Natural moisturizing factors in children with and without eczema: Associations with lifestyle and genetic factors.

BACKGROUND: Filaggrin-derived natural moisturizing factors (NMF) play an important role in skin barrier function and in atopic dermatitis (AD). Its deficiency is associated with dry skin and increased surface pH. Studies on childhood environmental exposures and associations with NMF levels are scarce. OBJECTIVES: To investigate previous exposures and genetic factors and their associations with NMF levels in young children. METHODS: In a case-control study nested in a prospective birth cohort (Odense Child Cohort), 169 healthy controls (HC) and 99 children with AD were included consecutively at the age of 7 years based on previous responses from questionnaires administered at 18 months, 3 years and 5 years, pertaining to past medical history, including allergy-specific questions. NMF levels were measured via a stratum corneum tape-stripping technique, genotyping for filaggrin (FLG) gene variants was performed and data on external exposures, including usage of moisturizer and topical steroids, antibiotics and early pet exposures, were obtained from questionnaires. RESULTS: Natural moisturizing factors levels were significantly lower in AD participants compared to HC (P < 0.001). This significance persisted after stratifying for AD subgroups of present AD, current AD during the last year and previous AD (P < 0.001, P = 0.039, P = 0.009 respectively). There was a significant association between NMF and FLG genotype (P = 0.016, P = 0.002 for HC, AD respectively). NMF levels were negatively correlated with early age moisturizer use (<18 months, P = 0.001) in HC but not significant in AD. CONCLUSIONS: We found decreased levels of NMF with early moisturizer use and a genetic influence of the FLG variant on these levels. NMF was decreased in the AD subgroup with previous AD compared with HC, which could suggest the persistence of a Th2 cytokine milieu suppressing these levels.

Challenges in the implementation of the EAACI AIT guidelines: A situational analysis of current provision of allergen immunotherapy.

PURPOSE: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) has produced Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT). We sought to gauge the preparedness of primary care to participate in the delivery of AIT in Europe. METHODS: We undertook a mixed-methods, situational analysis. This involved a purposeful literature search and two surveys: one to primary care clinicians and the other to a wider group of stakeholders across Europe. RESULTS: The 10 papers identified all pointed out gaps or deficiencies in allergy care provision in primary care. The surveys also highlighted similar concerns, particularly in relation to concerns about lack of knowledge, skills, infrastructural weaknesses, reimbursement policies and communication with specialists as barriers to evidence-based care. Almost all countries (92%) reported the availability of AIT. In spite of that, only 28% and 44% of the countries reported the availability of guidelines for primary care physicians and specialists, respectively. Agreed pathways between specialists and primary care physicians were reported as existing in 32%-48% of countries. Reimbursement appeared to be an important barrier as AIT was only fully reimbursed in 32% of countries. Additionally, 44% of respondents considered accessibility to AIT and 36% stating patient costs were barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Successful working with primary care providers is essential to scaling-up AIT provision in Europe, but to achieve this, the identified barriers must be overcome. Development of primary care interpretation of guidelines to aid patient selection, establishment of disease management pathways and collaboration with specialist groups are required as a matter of urgency.

Challenges in the implementation of EAACI guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: A global perspective on the regulation of allergen products.

Regulatory approaches for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) products and the availability of high-quality AIT products are inherently linked to each other. While allergen products are available in many countries across the globe, their regulation is very heterogeneous. First, we describe the regulatory systems applicable for AIT products in the European Union (EU) and in the United States (US). For Europe, a depiction of the different types of relevant procedures, as well as the committees involved, is provided and the fundamental role of national agencies of the EU member states in this complex and unique network is highlighted. Furthermore, the regulatory agencies from Australia, Canada, Japan, Russia, and Switzerland provided information on the system implemented in their countries for the regulation of allergen products. While AIT products are commonly classified as biological medicinal products, they are made available by varying types of procedures, most commonly either by obtaining a marketing authorization or by being distributed as named patient products. Exemptions from marketing authorizations in exceptional cases, as well as import of allergen products from other countries, are additional tools applied by countries to ensure availability of needed AIT products. Several challenges for AIT products are apparent from this analysis and will require further consideration.

