Search

Immune modulation is a key therapeutic approach for allergic diseases, asthma and autoimmunity. It can be achieved in an antigen-specific manner via allergen immunotherapy (AIT) or in an endotype-driven approach using biologicals that target the major pathways of the type 2 (T2) immune response: immunoglobulin (Ig)E, interleukin (IL)-5 and IL-4/IL-13 or non-type 2 response: anti-cytokine antibodies and B-cell depletion via anti-CD20. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination provides an excellent opportunity to tackle the global pandemics and is currently being applied in an accelerated rhythm worldwide. The vaccine exerts its effects through immune modulation, induces and amplifies the response against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Thus, as there may be a discernible interference between these treatment modalities, recommendations on how they should be applied in sequence are expected. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) assembled an expert panel under its Research and Outreach Committee (ROC). This expert panel evaluated the evidence and have formulated recommendations on the administration of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with allergic diseases and asthma receiving AIT or biologicals. The panel also formulated recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine in association with biologicals targeting the type 1 or type 3 immune response. In formulating recommendations, the panel evaluated the mechanisms of COVID-19 infection, of COVID-19 vaccine, of AIT and of biologicals and considered the data published for other anti-infectious vaccines administered concurrently with AIT or biologicals.

Background: Peanut allergy has a rising prevalence in high-income countries, affecting 0.5%–1.4% of children. This study aimed to better understand peanut anaphylaxis in comparison to anaphylaxis to other food triggers in European children and adolescents. Methods: Data was sourced from the European Anaphylaxis Registry via an online questionnaire, after in-depth review of food-induced anaphylaxis cases in a tertiary paediatric allergy centre. Results: 3514 cases of food anaphylaxis were reported between July 2007-March 2018, 56% in patients younger than 18 years. Peanut anaphylaxis was recorded in 459 children and adolescents (85% of all peanut anaphylaxis cases). Previous reactions (42% vs. 38%; p = .001), asthma comorbidity (47% vs. 35%; p < .001), relevant cofactors (29% vs. 22%; p = .004) and biphasic reactions (10% vs. 4%; p = .001) were more commonly reported in peanut anaphylaxis. Most cases were labelled as severe anaphylaxis (Ring&Messmer grade III 65% vs. 56% and grade IV 1.1% vs. 0.9%; p = .001). Self-administration of intramuscular adrenaline was low (17% vs. 15%), professional adrenaline administration was higher in non-peanut food anaphylaxis (34% vs. 26%; p = .003). Hospitalization was higher for peanut anaphylaxis (67% vs. 54%; p = .004). Conclusions: The European Anaphylaxis Registry data confirmed peanut as one of the major causes of severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions in European children, with some characteristic features e.g., presence of asthma comorbidity and increased rate of biphasic reactions. Usage of intramuscular adrenaline as first-line treatment is low and needs to be improved. The Registry, designed as the largest database on anaphylaxis, allows continuous assessment of this condition. © 2021 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review used the GRADE approach to compile evidence to inform the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) anaphylaxis guideline. METHODS: We searched five bibliographic databases from 1946 to 20 April 2020 for studies about the diagnosis, management and prevention of anaphylaxis. We included 50 studies with 18 449 participants: 29 randomized controlled trials, seven controlled clinical trials, seven consecutive case series and seven case-control studies. Findings were summarized narratively because studies were too heterogeneous to conduct meta-analysis. RESULTS: It is unclear whether the NIAID/FAAN criteria or Brighton case definition are valid for immediately diagnosing anaphylaxis due to the very low certainty of evidence. There was also insufficient evidence about the impact of most anaphylaxis management and prevention strategies. Adrenaline is regularly used for first-line emergency management of anaphylaxis but little robust research has assessed its effectiveness. Newer models of adrenaline autoinjectors may slightly increase the proportion of people correctly using the devices and reduce time to administration. Face-to-face training for laypeople may slightly improve anaphylaxis knowledge and competence in using autoinjectors. We searched for but found little or no comparative effectiveness evidence about strategies such as fluid replacement, oxygen, glucocorticosteroids, methylxanthines, bronchodilators, management plans, food labels, drug labels and similar. CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening condition but, due to practical and ethical challenges, there is a paucity of robust evidence about how to diagnose and manage it.

