanofi, MSD, Faes Farma, Hikma, UCB, Astra Zeneca, Stallergenes, Abbott, and Bial, outside the submitted work. Dr. Cardona reports personal fees from ALK, Allergy Therapeutics, LETI, Thermofisher, Merck, Astrazeneca, and GSK, outside the submitted work. Former chair of the WAO Anaphylaxis Committee. Member of the working group of the EAACI anaphylaxis guidelines. Chair of the SLAAI anaphylaxis Committee. Dr. Campbell is a part-time employee of DBV Technologies and reports grants from National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and personal fees from Allergenis, Westmead Fertility Centre, and Financial Markets Foundation for Children. Dr. Ebisawa reports personal fees from Mylan, outside the submitted work. Dr. El-Gamal has nothing to disclose. Dr. Fineman has nothing to disclose. Dr. Geller has nothing to disclose. Dr. Gonzalez-Estrada has nothing to disclose. Dr. Greenberger reports personal fees from Wolters Kluwer book, Wolters Kluwer Uptodate, and Allergy Therapeutics, outside the submitted work; and Expert testimony: Legal on anaphylaxis. Dr. Leung has nothing to disclose. Dr. Levin has nothing to disclose. Dr Muraro reports grants and personal fees from Aimmune and personal fees from DVB, Mylan, ALK and Nestle outside the submitted work. Dr. Sanchez Borges has nothing to disclose. Dr. Senna has nothing to disclose. Dr. Sheikh has nothing to disclose. Dr. Tanno has nothing to disclose. Dr. Thong has nothing to disclose. Dr. Turner reports grants from UK Medical Research Council, NIHR/Imperial BRC, UK Food Standards Agency, End Allergies Together, Jon Moulton Charity Trust; personal fees and non-financial support from Aimmune Therapeutics, DBV Technologies and Allergenis, personal fees and other from ILSI Europe and UK Food Standards Agency, outside the submitted work; current Chairperson of the WAO Anaphylaxis Committee, and joint-chair of the Anaphylaxis Working group of the UK Resuscitation Council. Dr. Worm reports other from Allergopharma GmbH & Co. KG, other from ALK-Abelló Arzneimittel GmbH, other from Mylan Germany GmbH, other from Leo Pharma GmbH, other from Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, other from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, other from DBV Technologies S.A, other from Stallergenes GmbH, other from HAL Allergie GmbH, other from Bencard Allergie GmbH, other from Aimmune Therapeutics UK Limited, other from Actelion Pharmaceuticals Deutschland GmbH, other from Novartis AG, other from Biotest AG, other from AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, other from Lilly Deutschland GmbH, outside the submitted work., (© 2021 The Author(s).)

Background and Aims: Severe asthma is burdened by frequent exacerbations and use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) which worsen patients' health and increase healthcare spending. Aim of this study was to assess the clinical and economic effect of adding mepolizumab (MEP) for the treatment of these patients., Methods: Patients >18 years old, referred to 8 asthma clinics, starting MEP between May 2017 and December 2018, were enrolled and followed-up for 12 months. Information in the 12 months before mepolizumab were collected retrospectively. The evaluation parameters included: OCS use, number of exacerbations/hospitalizations, concomitant therapies, comorbidity, and annual number of working days lost due to the disease. The primary objective was to compare the annual total cost per patient pre- and post-MEP. Secondary outcomes included rates of exacerbations and number of OCS-dependent patients., Results: 106 patients were enrolled in the study: 46 male, median age 58 years. Mean annual cost pre- and post-MEP (cost of biologic excluded) was €3996 and €1,527, respectively. Total savings due to MEP resulted in €2469 (95%CI 1945-2993), 62% due to exacerbations reduction and 33% due to productivity increase. Such savings could fund about 22% of the total cost of MEP for one year. The introduction of MEP induced a clinical benefit by reducing both OCS-dependent patients (OR = 