Guideline on allergen immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases: S2K Guideline of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), Society of Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), Austrian Society of Allergology and Immunology (ÖGAI), Swiss Society for Allergology and Immunology (SSAI), German Dermatological Society (DDG), German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), Society of Pediatric Pulmonology (GPP), German Respiratory Society (DGP), German Professional Association of Otolaryngologists (BVHNO), German Association of Paediatric and Adolescent Care Specialists (BVKJ), Federal Association of Pneumologists, Sleep and Respiratory Physicians (BdP), Professional Association of German Dermatologists (BVDD).

Not available.

One hundred and ten years of Allergen Immunotherapy: A journey from empiric observation to evidence.

One hundred and ten years after Noon's first clinical report of the subcutaneous application of allergen extracts, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has evolved as the most important pillar of the treatment of allergic patients. It is the only disease-modifying treatment option available and the evidence for its clinical efficacy and safety is broad and undisputed. Throughout recent decades, more insights into the underlying mechanisms, in particular the modulation of innate and adaptive immune responses, have been described. AIT is acknowledged by worldwide regulatory authorities, and following the regulatory guidelines for product development, AIT products are subject to a rigorous evaluation before obtaining market authorization. Knowledge and practice are anchored in international guidelines, such as the recently published series of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI). Innovative approaches continue to be further developed with the focus on clinical improvement by, for example, the usage of adjuvants, peptides, recombinants, modification of allergens, new routes of administration, and the concomitant use of biologicals. In addition, real-life data provide complementary and valuable information on the effectiveness and tolerability of this treatment option in the clinical routine. New mobile health technologies and big-data approaches will improve daily treatment convenience, adherence, and efficacy of AIT. However, the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has also had some implications for the feasibility and practicability of AIT. Taken together, AIT as the only disease-modifying therapy in allergic diseases has been broadly investigated over the past 110 years laying the path for innovations and further improvement.

Guideline on management of suspected adverse reactions to ingested histamine: Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA) as well as the Swiss Society for Allergology and Immunology (SGAI) and the Austrian Society for Allergology and Immunology (ÖGAI).

Adverse reactions to food or food ingredients are more often perceived than objectively verifiable. However, reliable laboratory tests are often lacking. As a result, people with perceived adverse reactions to food often follow extensive elimination diets for years and unnecessarily restrict their diet, as in the case of the frequently suspected histamine intolerance. In this condition, laboratory parameters such as the determination of diamine oxidase in serum have been shown to be inconclusive. The lack of symptom reproducibility calls into question the clinical picture of adverse reactions to ingested histamine. In order to approach persons with perceived histamine intolerance and to support them in moving from blanket restrictions, which are often unnecessarily strict, to effective personalized therapeutic strategies, the present guideline of the Working Group on Food Allergy of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in cooperation with the Medical Association of German Allergists (AeDA), the Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA) as well as the Swiss Society of Allergology and Immunology (SGAI) and the Austrian Society of Allergology and Immunology (ÖGAI) recommends a practicable diagnostic and therapeutic approach.

COVID-19 vaccination and allergen immunotherapy (AIT) - A position paper of the German Society for Applied Allergology (AeDA) and the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI).

BACKGROUND: Vaccinations against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are intended to induce an immune response to protect against infection/disease. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is thought to induce a (different) immune response, e.g., to induce tolerance to allergens. In this position paper we clarify how to use AIT in temporal relation to COVID-19 vaccination. Four SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are currently approved in the EU, and their possible immunological interactions with AIT are described together with practical recommendations for use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on the internationally published literature, this position paper provides specific recommendations for the use of AIT in temporal relation to a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. RESULTS: AIT is used in 1) allergic rhinitis, 2) allergic bronchial asthma, 3) insect venom allergy, 4) food allergy (peanut). CONCLUSION: For the continuation of an ongoing AIT, we recommend an interval of 1 week before and after vaccination for subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). For sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and oral immunotherapy (OIT), we recommend taking them up to the day before vaccination and a break of 2 - 7 days after vaccination. Initiation of a new SCIT, SLIT, or OIT should be delayed until 1 week after the day of the second vaccination. For SCIT, we generally recommend an interval of ~ 1 week to COVID-19 vaccination.

Update of the S2k guideline on the management of IgE-mediated food allergies.

Not available.

