Time to ACT-UP: Update on precautionary allergen labelling (PAL).

Background: Precautionary Allergen ("may contain") Labelling (PAL) is used by industry to communicate potential risk to food-allergic individuals posed by unintended allergen presence (UAP). In 2014, the World Allergy Organization (WAO) highlighted that PAL use was increasing, but often applied inconsistently and without regulation - which reduces its usefulness to consumers with food allergy and those purchasing food for them. WAO proposed the need for a regulated, international framework to underpin application of PAL. In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations convened an expert consultation to address the issue of PAL, the outputs of which are now being considered by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL). Objectives: To summarise the latest data to inform the application of PAL in a more systematic way, for implementation into global food standards. Methods: A non-systematic review of issues surrounding precautionary labelling and food allergens in pre-packaged products. Results: Approximately, 100 countries around the world have legislation on the declaration of allergenic ingredients. Just a few have legislation on UAP. Given the risks that UAP entails, non-regulated PAL creates inconvenience in real life due to its unequal, difficult interpretation by patients. The attempts made so far to rationalize PAL present lights and shadows. Conclusions: At a time when CCFL is considering the results of the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation 2020-2023, we summarise the prospects to develop an effective and homogeneous legislation at a global level, and the areas of uncertainty that might hinder international agreement on a regulated framework for PAL of food allergens.

Inhaled Reliever Therapies for Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: The optimal inhaled reliever therapy for asthma remains unclear. Objective: To compare short-acting ß agonists (SABA) alone with SABA combined with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and with the fast-onset, long-acting ß agonist formoterol combined with ICS for asthma. Data Sources: The MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 1, 2020, to September 27, 2024, without language restrictions. Study Selection: Pairs of reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials evaluating (1) SABA alone, (2) ICS with formoterol, and (3) ICS with SABA (combined or separate inhalers). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses synthesized outcomes. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Main Outcomes and Measures: Asthma symptom control (5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire; range, 0-6, lower scores indicate better asthma control; minimum important difference [MID], 0.5 points), asthma-related quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; range, 1-7, higher scores indicate better quality of life; MID, 0.5 points), risk of severe exacerbations, and risk of serious adverse events. Results: A total of 27 randomized clinical trials (N = 50 496 adult and pediatric patients; mean age, 41.0 years; 20 288 male [40%]) were included. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with fewer severe exacerbations (ICS-formoterol risk ratio [RR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60-0.72]; risk difference [RD], -10.3% [95% CI, -11.8% to -8.3%]; ICS-SABA RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.73-0.95]; RD, -4.7% [95% CI, -8.0% to -1.5%]) with high certainty. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with improved asthma control (ICS-formoterol RR improvement [MID] in total score, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.04-1.10]; RD, 4.1% [95% CI, 2.3%-5.9%]; ICS-SABA RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03-1.15]; RD, 5.4% [95% CI, 1.8%-8.5%]) with high certainty. In an indirect comparison with ICS-SABA, ICS-formoterol was associated with fewer severe exacerbations (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]; RD, -5.5% [95% CI, -8.4% to -2.0%]) with moderate certainty. Compared with SABA alone, ICS-formoterol (RD, -0.6% [95% CI, -1.3% to 0%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (high certainty) and ICS-SABA (RD, 0% [95% CI, -1.1% to 1.2%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (moderate certainty). Conclusions and Relevance: In this network meta-analysis of patients with asthma, ICS combined with formoterol and ICS combined with SABA were each associated with reduced asthma exacerbations and improved asthma control compared with SABA alone.