0.12, 95%CI 0.06-0.23) and exacerbation rate (RR = 0.19, 95%CI 0.15-0.24)., Conclusions: Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma experienced a clinical benefit in asthma control adding MEP to standard therapy. Biologic therapy can be, partially, funded by the savings produced by patients' improvement., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Anaphylaxis is the most severe clinical presentation of acute systemic allergic reactions. The occurrence of anaphylaxis has increased in recent years, and subsequently, there is a need to continue disseminating knowledge on the diagnosis and management, so every healthcare professional is prepared to deal with such emergencies. The rationale of this updated position document is the need to keep guidance aligned with the current state of the art of knowledge in anaphylaxis management. The World Allergy Organization (WAO) anaphylaxis guidelines were published in 2011, and the current guidance adopts their major indications, incorporating some novel changes. Intramuscular epinephrine (adrenaline) continues to be the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. Nevertheless, its use remains suboptimal. After an anaphylaxis occurrence, patients should be referred to a specialist to assess the potential cause and to be educated on prevention of recurrences and self-management. The limited availability of epinephrine auto-injectors remains a major problem in many countries, as well as their affordability for some patients., Competing Interests: Dr. Ansotegui reports personal fees from Mundipharma, Roxall, Sanofi, MSD, Faes Farma, Hikma, UCB, Astra Zeneca, Stallergenes, Abbott, and Bial, outside the submitted work. Dr. Cardona reports personal fees from ALK, Allergy Therapeutics, LETI, Thermofisher, Merck, Astrazeneca, and GSK, outside the submitted work. Former chair of the WAO Anaphylaxis Committee. Member of the working group of the EAACI anaphylaxis guidelines. Chair of the SLAAI anaphylaxis Committee. Dr. Ebisawa reports personal fees from Mylan, outside the submitted work. Dr. El-Gamal has nothing to disclose. Dr. Fernandez Rivas reports grants from Aimmune, DIATER, personal fees from Aimmune, ALK, Allergy Therapeutics, DIATER, GSK, HAL Allergy, Thermofisher Scientific,Aimmune, DBV, and SPRIM, and grants from Spanish Government (MINECO, ISClll), outside the submitted work. Dr. Fineman has nothing to disclose. Dr. Geller has nothing to disclose. Dr. Gonzalez-Estrada has nothing to disclose. Dr. Greenberger reports personal fees from Wolters Kluwer book, Wolters Kluwer Uptodate, and Allergy Therapeutics, outside the submitted work; and Expert testimony: Legal on anaphylaxis. Dr. Kase Tanno has nothing to disclose. Dr. Sanchez Borges has nothing to disclose. Dr. Senna has nothing to disclose. Dr. Sheikh has nothing to disclose. Dr. Thong has nothing to disclose. Dr. Turner reports grants from UK Medical Research Council, NIHR/Imperial BRC, UK Food Standards Agency, End Allergies Together, Jon Moulton Charity Trust; personal fees and non-financial support from Aimmune Therapeutics, DBV Technologies and Allergenis, personal fees and other from ILSI Europe and UK Food Standards Agency, outside the submitted work; current Chairperson of the WAO Anaphylaxis Committee, and joint-chair of the Anaphylaxis Working group of the UK Resuscitation Council. Dr. Worm reports other from Allergopharma GmbH & Co. KG, other from ALK-Abelló Arzneimittel GmbH, other from Mylan Germany GmbH, other from Leo Pharma GmbH, other from Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, other from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, other from DBV Technologies S.A, other from Stallergenes GmbH, other from HAL Allergie GmbH, other from Bencard Allergie GmbH, other from Aimmune Therapeutics UK Limited, other from Actelion Pharmaceuticals Deutschland GmbH, other from Novartis AG, other from Biotest AG, other from AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, other from Lilly Deutschland GmbH, outside the submitted work., (© 2020 The Author(s).)