Allergen manufacturing and quality aspects for allergen immunotherapy in Europe and the United States: An analysis from the EAACI AIT Guidelines Project.

Adequate quality is essential for any medicinal product to be eligible for marketing. Quality includes verification of the identity, content and purity of a medicinal product in combination with a specified production process and its control. Allergen products derived from natural sources require particular considerations to ensure adequate quality. Here, we describe key aspects of the documentation on manufacturing and quality aspects for allergen immunotherapy products in the European Union and the United States. In some key parts, requirements in these areas are harmonized while other fields are regulated separately between both regions. Essential differences are found in the use of Reference Preparations, or the requirement to apply standardized assays for potency determination. As the types of products available are different in specific regions, regulatory guidance for such products may also be available in one specific region only, such as for allergoids in the European Union. Region-specific issues and priorities are a result of this. As allergen products derived from natural sources are inherently variable in their qualitative and quantitative composition, these products present special challenges to balance the variability and ensuring batch-to-batch consistency. Advancements in scientific knowledge on specific allergens and their role in allergic disease will consequentially find representation in future regulatory guidelines.

EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) is an allergic disorder of the nose and eyes affecting about a fifth of the general population. Symptoms of AR can be controlled with allergen avoidance measures and pharmacotherapy. However, many patients continue to have ongoing symptoms and an impaired quality of life; pharmacotherapy may also induce some side-effects. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only currently available treatment that targets the underlying pathophysiology, and it may have a disease-modifying effect. Either the subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes may be used. This Guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on AIT for AR and is part of the EAACI presidential project "EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy." It aims to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations and has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis. Its generation has followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included involvement of the full range of stakeholders. In general, broad evidence for the clinical efficacy of AIT for AR exists but a product-specific evaluation of evidence is recommended. In general, SCIT and SLIT are recommended for both seasonal and perennial AR for its short-term benefit. The strongest evidence for long-term benefit is documented for grass AIT (especially for the grass tablets) where long-term benefit is seen. To achieve long-term efficacy, it is recommended that a minimum of 3 years of therapy is used. Many gaps in the evidence base exist, particularly around long-term benefit and use in children.

The urgent need for a harmonized severity scoring system for acute allergic reactions.

The accurate assessment and communication of the severity of acute allergic reactions are important to patients, clinicians, researchers, the food industry, and public health and regulatory authorities. Severity has different meanings to different stakeholders with patients and clinicians rating the significance of particular symptoms very differently. Many severity scoring systems have been generated, most focusing on the severity of reactions following exposure to a limited group of allergens. They are heterogeneous in format, none has used an accepted developmental approach, and none has been validated. Their wide range of outcome formats has led to difficulties with interpretation and application. Therefore, there is a persisting need for an appropriately developed and validated severity scoring system for allergic reactions that work across the range of allergenic triggers and address the needs of different stakeholder groups. We propose a novel approach to develop and then validate a harmonized scoring system for acute allergic reactions, based on a data-driven method that is informed by clinical and patient experience and other stakeholders' perspectives. We envisage two formats: (i) a numerical score giving a continuum from mild to severe reactions that are clinically meaningful and are useful for allergy healthcare professionals and researchers, and (ii) a three-grade-based ordinal format that is simple enough to be used and understood by other professionals and patients. Testing of reliability and validity of the new approach in a range of settings and populations will allow eventual implementation of a standardized scoring system in clinical studies and routine practice.

EAACI Guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: IgE-mediated food allergy.

Food allergy can result in considerable morbidity, impairment of quality of life, and healthcare expenditure. There is therefore interest in novel strategies for its treatment, particularly food allergen immunotherapy (FA-AIT) through the oral (OIT), sublingual (SLIT), or epicutaneous (EPIT) routes. This Guideline, prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Task Force on Allergen Immunotherapy for IgE-mediated Food Allergy, aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for active treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy with FA-AIT. Immunotherapy relies on the delivery of gradually increasing doses of specific allergen to increase the threshold of reaction while on therapy (also known as desensitization) and ultimately to achieve post-discontinuation effectiveness (also known as tolerance or sustained unresponsiveness). Oral FA-AIT has most frequently been assessed: here, the allergen is either immediately swallowed (OIT) or held under the tongue for a period of time (SLIT). Overall, trials have found substantial benefit for patients undergoing either OIT or SLIT with respect to efficacy during treatment, particularly for cow's milk, hen's egg, and peanut allergies. A benefit post-discontinuation is also suggested, but not confirmed. Adverse events during FA-AIT have been frequently reported, but few subjects discontinue FA-AIT as a result of these. Taking into account the current evidence, FA-AIT should only be performed in research centers or in clinical centers with an extensive experience in FA-AIT. Patients and their families should be provided with information about the use of FA-AIT for IgE-mediated food allergy to allow them to make an informed decision about the therapy.