Older adults, especially men and/or those with diabetes, hypertension, and/or obesity, are prone to severe COVID-19. In some countries, older adults, particularly those residing in nursing homes, have been prioritized to receive COVID-19 vaccines due to high risk of death. In very rare instances, the COVID-19 vaccines can induce anaphylaxis, and the management of anaphylaxis in older people should be considered carefully. An ARIA-EAACI-EuGMS (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma, European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and European Geriatric Medicine Society) Working Group has proposed some recommendations for older adults receiving the COVID-19 vaccines. Anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines is extremely rare (from 1 per 100,000 to 5 per million injections). Symptoms are similar in younger and older adults but they tend to be more severe in the older patients. Adrenaline is the mainstay treatment and should be readily available. A flowchart is proposed to manage anaphylaxis in the older patients. © 2021 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Background: Patients with a history of anaphylaxis are at risk of future anaphylactic reactions. Thus, secondary prevention measures are recommended for these patients to prevent or attenuate the next reaction. Methods: Data from the Anaphylaxis Registry were analyzed to identify secondary prevention measures offered to patients who experienced anaphylaxis. Our analysis included 7788 cases from 10 European countries and Brazil. Results: The secondary prevention measures offered varied across the elicitors. A remarkable discrepancy was observed between prevention measures offered in specialized allergy centers (84% of patients were prescribed adrenaline autoinjectors following EAACI guidelines) and outside the centers: Here, EAACI guideline adherence was only 37%. In the multivariate analysis, the elicitor of the reaction, age of the patient, mastocytosis as comorbidity, severity of the reaction, and reimbursement/availability of the autoinjector influence physician's decision to prescribe one. Conclusions: Based on the low implementation of guidelines concerning secondary prevention measures outside of specialized allergy centers, our findings highlight the importance of these specialized centers and the requirement of better education for primary healthcare and emergency physicians. © 2019 The Authors. Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Background: For adults, prevalence estimates of food sensitization (FS) and food allergy (FA) have been obtained in a standardized manner across Europe. For children, such estimates are lacking. Objectives: To determine the prevalence of self-reported FA, FS, probable FA (symptoms plus IgE sensitization), and challenge-confirmed FA in European school-age children. Methods: Data on self-reported FA were collected through a screening questionnaire sent to a random sample of the general population of 7- to 10-year-old children in 8 European centers in phase I of the EuroPrevall study. Data on FS and probable FA were obtained in phase II, comprising an extensive questionnaire on reactions to 24 commonly implicated foods, and serology testing. Food challenge was performed in phase III. Results: Prevalence (95% CI) of self-reported FA ranged from 6.5% (5.4-7.6) in Athens to 24.6% (22.8-26.5) in Lodz; prevalence of FS ranged from 11.0% (9.7-12.3) in Reykjavik to 28.7% (26.9-30.6) in Zurich; and prevalence of probable FA ranged from 1.9% (0.8-3.5) in Reykjavik to 5.6% (3.6-8.1) in Lodz. In all centers, most food-sensitized subjects had primary (non–cross-reactive) FS. However, FS due to birch pollen related cross-reactivity was also common in Central-Northern Europe. Probable FA to milk and egg occurred frequently throughout Europe; to fish and shrimp mainly in the Mediterranean and Reykjavik. Peach, kiwi, and peanut were prominent sources of plant FA in most countries, along with notably hazelnut, apple, carrot, and celery in Central-Northern Europe and lentils and walnut in the Mediterranean. Conclusions: There are large geograhical differences in the prevalence of FS and FA in school-age children across Europe. Both primary and cross-reactive FS and FA occur frequently. © 2020 The Authors

Scope: Allergies to lipid transfer proteins involve severe adverse reactions; thus, effective and sustainable therapies are desired. Previous attempts disrupting disulfide bonds failed to maintain immunogenicity; thus, the aim is to design novel hypoallergenic Pru p 3 variants and evaluate the applicability for treatment of peach allergy. Methods and results: Pru p 3 proline variant (PV) designed using in silico mutagenesis, cysteine variant (CV), and wild-type Pru p 3 (WT) are purified from Escherichia coli. Variants display homogenous and stable protein conformations with an altered secondary structure in circular dichroism. PV shows enhanced long-term storage capacities compared to CV similar to the highly stable WT. Using sera of 33 peach allergic patients, IgE-binding activity is reduced by 97% (PV) and 71% (CV) compared to WT. Both molecules show strong hypoallergenicity in Pru p 3 ImmunoCAP cross-inhibition and histamine release assays. Immunogenicity of PV is demonstrated with a phosphate-based adjuvant formulation in a mouse model. Conclusions: An in silico approach is used to generate a PV without targeting disulfide bonds, T cell epitopes, or previously reported IgE epitopes of Pru p 3. PV is strongly hypoallergenic while structurally stable and immunogenic, thus representing a promising candidate for peach allergen immunotherapy. © 2019 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

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.

