Search

Introduction: In allergic asthma patients, one of the more common phenotypes might benefit from allergen immunotherapy (AIT) as add-on intervention to pharmacological treatment. AIT is a treatment with disease-modifying modalities, the evidence for efficacy is based on controlled clinical trials following standardized endpoint measures. However, so far there is a lack of a consensus for asthma endpoints in AIT trials. The aim of a task force (TF) of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is evaluating several outcome measures for AIT in allergic asthma., Methods: The following domains of outcome measures in asthmatic patients have been evaluated for this position paper (PP): (i) exacerbation rate, (ii) lung function, (iii) ICS withdrawal, (iv) symptoms and rescue medication use, (v) questionnaires (PROMS), (vi) bronchial/nasal provocation, (vii) allergen exposure chambers (AEC) and (viii) biomarkers., Results: Exacerbation rate can be used as a reliable objective primary outcome; however, there is limited evidence due to different definitions of exacerbation. The time after ICS withdrawal to first exacerbation is considered a primary outcome measure. Besides, the advantages and disadvantages and clinical implications of further domains of asthma endpoints in AIT trials are elaborated in this PP., Conclusion: This EAACI-PP aims to highlight important aspects of current asthma measures by critically evaluating their applicability for controlled trials of AIT., (© 2023 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Validated combined symptom-medication scores (CSMSs) are needed to investigate the effects of allergic rhinitis treatments. This study aimed to use real-life data from the MASK-air ® app to generate and validate hypothesis- and data-driven CSMSs., Methods: We used MASK-air ® data to assess the concurrent validity, test-retest reliability and responsiveness of one hypothesis-driven CSMS (modified CSMS: mCSMS), one mixed hypothesis- and data-driven score (mixed score), and several data-driven CSMSs. The latter were generated with MASK-air ® data following cluster analysis and regression models or factor analysis. These CSMSs were compared with scales measuring (i) the impact of rhinitis on work productivity (visual analogue scale [VAS] of work of MASK-air ® , and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: Allergy Specific [WPAI-AS]), (ii) quality-of-life (EQ-5D VAS) and (iii) control of allergic diseases (Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test [CARAT])., Results: We assessed 317,176 days of MASK-air ® use from 17,780 users aged 16-90 years, in 25 countries. The mCSMS and the factor analyses-based CSMSs displayed poorer validity and responsiveness compared to the remaining CSMSs. The latter displayed moderate-to-strong correlations with the tested comparators, high test-retest reliability and moderate-to-large responsiveness. Among data-driven CSMSs, a better performance was observed for cluster analyses-based CSMSs. High accuracy (capacity of discriminating different levels of rhinitis control) was observed for the latter (AUC-ROC = 0.904) and for the mixed CSMS (AUC-ROC = 0.820)., Conclusion: The mixed CSMS and the cluster-based CSMSs presented medium-high validity, reliability and accuracy, rendering them as candidates for primary endpoints in future rhinitis trials., (© 2022 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

We updated the meta-analysis published by McDonald et al. [Chest 2002;122;1535-1542] by reviewing the effectiveness of air purification for the treatment of home-related allergic asthma (dust mite, dog, cat, and cockroach). We analysed the trials included by McDonald et al. as well as studies published since 2000. Data on asthma symptoms scores (ASS), medication use, forced expiratory volume in 1 s as a percentage of the predicted value (FEV1 %pred), histamine provocative concentration causing a 20% reduction in FEV1 (PC20), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) scores, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels were extracted. The effectiveness was examined using metafor (registered in Prospero CRD42019127227). Ten trials including a total of 482 patients (baseline characteristics: mean FEV1 %pred 83.2%, I2 = 96.7%; mean PC20 4.93 mg/mL, I2 = 44.0%; mean AQLQ 4.67 [max. 7], I2 = 93.7%; mean FeNO 36.5 ppb, I2 = 0%) were included. We assessed the mean differences in the AQLQ scores as +0.36 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.62, p = 0.01, n = 302, I2 = 0%) and the FeNO levels as -6.67 ppb (95% CI -10.56 to -2.77, p = 0.0008, n = 304, I2 = 0%). The standardised mean differences in all other health outcomes were not significant (ASS -0.68, p = 0.20; medication use: -0.01, p = 0.94; FEV1 %pred -0.11, p = 0.34; PC20 +0.24, p = 0.53). We found statistically significant mean differences in the AQLQ scores and FeNO levels in patients with predominantly mild to