According to the data derived from several national and international registries, including SANI (Severe Asthma Network Italy), and considering the strong impact that frequent or regular use of oral corticosteroid has on quality of life (QoL) of severe asthmatics, as well as on the costs for managing corticosteroid-related diseases, oral corticosteroid sparing up to withdrawal should be considered a primary outcome in the management of severe asthma. New biologics have clearly demonstrated that this effect is possible, with concomitant reduction in the rate of exacerbations and in symptom control. Then, there is no reason for using so frequently oral corticosteroid before having explored all alternatives currently available for a large part of severe asthmatics., Competing Interests: GW Canonica received in the last three years research grants as well as lecture or advisory board fees from: A. Menarini, Alk-Abello, Allergy Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Genentech, Guidotti-Malesci, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hal Allergy, Mylan, Merck, Mundipharma, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Genzyme, StallergenesGreer, UCB pharma, Uriach Pharma, Valeas, ViborPharma. F Blasi received grants and/or personal fees from: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chiesi, Guidotti, Glaxo Smith Kline, Grifols, Insmed, Menarini, Mundifarma, Novartis, Pfizer, Zambon. PL Paggiaro received grants and/or personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Guidotti, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi. S Aliberti received grants and/or personal fees from Actavis UK Ltd, Aradigm Corporation, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer Healthcare, Chiesi, Grifols, Horizon, INSMED, Novartis, Raptor, Zambon. L Cosmi received personal fees from Glaxo Smith Kline and Novartis. S Centanni received grants and/or personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boheringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Glaxo Smith Kline, Guidotti, Menarini, Novartis, Valeas. ME Conte received personal fees from Glaxo Smith Kline. S D’Alò received fees for clinical trials from Glaxo Smith Kline. S Del Giacco received grants and/or personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Glaxo Smith Kline, Menarini. Novartis. F Puggioni received personal fees from Allergy therapeutics, Almirall, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Glaxo Smith Kline, Guidotti, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi, Valeas. FLM Ricciardolo received grants, personal fees and/or other supports from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Glaxo Smith Kline, Guidotti, Lusofarmaco, Menarini, Neopharmed, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva. L Richeldi received personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, FibroGen, Promedior, RespiVant, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis. P Santus received grants and/or personal fees from ALK Abellò, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Boheringer Ingheleim, Menarini International, Novartis, Sanofi, Valeas, Zambon. E Heffler received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boheringer Ingheleim, Circassia, Glaxo Smith Kline, Nestlè Purina, Novartis, Sanofi, Teva, Valeas. GE Senna, G Passalacqua, A Spanevello, D Bagnasco, M Bonavia, M Bonini, L Brussino, C Bucca, MF Caiaffa, C Calabresi, G Camiciottoli, M Caminati, GE Carpagnano, C Caruso, AG Corsico, MT Costantino, N Crimi, M D'Amato, A Farsi, E Favero, MP Foschino Barbato, G Guarneri, G Guida, M Latorre, S Lo Cicero, C Lombardi, L Macchia, F Mazza, F Menzella, M Milanese, M Montagni, P Montuschi, E Nucera, R Parente, V Patella, G Pelaia, L Pini, L Ricciardi, E Ridolo, G Rolla, N Scichilone, G Spadaro, A Vianello, V Viviano, MR Yacoub, MC Zappa have nothing to disclose., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Background: Asthma still represents a cause of death and hospital admissions worldwide. Our study aimed at analyzing the trend of Emergency Room (ER) asthma admissions in Northeast Italy in order to investigate the relevance of specific patient-related determinants and environmental triggers (pollens, mold spores, and pollutants)., Methods: Retrospective data from admissions for asthma exacerbations registered between the years 2013 and 2015 in two main ERs in Northeast Italy were collected. Data about patients' age, sex and nationality were recorded. Classification of disease severity followed the current Italian ER triage scoring system (white: no need for emergency treatment; green: need for fast treatment; yellow: severe condition; red: life-threatening condition). Data on pollen/mold spore counts and pollutants were analyzed., Results: Overall, 1745 ​ER admissions for asthma were registered, with a persistent and significant increase year by year. A slight prevalence of females and patients over 50 years old was observed. Immigrants accounted for 32%, 36% and 26% of admissions respectively in 2013, 2014 and 2015. The prevalence of immigrants' admissions was significantly higher when comparing the relative ratio of immigrant populations/Italian nationals (p ​< ​0.05). The admissions were coded as follows: white, 6.30%; green, 35.36%; yellow, 39.37%; red, 18.97%. People aged ≥50 years were more frequently admitted with a red code, but the trend was not statistically significant (p ​= ​0,0815). By contrast, amongst immigrants there was a higher prevalence of white and green codes observed in comparison with Italian nationals. Grass pollen peak and PM 10 high levels represented environmental determinants of ER admissions increase., Conclusions: The increasing rate of asthma-related ER admissions highlights the need for implementing asthma control strategies. Investigating the traits of patients referring to ER for asthma exacerbations, as well as environmental-related determinants, may help in identifying at-risk individuals and in orienting preventive strategies accordingly. Immigrants represent the most vulnerable sub-population, and their potential difficulties in accessing treatments and health services should be specifically addressed. Overall, implementing patient education in order to improve treatment adherence, as well as providing an asthma action plan to every asthmatic patient, continue to be the most urgent needs.