Molecular allergy diagnosis using pollen marker allergens and pollen panallergens: Five patterns seen in multiple test reactions to pollen extracts.

Polysensitizations to tree, grass, and weed pollen are found in ~ 20% of pollen-allergic individuals. They are often based on broad IgE cross-reactivities to pollen panallergens belonging to highly conserved protein families: 1. profilins, 2. polcalcins (calcium-binding proteins in pollen), 3. cyclophilins. They represent highly conserved cross-reactive minor allergens present in all pollen species, but also in plant foods and other organisms. Despite being rarely clinically relevant they can hamper allergy diagnostic tests with extracts. In this situation, molecular allergy diagnosis is able to distinguish broad cross-reactivity due to allergen-specific IgE to pollen panallergens (i.e. profilins Bet v 2 or Phl p 12; polcalcins Bet v 4 or Phl p 7; and, in the future, cyclophilins Bet v 7 or Ole e 15) from primary IgE sensitizations to so-called marker allergens represented by important pollen major allergens: Bet v 1 for the birch and beech family (Fagales), Ole e 1 for olive and ash (Oleaceae), Phl p 1 for temperate climate grasses (Poaceae), Art v 1 for mugwort (Artemisia), Amb a 1 for Ambrosia species (Ambrosia). Five typical cases (A - E) with positive skin prick test results to tree, grass, and weed pollen extracts demonstrate typical patterns of IgE sensitization with a variable impact of pollen panallergens: A - profilins, B - polcalcins, C - profilins and polcalcins, D - presumably cyclophilins, E - primary polysensitization to tree, grass, and weed pollen without interference from profilins or polcalcins. Differences between pollen extract-based skin prick test diagnosis and molecular allergen-specific IgE testing are explained using the presented concept. This approach allows to reduce the number of allergen extracts - presuming they are also clinically relevant - for allergen immunotherapy (i.e., only tree and/or grass pollen extracts), particularly in pollen-polysensitized patients.

Molecular allergology and its impact in specific allergy diagnosis and therapy.

Progressive knowledge of allergenic structures resulted in a broad availability of allergenic molecules for diagnosis. Component-resolved diagnosis allowed a better understanding of patient sensitization patterns, facilitating allergen immunotherapy decisions. In parallel to the discovery of allergenic molecules, there was a progressive development of a regulation framework that affected both in vitro diagnostics and Allergen Immunotherapy products. With a progressive understanding of underlying mechanisms associated to Allergen immunotherapy and an increasing experience of application of molecular diagnosis in daily life, we focus in analyzing the evidences of the value provided by molecular allergology in daily clinical practice, with a focus on Allergen Immunotherapy decisions.

One Hundred Ten Years of Allergen Immunotherapy: A Broad Look Into the Future.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying treatment option for patients with type 1-mediated allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis with/without allergic asthma. Although many innovations have been developed since the first clinical report of Noon et al in 1911, the improvement of clinical efficacy and tolerability of this treatment is still an important unmet need. Hence, much progress has been made in the characterization of the cell types, cytokines, and intracellular signaling events involved in the development, maintenance, and regulation of allergic reactions, and also in the understanding of the mechanisms of tolerance induction in AIT. This comprehensive review aims to summarize the current innovative approaches in AIT, but also gives an outlook on promising candidates of the future. On the basis of an extensive literature review, integrating a clinical point of view, this article focuses on recent and future innovations regarding biologicals, allergen-derived peptides, recombinant allergens, "Toll"-like receptor agonists and other adjuvants, and novel application routes being developed for future AIT.

COVID-19 vaccination of patients with allergies and type-2 inflammation with concurrent antibody therapy (biologicals) - A Position Paper of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) and the German Society for Applied Allergology (AeDA).