moderate asthma at baseline. A large trial reported great improvement in the subgroup of patients receiving Global Initiative for Asthma step 4 therapy. We recommend that future studies on air purification focus on patients with severe and poorly controlled allergic asthma., (© 2020 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a proven therapeutic option for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. Many guidelines or national practice guidelines have been produced but the evidence-based method varies, many are complex and none propose care pathways. This paper reviews care pathways for AIT using strict criteria and provides simple recommendations that can be used by all stakeholders including healthcare professionals. The decision to prescribe AIT for the patient should be individualized and based on the relevance of the allergens, the persistence of symptoms despite appropriate medications according to guidelines as well as the availability of good-quality and efficacious extracts. Allergen extracts cannot be regarded as generics. Immunotherapy is selected by specialists for stratified patients. There are no currently available validated biomarkers that can predict AIT success. In adolescents and adults, AIT should be reserved for patients with moderate/severe rhinitis or for those with moderate asthma who, despite appropriate pharmacotherapy and adherence, continue to exhibit exacerbations that appear to be related to allergen exposure, except in some specific cases. Immunotherapy may be even more advantageous in patients with multimorbidity. In children, AIT may prevent asthma onset in patients with rhinitis. mHealth tools are promising for the stratification and follow-up of patients., (© 2019 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Inflammation, structural, and functional abnormalities within the airways are key features of asthma. Although these processes are well documented, their expression varies across the heterogeneous spectrum of asthma. Type 2 inflammatory responses are characterized by increased levels of eosinophils, FeNO, and type 2 cytokines in blood and/or airways. Presently, type 2 asthma is the best-defined endotype, typically found in patients with allergic asthma, but surprisingly also in nonallergic patients with (severe) asthma. The etiology of asthma with non-type 2 inflammation is less clear. During the past decade, targeted therapies, including biologicals and small molecules, have been increasingly integrated into treatment strategies of severe asthma. These treatments block specific inflammatory pathways or single mediators. Single or composite biomarkers help to identify patients who will benefit from these treatments. So far, only a few inflammatory biomarkers have been validated for clinical application. The European Academy of Allergy & Clinical Immunology Task Force on Biomarkers in Asthma was initiated to review different biomarker sampling methods and to investigate clinical applicability of new and existing inflammatory biomarkers (point-of-care) to support diagnosis, targeted treatment, and monitoring of severe asthma. Subsequently, we discuss existing and novel targeted therapies for asthma as well as applicable biomarkers., (© 2019 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Background: The Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) monitors control of asthma and allergic rhinitis., Aims: To determine the CARAT's minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Dutch CARAT., Methods: CARAT was applied in three measurements at 1-month intervals. Patients diagnosed with asthma and/or rhinitis were approached. MCID was evaluated using Global Rating of Change (GRC) and standard error of measurement (s.e.m.). Cronbach's alpha was used to evaluate internal consistency. Spearman's correlation coefficients were calculated between CARAT, the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ5) and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) on airway symptoms to determine construct and longitudinal validity. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Changes in pollen counts were compared with delta CARAT and ACQ5 scores., Results: A total of 92 patients were included. The MCID of the CARAT was 3.50 based on GRC scores; the s.e.m. was 2.83. Cronbach's alpha was 0.82. Correlation coefficients between CARAT and ACQ5 and VAS questions ranged from 0.64 to 0.76 (P < 0.01). Longitudinally, correlation coefficients between delta CARAT scores and delta ACQ5 and VAS scores ranged from 0.41 to 0.67 (P < 0.01). Test-retest reliability showed an ICC of 0.81 (P < 0.01) and 0.80 (P < 0.01). Correlations with pollen counts were higher for CARAT than for ACQ5., Conclusions: This is the first investigation of the MCID of the CARAT. The CARAT uses a whole-point scale, which suggests that the MCID is 4 points. The CARAT is a valid and reliable tool that is also applicable in the Dutch population.

