Search

Adherence is crucial for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) efficacy, and a long-term 3-year adherence is indispensable for the long-term benefits beyond AIT administration. Nonadherence causes should be analyzed not only at the patient level but from a broader perspective, including socioeconomic factors, health-care system factors, and disorder- and therapy-related factors. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) adherence is ∼50% at best and, for sublingual immunotherapy, the numbers are even much worse in some regions. In this review, causes for AIT loss of adherence and strategies, published and from personal experience, to reduce nonadherence are presented. Although the broader picture of causes of nonadherence has to be taken into account, in all this, the patient-physician and patient‐health care professional (AIT nurse, assistant) are still in the center, and, in SCIT, each clinic visit for a shot is an opportunity to exploit this interaction in a positive way and stimulate adherence. Patient factors of nonadherence are not so much forgetfulness but more perception of ineffectiveness and adverse effects. An explanation of what can be expected before starting AIT is crucial because most of those who drop out are seen during the first year. Adherence is especially under risk when administration is temporarily interrupted (lockdown, illness, disease flare, vacation, preseasonal AIT administration schedules). The pandemic has caused higher rates of nonadherence specifically due to a fear of getting infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, which can be mitigated with good hygiene techniques and strict sanitization protocols, which ensure the patients. Also, patient mobile discussion networks related to AIT can help encourage adherence and reduce fear of infection, even in these difficult times.

The Global Initiative on Asthma (GINA) strategy included major changes for the treatment of mild asthma in the 2020 version that are even taken to the next level in 2021, leaving a preferred track with only rescue therapy with inhaled corticosteroid and formoterol (ICS-FORM) for steps 1-2 in 12+ years old. It has been questioned how solid the evidence behind these recommendations is. We decided to independently conduct an in-depth analysis of published evidence based on a comprehensive evaluation of original articles and related appendices and publications, including quality of evidence and risk of bias per article. We first defined the major asthma treatment goals and proceeded to review how these were met in publications referenced in the main asthma guidelines. For patients with GINA (2021) Step 1 characteristics, the analysis supports GINA's decision to avoid SABA monotherapy and to prefer ICS-FORM rescue with an alternative ICS rescue every time a SABA is used for ≥12 years, even though evidence is extrapolated from step 2 patients. For 6- to 11-year-olds, we propose to consider ICS-FORM rescue as an alternative, as its use has been approved in this age group, be it not as rescue medication. For patients with GINA 2021 Step 2 characteristics, our proposal slightly differs from GINA 2021. We propose to continue avoiding the separate use of SABA, using ICS rescue whenever a fast-acting bronchodilator is taken (even with ICS maintenance). Also, the superiority of ICS-FORM rescue over classical step 2 treatment is not uniform and year-long experience is lacking. Consequently, for now, both treatment options seem equal: ICS-FORM rescue or ICS maintenance with SABA (+ICS) rescue. For 6- to 11-year-olds, ICS rescue every time a SABA is used has the advantage of lower total ICS dose; as alternative we suggest ICS-FORM rescue. The best treatment option depends on patient characteristics and treatment goals. Recommendations should be reviewed as soon as new evidence becomes available.

In order to understand the role of regular controller inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus as-needed ICS-formoterol in managing mild asthma, we performed a modified Delphi procedure.Opinions from 16 respiratory experts to three surveys and during a virtual scientific workshop helped to develop final consensus statements (pre-defined as 70% agreement).Thirteen participants completed all rounds (response rate 81%). At the end of the procedure, there was final consensus on: regular daily ICS being the recommended treatment approach in mild persistent asthma, with better symptom control and robust long-term clinical data compared with as-needed ICS-formoterol (85%); to avoid noncompliance, frequently seen in mild asthma patients, regular ICS dosing should be accompanied by ongoing education on treatment adherence (100%); treatment aims should be targeting asthma control (92%) and reduction of exacerbation risk (85%). No consensus was reached on whether GINA or national guidelines most influence prescribing decisions.It is important to encourage patients to be adherent and to target both asthma control and exacerbation risk reduction. There is robust clinical evidence to support proactive regular dosing with ICS controller therapy plus as-needed short-acting beta-agonists for the management of patients with mild asthma.