Topical Anti-Inflammatory Treatments for Eczema: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Eczema is the most burdensome skin condition worldwide and topical anti-inflammatory treatments are commonly used to control symptoms. The relative effectiveness and safety of different topical anti-inflammatory treatments is uncertain. DESIGN: Network meta-analysis performed within a Cochrane systematic review to compare and statistically rank efficacy and safety of topical anti-inflammatory eczema treatments. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries to June 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTED TRIALS: Included trials were within-participant or between-participant randomised controlled trials. Participants had eczema that was not clinically infected and was not contact dermatitis, seborrheic eczema or hand eczema. Interventions were topical anti-inflammatory treatments but not complementary treatments, antibiotics alone, wet wraps, phototherapy or systemic treatments. Comparators were no treatment/vehicle or another topical anti-inflammatory. RESULTS: We identified 291 trials (45,846 participants), mainly in high-income countries. Most were industry-funded with median 3 weeks treatment duration. Risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool was high in 89% of trials, mainly due to risk of selective reporting. Network meta-analysis of binary outcomes ranked potent and/or very potent topical steroids, tacrolimus 0.1% and ruxolitinib 1.5% among the most effective treatments for improving patient-reported symptoms (40 trials, all low confidence) and clinician-reported signs (32 trials, all moderate confidence). For investigator global assessment, the Janus kinas inhibitors ruxolitinib 1.5%, delgocitinib 0.5% or 0.25%, very potent/potent topical steroids and tacrolimus 0.1% were ranked as most effective (140 trials, all moderate confidence). Continuous outcome data were mixed. Local application site reactions were most common with tacrolimus 0.1% (moderate confidence) and crisaborole 2% (high confidence) and least common with topical steroids (moderate confidence). Skin thinning was not increased with short-term use of any topical steroid potency (low confidence) but skin thinning was reported in 6/2044 (0.3%) participants treated with longer-term (6-60 months) topical steroids. CONCLUSION: Potent topical steroids, Janus kinase inhibitors and tacrolimus 0.1% were consistently ranked as among the most effective topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema.

World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) guideline update - XI - Milk supplement/replacement formulas for infants and toddlers with CMA - Systematic review.

Background: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is the most complex and common food allergy in infants. Elimination of cow's milk from the diet and replacement with a specialized formula for infants with cow's milk allergy who cannot be breastfed is an established approach to minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions while avoiding nutritional deficiencies. Given the availability of multiple options, such as extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk-based formula (eHF-CM), aminoacid formula (AAF), hydrolyzed rice formula (HRF), and soy formula (SF), there is some uncertainty regarding which formula might represent the most suitable choice with respect to health outcomes. The addition of probiotics to a specialized formula has also been proposed as a potential approach to possibly increase the benefit. We systematically reviewed specialized formulas for infants with CMA to inform the updated World Allergy Organization (WAO) DRACMA guidelines. Objective: To systematically review and synthesize the available evidence about the use of specialized formulas for the management of individuals with CMA. Methods: We searched from inception PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the websites of selected allergy organizations, for randomized and non-randomized trials of any language investigating specialized formulas with or without probiotics. We included all studies irrespective of the language of the original publication. The last search was conducted in January 2024. We synthesized the identified evidence quantitatively or narratively as appropriate and summarized it in the evidence profiles. We conducted this review following the PRISMA, Cochrane methods, and the GRADE approach. Results: We identified 3558 records including 14 randomized trials and 7 observational studies. Very low certainty evidence suggested that in infants with IgE-mediated CMA, eHF-CM, compared with AAF, might have higher probability of outgrowing CMA (risk ratio (RR) 2.32; risk difference (RD) 25 more per 100), while showing potentially lower probability of severe vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.88; RD 23 fewer per 100, 95% CI 3 to 26) and developing food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.82; RD 34 fewer per 100, 95% CI 7 to 39). We also found, however, that eHF-CM might be inferior to AAF in supporting a physiological growth, with respect to both weight (-5.5% from baseline, 95%CI -9.5% to -1.5%) and length (-0.7 z-score change, 95%CI -1.15 to -0.25) (very low certainty). We found similar effects for eHF-CM, compared with AAF, also in non-IgE CMA. When compared with SF, eHF-CM might favor weight gain for IgE CMA infants (0.23 z-score change, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.45), and tolerance acquisition (RR 1.86, 95%CI 1.03 to 3.37; RD 27%, 95%CI 1%-74%) for non-IgE CMA (both at very low certainty of the evidence (CoE)). The comparison of eHF-CM vs. HRF, and HRF vs. SF, showed no difference in effect (very low certainty). For IgE CMA patients, low certainty evidence suggested that adding probiotics (L. rhamnosus GG, L. casei CRL431 and B. lactis Bb-12) might increase the probability of developing CMA tolerance (RR 2.47, 95%CI 1.03 to 5.93; RD 27%, 95%CI 1%-91%), and reduce the risk of severe wheezing (RR 0.12, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.95; RD -23%, 95%CI -8% to -0.4%). However, in non-IgE CMA infants, the addition of probiotics (L. rhamnosus GG) showed no significant effect, as supported by low to very low CoE. Conclusions: Currently available studies comparing eHF-CM, AAF, HRF, and SF provide very low certainty evidence about their effects in infants with IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated CMA. Our review revealed several limitations in the current body of evidence, primarily arising from concerns related to the quality of studies, the limited size of the participant populations and most importantly the lack of diversity and standardization in the compared interventions. It is therefore imperative for future studies to be methodologically rigorous and investigate a broader spectrum of available interventions. We encourage clinicians and researchers to review current World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines for suggestions on how to use milk replacement formulas in clinical practice and what additional research would be the most beneficial.