EAACI guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: Hymenoptera venom allergy.

Hymenoptera venom allergy is a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction following a honeybee, vespid, or ant sting. Systemic-allergic sting reactions have been reported in up to 7.5% of adults and up to 3.4% of children. They can be mild and restricted to the skin or moderate to severe with a risk of life-threatening anaphylaxis. Patients should carry an emergency kit containing an adrenaline autoinjector, H1 -antihistamines, and corticosteroids depending on the severity of their previous sting reaction(s). The only treatment to prevent further systemic sting reactions is venom immunotherapy. This guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on Venom Immunotherapy as part of the EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy initiative. The guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of venom immunotherapy, has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis and produced using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included representation from a range of stakeholders. Venom immunotherapy is indicated in venom-allergic children and adults to prevent further moderate-to-severe systemic sting reactions. Venom immunotherapy is also recommended in adults with only generalized skin reactions as it results in significant improvements in quality of life compared to carrying an adrenaline autoinjector. This guideline aims to give practical advice on performing venom immunotherapy. Key sections cover general considerations before initiating venom immunotherapy, evidence-based clinical recommendations, risk factors for adverse events and for relapse of systemic sting reaction, and a summary of gaps in the evidence.

Patterns of anaphylaxis after diagnostic workup: A follow-up study of 226 patients with suspected anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Most published studies on anaphylaxis are retrospective or register based. Data on subsequent diagnostic workup are sparse. We aimed to characterize patients seen with suspected anaphylaxis at the emergency care setting (ECS), after subsequent diagnostic workup at our Allergy Center (AC). METHODS: Prospective study including patients from the ECS, Odense University Hospital, during May 2013-April 2014. Possible anaphylaxis cases were daily identified based on a broad search profile including history and symptoms in patient records, diagnostic codes and pharmacological treatments. At the AC, all patients were evaluated according to international guidelines. RESULTS: Among 226 patients with suspected anaphylaxis, the diagnosis was confirmed in 124 (54.9%) after diagnostic workup; 118 of the 124 fulfilled WAO/EAACI criteria of anaphylaxis at the ECS, while six were found among 46 patients with clinical suspicion but not fulfilling the WAO/EAACI criteria at the ECS. The estimated incidence rate of anaphylaxis was 26 cases per 100 000 person-years and the one-year period prevalence was 0.04%. The most common elicitor was drugs (41.1%) followed by venom (27.4%) and food (20.6%). In 13 patients (10.5%), no elicitor could be identified. Mastocytosis was diagnosed in 7.7% of adult patients and was significantly associated with severe anaphylaxis. Atopic diseases were significantly associated only with food-induced anaphylaxis. Cofactors were present in 58.1% and were significantly associated with severe anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: A broad search profile in the ECS and subsequent diagnostic workup is important for identification and classification of patients with anaphylaxis. Evaluation of comorbidities and cofactors is important.

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook a systematic review to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of AIT in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. METHODS: We searched nine international biomedical databases for published, in-progress, and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Our primary outcomes of interest were symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores. Secondary outcomes of interest included cost-effectiveness and safety. Data were descriptively summarized and then quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: We identified 5960 studies of which 160 studies satisfied our eligibility criteria. There was a substantial body of evidence demonstrating significant reductions in standardized mean differences (SMD) of symptom (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.63, -0.42), medication (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.49, -0.26), and combined symptom and medication (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.69, -0.30) scores while on treatment that were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses. There was in comparison a more modest body of evidence on effectiveness post-discontinuation of AIT, suggesting a benefit in relation to symptom scores. CONCLUSIONS: AIT is effective in improving symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis while on treatment, and there is some evidence suggesting that these benefits are maintained in relation to symptom scores after discontinuation of therapy.