BackgroundPatients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life.MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions.ResultsIn the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p ConclusionsIn real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use. Background: Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions. Results: In the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p < 0.001) and experienced a greater reduction in mean LTOCS dose than those treated with anti-IgE (37.44% vs. 20.55% reduction; p = 0.023). There was some evidence to suggest that patients treated with anti-IL5/5R experienced fewer asthma-related hospitalizations (IRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38, 1.08), but not ER visits (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61, 1.43). Conclusions: In real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use.

Asthma, rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis (AD) are interrelated clinical phenotypes that partly overlap in the human interactome. The concept of “one-airway-one-disease,” coined over 20 years ago, is a simplistic approach of the links between upper- and lower-airway allergic diseases. With new data, it is time to reassess the concept. This article reviews (i) the clinical observations that led to Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), (ii) new insights into polysensitization and multimorbidity, (iii) advances in mHealth for novel phenotype definitions, (iv) confirmation in canonical epidemiologic studies, (v) genomic findings, (vi) treatment approaches, and (vii) novel concepts on the onset of rhinitis and multimorbidity. One recent concept, bringing together upper- and lower-airway allergic diseases with skin, gut, and neuropsychiatric multimorbidities, is the “Epithelial Barrier Hypothesis.” This review determined that the “one-airway-one-disease” concept does not always hold true and that several phenotypes of disease can be defined. These phenotypes include an extreme “allergic” (asthma) phenotype combining asthma, rhinitis, and conjunctivitis.

John Busby,1 David Price,2– 4 Riyad Al-Lehebi,5 Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich,6– 8 Job FM van Boven,9 Benjamin Emmanuel,10 J Mark FitzGerald,11 Mina Gaga,12 Susanne Hansen,13,14 Mark Hew,15,16 Takashi Iwanaga,17 Désirée Larenas Linnemann,18 Bassam Mahboub,19,20 Patrick Mitchell,21 Daniela Morrone,22 Jonathan Pham,15,23 Celeste Porsbjerg,14 Nicolas Roche,24,25 Eileen Wang,26,27 Neva Eleangovan,2,3 Liam G Heaney28 1Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 2Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 3Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 4Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 5Department of Pulmonology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 6Sydney Pharmacy School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; 7Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; 8Central Sydney Local Area Health District, Sydney, Australia; 9Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Pharmacology, Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 10BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 11Department of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; 12 7th Respiratory Medicine Department and Asthma Centre, Athens Chest Hospital, Athens, Greece; 13Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 14Respiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 15Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia; 16Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; 17Center for General Medical Education and Clinical Training, Kindai University Hospital, Osakasayama, Japan; 18Directora Centro de Excelencia en Asma y Alergia, Hospital Médica Sur, Ciudad de México, Mexico; 19College of Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates; 20Rashid Hospital, Dubai Health Authority, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 21Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 22Personalized Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, IRCCS, Rozzano, Italy; 23Allergy and Lung Health Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; 24Respiratory Medicine, Cochin Hospital, APHP.Centre, Paris, France; 25University of Paris, Cochin Institute (UMR1016), Paris, France; 26Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 27Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; 28Wellcome-Wolfson Centre for Experimental Medicine, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern IrelandCorrespondence: David PriceCentre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UKTel +65 6962 3627Email dprice@opri.sgIntroduction: Asthma morbidity and health-care utilization are known to exhibit a steep socioeconomic gradient. Further investigation into the modulators of this effect is required to identify potentially modifiable factors.Methods: We identified a cohort of patients with asthma from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD). We compared demographics, clinical variables, and health-care utilization by quintile of the UK 2011 Indices of Multiple Deprivation based on the location of the patients’ general practice. Multivariable analyses were conducted using generalized linear models adjusting for year, age, and sex. We conducted subgroup analyses and interaction tests to investigate the impact of deprivation by age, sex, ethnicity, and treatment step.Results: Our analysis included 127,040 patients with asthma. Patients from the most deprived socio-economic status (SES) quintile were more likely to report uncontrolled disease (OR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.05) and to have an exacerbation during follow-up (OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.42) than the least deprived quintile. They had higher blood eosinophils (ratio: 1.03; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.06) and decreased peak flow (ratio: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.94, 0.97) when compared to those in the least deprived quintile. The effect of deprivation on asthma control was greater among those aged over 75 years (OR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.20, 2.73) compared to those aged less than 35 years (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.85, 1.74; pinteraction=0.019). Similarly, socioeconomic disparities in exacerbations were larger among those from ethnic minority groups (OR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.40, 2.68) than white patients (OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.39; pinteraction=0.012).Conclusion: We found worse disease control and increased exacerbation rates among patients with asthma from more deprived areas. There was evidence that the magnitude of socioeconomic disparities was elevated among older patients and those from ethnic minority groups. The drivers of these differences require further exploration.Keywords: asthma, socioeconomic status, disparities