Atopic Dermatitis (Eczema) Guidelines 2023: Highlights.

Atopic dermatitis is a common chronic inflammatory skin disorder, with a complex pathogenesis. It is characterized by eczematous skin lesions, pruritus, and recurrent skin infections and has a negative impact on patients' and caregivers' quality of life. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force Atopic Dermatitis Guideline Panel recently released updated AD guidelines. This guideline focuses on addressing clinical questions using trustworthy guideline development standards, including mitigating the potential influence of financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A multidisciplinary panel used systematic reviews and meta-analyses to inform specific recommendations addressing optimal use of topical treatments, dilute bleach bath, dietary avoidance/elimination, allergen immunotherapy, and systemic treatments. The comprehensive recommendations, emphasizing the third principle of evidence-based medicine-that evidence alone is never enough, and that patient values and preferences must be carefully considered when determining optimal treatments for patients and populations-provide a framework to support clinicians in selecting an optimal treatment plan for each patient. This review provides an overview of the guideline and discusses how those recommendations relate to current practice.

Management of anaphylaxis after pre-hospital epinephrine use in children with food-induced anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Previous guidelines recommend prompt epinephrine administration, followed by observation in the emergency department (ED). The need for transfer in all cases of anaphylaxis has recently been challenged. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the need for additional ED treatment among children with anaphylaxis who received prehospital epinephrine. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2023, data were collected on symptoms, triggers, comorbidities, and prehospital and in-hospital management from children (<18 years) with food-induced anaphylaxis who received at least 1 dose of prehospital epinephrine presenting at 7 pediatric EDs. Multivariable logistic regression assessed factors associated with the use of 2 or more prehospital epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs), epinephrine use in the ED, and hospital admission. RESULTS: Of the 1127 children (mean 8.1 ± 5.3 years; 60.6% male sex) with food-induced anaphylaxis who used at least 1 EAI prehospital, the most common trigger was peanuts (25.3%). There were 209 (18.5%) children who received additional epinephrine in the ED, most of whom (88.0%) received 1 dose. A total of 30 (2.7%) patients were admitted to hospital. Among all patients, severe reactions (cardiovascular instability/cyanosis/loss of consciousness) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.22; 95% CI 1.12-1.33) and reactions to tree nuts (aOR 1.09; 95% CI 1.03-1.16) were associated with increased odds of in-hospital epinephrine use. Prehospital inhaled ß-agonists (aOR 1.08; 95% CI 1.01-1.16) use and severe reactions (aOR 1.13; 95% CI 1.05-1.22) were associated with the use of 2 or more EAI prehospital. CONCLUSION: A minority of anaphylaxis cases that used prehospital EAIs required additional treatment, supporting that shared decision making about transfer to ED works for most patients.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria, Angioedema, and Atopic Dermatitis.