Background: Asthma is one of the most common non-communicable respiratory diseases, affecting about 6% of the general population. Severe asthma, even if afflicts a minority of asthmatics, drives the majority of costs of the disease. The aim of this study is to create a pharmacoeconomic model to predict the costs of corticosteroid-related adverse events in severe asthmatics and applying it to the first published epidemiologic data from the Severe Asthma Network in Italy (SANI) registry., Methods: The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Italian National Healthcare System (INHS). Model inputs, derived from literature, included: asthma epidemiology data, frequency of adverse events, percentage of severe asthma treated with OCS and adverse event cost (Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) national tariffs). We estimated costs per different patient groups: non-asthma controls, mild/moderate and severe asthmatics. Final results report estimated direct cost per patient and total direct cost for overall target population, showing economic impact related to corticosteroid complication., Results: Based on epidemiological data input, in Italy, asthmatic subjects resulted about 3,999,600, of which 199,980 with severe asthma. The number of patients with severe asthma OCS-treated was estimated at 123,988. Compared to the non-asthma control cohort and to that with moderate asthma annual cost per severe asthmatic patient resulted respectively about €892 and €606 higher, showing a corticosteroids shadow cost ranging from 45% to 30%.Applying the cost per patient to the target population identified for Italy, the budget impact model estimated a total annual cost related to OCS-related adverse events of €242.7 million for severe asthmatics. In respect with non-asthmatic and moderate population, an incremental expenditure of about € 110.6 million and €75.2, respectively, were shown., Conclusions: Our study provides the first estimates of additional healthcare costs related to corticosteroid induced adverse events in severe asthma patient. Budget impact model results highlighted the relevant economic impact of OCS-related adverse events in severe asthma patients. The future extrapolation of additional data from SANI registry will support the development of a model to investigate the role of corticosteroids sparing drugs.

Background: Poor asthma control observed in several surveys may be related to a lack of systematic assessment by physicians and/or to patient underestimation of symptoms. Along this line, the purpose of this study was to investigate the level of asthma control in patients attending the GP office for different reasons, either for renewal of drug prescription or for worsening of asthma symptoms., Methods: Each of the 145 General Practitioners (GP) in Italy and Spain selected at least eight asthmatic patients attending their office for a renewal of drug prescription (Group A) or for worsening of asthma symptoms (Group B), between May and December 2009. Asthma Control Test (ACT) and other clinical information (including SF-12 questionnaire) were collected., Results: Data from 1375 patients with moderate-severe asthma were analysed (mean age: 47.2 years; female: 59%; smokers or ex-smokers: 35.4%); 57% were on treatment with ICS-LABA combination. ACT score < 20 (uncontrolled asthma) was observed in 77.8% Group B patients, as expected, but also in 28.6% Group A patients. Uncontrolled patients reported their asthma being well or fairly well controlled in 68.4% of cases. Risk factors for uncontrolled asthma were older age, asthma severity, and smoking habit. In uncontrolled patients, GPs changed or increased the level of therapy in 75.8% and initiated asthma treatment in 61.3% of cases, in association with educational intervention, closer monitoring or pulmonologist consultations., Discussion: The systematic use of ACT in asthmatics attending GP's clinic may detect high rates of uncontrolled patients who underestimate their clinical conditions, particularly those asking solely for asthma medication renewal. Poor adherence to daily drug therapy was reported in more than 40% of patients and could be an important contributor of uncontrolled asthma., Conclusions: The results highlight the importance of routine longitudinal assessment of asthma patients in primary care and point to the need for an increased attention to asthma management by GPs.