Mast cells and eosinophils are commonly found, expectedly or unexpectedly, in human tissue biopsies. Although the clinical significance of their presence, absence, quantity, and quality continues to be investigated in homeostasis and disease, there are currently gaps in knowledge related to what constitutes quantitatively relevant increases in mast cell and eosinophil number in tissue specimens for several clinical conditions. Diagnostically relevant thresholds of mast cell and eosinophil numbers have been proposed and generally accepted by the medical community for a few conditions, such as systemic mastocytosis and eosinophilic esophagitis. However, for other mast cell- and eosinophil-associated disorders, broad discrepancies remain regarding diagnostic thresholds and how samples are processed, routinely and/or specially stained, and interpreted and/or reported by pathologists. These discrepancies can obfuscate or delay a patient's correct diagnosis. Therefore, a work group was assembled to review the literature and develop a standardized consensus for assessing the presence of mast cells and eosinophils for a spectrum of clinical conditions, including systemic mastocytosis and cutaneous mastocytosis, mast cell activation syndrome, eosinophilic esophagitis, eosinophilic gastritis/enteritis, and hypereosinophilia/hypereosinophilic syndrome. The intent of this work group is to build a consensus among pathology, allergy, dermatology, hematology/oncology, and gastroenterology stakeholders for qualitatively and quantitatively assessing mast cells and eosinophils in skin, gastrointestinal, and bone marrow pathologic specimens for the benefit of clinical practice and patients.

Background Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of severe adult asthma patients eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. Methods This was a prospective cohort study that included adult severe asthma patients from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance and hospital admissions. Results In the matched analysis (n=350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p

Intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) therapy is the preferred treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR). Although all INCSs for the treatment of AR are considered safe and effective, differences in potency, molecular structure features and physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties could result in differences in clinical efficacy and safety. Higher glucocorticoid receptor (GR) binding affinity of INCS is associated with higher lipophilicity, nasal tissue retention and topical potency. Higher topical potency is also accompanied by low oral bioavailability and high systemic clearance conferring low systemic exposure, reduced potential for systemic adverse effects and an improved therapeutic index. It has been shown that adverse events related to systemic exposure of INCSs in children are low. Although INCSs mostly produce low systemic effects, use of an INCS with low systemic exposure in patients on multiple corticosteroid (CS) therapies could help reduce the total systemic burden of CS therapy. Despite differences in topical potency, physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties between INCSs, clinical studies of INCSs in the treatment of AR generally show no clinically important differences between these compounds, and poor correlation between INCS topical potency and clinical response. However, the lack of head-to-head comparisons of INCSs in clinical studies conducted in more severe AR patients should be noted. This narrative review provides an assessment of the therapeutic relevance of topical potency and the physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of INCSs and describes for the first time the relationship between topical potency and therapeutic index using pharmacological features of INCSs. It concludes that higher GR binding affinity and topical potency can potentially improve the therapeutic index of an INCS. Therefore, both efficacy and systemic exposure profiles should be considered when comparing INCS regimens in terms of therapeutic equivalence, to aid clinical decision-making and avoid the assumption that all INCS formulations are the same when considering treatment options.