Reducing the burden of disease for patients and families requires being able to measure health status changes related to disease severity, control, and response to treatment over time. Patient-reported outcomes are patient perceptions of their health status. Such perceptions are critical to decision making. Some patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are extensive and often intended to be used only for detailed research assessments. Many PROMs, however, form critical components of valid, reliable, and responsive assessments in clinical research and routine clinical practice. The smallest score change in a PROM that would lead to different decision making by patients is called the minimally important difference. Using PROMs may also offer advantages over general questions or unvalidated tools. With the innovation of technology, the ability to chronicle disease symptoms using communication technology (mobile phone applications) has become increasingly available. Collection of real-world data in this capacity will be very useful for identifying more precise phenotypes/endotypes necessary for investigation of tailored therapies for chronic spontaneous and inducible urticaria, angioedema, and atopic dermatitis. Here, we provide an overview of PROMs that have been developed for the assessment of disease severity, control, and quality of life and that have been validated for the use of adults and children with these skin disorders.

Topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema: network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Eczema (atopic dermatitis) is the most burdensome skin condition worldwide and cannot currently be prevented or cured. Topical anti-inflammatory treatments are used to control eczema symptoms, but there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and safety of different topical anti-inflammatory treatments. OBJECTIVES: To compare and rank the efficacy and safety of topical anti-inflammatory treatments for people with eczema using a network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries on 29 June 2023, and checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included within-participant or between-participant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people of any age with eczema of any severity, but excluded trials in clinically infected eczema, seborrhoeic eczema, contact eczema, or hand eczema. We included topical anti-inflammatory treatments used for at least one week, compared with another anti-inflammatory treatment, no treatment, or vehicle/placebo. Vehicle is a 'carrier system' for an active pharmaceutical substance, which may also be used on its own as an emollient for dry skin. We excluded trials of topical antibiotics used alone, complementary therapies, emollients used alone, phototherapy, wet wraps, and systemic treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were patient-reported eczema symptoms, clinician-reported eczema signs and investigator global assessment. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, long-term control of eczema, withdrawal from treatment/study, and local adverse effects (application-site reactions, pigmentation changes and skin thinning/atrophy were identified as important concerns through patient and public involvement). We used CINeMA to quantify our confidence in the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 291 studies involving 45,846 participants with the full spectrum of eczema severity, mainly conducted in high-income countries in secondary care settings. Most studies included adults, with only 31 studies limited to children aged < 12 years. Studies usually included male and female participants, multiple ethnic groups but predominantly white populations. Most studies were industry-funded (68%) or did not report their funding sources/details. Treatment duration and trial participation were a median of 21 and 28 days (ranging from 7 days to 5 years), respectively. Interventions used were topical corticosteroids (TCS) (172), topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) (134), phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitors (55), janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (30), aryl hydrocarbon receptor activators (10), or other topical agents (21). Comparators included vehicle (170) or other anti-inflammatory treatments. The risk of bias was high in 242 of the 272 (89.0%) trials contributing to data analyses, most commonly due to concerns about selective reporting. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was only possible for short-term outcomes. Patient-reported symptoms NMA of 40 trials (6482 participants) reporting patient-reported symptoms as a binary outcome ranked tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 6.27, 95% CI 1.19 to 32.98), potent TCS (OR 5.99, 95% CI 2.83 to 12.69), and ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 5.64, 95% CI 1.26 to 25.25) as the most effective, all with low confidence. Mild TCS, roflumilast 0.15%, and crisaborole 2% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and was more effective than mild TCI and PDE-4 inhibitors. NMA of 29 trials (3839 participants) reporting patient-reported symptoms as a continuous outcome ranked very potent TCS (SMD -1.99, 95% CI -3.25 to -0.73; low confidence) and tacrolimus 0.03% (SMD -1.57, 95% CI -2.42 to -0.72; moderate confidence) the highest. Direct information for tacrolimus 0.03% was based on one trial of 