Non-eosinophilic asthma: current perspectives

Ignacio Esteban-Gorgojo,1 Darío Antolín-Amérigo,2 Javier Domínguez-Ortega,3,4 Santiago Quirce3,4 1Department of Allergy, Hospital General de Villalba, Madrid, Spain; 2Department of Allergy, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain; 3Department of Allergy, Hospital La Paz Institute for Health Research (IdiPAZ), 4CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias, CIBERES, Madrid, Spain Abstract: Although non-eosinophilic asthma (NEA) is not the best known and most prevalent asthma phenotype, its importance cannot be underestimated. NEA is characterized by airway inflammation with the absence of eosinophils, subsequent to activation of non-predominant type 2 immunologic pathways. This phenotype, which possibly includes several not well-defined subphenotypes, is defined by an eosinophil count <2% in sputum. NEA has been associated with environmental and/or host factors, such as smoking cigarettes, pollution, work-related agents, infections, and obesity. These risk factors, alone or in conjunction, can activate specific cellular and molecular pathways leading to non-type 2 inflammation. The most relevant clinical trait of NEA is its poor response to standard asthma treatments, especially to inhaled corticosteroids, leading to a higher severity of disease and to difficult-to-control asthma. Indeed, NEA constitutes about 50% of severe asthma cases. Since most current and forthcoming biologic therapies specifically target type 2 asthma phenotypes, such as uncontrolled severe eosinophilic or allergic asthma, there is a dramatic lack of effective treatments for uncontrolled non-type 2 asthma. Research efforts are now focusing on elucidating the phenotypes underlying the non-type 2 asthma, and several studies are being conducted with new drugs and biologics aiming to develop effective strategies for this type of asthma, and various immunologic pathways are being scrutinized to optimize efficacy and to abolish possible adverse effects. Keywords: asthma, non-eosinophilic asthma, asthma phenotype, asthma endotype, neutrophilic asthm

The role of mobile health technologies in allergy care: An EAACI position paper

PubMed: 31230373Mobile health (mHealth) uses mobile communication devices such as smartphones and tablet computers to support and improve health-related services, data and information flow, patient self-management, surveillance, and disease management from the moment of first diagnosis to an optimized treatment. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology created a task force to assess the state of the art and future potential of mHealth in allergology. The task force endorsed the “Be He@lthy, Be Mobile” WHO initiative and debated the quality, usability, efficiency, advantages, limitations, and risks of mobile solutions for allergic diseases. The results are summarized in this position paper, analyzing also the regulatory background with regard to the “General Data Protection Regulation” and Medical Directives of the European Community. The task force assessed the design, user engagement, content, potential of inducing behavioral change, credibility/accountability, and privacy policies of mHealth products. The perspectives of healthcare professionals and allergic patients are discussed, underlining the need of thorough investigation for an effective design of mHealth technologies as auxiliary tools to improve quality of care. Within the context of precision medicine, these could facilitate the change in perspective from clinician- to patient-centered care. The current and future potential of mHealth is then examined for specific areas of allergology, including allergic rhinitis, aerobiology, allergen immunotherapy, asthma, dermatological diseases, food allergies, anaphylaxis, insect venom, and drug allergy. The impact of mobile technologies and associated big data sets are outlined. Facts and recommendations for future mHealth initiatives within EAACI are listed. © 2019 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd

Key Issues in Hymenoptera Venom Allergy: An Update.

In this review, the Hymenoptera Allergy Committee of the SEAIC analyzes the most recent scientific literature addressing problems related to the diagnosis of hymenoptera allergy and to management of venom immunotherapy. Molecular diagnosis and molecular risk profiles are the key areas addressed. The appearance of new species of hymenoptera that are potentially allergenic in Spain and the associated diagnostic and therapeutic problems are also described. Finally, we analyze the issue of mast cell activation syndrome closely related to hymenoptera allergy, which has become a new diagnostic challenge for allergists given its high prevalence in patients with venom anaphylaxis

Allergen immunotherapy for insect venom allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of insect venom allergy. To inform this process, we sought to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of insect venom allergy. Methods: We undertook a systematic review, which involved searching 15 international biomedical databases for published and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened and critically appraised using established instruments. Data were descriptively summarized and, where possible, meta-analysed. Results: Our searches identified a total of 16 950 potentially eligible studies; of which, 17 satisfied our inclusion criteria. The available evidence was limited both in volume and in quality, but suggested that venom immunotherapy (VIT) could substantially reduce the risk of subsequent severe systemic sting reactions (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.03–0.26); meta-analysis showed that it also improved disease-specific quality of life (risk difference = 1.41, 95% CI 1.04–1.79). Adverse effects were experienced in both the build-up and maintenance phases, but most were mild with no fatalities being reported. The very limited evidence found on modelling cost-effectiveness suggested that VIT was likely to be cost-effective in those at high risk of repeated systemic sting reactions and/or impaired quality of life. Conclusions: The limited available evidence suggested that VIT is effective in reducing severe subsequent systemic sting reactions and in improving disease-specific quality of life. VIT proved to be safe and no fatalities were recorded in the studies included in this review. The cost-effectiveness of VIT needs to be established. © 2016 The Authors. Allergy Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Telemedicine with special focus on allergic diseases and asthma—Status 2022: An EAACI position paper

Efficacious, effective and efficient communication between healthcare professionals (HCP) and patients is essential to achieve a successful therapeutic alliance. Telemedicine (TM) has been used for decades but during the COVID-19 pandemic its use has become widespread. This position paper aims to describe the terminology and most important forms of TM among HCP and patients and review the existing studies on the uses of TM for asthma and allergy. Besides, the advantages and risks of TM are discussed, concluding that TM application reduces costs and time for both, HCP and patients, but cannot completely replace face-to-face visits for physical examinations and certain tests that are critical in asthma and allergy. From an ethical point of view, it is important to identify those involved in the TM process, ensure confidentiality and use communication channels that fully guarantee the security of the information. Unmet needs and directions for the future regarding implementation, data protection, privacy regulations, methodology and efficacy are described

EAACI guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: Hymenoptera venom allergy

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