Phase 3 Trial of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy in Toddlers with Peanut Allergy.

BACKGROUND: No approved treatment for peanut allergy exists for children younger than 4 years of age, and the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch in toddlers with peanut allergy are unknown. METHODS: We conducted this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy confirmed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Patients who had an eliciting dose (the dose necessary to elicit an allergic reaction) of 300 mg or less of peanut protein were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive epicutaneous immunotherapy delivered by means of a peanut patch (intervention group) or to receive placebo administered daily for 12 months. The primary end point was a treatment response as measured by the eliciting dose of peanut protein at 12 months. Safety was assessed according to the occurrence of adverse events during the use of the peanut patch or placebo. RESULTS: Of the 362 patients who underwent randomization, 84.8% completed the trial. The primary efficacy end point result was observed in 67.0% of children in the intervention group as compared with 33.5% of those in the placebo group (risk difference, 33.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 22.4 to 44.5; P<0.001). Adverse events that occurred during the use of the intervention or placebo, irrespective of relatedness, were observed in 100% of the patients in the intervention group and 99.2% in the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 8.6% of the patients in the intervention group and 2.5% of those in the placebo group; anaphylaxis occurred in 7.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 0.4% of patients in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. Treatment-related anaphylaxis occurred in 1.6% in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy, epicutaneous immunotherapy for 12 months was superior to placebo in desensitizing children to peanuts and increasing the peanut dose that triggered allergic symptoms. (Funded by DBV Technologies; EPITOPE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03211247.).

A practical guide for implementing omalizumab therapy for food allergy.

The recent approval of omalizumab for the treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy is an important step forward for the millions of food allergy patients in the United States. Through the depletion of circulating IgE and the subsequent reduction of FcεR1 on key effector cells, patients increase their tolerance to food allergens. However, omalizumab does not permit patients to eat foods that they are allergic to with impunity. Rather, it protects them from most accidental exposures. In addition, omalizumab does not cure food allergy and has not demonstrated true immunomodulation. Thus, omalizumab might be a lifelong therapy for some patients. Furthermore, there are many important questions and issues surrounding the appropriate administration of omalizumab to treat food allergy, which we discuss. Managing treatment of patients with disease that falls outside the dosing range, assessing treatment response or nonresponse, addressing its appropriateness for patients older than 55, and determining whether immunotherapy plus omalizumab provides any advantage over omalizumab alone all need to be examined. Identifying appropriate patients for this therapy is critical given the cost of biologics. Indeed, not all food allergy patients are good candidates for this therapy. Also, when and how to stop omalizumab therapy in patients who may have outgrown their food allergy needs to be elucidated. Thus, although this therapy provides a good option for patients with food allergies, much information is needed to determine how best to use this therapy. Despite many unanswered questions and issues, we provide clinicians with some practical guidance on implementing this therapy in their patients.

Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT): International Delphi consensus for procedural preparation and consent.

BACKGROUND: Despite the promise of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to treat food allergies, this procedure is associated with potential risk. There is no current agreement about what elements should be included in the preparatory or consent process. OBJECTIVE: We developed consensus recommendations about the OIT process considerations and patient-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and developed a consensus OIT consent process and information form. METHODS: We convened a 36-member Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT) panel of allergy experts to develop a consensus OIT patient preparation, informed consent process, and framework form. Consensus for themes and statements was reached using Delphi methodology, and the consent information form was developed. RESULTS: The expert panel reached consensus for 4 themes and 103 statements specific to OIT preparatory procedures, of which 76 statements reached consensus for inclusion specific to the following themes: general considerations for counseling patients about OIT; patient- and family-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and during OIT; indications for initiating OIT; and potential contraindications and precautions for OIT. The panel reached consensus on 9 OIT consent form themes: benefits, risks, outcomes, alternatives, risk mitigation, difficulties/challenges, discontinuation, office policies, and long-term management. From these themes, 219 statements were proposed, of which 189 reached consensus, and 71 were included on the consent information form. CONCLUSION: We developed consensus recommendations to prepare and counsel patients for safe and effective OIT in clinical practice with evidence-based risk mitigation. Adoption of these recommendations may help standardize clinical care and improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

Event rates and incidence of post-COVID-19 condition in hospitalised SARS-CoV-2 positive children and young people and controls across different pandemic waves: exposure-stratified prospective cohort study in Moscow (StopCOVID).