The epidemiology of food allergy in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Food allergy (FA) is an important atopic disease although its precise burden is unclear. This systematic review aimed to provide recent, up-to-date data on the incidence, prevalence, time trends, and risk and prognostic factors for FA in Europe. We searched four electronic databases, covering studies published from 1 January 2000 to 30 September 2012. Two independent reviewers appraised the studies and qualified the risk of bias using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Seventy-five eligible articles (comprising 56 primary studies) were included in a narrative synthesis, and 30 studies in a random-effects meta-analysis. Most of the studies were graded as at moderate risk of bias. The pooled lifetime and point prevalence of self-reported FA were 17.3% (95% CI: 17.0-17.6) and 5.9% (95% CI: 5.7-6.1), respectively. The point prevalence of sensitization to ≥1 food as assessed by specific IgE was 10.1% (95% CI: 9.4-10.8) and skin prick test 2.7% (95% CI: 2.4-3.0), food challenge positivity 0.9% (95% CI: 0.8-1.1). While the incidence of FA appeared stable over time, there was some evidence that the prevalence may be increasing. There were no consistent risk or prognostic factors for the development or resolution of FA identified, but sex, age, country of residence, familial atopic history, and the presence of other allergic diseases seem to be important. Food allergy is a significant clinical problem in Europe. The evidence base in this area would benefit from additional studies using standardized, rigorous methodology; data are particularly required from Eastern and Southern Europe.

The diagnosis of food allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the accuracy of tests used to diagnose food allergy. METHODS: Skin prick tests (SPT), specific-IgE (sIgE), component-resolved diagnosis and the atopy patch test (APT) were compared with the reference standard of double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge. Seven databases were searched and international experts were contacted. Two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and used QUADAS-2 to assess risk of bias. Where possible, meta-analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Twenty-four (2831 participants) studies were included. For cows' milk allergy, the pooled sensitivities were 53% (95% CI 33-72), 88% (95 % CI 76-94), and 87% (95% CI 75-94), and specificities were 88% (95% CI 76-95), 68% (95% CI 56-77), and 48% (95% CI 36-59) for APT, SPT, and sIgE, respectively. For egg, pooled sensitivities were 92% (95% CI 80-97) and 93% (95% CI 82-98), and specificities were 58% (95% CI 49-67) and 49% (40-58%) for skin prick tests and specific-IgE. For wheat, pooled sensitivities were 73% (95% CI 56-85) and 83% (95% CI 69-92), and specificities were 73% (95% CI 48-89) and 43% (95% CI 20-69%) for SPT and sIgE. For soy, pooled sensitivities were 55% (95% CI 33-75) and 83% (95% CI 64-93), and specificities were 68% (95% CI 52-80) and 38% (95% CI 24-54) for SPT and sIgE. For peanut, pooled sensitivities were 95% (95% CI 88-98) and 96% (95% CI 92-98), and specificities were 61% (95% CI 47-74), and 59% (95% CI 45-72) for SPT and sIgE. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base is limited and weak and is therefore difficult to interpret. Overall, SPT and sIgE appear sensitive although not specific for diagnosing IgE-mediated food allergy.

Management of anaphylaxis: a systematic review.

To establish the effectiveness of interventions for the acute and long-term management of anaphylaxis, seven databases were searched for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series and - only in relation to adrenaline - case series investigating the effectiveness of interventions in managing anaphylaxis. Fifty-five studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. We found no robust studies investigating the effectiveness of adrenaline (epinephrine), H1-antihistamines, systemic glucocorticosteroids or methylxanthines to manage anaphylaxis. There was evidence regarding the optimum route, site and dose of administration of adrenaline from trials studying people with a history of anaphylaxis. This suggested that administration of intramuscular adrenaline into the middle of vastus lateralis muscle is the optimum treatment. Furthermore, fatality register studies have suggested that a failure or delay in administration of adrenaline may increase the risk of death. The main long-term management interventions studied were anaphylaxis management plans and allergen-specific immunotherapy. Management plans may reduce the risk of further reactions, but these studies were at high risk of bias. Venom immunotherapy may reduce the incidence of systemic reactions in those with a history of venom-triggered anaphylaxis.