Introduction: Subcutaneous allergen-specific immunotherapy (SCIT) is one of the main cornerstones in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in pediatric patients. It has demonstrated symptoms and quality of life improvement, but it is not exempt from adverse reactions (ADVrs). Nevertheless, there are a few reports that have evaluated their safety. Our objective was to evaluate the ADVr to SCIT in pediatric patients. Methods: We reviewed 786 clinical records with SCIT from 2005 to 2018, comparing the clinical characteristics of patients with ADVrs with SCIT versus a group of a similar number of patients who completed SCIT (control group, CG). The analysis of ADVrs was according to the World Allergy Organization (WAO) 2010 grading system by frequency analysis, survival curve, and log rank. Results: Of 786 patients, 106 (13.4%) presented ADVrs, and the patients with ADVr had sensitivity and immunotherapy with at least 2 allergens versus CG p < 0.001, containing a combination of standardized and nonstandardized allergens (p = 0.003). The ADVrs were in the buildup phase (p < 0.001). The survival curve showed that 50% had some reaction at 12 weeks of SCIT. The most frequent ADVr was grade 1 in 73/106 patients (68.8%) and grade 2 in 33/106 (31.1%). The log-rank analysis between the grades of the WAO grading system showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.02). Conclusions: The SCIT is safe in pediatric patients. The ADVrs are infrequent, grade 1 being the most reported; however, at >12 weeks, the risk of ADVrs that involve 2 organs systems increases.

Objective Allergic rhinitis (AR) represents a large burden to the healthcare system due to its high prevalence and impact on patients' lives. Despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines, some studies have found that physicians do not always follow the latest recommendations. The aim of our study was to determine how Ecuadorian otorhinolaryngologists (ENTs) perceive some epidemiological aspects related to AR, as well as their preferences for managing the disease. Methods We conducted an observational, survey-based cross-sectional study, among 116 Ecuadorian ENTs. The survey used was adapted from a previous publication and consisted of 30 multiple choice questions, concerning several topics of AR. Descriptive statistics (frequency, and standard deviation) were performed for clinical and demographic variables. Results A total of 116 Ecuadorian ENTs completed the survey. Of them, 62.9% were male, with an average age of 42 years (SD ± 11.58). Computed tomography (CT) scan and nasal cytology were selected as the main diagnostic tests for AR by 62/91 (68.1%) and 45/91 (49.5%) of participants, respectively. Moreover, only 12/116 (10.3%) of participants performed skin prick tests (SPT). Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) was performed by 37/107 (36.4%) of participants. Conclusion In general, most participants agreed that the prevalence of AR appears to be increasing, with increased exposure to allergens, irritants, and pollutants as the main probable cause. Children and adolescents were accounted as the group most affected by AR, with sinusitis and asthma identified as the most frequent comorbidities. Finally, we found unmet needs in the diagnostic and management of AR that should be addressed among Ecuadorian ENTs, in particular the high use of CT scans as part of routine evaluations, as well as the low use of allergen immunotherapy.

