Search

The traditional healthcare model is focused on diseases (medicine and natural science) and does not acknowledge patients' resources and abilities to be experts in their own lives based on their lived experiences. Improving healthcare safety, quality, and coordination, as well as quality of life, is an important aim in the care of patients with chronic conditions. Person-centered care needs to ensure that people's values and preferences guide clinical decisions. This paper reviews current knowledge to develop (1) digital care pathways for rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity and (2) digitally enabled, person-centered care. 1 It combines all relevant research evidence, including the so-called real-world evidence, with the ultimate goal to develop digitally enabled, patient-centered care. The paper includes (1) Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), a 2-decade journey, (2) Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), the evidence-based model of guidelines in airway diseases, (3) mHealth impact on airway diseases, (4) From guidelines to digital care pathways, (5) Embedding Planetary Health, (6) Novel classification of rhinitis and asthma, (7) Embedding real-life data with population-based studies, (8) The ARIA-EAACI (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) strategy for the management of airway diseases using digital biomarkers, (9) Artificial intelligence, (10) The development of digitally enabled, ARIA person-centered care, and (11) The political agenda. The ultimate goal is to propose ARIA 2024 guidelines centered around the patient to make them more applicable and sustainable., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is the most complex and common food allergy in infants. Elimination of cow's milk from the diet and replacement with a specialized formula for infants with cow's milk allergy who cannot be breastfed is an established approach to minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions while avoiding nutritional deficiencies. Given the availability of multiple options, such as extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk-based formula (eHF-CM), aminoacid formula (AAF), hydrolyzed rice formula (HRF), and soy formula (SF), there is some uncertainty regarding which formula might represent the most suitable choice with respect to health outcomes. The addition of probiotics to a specialized formula has also been proposed as a potential approach to possibly increase the benefit. We systematically reviewed specialized formulas for infants with CMA to inform the updated World Allergy Organization (WAO) DRACMA guidelines., Objective: To systematically review and synthesize the available evidence about the use of specialized formulas for the management of individuals with CMA., Methods: We searched from inception PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the websites of selected allergy organizations, for randomized and non-randomized trials of any language investigating specialized formulas with or without probiotics. We included all studies irrespective of the language of the original publication. The last search was conducted in January 2024. We synthesized the identified evidence quantitatively or narratively as appropriate and summarized it in the evidence profiles. We conducted this review following the PRISMA, Cochrane methods, and the GRADE approach., Results: We identified 3558 records including 14 randomized trials and 7 observational studies. Very low certainty evidence suggested that in infants with IgE-mediated CMA, eHF-CM, compared with AAF, might have higher probability of outgrowing CMA (risk ratio (RR) 2.32; risk difference (RD) 25 more per 100), while showing potentially lower probability of severe vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.88; RD 23 fewer per 100, 95% CI 3 to 26) and developing food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.82; RD 34 fewer per 100, 95% CI 7 to 39). We also found, however, that eHF-CM might be inferior to AAF in supporting a physiological growth, with respect to both weight (-5.5% from baseline, 95%CI -9.5% to -1.5%) and length (-0.7 z-score change, 95%CI -1.15 to -0.25) (very low certainty). We found similar effects for eHF-CM, compared with AAF, also in non-IgE CMA. When compared with SF, eHF-CM might favor weight gain for IgE CMA infants (0.23 z-score change, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.45), and tolerance acquisition (RR 1.86, 95%CI 1.03 to 3.37; RD 27%, 95%CI 1%-74%) for non-IgE CMA (both at very low certainty of the evidence (CoE)). The comparison of eHF-CM vs. HRF, and HRF vs. SF, showed no difference in