Background: Asthma mortality has declined since the 1980s. Nevertheless the World Health Organization (WHO) identified asthma as responsible for 225.000 deaths worldwide in 2005, and 430.000 fatal cases are expected by 2030. Some unexpected and concentrated fatal asthma events all occurred between 2013 and 2015 in Veneto, a North Eastern region of Italy, which prompted a more in-depth investigation of characteristics and risk factors., Methods: A web search including key words related to fatal asthma in Italy between 2013 and 2015 has been performed. Concerning the cases that occurred in Veneto, subjects' clinical records have been evaluated and details about concomitant weather conditions, pollutants and pollen count have been collected., Results: Twenty-three cases of asthma deaths were found in Italy; 16 of them (69%) occurred in the Veneto Region. A prevalence of male and young age was observed. Most of patients were atopic, died in the night-time hours and during the weekends. The possible risk factors identified were the sensitization to alternaria , previous near fatal asthma attacks and the incorrect treatment of the disease. Weather condition did not appear to be related to the fatal exacerbations, whereas among the pollutants only ozone was detected over the accepted limits. Smoking habits, possible drug abuse and concomitant complementary therapies might be regarded as further risk factors., Discussion: Although not free from potential biases, our web search and further investigations highlight an increasing asthma mortality trend, similarly to what other observatories report. The analysis of available clinical data suggests that the lack of treatment more than a severe asthma phenotype characterizes the fatal events., Conclusions: Asthma mortality still represents a critical issue in the management of the disease, particularly in youngsters. Once more the inadequate treatment and the lack of adherence seem to be not only related to the uncontrolled asthma but also to asthma mortality.

The present paper addresses severe asthma which is limited to 5-10% of the overall population of asthmatics. However, it accounts for 50% or more of socials costs of the disease, as it is responsible for hospitalizations and Emergency Department accesses as well as expensive treatments. The recent identification of different endotypes of asthma, based on the inflammatory pattern, has led to the development of tailored treatments that target different inflammatory mediators. These are major achievements in the perspective of Precision Medicine: a leading approach to the modern treatment strategy. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE antibody, has been the only biologic treatment available on the market for severe asthma during the last decade. It prevents the linkage of the IgE and the receptors, thereby inhibiting mast cell degranulation. In clinical practice omalizumab significantly reduced the asthma exacerbations as well as the concomitant use of oral glucocorticoids. In the "Th2-high asthma" phenotype, the hallmarks are increased levels of eosinophils and other markers (such as periostin). Because anti-IL-5 in this condition plays a crucial role in driving eosinophil inflammation, this cytokine or its receptors on the eosinophil surface has been studied as a potential target for therapy. Two different anti-IL-5 humanized monoclonal antibodies, mepolizumab and reslizumab, have been proven effective in this phenotype of asthma (recently they both came on the market in the United States), as well as an anti-IL-5 receptor alpha (IL5Rα), benralizumab. Other monoclonal antibodies, targeting different cytokines (IL-13, IL-4, IL-17 and TSLP) are still under evaluation, though the preliminary results are encouraging. Finally, AIT, Allergen Immunotherapy, a prototype of Precision Medicine, is considered, also in light of the recent evidences of Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet efficacy and safety in mite allergic asthma patients. Given the high costs of these therapies, however, there is an urgent need to identify biomarkers that can predict the clinical responders.

We have prepared this document, "Sublingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2013 Update", according to the evidence-based criteria, revising and updating chapters of the originally published paper, "Sublingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2009", available at http://www.waojournal.org. Namely, these comprise: "Mechanisms of sublingual immunotherapy;" "Clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy" - reporting all the data of all controlled trials published after 2009; "Safety of sublingual immunotherapy" - with the recently published Grading System for adverse reactions; "Impact of sublingual immunotherapy on the natural history of respiratory allergy" - with the relevant evidences published since 2009; "Efficacy of SLIT in children" - with detailed analysis of all the studies; "Definition of SLIT patient selection" - reporting the criteria for eligibility to sublingual immunotherapy; "The future of immunotherapy in the community care setting"; "Methodology of clinical trials according to the current scientific and regulatory standards"; and "Guideline development: from evidence-based medicine to patients' views" - including the evolution of the methods to make clinical recommendations.Additionally, we have added new chapters to cover a few emerging crucial topics: "Practical aspects of schedules and dosages and counseling for adherence" - which is crucial in clinical practice for all treatments; "Perspectives and new approaches" - including recombinant allergens, adjuvants, modified allergens, and the concept of validity of the single products. Furthermore, "Raising public awareness about sublingual immunotherapy", as a need for our patients, and strategies to increase awareness of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) among patients, the medical community, all healthcare stakeholders, and public opinion, are also reported in detail.