Medicina

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) imposes a significant burden on patients, families and healthcare systems. Management is difficult, due to disease heterogeneity and insufficient efficacy of classical drugs such as H1R-antihistamines. Better understanding of the mechanisms has enabled a stratified approach to the management of CSU, supporting the use of targeted treatment with omalizumab. However, many practical issues including selection of responders, the definition of response, strategies to enhance the responder rate, the duration of treatment and its regimen (in the clinic or home-based) and its cost-effectiveness still require further clarification. The EAACI Guidelines on the use of omalizumab in CSU follow the GRADE approach in formulating recommendations for each outcome. In addition, future therapeutic approaches and perspectives as well as research priorities are discussed.

The exponential growth of precision diagnostic tools, including omic technologies, molecular diagnostics, sophisticated genetic and epigenetic editing, imaging and nanotechnologies and patient access to extensive health care, has resulted in vast amounts of unbiased data enabling in-depth disease characterization. New disease endotypes have been identified for various allergic diseases and triggered the gradual transition from a disease description focused on symptoms to identifying biomarkers and intricate pathogenetic and metabolic pathways. Consequently, the current disease taxonomy has to be revised for better categorization. This European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Position Paper responds to this challenge and provides a modern nomenclature for allergic diseases, which respects the earlier classifications back to the early 20th century. Hypersensitivity reactions originally described by Gell and Coombs have been extended into nine different types comprising antibody- (I-III), cell-mediated (IVa-c), tissue-driven mechanisms (V-VI) and direct response to chemicals (VII). Types I-III are linked to classical and newly described clinical conditions. Type IVa-c are specified and detailed according to the current understanding of T1, T2 and T3 responses. Types V-VI involve epithelial barrier defects and metabolic-induced immune dysregulation, while direct cellular and inflammatory responses to chemicals are covered in type VII. It is notable that several combinations of mixed types may appear in the clinical setting. The clinical relevance of the current approach for allergy practice will be conferred in another article that will follow this year, aiming at showing the relevance in clinical practice where various endotypes can overlap and evolve over the lifetime.

Background: As in many fields of medical care, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in an increased uncertainty regarding the safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Therefore, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) aimed to analyze the situation in different countries and to systematically collect all information available regarding tolerability and possible amendments in daily practice of sublingual AIT (SLIT), subcutaneous AIT (SCIT) for inhalant allergies and venom AIT. Methods: Under the framework of the EAACI, a panel of experts in the field of AIT coordinated by the Immunotherapy Interest Group set-up a web-basedretrospective survey (SurveyMonkey®) including 27 standardized questions on practical and safety aspects on AIT in worldwide clinical routine. Results: 417 respondents providing AIT to their patients in daily routine answered the survey. For patients (without any current symptoms to suspect COVID-19), 60% of the respondents informed of not having initiated SCIT (40% venom AIT, 35% SLIT) whereas for the maintenance phase of AIT, SCIT was performed by 75% of the respondents (74% venom AIT, 89% SLIT). No tolerability concern arises from this preliminary analysis. 16 physicians reported having performed AIT despite (early) symptoms of COVID-19 and/or a positive test result for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Conclusions: This first international retrospective survey in atopic diseases investigated practical aspects and tolerability of AIT during the COVID-19 pandemic and gave no concerns regarding reduced tolerability under real-life circumstances. However, the data indicate an undertreatment of AIT, which may be temporary, but could have a long-lasting negative impact on the clinical care of allergic patients.

Vaccines are essential public health tools with a favorable safety profile and prophylactic effectiveness that have historically played significant roles in reducing infectious disease burden in populations, when the majority of individuals are vaccinated. The COVID-19 vaccines are expected to have similar positive impacts on health across the globe. While serious allergic reactions to vaccines are rare, their underlying mechanisms and implications for clinical management should be considered to provide individuals with the safest care possible. In this review, we provide an overview of different types of allergic adverse reactions that can potentially occur after vaccination and individual vaccine components capable of causing the allergic adverse reactions. We present the incidence of allergic adverse reactions during clinical studies and through post-authorization and post-marketing surveillance and provide plausible causes of these reactions based on potential allergenic components present in several common vaccines. Additionally, we review implications for individual diagnosis and management and vaccine manufacturing overall. Finally, we suggest areas for future research.