effect (very low certainty). For IgE CMA patients, low certainty evidence suggested that adding probiotics ( L. rhamnosus GG, L. casei CRL431 and B. lactis Bb-12) might increase the probability of developing CMA tolerance (RR 2.47, 95%CI 1.03 to 5.93; RD 27%, 95%CI 1%-91%), and reduce the risk of severe wheezing (RR 0.12, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.95; RD -23%, 95%CI -8% to -0.4%). However, in non-IgE CMA infants, the addition of probiotics ( L. rhamnosus GG) showed no significant effect, as supported by low to very low CoE., Conclusions: Currently available studies comparing eHF-CM, AAF, HRF, and SF provide very low certainty evidence about their effects in infants with IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated CMA. Our review revealed several limitations in the current body of evidence, primarily arising from concerns related to the quality of studies, the limited size of the participant populations and most importantly the lack of diversity and standardization in the compared interventions. It is therefore imperative for future studies to be methodologically rigorous and investigate a broader spectrum of available interventions. We encourage clinicians and researchers to review current World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines for suggestions on how to use milk replacement formulas in clinical practice and what additional research would be the most beneficial., Competing Interests: HJS and JLB, on behalf of McMaster University, received a research grant from the World Allergy Organization to conduct this review that was deposited into the university research account. RS participated as a clinical investigator, and/or advisory board member, and/or consultant, and/or speaker for Abbott, Else, and Nestlé. HS serves as a board member of the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP), an unpaid and voluntary role. They have participated as a clinical investigator, advisory board member, consultant, and speaker for several companies, including Arla, BioGaia, Biocodex, Danone, Dicofarm, Nestlé, NNI, Nutricia, Mead Johnson, and Novalac. YV has participated as a clinical investigator, and/or advisory board member, and/or consultant, and/or speaker for Abbott Nutrition, Alba Health, Arla, Ausnutria, Biogaia, By Heart, CHR Hansen, Danone, ELSE Nutrition, Friesland Campina, Nestle Health Science, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Nutricia, Mead Johnson Nutrition, Pileje, Sanulac, United Pharmaceuticals (Novalac), Yakult, Wyeth. SW is the president of the Canadian Allergy Asthma and Immunology Foundation, and participated as a clinical investigator, and/or advisory board member, and/or consultant, and/or speaker for Pfizer, Kaleo, Bausch Health, GSK, AZ, Sanofi, CSL Behring, Leo, AbbVie, Takeda, Medexus Pharma, MiravoHealth, BioCryst, ALK, Novartis. They also covered the positions of: BOD Asthma Canada, CHAEN. MS works for Allergy & Anaphylaxis Australis, which receives unrestricted educational grants from infant formula companies. AW works for Allergy UK works with corporate partners including those providing foods for special medical purposes, such as Nutricia/Danone, Abbott, Reckitt Benckiser/Mead Johnson. They have been a speakers for 2 Nutricia symposia, with honoraria being paid to the charity. All other authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

In 2010, the United States Human and Health Services (US HHS) and the European Union's (EU) Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology signed a memorandum of understanding to stimulate cooperation surrounding health-related information communications technology. The key project that emerged from this agreement is the International Patient Summary (IPS), intended to provide succinct clinically relevant patient summaries, which are generalizable and condition-independent, that can be readily used by all clinicians for the care of patients. Although allergies are included in the main information required by the IPS library and framework, it is misrepresented which leads to underdiagnosis or misdiagnosis of patients suffering from allergic and hypersensitivity conditions (A/H). The French and Montpellier World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centres have provided arguments for supporting representation of A/H in the IPS. These are based on the relevance of the new classification of A/H in the WHO International Classification of Diseases 11th version (ICD-11), and the need for alignment of eHealth tools with harmonized health information. We first present the A/H in the IPS initiative with the mission of producing an international information