Acute and long-term management of food allergy: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Allergic reactions to food can have serious consequences. This systematic review summarizes evidence about the immediate management of reactions and longer-term approaches to minimize adverse impacts. METHODS: Seven bibliographic databases were searched from their inception to September 30, 2012, for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after and interrupted time series studies. Experts were consulted for additional studies. There was no language or geographic restrictions. Two reviewers critically appraised the studies using the appropriate tools. Data were not suitable for meta-analysis due to heterogeneity so were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: Eighty-four studies were included, but two-thirds were at high risk of potential bias. There was little evidence about acute management for non-life-threatening reactions. H1-antihistamines may be of benefit, but this evidence was in part derived from studies on those with cross-reactive birch pollen allergy. Regarding long-term management, avoiding the allergenic food or substituting an alternative was commonly recommended, but apart from for infants with cow's milk allergy, there was little high-quality research on this management approach. To reduce symptoms in children with cow's milk allergy, there was evidence to recommend alternatives such as extensively hydrolyzed formula. Supplements such as probiotics have not proved helpful, but allergen-specific immunotherapy may be disease modifying and therefore warrants further exploration. CONCLUSIONS: Food allergy can be debilitating and affects a significant number of people. However, the evidence base about acute and longer-term management is weak and needs to be strengthened as a matter of priority.

Disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments for IgE-mediated food allergy.

This is one of seven interlinked systematic reviews undertaken on behalf of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology as part of their Guidelines for Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis, which focuses on instruments developed for IgE-mediated food allergy. Disease-specific questionnaires are significantly more sensitive than generic ones in measuring the response to interventions or future treatments, as well as estimating the general burden of food allergy. The aim of this systematic review was therefore to identify which disease-specific, validated instruments can be employed to enable assessment of the impact of, and investigations and interventions for, IgE-mediated food allergy on health-related quality of life (HRQL). Using a sensitive search strategy, we searched seven electronic bibliographic databases to identify disease-specific quality of life (QOL) tools relating to IgE-mediated food allergy. From the 17 eligible studies, we identified seven disease-specific HRQL instruments, which were then subjected to detailed quality appraisal. This revealed that these instruments have undergone formal development and validation processes, and have robust psychometric properties, and therefore provide a robust means of establishing the impact of food allergy on QOL. Suitable instruments are now available for use in children, adolescents, parents/caregivers, and adults. Further work must continue to develop a clinical minimal important difference for food allergy and for making these instruments available in a wider range of European languages.

EAACI food allergy and anaphylaxis guidelines. Primary prevention of food allergy.

Food allergy can have significant effects on morbidity and quality of life and can be costly in terms of medical visits and treatments. There is therefore considerable interest in generating efficient approaches that may reduce the risk of developing food allergy. This guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on Prevention and is part of the EAACI Guidelines for Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis. It aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for primary prevention of food allergy. A wide range of antenatal, perinatal, neonatal, and childhood strategies were identified and their effectiveness assessed and synthesized in a systematic review. Based on this evidence, families can be provided with evidence-based advice about preventing food allergy, particularly for infants at high risk for development of allergic disease. The advice for all mothers includes a normal diet without restrictions during pregnancy and lactation. For all infants, exclusive breastfeeding is recommended for at least first 4-6 months of life. If breastfeeding is insufficient or not possible, infants at high-risk can be recommended a hypoallergenic formula with a documented preventive effect for the first 4 months. There is no need to avoid introducing complementary foods beyond 4 months, and currently, the evidence does not justify recommendations about either withholding or encouraging exposure to potentially allergenic foods after 4 months once weaning has commenced, irrespective of atopic heredity. There is no evidence to support the use of prebiotics or probiotics for food allergy prevention.