Antecedentes: Existen lineamientos para el diagnóstico de las enfermedades alérgicas y la aplicación de inmunoterapia con alérgenos (ITA).Objetivo: Describir cómo los alergólogos mexicanos diagnostican y tratan con ITA las alergias alimentaria y respiratoria.Métodos: Se encuestó a 227 alergólogos que acudieron a un simposio de inmunoterapia; se indagaron prácticas cotidianas en el diagnóstico de las alergias respiratoria y alimentaria, así como en la forma de aplicar la ITA.Resultados: Los alergólogos utilizan las pruebas cutáneas por punción para el diagnóstico de las alergias respiratorias y alimentarias en 100 y 87.7 % de los casos de una y otra; diagnóstico in vitro mediante determinación de IgE alérgeno-específica en 55.5 y 63 %; y diagnóstico molecular por componentes en 14.1 y 13.2 %. Para los aeroalérgenos, 81 % emplea ITA subcutánea; 77.9 %, ITA sublingual líquida; 1.8 %, ITSL en tabletas; 45 % indicó que estaba dispuesto a emplear tabletas en el futuro. Para los alérgenos de alimentos, la mayoría no utilizaba ITA, aunque 55 % se interesa en la ITA oral y 59 %, en la ITA sublingual.Conclusiones: En términos generales, el diagnóstico y tratamiento de las enfermedades alérgicas se realizan conforme los lineamientos internacionales, además, los alergólogos encuestados mostraron flexibilidad para adoptar nuevos esquemas.

Objective: To determine the frequency of anxiety and depression in adult patients with asthma and to identify factors associated with them.Methods: This cross-sectional study included 164 consecutively recruited patients with asthma aged ≥ 18 years. Participants were clinically assessed and the mental state was analyzed through of the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II); the Asthma Control Test (ACT) was measured, and allergic sensitization and respiratory function were also evaluated. Binary logistic regression models to identify the factors related to anxiety or depression were carried out. Complementary, 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated.Results: Anxiety was present in 54.3% of patients (95% CI: 46.6%-61.7%) while depression was found in 50.6% (95% CI: 43.0%-58.2%). Depression increased the odds of anxiety in patients with asthma (OR: 26.00, p < 0.0001), whereas an ACT score ≥ 20 points and allergic asthma were associated with a lower odds than the reference group (OR: 0.29; p = 0.007 and OR: 0.29; p = 0.024, respectively). Depression was associated with anxiety and obesity (OR: 25.33, p < 0.0001 and OR: 3.66; p = 0.014, respectively).Conclusions: Overall, more than half of all asthmatic patients suffer from anxiety and depression. Well-controlled asthma and allergic sensitization decreased the likelihood of anxiety, while depression was associated with both obesity and anxiety.

The allergen immunotherapy practice parameters third update recommendations on dose adjustment after a gap in administration during the build-up are based solely on expert opinion, and no recommendations for gaps during maintenance are given. In a previous survey among American Academy of Allergy, AsthmaImmunology (AAAAI) members on subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy, this was addressed, but details were never published. Members of the Immunotherapy, Allergen Standardization, and Allergy Diagnostics Committee of the AAAAI convened a workgroup to address this issue and reanalyze results on the particular survey section. Build-up: many practitioners start dose-adjusting if a patient comes in 14.1/14 days (mean/median) after the last dose and restart immunotherapy after an interruption of 85/90 days. Dosing frequency during maintenance is generally every 3 (12%) to 4 weeks (73%). Maintenance: allergists start dose-adjusting if a patient comes in 5.1/5 weeks (mean/median) after the last dose and completely restart after an interruption of 16/12 weeks (some replied in days [90.4/90 days] or months [4.43/4 months]). Subgroups: physicians with ≥11 years in practice in nonacademic centers or rural/suburban settings tolerate longer gaps before restarting subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). There is no uniform dose-adjustment protocol after gaps in SCIT administration. Prospective studies shall have to help find the best trade-off between safety (dose reduction) without giving in on efficacy (too much dose reduction).