60 participants at high risk of bias. Roflumilast 0.15%, delgocitinib 0.25% or 0.5%, and tapinarof 1% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors and mild/moderate TCS was less effective than mild TCI. A further 50 trials (9636 participants) reported patient-reported symptoms as a continuous outcome but could not be included in NMA. Clinician-reported signs NMA of 32 trials (4121 participants) reported clinician signs as a binary outcome and ranked potent TCS (OR 8.15, 95% CI 4.99, 13.57), tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 8.06, 95% CI 3.30, 19.67), ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 7.72, 95% CI 4.92, 12.10), and delgocitinib 0.5% (OR 7.61, 95% CI 3.72, 15.58) as most effective, all with moderate confidence. Mild TCS, roflumilast 0.15%, crisaborole 2%, and tapinarof 1% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS more effective than potent TCI, mild TCI, JAK inhibitors, PDE-4 inhibitors; and mild TCS and PDE-4 inhibitors had similar effectiveness. NMA of 49 trials (5261 participants) reported clinician signs as a continuous outcome and ranked tacrolimus 0.03% (SMD -2.69, 95% CI -3.36, -2.02) and very potent TCS (SMD -1.87, 95% CI -2.69, -1.05) as most effective, both with moderate confidence; roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 0.3% and tapinarof 1% were ranked as least effective. Direct information for tacrolimus 0.03% was based on one trial in 60 participants with a high risk of bias. For some sensitivity analyses, potent TCS, tacrolimus 0.1%, ruxolitinib 1.5%, delgocitinib 0.5% and delgocitinib 0.25% became some of the most effective treatments. Class-level analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors, and moderate/mild TCS was more effective than mild TCI. A further 100 trials (22,814 participants) reported clinician signs as a continuous outcome but could not be included in NMA. Investigator Global Assessment NMA of 140 trials (23,383 participants) reported IGA as a binary outcome and ranked ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 9.34, 95% CI 4.8, 18.18), delgocitinib 0.5% (OR 10.08, 95% CI 2.65, 38.37), delgocitinib 0.25% (OR 6.87, 95% CI 1.79, 26.33), very potent TCS (OR 8.34, 95% CI 4.73, 14.67), potent TCS (OR 5.00, 95% CI 3.80, 6.58), and tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 5.06, 95% CI 3.59, 7.13) as most effective, all with moderate confidence. Mild TCS, crisaborole 2%, pimecrolimus 1%, roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 0.3% and 1%, and tacrolimus 0.03% were the least effective. In a sensitivity analysis of low risk of bias information (12 trials, 1639 participants), potent TCS, delgocitinib 0.5% and delgocitinib 0.25% were most effective, and pimecrolimus 1%, roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 1% and difamilast 0.3% least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors and were more effective than PDE-4 inhibitors; mild/moderate TCS were less effective than potent TCI and had similar effectiveness to mild TCI. Longer-term outcomes over 6 to 12 months showed a possible increase in effectiveness for pimecrolimus 1% versus vehicle (4 trials, 2218 participants) in a pairwise meta-analysis, and greater treatment success with mild/moderate TCS than pimecrolimus 1% (based on 1 trial of 2045 participants). Local adverse effects NMA of 83 trials (18,992 participants, 2424 events) reporting application-site reactions ranked tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.53, 3.17; moderate confidence), crisaborole 2% (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.18, 3.81; high confidence), tacrolimus 0.03% (OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.10, 2.09; low confidence), and pimecrolimus 1% (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.01, 2.04; low confidence) as most likely to cause site reactions. Very potent, potent, moderate, and mild TCS were least likely to cause site reactions. NMA of eight trials (1786 participants, 3 events) reporting pigmentation changes found no evidence for increased pigmentation changes with TCS and crisaborole 2%, with low confidence for mild, moderate or potent TCS and moderate confidence for crisaborole 2%. NMA of 25 trials (3691 participants, 36 events) reporting skin thinning found no evidence for increased skin thinning with short-term (median 3 weeks, range 1-16 weeks) use of mild TCS (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.12, 4.31), moderate TCS (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.16, 5.33), potent TCS (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.21, 4.43) or very potent TCS (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.31, 2.49), all with low confidence. Longer-term outcomes over 6 to 60 months showed increased skin thinning with mild to potent TCS versus TCI (3 trials, 4069 participants, 6 events with TCS). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Potent TCS, JAK inhibitors and tacrolimus 0.1% were consistently ranked as amongst the most effective topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema and PDE-4 inhibitors as amongst the least effective. Mild TCS and tapinarof 1% were ranked amongst the least effective treatments in three of five efficacy networks. TCI and crisaborole 2% were ranked most likely to cause local application-site reactions and TCS least likely. We found no evidence for increased skin thinning with short-term TCS but an increase with longer-term TCS.