system that can be used globally in electronic health records to standardize clinical diagnoses and facilitate communication between clinicians caring for patients with A/H diseases. It is believed this initiative will provide a strong voice for the allergy community and an effective process for improving the quality of health data that will optimize medical care for our patients worldwide., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interests related to the contents of this article. PI and consultant for: Novartis, Genentech, Sanofi Regeneron, Astra Zeneca/Amgen, GSK, Allakos, Escient/Incyte, Celldex, Areteia, Takeda/Shire, CSL Behring, Biocryst, Pharming, Kalvista, Ionis, Intellia, Biomarin, Astria, Jaspar., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is one of the most common presentations of food allergy in early childhood. Management of CMA involves individualized avoidance of cow's milk and other mammalian milk and foods containing these. Optimal elimination of cow's milk avoidance includes: label reading; information about safe and nutritious substitute foods; appropriate choice of infant formula or a plant-based food; establishing tolerance to baked milk and monitoring nutritional intake and growth. Substitute formulas are divided into soy formula (not hydrolyzed), milk-based extensively hydrolyzed formulas, rice based extensive, and partially hydrolyzed formulas and amino acid-based formulas. The use of other mammalian milks is not recommended for the management of cow's milk allergy due to a high level of cross-reactivity and nutritional concerns. For toddlers who are eating well, children, and adults, a suitable plant-based beverage may be a suitable alternative to a specialized formula, following careful nutritional considerations. Families need to be instructed on finding suitable nutritious foods and how to prepare suitable meals at home. Individuals with CMA also need to know how to identify and treat acute severe reactions., Competing Interests: CV reports grants from Reckitt Benckiser, grants from Food Allergy Research and Education, grants from National Peanut Board, during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Reckitt Benckiser, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Danone, Abbott Nutrition, Else Nutrition, and Before Brands, outside the submitted work. RM reports speaker honoraria and advisory panel consultancy outside of the submitted work for Nutricia/Danone, Abbott Nutrition, Nestle Clinical Nutrition, Reckitt Benckiser and Else Nutrition. MG reports royalties from UpToDate and Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and consulting fees from FARE. AF reports speaker honoraria and advisory panel consultancy outside the submitted work for Nutricia, Abbott, Danone, Stallergenes, DBV, Novartis; and funded research (Institution) from Sanofi, Novartis, Ferrero, DBV, GSK, Astrazeneca, Hipp GmBDH, Humana SpA., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Background: Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) affects patients after recovering from acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study investigates the impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on PASC symptoms in children in Taiwan during the Omicron pandemic., Methods: We enrolled children under 18 years with PASC symptoms persisting for more than 4 weeks. Data collected included demographics, clinical information, vaccination status, and symptom persistence. We used logistic regression models to compare symptoms in the acute and post-COVID-19 phases and to assess the association between vaccination and these symptoms., Results: Among 500 PASC children, 292 (58.4%) were vaccinated, 282 (52.8%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 7.6 (4.6) years. Vaccinated individuals exhibited higher odds of experiencing symptoms in the previous acute phase, such as cough (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-2.42), rhinorrhea/nasal congestion (AOR = 1.74; 95% CI: 1.13-2.67), sneezing (AOR = 1.68; 95% CI: 1.02-2.76), sputum production (AOR = 1.91; 95% CI: 1.15-3.19), headache/dizziness (AOR = 1.73; 95% CI: 1.04-2.87), and muscle soreness (AOR = 2.33; 95% CI: 1.13-4.80). In contrast, there were lower odds of experiencing abdominal pain (AOR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.25-0.94) and diarrhea (AOR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17-0.78) in children who had received vaccination during the post-COVID-19 phase., Conclusions: This study revealed clinical features and vaccination effects in PASC children in Taiwan. Vaccination may reduce some gastrointestinal symptoms in the post-COVID-19 phase.