Atopic dermatitis imposes a significant burden on patients, families and healthcare systems. Management is difficult, due to disease heterogeneity, comorbidities, complexity in care pathways and differences between national or regional healthcare systems. Better understanding of the mechanisms has enabled a stratified approach to the management of atopic dermatitis, supporting the use of targeted treatments with biologicals. However, there are still many issues that require further clarification. These include the definition of response, strategies to enhance the responder rate, the duration of treatment and its regimen (in the clinic or home-based), its cost-effectiveness and long-term safety. The EAACI Guidelines on the use of dupilumab in atopic dermatitis follow the GRADE approach in formulating recommendations for each outcome and age group. In addition, future approaches and research priorities are discussed.

Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well-recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab (alphabetical order) compared to standard of care for severe eosinophilic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated for each of the biologicals. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. 19 RCTs (three RCTs for benralizumab, three RCTs for dupilumab, three RCTs for mepolizumab, five RCTs for omalizumab and five RCTs for reslizumab), including subjects 12 to 75 years old (except for omalizumab including also subjects 6-11 years old), ranging from 12 to 56 weeks were evaluated. All biologicals reduce exacerbation rates with high certainty of evidence: benralizumab incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.72), dupilumab (IRR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.59), mepolizumab IRR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.66), omalizumab (IRR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) and reslizumab (IRR) 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.58). Benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab reduce the daily dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) with high certainty of evidence. All evaluated biologicals probably improve asthma control, QoL and FEV1, without reaching the minimal important difference (moderate certainty). Benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab slightly increase drugrelated adverse events (AE) and drug-related serious AE (low to very low certainty of evidence). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year value is above the willingness to pay threshold for all biologicals (moderate certainty). Potential savings are driven by decrease in hospitalizations, emergency and primary care visits. There is high certainty that all approved biologicals reduce the rate of severe asthma exacerbations and for benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab for reducing OCS. There is moderate certainty for improving asthma control, QoL, FEV1. More data on long-term safety are needed together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.

Severe asthma imposes a significant burden on patients, families and healthcare systems. Management is difficult, due to disease heterogeneity, co-morbidities, complexity in care pathways and differences between national or regional healthcare systems. Better understanding of the mechanisms has enabled a stratified approach to the management of severe asthma, supporting the use of targeted treatments with biologicals. However, there are still many issues that require further clarification. These include selection of a certain biological (as they all target overlapping disease phenotypes), the definition of response, strategies to enhance the responder rate, the duration of treatment and its regimen (in the clinic or home-based) and its costeffectiveness. The EAACI Guidelines on the use of biologicals in severe asthma follow the GRADE approach in formulating recommendations for each biological and each outcome. In addition, a management algorithm for the use of biologicals in the clinic is proposed, together with future approaches and research priorities.

Allergic diseases and asthma are heterogenous chronic inflammatory conditions with several distinct complex endotypes. Both environmental and genetic factors can influence the development and progression of allergy. Complex pathogenetic pathways observed in allergic disorders present a challenge in patient management and successful targeted treatment strategies. The increasing availability of high-throughput omics technologies, such as genomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics allows studying biochemical systems and pathophysiological processes underlying allergic responses. Additionally, omics techniques present clinical applicability by functional identification and validation of biomarkers. Therefore, finding molecules or patterns characteristic for distinct immune-inflammatory endotypes, can subsequently influence its development, progression, and treatment. There is a great potential to further increase the effectiveness of single omics approaches by integrating them with other omics, and nonomics data. Systems biology aims to simultaneously and longitudinally understand multiple layers of a complex and multifactorial disease, such as allergy, or asthma by integrating several, separated data sets and generating a complete molecular profile of the condition. With the use of sophisticated biostatistics and machine learning techniques, these approaches provide in-depth insight into individual biological systems and will allow efficient and customized healthcare approaches, called precision medicine. In this EAACI Position Paper, the Task Force “Omics technologies in allergic research” broadly reviewed current advances and applicability of omics techniques in allergic diseases and asthma research, with a focus on methodology and data analysis, aiming to provide researchers (basic and clinical) with a desk reference in the field. The potential of omics strategies in understanding disease pathophysiology and key tools to reach unmet needs in allergy precision medicine, such as successful patients’ stratification, accurate disease prognosis, and prediction of treatment efficacy and successful prevention measures are highlighted.