Abstract Allergy today is a public health concern of pandemic proportions, affecting more than 150 million people in Europe alone. In view of epidemiological trends, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) predicts that within the next few decades, more than half of the European population may at some point in their lives experience some type of allergy. Not only do allergic patients suffer from a debilitating disease, with the potential for major impact on their quality of life, career progression, personal development and lifestyle choices, but they also constitute a significant burden on health economics and macroeconomics due to the days of lost productivity and underperformance. Given that allergy triggers, including urbanization, industrialization, pollution and climate change, are not expected to change in the foreseeable future, it is imperative that steps are taken to develop, strengthen and optimize preventive and treatment strategies. Allergen specific immunotherapy is the only currently available medical intervention that has the potential to affect the natural course of the disease. Years of basic science research, clinical trials, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses have convincingly shown that allergen specific immunotherapy can achieve substantial results for patients, improving the allergic individuals’ quality of life, reducing the long-term costs and burden of allergies, and changing the course of the disease. Allergen specific immunotherapy not only effectively alleviates allergy symptoms, but it has a long-term effect after conclusion of the treatment and can prevent the progression of allergic diseases. Unfortunately, allergen specific immunotherapy has not yet received adequate attention from European institutions, including research funding bodies, even though this could be a most rewarding field in terms of return on investments, translational value and European integration and, a field in which Europe is recognized as a worldwide leader. Evaluation and surveillance of the full cost of allergic diseases is still lacking and further progress is being stifled by the variety of health systems across Europe. This means that the general population remains unaware of the potential use of allergen specific immunotherapy and its potential benefits. We call upon Europe’s policy-makers to coordinate actions and improve individual and public health in allergy by: Promoting awareness of the effectiveness of allergen specific immunotherapy Updating national healthcare policies to support allergen specific immunotherapy Prioritising funding for allergen specific immunotherapy research Monitoring the macroeconomic and health economic parameters of allergy Reinforcing allergy teaching in medical disciplines and specialties The effective implementation of the above policies has the potential for a major positive impact on European health and well-being in the next decade.

Abstract: The history of pediatric allergology (PA) in Europe is relatively youthful, dating back to 1984, when a small group of pediatricians founded the European Working Group on Pediatric Allergy and Immunology—later giving rise to ESPACI (European Society on Pediatric Allergology and Clinical Immunology). In 1990, the first dedicated journal, Pediatric Allergy and Immunology (PAI), was founded. There are striking differences across Europe, and even within European countries, in relation to the training pathways for doctors seeing children with allergic disease(s). In 2016, the EAACIClemens von Pirquet Foundation (CvP) organized and sponsored a workshop with the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Pediatric Section. This collaboration focussed on the future of PA and specifically on education, research, and networking/ advocacy. The delegates representing many countries across Europe have endorsed the concept that optimal care of children with allergic diseases is delivered by pediatricians who have received dedicated training in allergy, or allergists who have received dedicated training in pediatrics. In order to meet the needs of children and families with allergic disease(s), the pediatric allergist is highly encouraged to develop several networks. Our challenge is to reinforce a clear strategic approach to scientific excellence to across our member base and to ensure and enhance the relevance of European pediatric research in allergy. With research opportunities in basic, translational, clinical, and epidemiologic trials, more trainees and trained specialists are needed and it is an exciting time to be a pediatric allergologist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The role of timing and diversity of allergenic food introduction in the development of childhood allergic sensitization and atopic diseases is controversial. Objective: To examine whether timing and diversity of allergenic food introduction are associated with allergic sensitization, allergy and eczema in children until age 10 years. Materials and methods: This study among 5,202 children was performed in a population-based prospective cohort. Timing (age ≤6 months vs. >6 months) and diversity (0, 1, 2 and ≥3 foods) of allergenic food (cow's milk, hen's egg, peanut, tree nuts, soy and gluten) introduction were assessed by questionnaires at ages 6 and 12 months. At age 10 years, inhalant and food allergic sensitization were measured by skin prick tests, and physician-diagnosed inhalant and food allergy by questionnaire. Data on parental-reported physician-diagnosed eczema were obtained from birth until age 10 years. Results: Children introduced to gluten at age ≤6 months had a decreased risk of eczema (aOR (95% CI): 0.84 (0.72, 0.99)), compared with children introduced to gluten at age >6 months. However, timing of allergenic food introduction was not associated with allergic sensitization or physician-diagnosed allergy. Children introduced to ≥3 allergenic foods at age ≤6 months had a decreased risk of physician-diagnosed inhalant allergy (0.64 (0.42, 0.98)), compared with children not introduced to any allergenic food at age ≤6 months. However, diversity of allergenic food introduction was not associated with allergic sensitization, physician-diagnosed food allergy or eczema. Conclusion: Neither timing nor diversity of allergenic food introduction was consistently associated with childhood allergic sensitization, allergy or eczema. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]