Background: Angioedema (AE) manifests with intermittent, localized, self-limiting swelling of the subcutaneous and/or submucosal tissue. AE is heterogeneous, can be hereditary or acquired, may occur only once or be recurrent, may exhibit wheals or not, and may be due to mast cell mediators, bradykinin, or other mechanisms. Several different taxonomic systems are currently used, making it difficult to compare the results of studies, develop multicenter collaboration, and harmonize AE treatment., Objective: We developed a consensus on the definition, acronyms, nomenclature, and classification of AE (DANCE)., Methods: The initiative involved 91 experts from 35 countries and was endorsed by 53 scientific and medical societies, and patient organizations. A consensus was reached by online discussion and voting using the Delphi process over a period of 16 months (June 2021 to November 2022)., Results: The DANCE initiative resulted in an international consensus on the definition, classification, and terminology of AE. The new consensus classification features 5 types and endotypes of AE and a harmonized vocabulary of abbreviations/acronyms., Conclusion: The DANCE classification complements current clinical guidelines and expert consensus recommendations on the diagnostic assessment and treatment of AE. DANCE does not replace current clinical guidelines, and expert consensus algorithms and should not be misconstrued in a way that affects reimbursement of medicines prescribed by physicians using sound clinical judgment. We anticipate that this new AE taxonomy and nomenclature will harmonize and facilitate AE research and clinical studies, thereby improving patient care., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Monitoring is a major component of asthma management in children. Regular monitoring allows for diagnosis confirmation, treatment optimization, and natural history review. Numerous factors that may affect disease activity and patient well-being need to be monitored: response and adherence to treatment, disease control, disease progression, comorbidities, quality of life, medication side-effects, allergen and irritant exposures, diet and more. However, the prioritization of such factors and the selection of relevant assessment tools is an unmet need. Furthermore, rapidly developing technologies promise new opportunities for closer, or even "real-time," monitoring between visits. Following an approach that included needs assessment, evidence appraisal, and Delphi consensus, the PeARL Think Tank, in collaboration with major international professional and patient organizations, has developed a set of 24 recommendations on pediatric asthma monitoring, to support healthcare professionals in decision-making and care pathway design., (© 2024 The Authors. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is the most common food allergy in infants. The replacement with specialized formulas is an established clinical approach to ensure adequate growth and minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions when breastfeeding is not possible. Still, given the availability of multiple options, such as extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk protein formula (eHF-CM), amino acid formula (AAF), hydrolyzed rice formula (HRF) and soy formulas (SF), there is some uncertainty as to the most suitable choice with respect to health outcomes. Furthermore, the addition of probiotics to a formula has been proposed as a potential approach to maximize benefit., Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the World Allergy Organization (WAO) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about the use of milk specialized formulas, with and without probiotics, for individuals with CMA., Methods: WAO formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of all stakeholders and to minimize potential biases from competing interests. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to review by stakeholders., Results: After reviewing the summarized evidence and thoroughly discussing the different management options, the WAO guideline panel suggests: a) using an extensively hydrolyzed (cow's milk) formula or a hydrolyzed rice formula as the first option for managing infants with immunoglobulin E (IgE) and non-IgE-mediated CMA who are not being breastfed. An amino-acid formula or a soy formula could be regarded as second and third options respectively; b) using either a formula without a probiotic or a casein-based extensively hydrolyzed formula containing Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) for infants with either IgE or non-IgE-mediated CMA.The issued recommendations are labeled as "conditional" following the GRADE approach due to the very low certainty about the health effects based on the available evidence., Conclusions: If breastfeeding is not available, clinicians, patients, and their family members might want to discuss all the potential desirable and undesirable consequences of each formula in infants with CMA, integrating them with the patients' and caregivers' values and preferences, local availability, and cost, before deciding on a treatment option. We also suggest what research is needed to determine with greater certainty which formulas are likely to be the most beneficial, cost-effective, and equitable., Competing Interests: The conduction of these guidelines was funded by WAO and the McMaster University GRADE Centre. Direct funding by for-profit companies was not accepted. The guideline panel members received travel reimbursement for attendance at in-person meetings but received no other payments. The funding was also used as salary support for the information scientist running the original searches, and for research assistants and students conducting the systematic reviews. Some members of the method team who contributed to the systematic review conduction participated without remuneration to fulfill