Updated Guidelines for Atopic Dermatitis-AAAAI/ACAAI Joint Task Force.

This Viewpoint discusses the updated guidelines from the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI)/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) Joint Task Force on atopic dermatitis (eczema) management.

Topical corticosteroids for hives and itch (urticaria): Systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Topical corticosteroids are widely used as a treatment for itch and wheals (urticaria), but their benefits and harms are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of topical corticosteroids for the treatment of urticaria. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from database inception to March 23, 2024, for randomized trials comparing topical corticosteroids with placebo for patients with urticaria (either chronic spontaneous or inducible urticaria or acute urticaria elicited from skin/intradermal allergy testing). Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses addressed urticaria severity, itch severity (numeric rating scale; range 0-10; higher is worse), and adverse events. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023455182. RESULTS: A total of 19 randomized controlled trials enrolled 379 participants with a median of mean age of 30.1 (range 21.1-44.0) years. Compared with placebo, topical corticosteroids may reduce wheal size (ratio of means 0.47, 95% CI 0.38-0.59; low certainty) and itch severity (mean difference -1.30, 95% CI -5.07 to 2.46; very low certainty). Topical corticosteroids result in little to no difference in overall adverse events (94 fewer patients per 1000, 95% credible intervals 172 fewer to 12 more; high certainty). CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, topical corticosteroids may result in a reduction of wheal size and little to no difference in overall adverse events. Topical corticosteroids may reduce itch severity, but the evidence is very uncertain. Future large, randomized trials addressing the use of topical corticosteroids would further support optimal urticaria management.

A systematic review and expert Delphi Consensus recommendation on the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab: A position paper of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha subunit, thus blocking the effects of IL-4 and IL-13, and has shown efficacy in treating various conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and others. Because of its immune modulatory effects, clinical trials that studied dupilumab did not allow patients to receive live vaccines during the clinical trials because of an abundance of caution, and thus package inserts recommend that patients who are being treated with dupilumab should avoid live vaccines. Because dupilumab is now approved for use in patients from 6 months of age for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, this reported contraindication is now posing a clinical dilemma for patients and clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of literature on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in patients who are receiving dupilumab and to provide expert guidance on the use of vaccines in patients who are receiving dupilumab. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed, and an expert Delphi Panel was assembled. RESULTS: The available literature on patients who received vaccinations while using dupilumab overall suggests that live vaccines are safe and that the vaccine efficacy, in general, is not affected by dupilumab. The expert Delphi panel agreed that the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab was likely safe and effective. CONCLUSION: Vaccines (including live vaccines) can be administered to patients receiving dupilumab in a shared decision-making capacity.

