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

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

fMRI BOLD responses to film stimuli and their association with exhaled nitric oxide in asthma and health.

Little is known about central nervous system (CNS) responses to emotional stimuli in asthma. Nitric oxide in exhaled breath (FENO) is elevated in asthma due to allergic immune processes, but endogenous nitric oxide is also known to modulate CNS activity. We measured fMRI blood oxygen-dependent (BOLD) brain activation to negative (blood-injection-injury themes) and neutral films in 31 participants (15 with asthma). Regions-of-interest analysis was performed on key areas relevant to central adaptive control, threat processing, or salience networks, with dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC), anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), amygdala, ventral striatum, ventral tegmentum, and periaqueductal gray, as well as top-down modulation of emotion, with ventrolateral and ventromedial PFC. Both groups showed less BOLD deactivation from fixation cross-baseline in the left anterior insula and bilateral ventromedial PFC for negative than neutral films, and for an additional number of areas, including the fusiform gyrus, for film versus recovery phases. Less deactivation during films followed by less recovery from deactivation was found in asthma compared to healthy controls. Changes in PCO2 did not explain these findings. FENO was positively related to BOLD activation in general, but more pronounced in healthy controls and more likely in neutral film processing. Thus, asthma is associated with altered processing of film stimuli across brain regions not limited to central adaptive control, threat processing, or salience networks. Higher levels of NO appear to facilitate CNS activity, but only in healthy controls, possibly due to allergy's masking effects on FENO.

The efficacy of citalopram or escitalopram in patients with asthma and major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is common in people with asthma. Yet, few studies have evaluated depression treatment in those with asthma. OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship between antidepressant use, depressive symptoms, and asthma control, pooled data from 3 randomized trials of either citalopram or escitalopram were assessed. METHODS: Linear fixed effects and binary logistic regression analyses were conducted with between-subject covariates including treatment group, (original) study, and demographics. The within-subject effect of visit, and a treatment group-visit (between-within) interaction effect, were also evaluated. Analyses were repeated in a high asthma exacerbation subgroup having at least 3 oral corticosteroid bursts in the previous 12 months. Outcomes included the Hamilton rating scale for depression (HAM-D17), the 7-item asthma control questionnaire (ACQ), and oral corticosteroid use (yes or no). RESULTS: In the pooled sample (n = 255), the antidepressant treatment group exhibited lower HAM-D17 overall (P ≤ .001) and a lower likelihood for oral corticosteroid use (P ≤ .001) relative to the placebo group. In the high-exacerbation subgroup (n = 96), treatment group participants had lower overall asthma control questionnaire (P = .004) and HAM-D17 scores (P ≤ .001), and a lower likelihood of oral corticosteroid use (P = .003), relative to placebo participants. All treatment group interaction effects were not significant. CONCLUSION: Citalopram or escitalopram exhibited efficacy in reducing depressive symptoms and the need for rescue oral corticosteroids in patients with asthma and major depressive disorder. Future work should determine whether selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are effective at improving asthma outcomes in those with asthma who are not depressed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00621946 and NCT01324700 (one study was conducted before ClinicalTrials.gov requirements).

Contribution of caregiver and child anxiety and depressive symptoms to child asthma-related quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety negatively affect asthma-related quality of life (QoL). Yet, little is known regarding mood and asthma-related factors that best uniquely explain asthma-related QoL in children. OBJECTIVE: This cross-sectional study evaluated the unique variance explained by caregiver and child depressive and anxiety symptom severity in child asthma-related QoL, apart from that explained by demographics and asthma control. METHODS: Children aged 7 to 17 years with asthma (n = 205) and their caregivers with major depressive disorder were included. A 3-stage hierarchical linear regression analysis was conducted with the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire total scores considered as the outcome. Predictors included demographic characteristics (stage 1); asthma control assessed by the Asthma Control Test (stage 2); and caregiver depression and anxiety (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the Spielberger State/Trait Anxiety Scale) and child depression and anxiety (Children's Depression Inventory and the Screen for Child Anxiety-Related Disorders) (stage 3). RESULTS: Demographic characteristics accounted for only 5.5% of the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores. Asthma control significantly increased variance explained in QoL to 32.6%, whereas caregiver and child depression and anxiety symptoms significantly increased variance explained to 42.6%. Child anxiety was found to uniquely explain the largest proportion of variance in QoL (rs2 = 0.584). CONCLUSION: After adjusting variance in QoL for demographic characteristics and asthma control, caregiver and child depression and anxiety measures significantly increased the proportion of variance explained in a child's asthma-related QoL. In addition to better asthma control, child and caregiver depression and anxiety should be addressed to increase child asthma-related QoL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02809677.