requirements of an academic degree or program. COIs of all participants were managed according to WAO policies based on guidance by the National Academy of Medicine2 and GIN3. Before commencing the project, all the participants were asked to disclose any financial and nonfinancial interests relevant to the guidelines by completing the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of interest forms. An independent and anonymous WAO committee revised the disclosed interests looking for COIs. The revision committee reviewed the forms and deliberated on including panel members aiming to achieve a diversity of expertise and perspectives, while minimizing the inclusion of panel members with the same or similar conflicts. Specifically, the committee placed a high value on addressing conflicts from direct financial interests from for-profit companies related to the guidelines' field. Throughout the guidelines’ development, the members of the panel and method team were asked to update the interest disclosure forms, which were again revised by the WAO committee. At the time of appointment, most of the guideline panel, including one of the guideline panel co-chair (HJS), had no conflicts of interest. The other co-chair (AF) was aware of economic support by for-profit entities provided to WAO in the form of educational grants; therefore, he abstained from voting on all recommendations in the DRACMA guidelines. The method team members deemed to have a real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest related to the topic of a systematic review were excluded from partaking in that review. Likewise, guideline panel members with manageable real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest abstained from voting on recommendations related to that interest, while being still able to provide intellectual input and clinical expertise. The Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) tables for each recommendation list individuals who were excused from voting. One proposed panel member was found with disqualifying competing interests and was excluded from the DRACMA project entirely.S Arasi, S Bahna, A Bognanni, J Brozek, D Chu, L Dahdah, P Dziechciarz, E Galli, R Kamenwa, H Li, A Martelli, R Pawankar, H Schunemann, R Targino, L Terracciano, and A Warner have no conflicts to disclose. Relationships reported related to the submitted work: IJ Anstotegui – Abbott, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bial, Faes Farma, Hikma, Menarini, Merck, Mundipharma, Roxall, Sanofi, Stallergenes, UCB. A Assa'ad – Aimmune Therapeutics, DBV Technologies, Astella, ABBVIE, Novartis, Sanofi, FARE, NIH and an intellectual property patent licensed to Hoth. R Berni Canani – Ch.Hansen, Danone, DVB, Humana, iHealth, Kraft Heinz, Mead Johnson, Nestlè, Novalac, Nutricia, Sanofi. M Bozzola – Danone. C Dupont – Nestle Health Science, Nestle France, Nutricia, Novalac, Sodilac, Abbott, Danone, and stock ownership at DBV Technologies. M Ebisawa – DBV Technologies, Mylan, ARS Pharmaceuticals, Novartis. A Fiocchi – Abbott, Danone. G Lack – FARE, National Peanut Board (NPB), The Davis Foundation, Action Medical Research, UK Food Standards Agency, Medical Research Council, DBV Technologies, Mission Mighty Me, Novartis, Sanofi-Genyzme, Regeneron, ALK-Abello, Lurie Children's Hospital. A Nowak-Wegrzyn – Nestle, Nutricia, Novartis, Gerber, Aimmune. N Papadopoulos – Novartis, Nutricia, HAL Allergy, Menarini/Faes Farma, Sanofi, Mylan/Meda, Biomay, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, ASIT Biotech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gerolymatos International SA, Capricare. M Said – Nestle, Nutricia, Abbott, Bayer for Anaphylaxis Australia. R Shamir - Abbott, Else, Nestle. J Spergel – DBV Technologies, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Aimmune. H Szajewska – Ausnutria, Cargill, Danone, Else Nutrition, Hipp, Nestle, and Nestle Nutrition Institute. Y Vandenplas – Abbott Nutrition, Biogaia, Biocodex, By Heart, CHR Hansen, Danone, ELSE Nutrition, Friesland Campina, Hero, Hypocrata, Nestle Health Science, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Nutricia, Mead Johnson Nutrition, Orafti, Phacobel, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Sari Husada, United Pharmaceuticals (Novalac), Wyeth, Yakult. C Venter – Reckitt Benckiser, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Danone, Abbott Nutrition, Else Nutrition, and Before Brands, DBV Technologies. A Warner - Nutricia/Danone, Abbott, Reckitt Benckiser/Mead Johnson, Nutricia/Danone for Allergy UK. S Waserman – Novartis-basic science work on peanut allergy, Aimmune-peanut OIT trial, Medical Advisor to Food Allergy Canada, and Pfizer, Bausch, Kaleoconsultant for epinephrine autoinjectors. GWK Wong – Nestle, Danone., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR) are 2 of the most common chronic inflammatory disorders and they appear to be on the rise. Current pharmacotherapy effectively controls symptoms but does not alter the underlying pathophysiology. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is an evidence-based therapy for asthma and AR and has been recognized as the only therapeutic method that actually modifies the allergic disease process. There is a lack of objective markers that accurately and reliably reflect the therapeutic benefits of AIT. A biomarker indicating patients that would benefit most from AIT would be invaluable. Eosinophilic inflammation is a cardinal feature of many allergic diseases. Biomarkers that accurately reflect this inflammation are needed to better diagnose, treat, and monitor patients with allergic disorders. This review examines the current literature regarding AIT's effects on eosinophilic inflammation and biomarkers that may be used to determine the extent of these effects., Competing Interests: The authors have no financial conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology.)