Prevalence of tree nut allergy in Europe: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

In 2014, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) published the first systematic review that summarized the prevalence of food allergy (FA) and food sensitization in Europe for studies published 2000-2012. However, only summary estimates for tree nut allergy (TNA) were feasible in that work. In the current update of that systematic review, we summarized the prevalence of tree nut allergy/sensitization to individual tree nuts. Six databases were searched for relevant papers published 2012-2021 and 17 eligible studies were added to the 15 studies already identified between 2000 and 2012, giving a total of 32 studies. Of the investigated tree nuts, meta-analysis was possible for hazelnut, walnut, almond, and in few cases, for cashew, and Brazil nut. The lifetime self-reported prevalence was 0.8% (95% CI 0.5-1.1) for hazelnut and 0.4% (0.2-0.9) for walnut. The point self-reported prevalence was 4.0% (2.9-5.2) for hazelnut, 3.4% (2.0-4.9) for Brazil nut, 2.0% (1.1-2.9) for almond, and 1.8% (1.1-2.5) for walnut. Point prevalence of food challenge-confirmed TNA was 0.04% (0.0-0.1) for hazelnut and 0.02% (0.01-0.1) for walnut. Due to paucity of data, we could not identify any meaningful and consistent differences across age groups and European regions.

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.

Narrative review to capture patients' perceptions and opinions about non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: There are now many biological therapies to treat severe asthma. To assess which work best for which patient, we need to develop definitions of response. This narrative review aims to capture severe asthma patients' perceptions about non-response and response to biological therapy. METHODS: Four bibliographic databases were searched from inception to September 2021. Grey literature was searched with the involvement of patient representatives. A thematic approach was used for synthesis. No qualitative studies specifically explore patients' perspectives on response to biological therapy for severe asthma. Three papers and one published asthma patient interview were included. Relevant grey literature was included from online discussion forums, blogs and social media websites. RESULTS: Adult patients framed positive response to biological therapy in terms of reduced burden of disease and treatment. Both were multifaceted. Some patients experienced reduced benefit from biological therapy over time. There was a group of patients who described a limited response or non-response to biological therapy. This was framed within the context of continuing hospitalisation and oral corticosteroid treatment. The speed of onset of benefit was felt to be important by some. CONCLUSIONS: Definitions of non-response and response need to be patient-centred, yet there is a complete lack of qualitative research focused on this topic. By combining relevant published and grey literature we have provided a description of adult patients' perceptions of response to biological therapy in severe asthma. We now need to understand the views of children and adolescents with severe asthma and their carers, and diverse patient experiences in real-world settings.

Identifying and appraising outcome measures for severe asthma: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Valid outcome measures are imperative to evaluate treatment response, yet the suitability of existing end-points for severe asthma is unclear. This review aimed to identify outcome measures for severe asthma and appraise the quality of their measurement properties. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify "candidate" outcome measures published between 2018 and 2020. A modified Delphi exercise was conducted to select "key" outcome measures within healthcare professional, patient, pharmaceutical and regulatory stakeholder groups. Initial validation studies for "key" measures were rated against modified quality criteria from COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). The evidence was discussed at multi-stakeholder meetings to ratify "priority" outcome measures. Subsequently, four bibliographic databases were searched from inception to 20 July 2020 to identify development and validation studies for these end-points. Two reviewers screened records, extracted data, assessed their methodological quality and graded the evidence according to COSMIN. RESULTS: 96 outcome measures were identified as "candidates", 55 as "key" and 24 as "priority" for severe asthma, including clinical, healthcare utilisation, quality of life, asthma control and composite. 32 studies reported measurement properties of 17 "priority" end-points from the latter three domains. Only the Severe Asthma Questionnaire and Childhood Asthma Control Test were developed with input from severe asthma patients. The certainty of evidence was "low" to "very low" for most "priority" end-points across all measurement properties and none fulfilled all quality standards. CONCLUSIONS: Only two outcome measures had robust developmental data for severe asthma. This review informed development of core outcome measures sets for severe asthma.

Development of Core Outcome Measures sets for paediatric and adult Severe Asthma (COMSA).

BACKGROUND: Effectiveness studies with biological therapies for asthma lack standardised outcome measures. The COMSA (Core Outcome Measures sets for paediatric and adult Severe Asthma) Working Group sought to develop Core Outcome Measures (COM) sets to facilitate better synthesis of data and appraisal of biologics in paediatric and adult asthma clinical studies. METHODS: COMSA utilised a multi-stakeholder consensus process among patients with severe asthma, adult and paediatric clinicians, pharmaceutical representatives, and health regulators from across Europe. Evidence included a systematic review of development, validity and reliability of selected outcome measures plus a narrative review and a pan-European survey to better understand patients' and carers' views about outcome measures. It was discussed using a modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision framework. Anonymous voting was conducted using predefined consensus criteria. RESULTS: Both adult and paediatric COM sets include forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) as z-scores, annual frequency of severe exacerbations and maintenance oral corticosteroid use. Additionally, the paediatric COM set includes the Paediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire and Asthma Control Test or Childhood Asthma Control Test, while the adult COM set includes the Severe Asthma Questionnaire and Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (symptoms and rescue medication use reported separately). CONCLUSIONS: This patient-centred collaboration has produced two COM sets for paediatric and adult severe asthma. It is expected that they will inform the methodology of future clinical trials, enhance comparability of efficacy and effectiveness of biological therapies, and help assess their socioeconomic value. COMSA will inform definitions of non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma.