Leukotriene receptor antagonists as add-on therapy to antihistamines for urticaria: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and harms of adding antileukotrienes to H1 antihistamines (AHs) for the management of urticaria (hives, itch, and/or angioedema) remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the treatment outcomes of antileukotrienes in combination with AHs versus AHs alone for acute and chronic urticaria. METHODS: As part of updating American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters urticaria guidelines, we searched Medline, Embase, Central, LILACS, WPRIM, IBECS, ICTRP, CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, US Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency databases from inception to December 18, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antileukotrienes and AHs versus AHs alone in patients with urticaria. Paired reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects models pooled effect estimates for urticaria activity, itch, wheal, sleep, quality of life, and harms. The GRADE approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. The study was registered at the Open Science Framework (osf.io/h2bfx/). RESULTS: Thirty-four RCTs enrolled 3324 children and adults. Compared to AHs alone, the combination of a leukotriene receptor antagonist with AHs probably modestly reduces urticaria activity (mean difference, -5.04; 95% confidence interval, -6.36 to -3.71; 7-day urticaria activity score) with moderate certainty. We made similar findings for itch and wheal severity as well as quality of life. Adverse events were probably not different between groups (moderate certainty); however, no RCT reported on neuropsychiatric adverse events. CONCLUSION: Among patients with urticaria, adding leukotriene receptor antagonists to AHs probably modestly improves urticaria activity with little to no increase in overall adverse events. The added risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events in this population with leukotriene receptor antagonists is small and uncertain.

How to Prevent Atopic Dermatitis (Eczema) in 2024: Theory and Evidence.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) or eczema is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by dry, itchy, and inflamed skin. We review emerging concepts and clinical evidence addressing the pathogenesis and prevention of AD. We examine several interventions ranging from skin barrier enhancement strategies to probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics; and conversely, from antimicrobial exposure to vitamin D and omega fatty acid supplementation; breastfeeding and hydrolyzed formula; and house dust mite avoidance and immunotherapy. We appraise the available evidence base within the context of the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We also contextualize our findings in relation to concepts relating AD and individual-patient allergic life trajectories versus a linear concept of the atopic march and provide insights into future knowledge gaps and clinical trial design considerations that must be addressed in forthcoming research. Finally, we provide implementation considerations to detect population-level differences in AD risk. Major international efforts are required to provide definitive evidence regarding what works and what does not for preventing AD.

World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) guideline update - XII - Recommendations on milk formula supplements with and without probiotics for infants and toddlers with CMA.

Background: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is the most common food allergy in infants. The replacement with specialized formulas is an established clinical approach to ensure adequate growth and minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions when breastfeeding is not possible. Still, given the availability of multiple options, such as extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk protein formula (eHF-CM), amino acid formula (AAF), hydrolyzed rice formula (HRF) and soy formulas (SF), there is some uncertainty as to the most suitable choice with respect to health outcomes. Furthermore, the addition of probiotics to a formula has been proposed as a potential approach to maximize benefit. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the World Allergy Organization (WAO) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about the use of milk specialized formulas, with and without probiotics, for individuals with CMA. Methods: WAO formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of all stakeholders and to minimize potential biases from competing interests. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to review by stakeholders. Results: After reviewing the summarized evidence and thoroughly discussing the different management options, the WAO guideline panel suggests: a) using an extensively hydrolyzed (cow's milk) formula or a hydrolyzed rice formula as the first option for managing infants with immunoglobulin E (IgE) and non-IgE-mediated CMA who are not being breastfed. An amino-acid formula or a soy formula could be regarded as second and third options respectively; b) using either a formula without a probiotic or a casein-based extensively hydrolyzed formula containing Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) for infants with either IgE or non-IgE-mediated CMA.The issued recommendations are labeled as "conditional" following the GRADE approach due to the very low certainty about the health effects based on the available evidence. Conclusions: If breastfeeding is not available, clinicians, patients, and their family members might want to discuss all the potential desirable and undesirable consequences of each formula in infants with CMA, integrating them with the patients' and caregivers' values and preferences, local availability, and cost, before deciding on a treatment option. We also suggest what research is needed to determine with greater certainty which formulas are likely to be the most beneficial, cost-effective, and equitable.