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.

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

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

Cephalosporin Allergy: Updates on Diagnostic Testing.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cephalosporins are one of the most prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are implicated in a wide range of hypersensitivity reactions (HSR). This review summarizes recent updates in cephalosporin hypersensitivity with a focus on diagnostic testing. RECENT FINDINGS: Reported testing strategies to evaluate different immediate and delayed cephalosporin HSR have included skin testing, in vitro testing, and diagnostic drug challenges. However, the diagnostic performance of in vivo and in vitro tests remains unclear across different hypersensitivity endotypes; adequately powered studies investigating the true positive and negative predictive value of these diagnostic modalities are needed using the reference standard of drug challenges to define cephalosporin hypersensitivity. Refinement of diagnostic testing should be guided by growth in our understanding of cephalosporin antigenic determinants. This growth will be crucial in driving further clarification of cross-reactivity between cephalosporins, and potentially delineating streamlined evaluation processes resulting in reduced unnecessary antibiotic avoidance.

Optimization of the allergen classification of the International Classification Of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11).

BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis of triggers or causative allergens is essential for appropriate risk assessment, providing correct advice to patients with allergy and their caregivers and personalized treatment. However, allergens have never been represented in the World Health Organization International Classification of Diseases (ICD). OBJECTIVE: In this article, we present the process of selection of allergens to better fit the ICD, 11th Revision (ICD-11) structure and the outcomes of this process. METHODS: The Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes database, containing 1444 allergens, was used as the basis for the selection process. Two independent experts were responsible for the first selection of the allergens according to specific technical criteria. The second step of the selection process was based on real-life relevance of the allergens according to the frequency of requests regarding each of them. RESULTS: We selected 1109 allergens (76.8%) from all 1444 present in the Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes database, with considerable agreement between experts (Cohen κ = 8.6). After assessment of real-life data, 297 additional relevant allergens worldwide were selected and grouped as plants (36.4%), drugs (32.6%), animal proteins (21%), mold and other microorganisms (1.5%), occupational allergens (0.4%), and miscellaneous allergens (0.5%). CONCLUSION: The stepwise approach allowed us to select the most relevant allergens in practice, which is the first step to building a classification of allergens for the WHO ICD-11. Aligned with the achievement in the construction of the pioneer section addressed to the allergic and hypersensitivity conditions in the ICD-11, the introduction of a classification for allergens can be considered timely and much needed in clinical practice.

United States Drug Allergy Registry (USDAR) grading scale for immediate drug reactions.

BACKGROUND: There is no accepted grading system classifying the severity of immediate reactions to drugs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to present a proposed grading system developed through the consensus of drug allergy experts from the United States Drug Allergy Registry (USDAR) Consortium. METHODS: The USDAR investigators sought to develop a consensus severity grading system for immediate drug reactions that is applicable to clinical care and research. RESULTS: The USDAR grading scale scores severity levels on a scale of 0 to 4. A grade of no reaction (NR) is used for patients who undergo challenge without any symptoms or signs, and it would confirm a negative challenge result. A grade 0 reaction is indicative of primarily subjective complaints that are commonly seen with both historical drug reactions and during drug challenges, and it would suggest a low likelihood of a true drug allergic reaction. Grades 1 to 4 meet the criteria for a positive challenge result and may be considered indicative of a drug allergy. Grade 1 reactions are suggestive of a potential immediate drug reaction with mild symptoms. Grade 2 reactions are more likely to be immediate drug reactions of moderate severity. Grade 3 reactions have features suggestive of a severe allergic reaction, whereas grade 4 reactions are life-threatening reactions such as anaphylactic shock and fatal anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: This proposed grading schema for immediate drug reactions improves on prior schemata by being developed specifically for immediate drug reactions and being easy to implement in clinical and research practice.