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.

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 health 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 on 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 Dustri-Verlag Dr. Karl Feistle. All rights reserved.

Background: According to the community-based EuroPrevall surveys, prevalence of self-reported food allergy (FA) in adults across Europe ranges from 2% to 37% for any food and 1% to 19% for 24 selected foods. Objective: To determine the prevalence of probable FA (symptoms plus specific IgE-sensitization) and challenge-confirmed FA in European adults, along with symptoms and causative foods. Methods: In phase I of the EuroPrevall project, a screening questionnaire was sent to a random sample of the general adult population in 8 European centers. Phase II consisted of an extensive questionnaire on reactions to 24 preselected commonly implicated foods, and measurement of specific IgE levels. Multiple imputation was performed to estimate missing symptom and serology information for nonresponders. In the final phase, subjects with probable FA were invited for double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge. Results: Prevalence of probable FA in adults in Athens, Reykjavik, Utrecht, Lodz, Madrid, and Zurich was respectively 0.3%, 1.4%, 2.1%, 2.8%, 3.3%, and 5.6%. Oral allergy symptoms were reported most frequently (81.6%), followed by skin symptoms (38.2%) and rhinoconjunctivitis (29.5%). Hazelnut, peach, and apple were the most common causative foods in Lodz, Utrecht, and Zurich. Peach was also among the top 3 causative foods in Athens and Madrid. Shrimp and fish allergies were relatively common in Madrid and Reykjavik. Of the 55 food challenges performed, 72.8% were classified as positive. Conclusions: FA shows substantial geographical variation in prevalence and causative foods across Europe. Although probable FA is less common than self-reported FA, prevalence still reaches almost 6% in parts of Europe. © 2019 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) is an allergic disorder of the nose and eyes affecting about a fifth of the general population. Symptoms of AR can be controlled with allergen avoidance measures and pharmacotherapy. However, many patients continue to have ongoing symptoms and an impaired quality of life; pharmacotherapy may also induce some side-effects. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only currently available treatment that targets the underlying pathophysiology, and it may have a disease-modifying effect. Either the subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes may be used. This Guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on AIT for AR and is part of the EAACI presidential project “EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy.” It aims to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations and has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis. Its generation has followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included involvement of the full range of stakeholders. In general, broad evidence for the clinical efficacy of AIT for AR exists but a product-specific evaluation of evidence is recommended. In general, SCIT and SLIT are recommended for both seasonal and perennial AR for its short-term benefit. The strongest evidence for long-term benefit is documented for grass AIT (especially for the grass tablets) where long-term benefit is seen. To achieve long-term efficacy, it is recommended that a minimum of 3 years of therapy is used. Many gaps in the evidence base exist, particularly around long-term benefit and use in children. © 2017 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Hymenoptera venom allergy is a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction following a honeybee, vespid, or ant sting. Systemic-allergic sting reactions have been reported in up to 7.5% of adults and up to 3.4% of children. They can be mild and restricted to the skin or moderate to severe with a risk of life-threatening anaphylaxis. Patients should carry an emergency kit containing an adrenaline autoinjector, H 1 -antihistamines, and corticosteroids depending on the severity of their previous sting reaction(s). The only treatment to prevent further systemic sting reactions is venom immunotherapy. This guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on Venom Immunotherapy as part of the EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy initiative. The guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of venom immunotherapy, has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis and produced using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included representation from a range of stakeholders. Venom immunotherapy is indicated in venom-allergic children and adults to prevent further moderate-to-severe systemic sting reactions. Venom immunotherapy is also recommended in adults with only generalized skin reactions as it results in significant improvements in quality of life compared to carrying an adrenaline autoinjector. This guideline aims to give practical advice on performing venom immunotherapy. Key sections cover general considerations before initiating venom immunotherapy, evidence-based clinical recommendations, risk factors for adverse events and for relapse of systemic sting reaction, and a summary of gaps in the evidence. © 2017 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Food allergy can result in considerable morbidity, impairment of quality of life, and healthcare