BACKGROUND: Long-term health outcomes in children and young people (CYP) after COVID-19 infection are not well understood and studies with control groups exposed to other infections are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the incidence of post-COVID-19 condition (PCC) and incomplete recovery in CYP after hospital discharge and compare outcomes between different SARS-CoV-2 variants and non-SARS-CoV-2 infections. METHODS: A prospective exposure-stratified cohort study of individuals under 18 years old in Moscow, Russia. Exposed cohorts were paediatric patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection between April 2 and December 11, 2020 (Wuhan variant cohort) and between January 12 and February 19, 2022 (Omicron variant cohort). CYP admitted with respiratory and intestinal infections, but negative lateral flow rapid diagnostic test and PCR-test results for SARS-CoV-2, between January 12 and February 19, 2022, served as unexposed reference cohort. Comparison between the 'exposed cohorts' and 'reference cohort' was conducted using 1:1 matching by age and sex. Follow-up data were collected via telephone interviews with parents, utilising the long COVID paediatric protocol and survey developed by the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC). The WHO case definition was used to categorise PCC. RESULTS: Of 2595 CYP with confirmed COVID-19, 1707 (65.7%) participated in follow-up interviews, with 1183/1707 (69%) included in the final 'matched' analysis. The median follow-up time post-discharge was 6.7 months. The incidence of PCC was significantly higher in the Wuhan variant cohort (89.7 cases per 1000 person-months, 95% CI 64.3-120.3) compared to post-infection sequalae in the reference cohort (12.2 cases per 1000 person-months, 95% CI 4.9-21.9), whereas the difference with the Omicron variant cohort and reference cohort was not significant. The Wuhan cohort had higher incidence rates of dermatological, fatigue, gastrointestinal, sensory, and sleep manifestations, as well as behavioural and emotional problems than the reference cohort. The only significant difference between Omicron variant cohort and reference cohort was decreased school attendance. When comparing the Wuhan and Omicron variant cohorts, higher incidence of PCC and event rates of fatigue, decreased physical activity, and deterioration of relationships was observed. The rate of incomplete recovery was also significantly higher in the Wuhan variant cohort than in both the reference and the Omicron variant cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Wuhan variant exhibited a propensity for inducing a broad spectrum of physical symptoms and emotional behavioural changes, suggesting a pronounced impact on long-term health outcomes. Conversely, the Omicron variant resulted in fewer post-infection effects no different from common seasonal viral illnesses. This may mean that the Omicron variant and subsequent variants might not lead to the same level of long-term health consequences as earlier variants.

Evaluation of clinical outcomes of efficacy in food allergen immunotherapy trials, COFAITH EAACI task force.

Food allergy is a global public health problem that until recent years lacked any aetiological treatment supported by academy, industry and regulators. Food immunotherapy (AIT) is an evolving treatment option, supported by clinical practice and industry trial data. Recent AIT meta-analyses have highlighted the difficulty in pooling safety and efficacy data from AIT trials, due to secondary heterogeneity in the study. An EAACI task force (CO-FAITH) initiated by the Paediatric Section was created to focus on AIT efficacy outcomes for milk, egg and peanut allergy rather than in trial results. A systematic search and a narrative review of AIT controlled clinical trials and large case series was conducted. A total of 63 manuscripts met inclusion criteria, corresponding to 23, 21 and 22 studies of milk, egg and peanut AIT, respectively. The most common AIT efficacy outcome was desensitization, mostly defined as tolerating a maintenance phase dose, or reaching a particular dose upon successful exit oral food challenge (OFC). However, a large degree of heterogeneity was identified regarding the dose quantity defining this outcome. Sustained unresponsiveness and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. quality of life) were explored less frequently, and to date have been most rigorously described for peanut AIT versus other allergens. Change in allergen threshold assessed by OFC remains the most common efficacy measure, but OFC methods suffer from heterogeneity and methodological disparity. This review has identified multiple heterogeneous outcomes related to measuring the efficacy of AIT. Efforts to better standardize and harmonize which outcomes, and how to measure them must be carried out to help in the clinical development of safe and efficacious food allergy treatments.

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.

Food allergies on a college campus.

There are limited data on food allergies among college students. In this article, we review the most current available studies. These self-reported surveys and qualitative interviews reported overall poor avoidance of known allergens and low rates of carrying self-injectable epinephrine among students with food allergy. College students may exhibit risk-taking food behaviors due to a number of factors, including age-appropriate risk-taking predilection, strong social influences, and lack of experience in self-advocacy. Having to disclose an otherwise invisible condition repeatedly in a new environment may also lead to "disclosure fatigue," creating an additional barrier to self-advocacy. Common themes in the narrative include hypervigilance, stigma management, and concern about others' misunderstanding of food allergy. Although there is a paucity of data in this area, it is likely that having greater support at the institution level, along with support from peers and faculty, may help improve awareness, self-injectable epinephrine carriage, and allergen avoidance. This review also discusses strategies for preparedness at school, including specific steps to maximize safety.