This update and revision of the international guideline for urticaria was developed following the methods recommended by Cochrane and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. It is a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GALEN) and its Urticaria and Angioedema Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCAREs and ACAREs), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF; EuroGuiDerm), and the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology with the participation of 64 delegates of 50 national and international societies and from 31 countries. The consensus conference was held on 3 December 2020. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Urticaria is a frequent, mast-cell-driven disease that presents with wheals, angioedema, or both. The lifetime prevalence for acute urticaria is approximately 20%. Chronic urticaria, i.e. chronic spontaneous urticaria and chronic inducible urticaria, is disabling, impairs quality of life, and affects performance at work and school. This updated version of the international guideline for urticaria covers the definition and classification of urticaria and outlines expert-guided and evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Wenjia Chen,1 Mohsen Sadatsafavi,2 Trung N Tran,3 Ruth B Murray,4 Chong Boon Nigel Wong,1 Nasloon Ali,4,5 Cono Ariti,4,5 Esther Garcia Gil,6 Anthony Newell,5,7 Marianna Alacqua,8 Mona Al-Ahmad,9 Alan Altraja,10 Riyad Al-Lehebi,11,12 Mohit Bhutani,13 Leif Bjermer,14 Anne Sofie Bjerrum,15 Arnaud Bourdin,16 Lakmini Bulathsinhala,4,5 Anna von Bülow,17 John Busby,18 Giorgio Walter Canonica,19,20 Victoria Carter,4,5 George C Christoff,21 Borja G Cosio,22 Richard W Costello,23 J Mark FitzGerald,24 João A Fonseca,25 Kwang Ha Yoo,26 Liam G Heaney,27 Enrico Heffler,19,20 Mark Hew,28,29 Ole Hilberg,30 Flavia Hoyte,31,32 Takashi Iwanaga,33 David J Jackson,34,35 Rupert C Jones,36 Mariko Siyue Koh,37,38 Piotr Kuna,39 Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,40 Sverre Lehmann,41 Lauri A Lehtimäki,42,43 Juntao Lyu,5,7 Bassam Mahboub,44,45 Jorge Maspero,46,47 Andrew N Menzies-Gow,48 Concetta Sirena,49 Nikolaos Papadopoulos,50,51 Andriana I Papaioannou,52 Luis Pérez de Llano,53,54 Diahn-Warng Perng,55,56 Matthew Peters,57 Paul E Pfeffer,58,59 Celeste M Porsbjerg,17 Todor A Popov,60 Chin Kook Rhee,61 Sundeep Salvi,62 Camille Taillé,63 Christian Taube,64 Carlos A Torres-Duque,65 Charlotte S Ulrik,66 Seung Won Ra,67 Eileen Wang,31,32 Michael E Wechsler,68 David B Price4,5,69 1Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; 2Respiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 3AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 4Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 5Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 6AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain; 7Optimum Patient Care, Queensland, VIC, Australia; 8AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 9Microbiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait; 10Department of Pulmonology, University of Tartu and Lung Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia; 11Department of Pulmonology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 12College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 13Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Alberta, Western Canada, AB, Canada; 14Department of Clinical Sciences, Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 15Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, Aarhus University Hospital, Jutland, Aarhus, Denmark; 16PhyMedExp, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, INSERM, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France; 17Respiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 18Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 19Personalized Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Milan, Italy; 20Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; 21Medical University-Sofia, Faculty of Public Health, Sofia, Bulgaria; 22Son Espases University Hospital-IdISBa-Ciberes, Mallorca, Spain; 23Department of Respiratory Medicine, Clinical Research Centre, Smurfit Building Beaumont Hospital, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland; 24Department of Medicine, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 25Comunity Health, Information and Decision Sciences Department (MEDCIDS) & Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 26KonKuk University School of Medicine in Seoul, Seoul, Korea; 27Wellcome-Wolfson Centre for Experimental Medicine, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 28Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 29Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 30Medical Department, Vejle University Hospital, Jutland, Vejle, Denmark; 31Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 32Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; 33Center for General Medical Education and Clinical Training, Kindai University Hospital, Osakasayama, Japan; 34UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, UK; 35School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 36Research and