BACKGROUND: After the beginning and during the worldwide pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2), patients with allergic and atopic diseases have felt and still feel insecure. Currently, four vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been approved by the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany, and vaccination campaigns have been started nationwide. In this respect, it is of utmost importance to give recommendations on possible immunological interactions and potential risks of immunomodulatory substances (monoclonal antibodies, biologicals) during concurrent vaccination with the approved vaccines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This position paper provides specific recommendations on the use of immunomodulatory drugs in the context of concurrent SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations based on current literature. RESULTS: The recommendations are covering the following conditions in which biologicals are indicated and approved: 1) chronic inflammatory skin diseases (atopic dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria), 2) bronchial asthma, and 3) chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). Patients with atopic dermatitis or chronic spontaneous urticaria are not at increased risk for allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination. Nevertheless, vaccination may result in transient eczema exacerbation due to general immune stimulation. Vaccination in patients receiving systemic therapy with biologicals can be performed. Patients with severe asthma and concomitant treatment with biologicals also do not have an increased risk of allergic reaction following COVID-19 vaccination which is recommended in these patients. Patients with CRSwNP are also not known to be at increased risk for allergic vaccine reactions, and continuation or initiation of a treatment with biologicals is also recommended with concurrent COVID-19 vaccination. In general, COVID-19 vaccination should be given within the interval between two applications of the respective biological, that is, with a time-lag of at least 1 week after the previous or at least 1 week before the next biological treatment planned. CONCLUSION: Biologicals for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, bronchial asthma, and CRSwNP should be continued during the current COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. However, the intervals of biological treatment may need to be slightly adjusted (DGAKI/AeDA recommendations as of March 22, 2021).

Practical recommendations for the allergological risk assessment of the COVID-19 vaccination - a harmonized statement of allergy centers in Germany.

Severe allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare. Single severe reactions have occurred worldwide after vaccination with the new mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. PEG2000 is discussed as a possible trigger. We provide guidance on risk assessment regarding COVID-19 vaccination in patients with allergic diseases and suggest a standardized, resource-oriented diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Reports of severe allergic reactions in the context of COVID-19 vaccination can be made via www.anaphylaxie.net using an online questionnaire.

Severe allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine - statement and practical consequences.

No abstract available.

Placebo effects in allergen immunotherapy-An EAACI Task Force Position Paper.

The placebo (Latin "I will please") effect commonly occurs in clinical trials. The psychological and physiological factors associated with patients' expectations about a treatment's positive and negative effects have yet to be well characterized, although a functional prefrontal cortex and intense bidirectional communication between the central nervous system and the immune system appear to be prerequisites for a placebo effect. The use of placebo raises certain ethical issues, especially if patients in a placebo group are denied an effective treatment for a long period of time. The placebo effect appears to be relatively large (up to 77%, relative to pretreatment scores) in controlled clinical trials of allergen immunotherapy (AIT), such as the pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) randomized clinical trials currently required by regulatory authorities worldwide. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) therefore initiated a Task Force, in order to better understand the placebo effect in AIT and its specific role in comorbidities, blinding issues, adherence, measurement time points, variability and the natural course of the disease. In this Position Paper, the EAACI Task Force highlights several important topics regarding the placebo effect in AIT such as a) regulatory aspects, b) neuroimmunological and psychological mechanisms, c) placebo effect sizes in AIT trials, d) methodological limitations in AIT trial design and e) potential solutions in future AIT trial design. In conclusion, this Position Paper aims to examine the methodological problem of placebo in AIT from different aspects and also to highlight unmet needs and possible solutions for future trials.

[Immunotherapy of allergies: current status]. / Immuntherapien von Allergien: Aktueller Stand.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only causally effective, disease-modifying form of therapy that, in addition to alleviating allergic symptoms, counteracts disease progression.This article provides an up-to-date overview of immunological, regulatory and practical aspects of AIT. Current literature was included and recent conceptual regulatory developments from the Division of Allergology at the higher federal authority (Paul-Ehrlich-Institut) are presented.The 62 AIT products currently approved in Germany and further 61 AIT products under the development program of the Therapy Allergen Ordinance (TAO) include 95 products for subcutaneous (SCIT) and 28 for sublingual (SLIT) treatment of birch/alder/hazel pollen, grass pollen, weed pollen, house dust mite and insect venom allergies. Native and chemically modified allergen extracts (allergoids) adsorbed to aluminium, tyrosine (partly monophosphoryl lipid A-adjuvanted) or lactose or based on lyophilisates are used as active ingredients.These 123 AIT products are subject to official state batch release testing. This does not apply to named patient products (NPPs) available for the treatment of less prevalent allergies (e.g. to olive pollen, animal hair, storage mites or moulds). There is a particular need for development of AIT products for children.As a new class of active ingredients, food allergens are in clinical phase II and III studies. A first food preparation for oral AIT of peanut allergy in children is currently undergoing a central European marketing authorization (MA) procedure. MA can only be granted if the benefit-risk balance is positive. Science and regulation are in continuous exchange on the development of AIT products that correspond to the current state of clinical research and regulation in the EU and enable early causal treatment of widespread allergies.