Cost-effectiveness of budesonide-formoterol vs inhaled epinephrine in US adults with mild asthma.

BACKGROUND: The management of mild asthma has lacked an over-the-counter (OTC) option aside from inhaled epinephrine, which is available in the United States. However, inhaled epinephrine use without an inhaled corticosteroid may increase the risk of asthma death. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol as a plausible alternative to inhaled epinephrine. METHODS: We developed a probabilistic Markov model to compare OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol inhaler use vs inhaled epinephrine use in adults with mild asthma from a US societal perspective over a lifetime horizon, with a 3% annual discount rate (2022 US dollars). Inputs were derived from the SYmbicort Given as-needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) trials, published literature, and commercial costs. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), severe asthma exacerbations, well-controlled asthma days, and asthma-related deaths. Microsimulation was used to evaluate underinsured Americans living with mild asthma (n = 5,250,000). RESULTS: Inhaled epinephrine was dominated (with lower QALYs gains at a higher cost) by both as-needed budesonide-formoterol (INMB, $15,541 at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY) and the no-OTC inhaler option (INMB, $1023). Adults using as-needed budesonide-formoterol had 145 more well-controlled asthma days, 2.79 fewer severe exacerbations, and an absolute risk reduction of 0.23% for asthma-related death compared with inhaled epinephrine over a patient lifetime. As-needed budesonide-formoterol remained dominant in all sensitivity and scenario analyses, with a 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with inhaled epinephrine in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: If made available, OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol for treating mild asthma in underinsured adults without HCP management improves asthma outcomes, prevents fatalities, and is cost-saving.

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update.

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

Atopic dermatitis (eczema) guidelines: 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters GRADE- and Institute of Medicine-based recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Guidance addressing atopic dermatitis (AD) management, last issued in 2012 by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force, requires updating as a result of new treatments and improved guideline and evidence synthesis methodology. OBJECTIVE: To produce evidence-based guidelines that support patients, clinicians, and other decision-makers in the optimal treatment of AD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary guideline panel consisting of patients and caregivers, AD experts (dermatology and allergy/immunology), primary care practitioners (family medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine), and allied health professionals (psychology, pharmacy, nursing) convened, prioritized equity, diversity, and inclusiveness, and implemented management strategies to minimize influence of conflicts of interest. The Evidence in Allergy Group supported guideline development by performing systematic evidence reviews, facilitating guideline processes, and holding focus groups with patient and family partners. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. Evidence-to-decision frameworks, subjected to public comment, translated evidence to recommendations using trustworthy guideline principles. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 25 recommendations to gain and maintain control of AD for patients with mild, moderate, and severe AD. The eAppendix provides practical information and implementation considerations in 1-2 page patient-friendly handouts. CONCLUSION: These evidence-based recommendations address optimal use of (1) topical treatments (barrier moisturization devices, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, PDE4 inhibitors [crisaborole], topical JAK inhibitors, occlusive [wet wrap] therapy, adjunctive antimicrobials, application frequency, maintenance therapy), (2) dilute bleach baths, (3) dietary avoidance/elimination, (4) allergen immunotherapy, and (5) systemic treatments (biologics/monoclonal antibodies, small molecule immunosuppressants [cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, JAK inhibitors], and systemic corticosteroids) and UV phototherapy (light therapy).

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.

A Review of Shared Decision-Making, Published Protocols, and Post-desensitization Strategies in Oral Immunotherapy (OIT).

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to highlight key published oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocols and post-desensitization strategies for the major food allergens and to cover important concepts to consider when evaluating OIT for food-allergic patients. Shared decision-making should help identify patient and family values which will help influence the type of evidence-based protocol and maintenance strategy to use. RECENT FINDINGS: With food OIT emerging as a treatment option, there is a pressing need for patients, physicians, and other providers to have a nuanced understanding of the management choices available to them. There are now randomized controlled trials (RCT) of OIT for peanut, egg, milk, and wheat, and reports of cohorts of patients who have undergone OIT for tree nuts and sesame clinically. The current published protocols contain significant diversity in terms of starting dose, build-up schedule, maintenance dose, and even the product used for desensitization. Emerging data can help direct the long-term maintenance strategy for patients on OIT. Based on patient and family values elicited through the shared decision-making process, an OIT protocol may be selected that balances the level of desensitization, potential side effects, frequency of clinic visits, and potential to induce sustained unresponsiveness, among other factors. Once maintenance dosing is reached, most patients will need to maintain regular exposure to the food allergen to remain desensitized. The option to transition to commercial food products with equivalent amounts of food protein as the OIT maintenance dose would simplify the dosing process and perhaps improve palatability as well. Less frequent or decreased OIT dosing can provide practical benefits but may affect the level of desensitization and safety for some patients.

The Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters GRADE guidelines for the medical management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

These evidence-based guidelines support patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders in decisions about the use of intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), biologics, and aspirin therapy after desensitization (ATAD) for the management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). It is important to note that the current evidence on surgery for CRSwNP was not assessed for this guideline nor were management options other than INCS, biologics, and ATAD. The Allergy-Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of multiple stakeholders and to minimize potential biases. Systematic reviews for each management option informed the guideline. The guideline panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to inform and develop recommendations. The guideline panel reached consensus on the following statements: (1) In people with CRSwNP, the guideline panel suggests INCS rather than no INCS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). (2) In people with CRSwNP, the guideline panel suggests biologics rather than no biologics (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence). (3) In people with aspirin (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug)-exacerbated respiratory disease, the guideline panel suggests ATAD rather than no ATAD (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence). The conditions for each recommendation are discussed in the guideline.

Allergen immunotherapy for atopic dermatitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits and harms.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD, eczema) is driven by a combination of skin barrier defects, immune dysregulation, and extrinsic stimuli such as allergens, irritants, and microbes. The role of environmental allergens (aeroallergens) in triggering AD remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We systematically synthesized evidence regarding the benefits and harms of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for AD. METHODS: As part of the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD Guideline update, we searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Resource for Eczema Trials, and Web of Science databases from inception to December 2021 for randomized controlled trials comparing subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and/or no AIT (placebo or standard care) for guideline panel-defined patient-important outcomes: AD severity, itch, AD-related quality of life (QoL), flares, and adverse events. Raters independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We synthesized intervention effects using frequentist and Bayesian random-effects models. The GRADE approach determined the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-three randomized controlled trials including 1957 adult and pediatric patients sensitized primarily to house dust mite showed that add-on SCIT and SLIT have similar relative and absolute effects and likely result in important improvements in AD severity, defined as a 50% reduction in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.53 [1.31-1.78]; 26% vs 40%, absolute difference 14%) and QoL, defined as an improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index by 4 points or more (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.44 [1.03-2.01]; 39% vs 56%, absolute difference 17%; both outcomes moderate certainty). Both routes of AIT increased adverse events (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.61 [1.44-1.79]; 66% with SCIT vs 41% with placebo; 13% with SLIT vs 8% with placebo; high certainty). AIT's effect on sleep disturbance and eczema flares was very uncertain. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main findings. CONCLUSIONS: SCIT and SLIT to aeroallergens, particularly house dust mite, can similarly and importantly improve AD severity and QoL. SCIT increases adverse effects more than SLIT. These findings support a multidisciplinary and shared decision-making approach to optimally managing AD.

Topical treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical treatments. METHODS: For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s). RESULTS: The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus. CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective.

Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD systemic treatments. METHODS: For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and GREAT databases from inception to November 29, 2022, for randomized trials addressing systemic treatments and phototherapy for AD. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/e5sna). RESULTS: The 149 included trials (28,686 patients with moderate-to-severe AD) evaluated 75 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, high-dose upadacitinib was among the most effective for 5 of 6 patient-important outcomes; high-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib were among the most effective for 2 outcomes. These Janus kinase inhibitors were among the most harmful in increasing adverse events. With high-certainty evidence, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab were of intermediate effectiveness and among the safest, modestly increasing conjunctivitis. Low-dose baricitinib was among the least effective. Efficacy and safety of azathioprine, oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, phototherapy, and many novel agents are less certain. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with moderate-to-severe AD, high-certainty evidence demonstrates that high-dose upadacitinib is among the most effective in addressing multiple patient-important outcomes, but also is among the most harmful. High-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib are effective, but also among the most harmful. Dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab are of intermediate effectiveness and have favorable safety.

Updated guidance regarding the risk of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and recommended evaluation and management: A GRADE assessment and international consensus approach.

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history.

Outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials for mixed and non-IgE-mediated food allergy: Systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Mixed and non-IgE-mediated food allergy is a subset of immune-mediated adverse food reactions that can impose a major burden on the quality of life of affected patients and their families. Clinical trials to study these diseases are reliant upon consistent and valid outcome measures that are relevant to both patients and clinicians, but the degree to which such stringent outcome reporting takes place is poorly studied. OBJECTIVE: As part of the Core Outcome Measures for Food Allergy (COMFA) project, we identified outcomes reported in randomized clinical trials (RCT) of treatments for mixed or non-IgE-mediated food allergy. DESIGN: In this systematic review, we searched the Ovid, MEDLINE and Embase databases for RCTs in children or adults investigating treatments for food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome, food protein-induced allergic proctocolitis, food protein-induced enteropathy and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders including eosinophilic esophagitis [EoE], eosinophilic gastritis and eosinophilic colitis published until 14 October 2022. RESULTS: Twenty-six eligible studies were identified, with 23 focused on EoE (88%). Most interventions were corticosteroids or monoclonal antibodies. All EoE studies assessed patient-reported dysphagia, usually using a non-validated questionnaire. Twenty-two of 23 EoE studies used peak tissue eosinophil count as the primary outcome, usually using a non-validated assessment method, and other immunological markers were only exploratory. Thirteen (57%) EoE studies reported endoscopic outcomes of which six used a validated scoring tool recently recommended as a core outcome for EoE trials. Funding source was not obviously associated with likelihood of an RCT reporting mechanistic versus patient-reported outcomes. Only 3 (12%) RCTs concerned forms of food allergy other than EoE, and they reported on fecal immunological markers and patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes measured in clinical trials of EoE and non-IgE-mediated food allergy are heterogeneous and largely non-validated. Core outcomes for EoE have been developed and need to be used in future trials. For other forms of mixed or non-IgE-mediated food allergies, core outcome development is needed to support the development of effective treatments. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: OSF public registry DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/AZX8S.

The future of food allergy: Challenging existing paradigms of clinical practice.

The field of food allergy has seen tremendous change over the past 5-10 years with seminal studies redefining our approach to prevention and management and novel testing modalities in the horizon. Early introduction of allergenic foods is now recommended, challenging the previous paradigm of restrictive avoidance. The management of food allergy has shifted from a passive avoidance approach to active interventions that aim to provide protection from accidental exposures, decrease allergic reaction severity and improve the quality of life of food-allergic patients and their families. Additionally, novel diagnostic tools are making their way into clinical practice with the goal to reduce the need for food challenges and assist physicians in the-often complex-diagnostic process. With all the new developments and available choices for diagnosis, prevention and therapy, shared decision-making has become a key part of medical consultation, enabling patients to make the right choice for them, based on their values and preferences. Communication with patients has also become more complex over time, as patients are seeking advice online and through social media, but the information found online may be outdated, incorrect, or lacking in context. The role of the allergist has evolved to embrace all the above exciting developments and provide patients with the optimal care that fits their needs. In this review, we discuss recent developments as well as the evolution of the field of food allergy in the next decade.

Diagnostic accuracy of vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in the setting of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

For persons with immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, skin testing (ST) to the vaccine/excipients (polyethylene glycol[PEG] and polysorbate 80 [PS]) has been recommended, but has unknown accuracy. To assess vaccine/excipient ST accuracy in predicting all-severity immediate allergic reactions upon re-vaccination, systematic review was performed searching Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the WHO global coronavirus database (inception-Oct 4, 2021) for studies addressing immediate (≤4 h post-vaccination) all-severity allergic reactions to 2nd mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions. Cases evaluating delayed reactions, change of vaccine platform, or revaccination without vaccine/excipient ST were excluded. Meta-analysis of diagnostic testing accuracy was performed using Bayesian methods. The GRADE approach evaluated certainty of the evidence, and QUADAS-2 assessed risk of bias. Among 20 studies of mRNA COVID-19 first dose vaccine reactions, 317 individuals underwent 578 ST to any one or combination of vaccine, PEG, or PS, and were re-vaccinated with the same vaccine. Test sensitivity for either mRNA vaccine was 0.2 (95%CrI 0.01-0.52) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.9-1). PEG test sensitivity was 0.02 (95%CrI 0.00-0.07) and specificity 0.99 (95%CrI 0.96-1). PS test sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.0.11) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.91-1). Combined for use of any of the 3 testing agents, sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.08) and specificity was 0.98 (95%CrI 0.95-1.00). Certainty of evidence was moderate. ST has low sensitivity but high specificity in predicting all-severity repeat immediate allergic reactions to the same agent, among persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or excipient ST has limited risk assessment utility.