Knowledge Exchange, Plymouth Marjon University, Plymouth, UK; 37Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore; 38SingHealth Duke-NUS Lung Centre, Singapore, Singapore; 39Division of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy Medical University of &Lstrok;ód&zacute;, &Lstrok;ód&zacute;, Poland; 40Directora Centro de Excelencia en Asma y Alergia, Hospital Médica Sur, Ciudad de México, Mexico; 41Section of Thoracic Medicine, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; 42Allergy Centre, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland; 43Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland; 44College of Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates; 45Rashid Hospital, Dubai Health Authority, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 46Clinical Research for Allergy and Respiratory Medicine, CIDEA Foundation, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 47University Career of Specialists in Allergy and Clinical Immunology at the Buenos Aires University School of Medicine, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 48Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals, London, UK; 49Severe Asthma Network in Italy (SANI), Milano, Italy; 50Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 51Allergy Department, 2nd Pediatric Clinic, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; 52 2nd Respiratory Medicine Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece; 53Pneumology Service, Lucus Augusti University Hospital, EOXI Lugo, Lugo, Spain; 54Biodiscovery Research Group, Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; 55Division of Clinical Respiratory Physiology Chest Department, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; 56COPD Assembly of the Asian Pacific Society of Respirology Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan; 57Department of Thoracic Medicine, Concord Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 58Department of Respiratory Medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; 59Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; 60University Hospital ”sv. Ivan Rilski”, Sofia, Bulgaria; 61Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea; 62Pulmocare Research and Education Foundation, Pune, India; 63Department of Respiratory Diseases, Bichat Hospital, AP-HP Nord-Université de Paris, Paris, France; 64Department of Pulmonary Medicine, University Medical Center Essen-Ruhrlandklinik, Essen, Germany; 65CINEUMO, Respiratory Research Center, Fundación Neumológica Colombiana, Bogotá, Colombia; 66Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark; 67Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonology, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, South Korea; 68Department of Medicine, NJH Cohen Family Asthma Institute, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 69Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, &num;06 Midview City, Singapore, Singapore, 573969, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgBackground: Many severe asthma patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) often do not initiate biologics despite being eligible. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of severe asthma patients with HOCS who did and did not initiate biologics.Methods: Baseline characteristics of patients with HOCS (long-term maintenance OCS therapy for at least 1 year, or ≥ 4 courses of steroid bursts in a year) from the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; https://isaregistries.org/), who initiated or did not initiate biologics (anti-lgE, anti-IL5/5R or anti-IL4R), were described at the time of biologic initiation or registry enrolment. Statistical relationships were tested using Pearson’s chi-squared tests for categorical variables, and t-tests for continuous variables, adjusting for potential errors in multiple comparisons.Results: Between January 2015 and February 2021, we identified 1412 adult patients with severe asthma from 19 countries that met our inclusion criteria of HOCS, of whom 996 (70.5%) initiated a biologic and 416 (29.5%) did not. The frequency of biologic initiation varied across geographical regions. Those who initiated a biologic were more likely to have higher blood eosinophil count (483 vs 399 cells/μL, p=0.003), serious infections (49.0% vs 13.3%, p< 0.001), nasal polyps (35.2% vs 23.6%, p< 0.001), airflow limitation (56.8% vs 51.8%, p=0.013), and uncontrolled asthma (80.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.004) despite greater conventional treatment adherence than those who did not start a biologic. Both groups had similar annual asthma exacerbation rates in the previous 12 months (5.7 vs 5.3, p=0.147).Conclusion: Around one third of severe HOCS asthma patients did not receive biologics despite a similar high burden of asthma exacerbations as those who initiated a biologic therapy. Other disease characteristics such as eosinophilic phenotype, serious infectious events, nasal polyps, airflow limitation and lack of asthma control appear to dictate biologic use.Keywords: severe asthma, biologics, real-world, treatment pattern, patient characteristics