Primary prevention of food allergy in children and adults: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Food allergies can have serious physical, social, and financial consequences. This systematic review examined ways to prevent the development of food allergy in children and adults. METHODS: Seven bibliographic databases were searched from their inception to September 30, 2012, for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and prospective cohort studies. Experts were consulted for additional studies. There were no language or geographic restrictions. Two reviewers appraised the studies using appropriate tools. Data were not suitable for meta-analysis due to heterogeneity, so were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: Seventy-four studies were included, one-third of which were of high quality. There was no good evidence to recommend that pregnant or breastfeeding women should change their diet or take supplements to prevent allergies in infants at high or normal risk. There were mixed findings about the preventive benefits of breastfeeding for infants at high or normal risk, but there was evidence to recommend avoiding cow's milk and substituting with extensively or partially hydrolyzed whey or casein formulas for infants at high risk for the first 4 months. Soy milk and delaying the introduction of solid foods beyond 4 months did not have preventive benefits in those at high or normal risk. There was very little evidence about strategies for preventing food allergy in older children or adults. CONCLUSIONS: There is much to learn about preventing food allergy, and this is a priority given the high societal and healthcare costs involved.

EAACI food allergy and anaphylaxis guidelines: diagnosis and management of food allergy.

Food allergy can result in considerable morbidity, impact negatively on quality of life, and prove costly in terms of medical care. These guidelines have been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Guidelines for Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Group, building on previous EAACI position papers on adverse reaction to foods and three recent systematic reviews on the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of food allergy, and provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of food allergy. While the primary audience is allergists, this document is relevant for all other healthcare professionals, including primary care physicians, and pediatric and adult specialists, dieticians, pharmacists and paramedics. Our current understanding of the manifestations of food allergy, the role of diagnostic tests, and the effective management of patients of all ages with food allergy is presented. The acute management of non-life-threatening reactions is covered in these guidelines, but for guidance on the emergency management of anaphylaxis, readers are referred to the related EAACI Anaphylaxis Guidelines.

Anaphylaxis: guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Anaphylaxis is a clinical emergency, and all healthcare professionals should be familiar with its recognition and acute and ongoing management. These guidelines have been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Taskforce on Anaphylaxis. They aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for the recognition, risk factor assessment, and the management of patients who are at risk of, are experiencing, or have experienced anaphylaxis. While the primary audience is allergists, these guidelines are also relevant to all other healthcare professionals. The development of these guidelines has been underpinned by two systematic reviews of the literature, both on the epidemiology and on clinical management of anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening condition whose clinical diagnosis is based on recognition of a constellation of presenting features. First-line treatment for anaphylaxis is intramuscular adrenaline. Useful second-line interventions may include removing the trigger where possible, calling for help, correct positioning of the patient, high-flow oxygen, intravenous fluids, inhaled short-acting bronchodilators, and nebulized adrenaline. Discharge arrangements should involve an assessment of the risk of further reactions, a management plan with an anaphylaxis emergency action plan, and, where appropriate, prescribing an adrenaline auto-injector. If an adrenaline auto-injector is prescribed, education on when and how to use the device should be provided. Specialist follow-up is essential to investigate possible triggers, to perform a comprehensive risk assessment, and to prevent future episodes by developing personalized risk reduction strategies including, where possible, commencing allergen immunotherapy. Training for the patient and all caregivers is essential. There are still many gaps in the evidence base for anaphylaxis.

Paediatric rhinitis: position paper of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

Rhinitis is a common problem in childhood and adolescence and impacts negatively on physical, social and psychological well-being. This position paper, prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Taskforce on Rhinitis in Children, aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and therapy of paediatric rhinitis. Rhinitis is characterized by at least two nasal symptoms: rhinorrhoea, blockage, sneezing or itching. It is classified as allergic rhinitis, infectious rhinitis and nonallergic, noninfectious rhinitis. Similar symptoms may occur with other conditions such as adenoidal hypertrophy, septal deviation and nasal polyps. Examination by anterior rhinoscopy and allergy tests may help to substantiate a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. Avoidance of relevant allergens may be helpful for allergic rhinitis (AR). Oral and intranasal antihistamines and nasal corticosteroids are both appropriate for first-line AR treatment although the latter are more effective. Once-daily forms of corticosteroids are preferred given their improved safety profile. Potentially useful add-on therapies for AR include oral leukotriene receptor antagonists, short bursts of a nasal decongestant, saline douches and nasal anticholinergics. Allergen-specific immunotherapy is helpful in IgE-mediated AR and may prevent the progression of allergic disease. There are still a number of areas that need to be clarified in the management of rhinitis in children and adolescents.