ARIA 2016 : Care pathways implementing emerging technologies for predictive medicine in rhinitis and asthma across the life cycle

European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing Reference Site MACVIA-France, EU Structural and Development Fund Languedoc-Roussillon, ARIA.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Allergen immunotherapy for asthma prevention: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled studies

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a disease-modifying treatment for IgE-mediated diseases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) support AIT's potential role in asthma prevention but evidence from non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) and longitudinal observational studies has been poorly addressed. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess clinical data from all study types to evaluate quantitatively the preventive role of AIT in asthma onset. Methods: We search three databases. Studies were screened, selected and evaluated for quality using risk-of-bias (ROB) tools. Data were descriptively summarized and meta-analysed using random effects. We performed a sensitivity, influence and subgroup analyses. Publication bias and heterogeneity were assessed. Results: From the 4549 identified studies, 24 (12 RCTs and 12 NRSI) were included in the qualitative synthesis and 18 underwent meta-analysis. One study was at low ROB, seven had moderate ROB, and 15 were proven of high ROB. Random-effects analysis showed a significant decrease in the risk of developing asthma following AIT by 25% (RR, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.64–0.88). This effect was not significant in the sensitivity analysis. Publication bias raised concerns, together with the moderate heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 58%). Subgroup analysis showed a remarkable preventive effect of AIT in children (RR, 95% CI: 0.71, 0.53–0.96), when completing 3 years of therapy (RR, 95% CI: 0.64, 0.47–0.88), and in mono-sensitized patients (RR, 95% CI: 0.49, 0.39–0.61). Conclusions: Our findings support a possible preventive effect of AIT in asthma onset and suggest an enhanced effect when administered in children, mono-sensitized, and for at least 3 years, independently of allergen type. © 2022 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Funding text 1: Mariana Farraia is funded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia through the PhD Grant number SFRH/BD/145168/2019. João Cavaleiro Rufo is funded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia through the Stimulus for Scientific Employment Individual Support (2020.01350.CEECIND).; Funding text 2: Mariana Farraia is funded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia through the PhD Grant number SFRH/BD/145168/2019. João Cavaleiro Rufo is funded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia through the Stimulus for Scientific Employment Individual Support (2020.01350.CEECIND)

Real-life impact of COVID-19 pandemic lockdown on the management of pediatric and adult asthma: A survey by the EAACI Asthma Section

Background: The restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic impact heavily the management of chronic diseases like asthma. This study aimed to evaluate the management of adults and children with asthma during COVID-19-related lockdown. Methods: A survey was launched by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) via e-mail, website, and social media to EAACI members and members of peer societies. Results: The survey was completed by 339 healthcare professionals from 52 countries. 79% of follow-up consultations were replaced by phone calls, whereas 49% of newly referred patients attended the clinic. 62%, 76%, 66%, 76%, and 87% of responders did not conduct spirometry, impulse oscillometry, bronchodilator test, FeNO, or methacholine provocation, respectively, for asthma diagnosis in adults. The numbers were similar for children. 73% of responders based the initial asthma diagnosis and the prescription of inhaled therapy on clinical parameters only. Lung function tests were used in 29% of cases to monitor asthma worsening, and only 56% of participants were recommended to their patients ambulatory peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurements. Using a 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) scale, the responders considered that the quality of healthcare provided and the patients’ asthma status had deteriorated during the lockdown with 3.2 points and 2.8 points, respectively. Conclusion: Collectively, these results suggest that all necessary resources should be allocated to ensure the performance of lung function tests for initial diagnosis, whereas digital remote monitoring should be reinforced for the follow-up of children and adults with asthma

EAACI statement on the diagnosis, management and prevention of severe allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines

The first approved COVID-19 vaccines include Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162B2, Moderna mRNA-1273 and AstraZeneca recombinant adenoviral ChAdOx1-S. Soon after approval, severe allergic reactions to the mRNA-based vaccines that resolved after treatment were reported. Regulatory agencies from the European Union, Unites States and the United Kingdom agree that vaccinations are contraindicated only when there is an allergy to one of the vaccine components or if there was a severe allergic reaction to the first dose. This position paper of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) agrees with these recommendations and clarifies that there is no contraindication to administer these vaccines to allergic patients who do not have a history of an allergic reaction to any of the vaccine components. Importantly, as is the case for any medication, anaphylaxis may occur after vaccination in the absence of a history of allergic disease. Therefore, we provide a simplified algorithm of prevention, diagnosis and treatment of severe allergic reactions and a list of recommended medications and equipment for vaccine centres. We also describe potentially allergenic/immunogenic components of the approved vaccines and propose a workup to identify the responsible allergen. Close collaboration between academia, regulatory agencies and vaccine producers will facilitate approaches for patients at risks, such as incremental dosing of the second injection or desensitization. Finally, we identify unmet research needs and propose a concerted international roadmap towards precision diagnosis and management to minimize the risk of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and to facilitate their broader and safer use

ARIA 2016 Executive Summary Integrated care pathways for predictive medicine across the life cycle