Use of biologicals in allergic and type-2 inflammatory diseases during the current COVID-19 pandemic: Position paper of Ärzteverband Deutscher Allergologen (AeDA)A, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allergologie und Klinische Immunologie (DGAKI)B, Gesellschaft für Pädiatrische Allergologie und Umweltmedizin (GPA)C, Österreichische Gesellschaft für Allergologie und Immunologie (ÖGAI)D, Luxemburgische Gesellschaft für Allergologie und Immunologie (LGAI)E, Österreichische Gesellschaft für Pneumologie (ÖGP)F in co-operation with the German, Austrian, and Swiss ARIA groupsG, and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)H.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases has faced major challenges. Recommendations for "social distancing" and the fear of patients becoming infected during a visit to a medical facility have led to a drastic decrease in personal doctor-patient contacts. This affects both acute care and treatment of the chronically ill. The immune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection is so far only insufficiently understood and could be altered in a favorable or unfavorable way by therapy with monoclonal antibodies. There is currently no evidence for an increased risk of a severe COVID-19 course in allergic patients. Many patients are under ongoing therapy with biologicals that inhibit type 2 immune responses via various mechanisms. There is uncertainty about possible immunological interactions and potential risks of these biologicals in the case of an infection with SARS-CoV-2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A selective literature search was carried out in PubMed, Livivo, and the internet to cover the past 10 years (May 2010 - April 2020). Additionally, the current German-language publications were analyzed. Based on these data, the present position paper provides recommendations for the biological treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In order to maintain in-office consultation services, a safe treatment environment must be created that is adapted to the pandemic situation. To date, there is a lack of reliable study data on the care for patients with complex respiratory, atopic, and allergic diseases in times of an imminent infection risk from SARS-CoV-2. Type-2-dominant immune reactions, as they are frequently seen in allergic patients, could influence various phases of COVID-19, e.g., by slowing down the immune reactions. Theoretically, this could have an unfavorable effect in the early phase of a SARS-Cov-2 infection, but also a positive effect during a cytokine storm in the later phase of severe courses. However, since there is currently no evidence for this, all data from patients treated with a biological directed against type 2 immune reactions who develop COVID-19 should be collected in registries, and their disease courses documented in order to be able to provide experience-based instructions in the future. CONCLUSION: The use of biologicals for the treatment of bronchial asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and spontaneous urticaria should be continued as usual in patients without suspected infection or proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. If available, it is recommended to prefer a formulation for self-application and to offer telemedical monitoring. Treatment should aim at the best possible control of difficult-to-control allergic and atopic diseases using adequate rescue and add-on therapy and should avoid the need for systemic glucocorticosteroids. If SARS-CoV-2 infection is proven or reasonably suspected, the therapy should be determined by weighing the benefits and risks individually for the patient in question, and the patient should be involved in the decision-making. It should be kept in mind that the potential effects of biologicals on the immune response in COVID-19 are currently not known. Telemedical offers are particularly desirable for the acute consultation needs of suitable patients.

Advances in IgE Testing for Diagnosis of Allergic Disease.

Since its discovery in 1967, IgE antibody detection in skin and blood has identified a state of allergic sensitization and served as a necessary but not sufficient risk factor that requires objective symptoms to make the definitive diagnosis of human allergic disease. More recently, quantitative IgE antibody levels in serum against allergenic extracts, molecules, and epitopes have pushed its application into more accurately identifying the specificity of the allergic response for targeting immunotherapy, predicting allergic symptom severity after allergen exposure, and attempting to distinguish tolerance from food allergy. This review examines new in vivo and in vitro developments in the design, performance, interference, and application of the methods used to identify allergic sensitization. The increasing accepted applications of molecular allergen and allergen epitope-based IgE antibody measurements, especially as applied to food allergy diagnosis and management, are highlighted as state-of-the-art advances. Despite these major advances in allergic sensitization documentation, their ultimate value requires integration by the clinician with the patient's history and pretest probability of disease.