Efficacy and Safety of Systemic Corticosteroids for Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Short courses of adjunctive systemic corticosteroids are commonly used to treat acute urticaria and chronic urticaria flares (both with and without mast cell-mediated angioedema), but their benefits and harms are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treating acute urticaria or chronic urticaria flares with versus without systemic corticosteroids. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and CBM databases from inception to July 8, 2023, for randomized controlled trials of treating urticaria with versus without systemic corticosteroids. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias with the Cochrane 2.0 tool. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of urticaria activity, itch severity, and adverse events. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We identified 12 randomized trials enrolling 944 patients. For patients with low or moderate probability (17.5%-64%) to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improve urticaria activity by a 14% to 15% absolute difference (odds ratio [OR], 2.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-3.31; number needed to treat [NNT], 7; moderate certainty). Among patients with a high chance (95.8%) for urticaria to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improved urticaria activity by a 2.2% absolute difference (NNT, 45; moderate certainty). Corticosteroids may improve itch severity (OR, 2.44; 95% CI: 0.87-6.83; risk difference, 9%; NNT, 11; low certainty). Systemic corticosteroids also likely increase adverse events (OR, 2.76; 95% CI: 1.00-7.62; risk difference, 15%; number needed to harm, 9; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic corticosteroids for acute urticaria or chronic urticaria exacerbations likely improve urticaria, depending on antihistamine responsiveness, but also likely increase adverse effects in approximately 15% more.

Core Outcome Set for IgE-mediated food allergy clinical trials and observational studies of interventions: International Delphi consensus study 'COMFA'.

BACKGROUND: IgE-mediated food allergy (FA) is a global health concern with substantial individual and societal implications. While diverse intervention strategies have been researched, inconsistencies in reported outcomes limit evaluations of FA treatments. To streamline evaluations and promote consistent reporting, the Core Outcome Measures for Food Allergy (COMFA) initiative aimed to establish a Core Outcome Set (COS) for FA clinical trials and observational studies of interventions. METHODS: The project involved a review of published clinical trials, trial protocols and qualitative literature. Outcomes found as a result of review were categorized and classified, informing a two-round online-modified Delphi process followed by hybrid consensus meeting to finalize the COS. RESULTS: The literature review, taxonomy mapping and iterative discussions with diverse COMFA group yielded an initial list of 39 outcomes. The iterative online and in-person meetings reduced the list to 13 outcomes for voting in the formal Delphi process. One more outcome was added based on participant suggestions after the first Delphi round. A total of 778 participants from 52 countries participated, with 442 participating in both Delphi rounds. No outcome met a priori criteria for inclusion, and one was excluded as a result of the Delphi. Thirteen outcomes were brought to the hybrid consensus meeting as a result of Delphi and two outcomes, 'allergic symptoms' and 'quality of life' achieved consensus for inclusion as 'core' outcomes. CONCLUSION: In addition to the mandatory reporting of adverse events for FA clinical trials or observational studies of interventions, allergic symptoms and quality of life should be measured as core outcomes. Future work by COMFA will define how best to measure these core outcomes.

Clinical characteristics and management of pediatric egg-induced anaphylaxis: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Egg is the third most common food allergy in children; however, data on pediatric egg-induced anaphylaxis are sparse. OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of pediatric egg-induced anaphylaxis. METHODS: Children presenting with anaphylaxis were recruited from 13 emergency departments as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry, from which data on anaphylaxis triggered by egg were extracted. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with prehospital epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) use and to compare anaphylaxis triggered by egg with other triggers of food-induced anaphylaxis (FIA). RESULTS: We recruited 302 children with egg-induced anaphylaxis. The mean age was 2.6 years (SD = 3.6), and 55.3% were male. Only 39.4% had previously been diagnosed with an egg allergy. Prehospital EAI use was 32.1%, but this was not significantly lower than in other triggers of FIA (P = .26). Only 1.4% of patients required hospital admission. Relative to other triggers of FIA, patients with egg-induced anaphylaxis were significantly younger (P < .001) and exhibited more vomiting (P = .0053) and less throat tightness (P = .0015) and angioedema (P < .001). CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest published cohort of pediatric egg-induced anaphylaxis. In this cohort, prehospital EAI use was very low. In addition, we identified certain symptoms that distinguish egg-induced from other triggers of FIA. Taken together, high suspicion is crucial in identifying egg-induced anaphylaxis, given the younger patient demographic and frequent lack of FIA history.