The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative commenced during a World Health Organization (WHO) workshop in 1999. The initial goals were (i) to propose a new allergic rhinitis classification, (ii) to promote the concept of multi-morbidity in asthma and rhinitis and (iii) to develop guidelines with all stakeholders for global use in all countries and populations. ARIA - disseminated and implemented in over 70 countries globally - is now focusing on the implementation of emerging technologies for individualized and predictive medicine. MASK (MACVIA (Contre les MAladies Chroniques pour un VIeillissement Actif)-ARIA Sentinel NetworK) uses mobile technology to develop care pathways in order to enable the management of rhinitis and asthma by a multi-disciplinary group or by patients themselves. An App (Android and iOS) is available in 20 countries and 15 languages. It uses a visual analogue scale to assess symptom  control and work productivity as well as a clinical decision support system. It is associated with an inter-operable tablet for physicians and other health care professionals. The scaling up strategy uses the recommendations of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing. The aim of the novel ARIA approach is to provide an active and healthy life to rhinitis sufferers, whatever their age, sex or socio-economic status, in order to reduce health and social inequalities incurred by the disease.Keywords: ARIA, rhinitis, ICT, EIP on AHA, mobile technology, AIRWAYS ICP

Microbial ligand costimulation drives neutrophilic steroid-refractory asthma

Funding: The authors thank the Wellcome Trust (102705) and the Universities of Aberdeen and Cape Town for funding. This research was also supported, in part, by National Institutes of Health GM53522 and GM083016 to DLW. KF and BNL are funded by the Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, BNL is the recipient of an European Research Commission consolidator grant and participates in the European Union FP7 programs EUBIOPRED and MedALL. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Impact of Rhinitis on Work Productivity : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is increasingly acknowledged as having a substantial socioeconomic impact associated with impaired work productivity, although available information remains fragmented. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review summarizes recently available information to provide a quantitative estimate of the burden of AR on work productivity including lost work time (ie, absenteeism) and reduced performance while working (ie, presenteeism). METHODS: A Medline search retrieved original studies from 2005 to 2015 pertaining to the impact of AR on work productivity. A pooled analysis of results was carried out with studies reporting data collected through the validated Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire. RESULTS: The search identified 19 observational surveys and 9 interventional studies. Six studies reported economic evaluations. Pooled analysis of WPAI-based studies found an estimated 3.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4; 4.8%) missed work time and 35.9% (95% CI, 29.7; 42.1%) had impairment in at-work performance due to AR. Economic evaluations indicated that indirect costs associated with lost work productivity are the principal contributor to the total AR costs and result mainly from impaired presenteeism. The severity of AR symptoms was the most consistent disease-related factor associated with a greater impact of AR on work productivity, although ocular symptoms and sleep disturbances may independently affect work productivity. Overall, the pharmacologic treatment of AR showed a beneficial effect on work productivity. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides summary estimates of the magnitude of work productivity impairment due to AR and identifies its main determinant factors. This information may help guide both clinicians and health policy makers. (C) 2017 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & ImmunologyPeer reviewe

Efficacy and safety of treatment with omalizumab for chronic spontaneous urticaria: A systematic review for the EAACI Biologicals Guidelines

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy and safety of omalizumab for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs. Critical and important CSU-related outcomes were considered. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. Ten RCTs including 1620 subjects aged 12 to 75 years old treated with omalizumab for 16 to 40 weeks were evaluated. Omalizumab 150 mg does not result in clinically meaningful improvement (high certainty) of the urticaria activity score (UAS)7 (mean difference (MD) −5; 95%CI −7.75 to −2.25), and the itch severity score (ISS)7 (MD −2.15; 95% CI −3.2 to −1.1) does not increase (moderate certainty) quality of life (QoL) (Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI); MD −2.01; 95%CI −3.22 to −0.81) and decreases (moderate certainty) rescue medication use (MD −1.68; 95%CI −2.95 to −0.4). Omalizumab 300 mg results in clinically meaningful improvements (moderate certainty) of the UAS7 (MD −11.05; 95%CI −12.87 to −9.24), the ISS7 (MD −4.45; 95%CI −5.39 to −3.51), and QoL (high certainty) (DLQI; MD −4.03; 95% CI −5.56 to −2.5) and decreases (moderate certainty) rescue medication use (MD −2.04; 95%CI −3.19 to −0.88) and drug-related serious AEs (RR 0.77; 95%CI 0.20 to 2.91)

Considerations on biologicals for patients with allergic disease in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: An EAACI statement

The outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2-induced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic re-shaped doctor-patient interaction and challenged capacities of healthcare systems. It created many issues around the optimal and safest way to treat complex patients with severe allergic disease. A significant number of the patients are on treatment with biologicals, and clinicians face the challenge to provide optimal care during the pandemic. Uncertainty of the potential risks for these patients is related to the fact that the exact sequence of immunological events during SARS-CoV-2 is not known. Severe COVID-19 patients may experience a “cytokine storm” and associated organ damage characterized by an exaggerated release of pro-inflammatory type 1 and type 3 cytokines. These inflammatory responses are potentially counteracted by anti-inflammatory cytokines and type 2 responses. This expert-based EAACI statement aims to provide guidance on the application of biologicals targeting type 2 inflammation in patients with allergic disease. Currently, there is very little evidence for an enhanced risk of patients with allergic diseases to develop severe COVID-19. Studies focusing on severe allergic phenotypes are lacking. At present, noninfected patients on biologicals for the treatment of asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, or chronic spontaneous urticaria should continue their biologicals targeting type 2 inflammation via self-application. In case of an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, biological treatment needs to be stopped until clinical recovery and SARS-CoV-2 negativity is established and treatment with biologicals should be re-initiated. Maintenance of add-on therapy and a constant assessment of disease control, apart from acute management, are demanded