expenditure. There is therefore interest in novel strategies for its treatment, particularly food allergen immunotherapy (FA-AIT) through the oral (OIT), sublingual (SLIT), or epicutaneous (EPIT) routes. This Guideline, prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Task Force on Allergen Immunotherapy for IgE-mediated Food Allergy, aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for active treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy with FA-AIT. Immunotherapy relies on the delivery of gradually increasing doses of specific allergen to increase the threshold of reaction while on therapy (also known as desensitization) and ultimately to achieve post-discontinuation effectiveness (also known as tolerance or sustained unresponsiveness). Oral FA-AIT has most frequently been assessed: here, the allergen is either immediately swallowed (OIT) or held under the tongue for a period of time (SLIT). Overall, trials have found substantial benefit for patients undergoing either OIT or SLIT with respect to efficacy during treatment, particularly for cow's milk, hen's egg, and peanut allergies. A benefit post-discontinuation is also suggested, but not confirmed. Adverse events during FA-AIT have been frequently reported, but few subjects discontinue FA-AIT as a result of these. Taking into account the current evidence, FA-AIT should only be performed in research centers or in clinical centers with an extensive experience in FA-AIT. Patients and their families should be provided with information about the use of FA-AIT for IgE-mediated food allergy to allow them to make an informed decision about the therapy. © 2017 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Background: Preventive measures to decrease the frequency and intensity of anaphylactic events are essential to provide optimal care for allergic patients. Aggravating factors may trigger or increase the severity of anaphylaxis and therefore need to be recognized and avoided. Objective: To identify and prioritize factors associated with an increased risk of developing severe anaphylaxis. Methods: Data from the Anaphylaxis Registry (122 centers in 11 European countries) were used in logistic regression models considering existing severity grading systems, elicitors, and symptoms to identify the relative risk of factors on the severity of anaphylaxis. Results: We identified higher age and concomitant mastocytosis (OR: 3.1, CI: 2.6-3.7) as the most important predictors for an increased risk of severe anaphylaxis. Vigorous physical exercise (OR: 1.5, CI: 1.3-1.7), male sex (OR: 1.2, CI: 1.1-1.3), and psychological burden (OR: 1.4, CI: 1.2-1.6) were more often associated with severe reactions. Additionally, intake of beta-blockers (OR: 1.9, CI: 1.5-2.2) and ACE-I (OR: 1.28, CI: 1.05, 1.51) in temporal proximity to allergen exposition was identified as an important factor in logistic regression analysis. Conclusion: Our data suggest it may be possible to identify patients who require intensified preventive measures due to their relatively higher risk for severe anaphylaxis by considering endogenous and exogenous factors. © 2018 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for IgE-mediated Food Allergy. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we sought to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT in the management of food allergy. Methods: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis that involved searching nine international electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRS). Eligible studies were independently assessed by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and the Cochrane ACROBAT-NRS tool for quasi-RCTs. Random-effects meta-analyses were undertaken, with planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Results: We identified 1814 potentially relevant papers from which we selected 31 eligible studies, comprising of 25 RCTs and six NRS, studying a total of 1259 patients. Twenty-five trials evaluated oral immunotherapy (OIT), five studies investigated sublingual immunotherapy, and one study evaluated epicutaneous immunotherapy. The majority of these studies were in children. Twenty-seven studies assessed desensitization, and eight studies investigated sustained unresponsiveness postdiscontinuation of AIT. Meta-analyses demonstrated a substantial benefit in terms of desensitization (risk ratio (RR) = 0.16, 95% CI 0.10, 0.26) and suggested, but did not confirm sustained unresponsiveness (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.08, 1.13). Only one study reported on disease-specific quality of life (QoL), which reported no comparative results between OIT and control group. Meta-analyses revealed that the risk of experiencing a systemic adverse reaction was higher in those receiving AIT, with a more marked increase in the risk of local adverse reactions. Sensitivity analysis excluding those studies judged to be at high risk of bias demonstrated the robustness of summary estimates of effectiveness and safety of AIT for food allergy. None of the studies reported data on health economic analyses. Conclusions: AIT may be effective in raising the threshold of reactivity to a range of foods in children with IgE-mediated food allergy whilst receiving (i.e. desensitization) and post-discontinuation of AIT. It is, however, associated with a modest increased risk in serious systemic adverse reactions and a substantial increase in minor local adverse reactions. More data are needed in relation to adults, long term effects, the impact on QoL and the cost-effectiveness of AIT.