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.

Frequency of food allergy in Europe: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Food allergy (FA) is increasingly reported in Europe, however, the latest prevalence estimates were based on studies published a decade ago. The present work provides the most updated estimates of the prevalence and trends of FA in Europe. Databases were searched for studies published between 2012 and 2021, added to studies published up to 2012. In total, 110 studies were included in this update. Most studies were graded as moderate risk of bias. Pooled lifetime and point prevalence of self-reported FA were 19.9% (95% CI 16.6-23.3) and 13.1% (95% CI 11.3-14.8), respectively. The point prevalence of sensitization based on specific IgE (slgE) was 16.6% (95% CI 12.3-20.8), skin prick test (SPT) 5.7% (95% CI 3.9-7.4), and positive food challenge 0.8% (95% CI 0.5-0.9). While lifetime prevalence of self-reported FA and food challenge positivity only slightly changed, the point prevalence of self-reported FA, sIgE and SPT positivity increased from previous estimates. This may reflect a real increase, increased awareness, increased number of foods assessed, or increased number of studies from countries with less data in the first review. Future studies require rigorous designs and implementation of standardized methodology in diagnosing FA, including use of double-blinded placebo-controlled food challenge to minimize potential biases.

A practical toolbox for the effective transition of adolescents and young adults with asthma and allergies: An EAACI position paper.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescence is a critical stage of rapid biological, emotional and social change and development. Adolescents and young adults (AYA) with asthma and allergies need to develop the knowledge and skills to self-manage their health independently. Healthcare professionals (HCP), parents and their wider network play an essential role in supporting AYA in this process. Previous work showed significant limitations in transition care across Europe. In 2020, the first evidence-based guideline on effective transition for AYA with asthma and allergies was published by EAACI. AIM: We herein summarize practical resources to support this guideline's implementation in clinical practice. METHODS: For this purpose, multi-stakeholder Task Force members searched for resources in peer review journals and grey literature. These resources were included if relevant and of good quality and were pragmatically rated for their evidence-basis and user friendliness. RESULTS: Resources identified covered a range of topics and targeted healthcare professionals, AYA, parents/carers, schools, workplace and wider community. Most resources were in English, web-based and had limited evidence-basis. CONCLUSIONS: This position paper provides a valuable selection of practical resources for all stakeholders to support effective transitional care for AYA with asthma and allergies. Future research should focus on developing validated, patient-centred tools to further assist evidence-based transition care.

Prevalence estimates of eight big food allergies in Europe: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

In 2014, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology published prevalence estimates for food allergy (FA) and food sensitization (FS) to the so-called eight big food allergens (i.e. cow's milk, egg, wheat, soy, peanut, tree nuts, fish and shellfish) in Europe for studies published between 2000 and 2012. The current work provides 10-year updated prevalence estimates for these food allergens. A protocol was registered on PROSPERO before starting the research (reference number CRD42021266657). Six databases were searched for studies published 2012-2021, added to studies published up to 2012, resulting in a total of 93 studies. Most studies were graded as at moderate risk of bias. The overall pooled estimates for all age groups of self-reported lifetime prevalence were as follows: cow's milk (5.7%, 95% confidence interval 4.4-6.9), egg (2.4%, 1.8-3.0), wheat (1.6%, 0.9-2.3), soy (0.5%, 0.3-0.7), peanut (1.5%, 1.0-2.1), tree nuts (0.9%, 0.6-1.2), fish (1.4%, 0.8-2.0) and shellfish (0.4%, 0.3-0.6). The point prevalence of food challenge-verified allergy were as follows: cow's milk (0.3%, 0.1-0.5), egg (0.8%, 0.5-1.2), wheat (0.1%, 0.01-0.2), soy (0.3%, 0.1-0.4), peanut (0.1%, 0.0-0.2), tree nuts (0.04%, 0.02-0.1), fish (0.02%, 0.0-0.1) and shellfish (0.1%, 0.0-0.2). With some exceptions, the prevalence of allergy to common foods did not substantially change during the last decade; variations by European regions were observed.

Real-world efficacy of treatment with benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab for severe asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe asthma is a major cause of morbidity. Some patients may benefit from biological therapies. Most evaluations of these treatments are derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but few patients are eligible for these trials. Studies involving more diverse groups of participants exist, but there is a lack of precise pooled estimates. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to evaluate the real-world efficacy of recently and nearly licensed biological therapies for severe asthma to assess the generalizability of the RCT data. METHODS: Clinical outcomes including exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroid usage, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1 ) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were examined. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist tool. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). RESULTS: A total of 21 studies examining biologicals in real-world settings were identified; they mostly focused on benralizumab and mepolizumab. The introduction of biologicals reduced the annualzsed exacerbation rate significantly by -3.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] -4.53, -3.04), -3.17 (95% CI -3.74, -2.59) and -6.72 (95% CI -8.47, -4.97) with benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab, respectively. Likewise, improvements were observed in FEV1 (0.17 L 95% CI 0.11, 0.24) and FeNO (-14.23 ppb 95% CI -19.71, -8.75) following the treatment with mepolizumab. After treatment with benralizumab, there was an increase in FEV1 (0.21 L 95% CI 0.08, 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that anti-IL5 biologicals may improve the clinical outcomes of patients with severe asthma in a clinic environment with similar effect sizes to RCTs. The data were mainly retrospective and unadjusted, so estimated effect sizes may not be reliable. More data are needed to acquire accurate effect estimates in different subpopulations of patients.