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.

The One Health approach for allergic diseases and asthma.

The One Health approach is a collaborative and interdisciplinary strategy with focal point on human, animal, and environmental health interconnections. One Health can support the advanced management of allergic diseases and asthma, as complex, multifactorial diseases driven by interactions between the resilience response to the exposome. According to the One Health concept allergic diseases and asthma arising from exposures to a wide range of allergens, infectious agents and irritants (such as pollutants) occurring indoors and outdoors can be heavily influenced by environmental health (air, water, and soil quality) intermingled with animal health. These are currently heavily impacted by climate change, land use, urbanization, migration, overpopulation, and many more. Thus, a coordinated response to address the underlying factors that contribute to the development of allergic diseases and asthma needs to focus on the environment, human, and animal health altogether. Collaborative efforts across multiple sectors, including public health, veterinary medicine, environmental science, and community engagement are thus needed. A wide range of activities, including monitoring and surveillance of environmental and health data, targeted interventions to reduce exposures to allergens and irritants, and research on the underlying mechanisms that drive the development of allergic diseases and asthma are needed to move the field forward. In this consensus document elaborated by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) and American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI) under the practical allergy (PRACTALL) series, we provide insights into the One Heath approach aiming to provide a framework for addressing the complex and multifactorial nature of allergic diseases and asthma.

Drug allergy in older adults: A study from the United States Drug Allergy Registry.

BACKGROUND: Older adults have an increased risk of adverse drug reactions and negative effects associated with alternative antibiotic use. Although the number of antibiotic allergies reported increases with age, the characteristics and outcomes of older adults receiving drug allergy assessment are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics and outcomes of drug allergy evaluations in older adults. METHODS: We considered patients aged above or equal to 65 years enrolled in the United States Drug Allergy Registry (USDAR), a US multisite prospective cohort (January 16, 2019 to February 28, 2022). Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1678 USDAR participants from 5 sites, 406 older adults aged above or equal to 65 years (37% 65-69 years, 37% 70-74 years, 16% 75-79 years, and 10% ≥80 years) received 501 drug allergy assessments. USDAR older adults were primarily of female sex (69%), White (94%), and non-Hispanic (98%). Most USDAR older adults reported less than or equal to 1 infections per year (64%) and rated their general health as good, very good, or excellent (80%). Of 296 (59%) penicillin allergy assessments in USDAR older adults, 286 (97%) were disproved. Other drug allergy assessments included sulfonamide (n = 41, 88% disproved) and cephalosporin (n = 20, 95% disproved) antibiotics. All 41 drug allergy labels in USDAR participants aged above or equal to 80 years and all 80 penicillin allergy labels in USDAR men aged above or equal to 65 years were disproved. CONCLUSION: Older adults represented a quarter of USDAR participants but were neither racially nor ethnically diverse and were generally healthy without considerable antibiotic need. Most older adults presented for antibiotic allergy assessments, the vast majority of which were disproved. Drug allergy assessments may be underutilized in the older adults who are most vulnerable to the harms of unconfirmed antibiotic allergy labels.

Association of serotonin reuptake inhibitors with asthma control.

Background: Clinical trials demonstrated that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) can improve asthma control in patients with comorbid major depressive disorder (MDD) and that this effect may be greater than the effect of SSRIs on depression. These findings suggest that SSRIs may improve asthma control in patients without MDD. Objective: The current retrospective study examined the effect of SSRIs and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) on asthma control in adult patients. We hypothesized that patients would have fewer asthma exacerbations after treatment with an SSRI or SNRI. Methods: Electronic health record data of adult patients (N = 592) who were seen at a University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW) hospital or clinic and had (1) an SSRI or SNRI prescription, (2) a previous asthma diagnosis, and (3) no mood disorder diagnosis were extracted by using the UTSW Clinical Data Exchange Network. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare oral corticosteroid prescriptions and asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations in the 12 months before and after the start of an SSRI/SNRI. Results: Therapy with SSRIs/SNRIs was associated with a significant decrease in oral corticosteroid use (p = 0.003), ED visits (p = 0.002), and hospitalizations (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Results from the current study add to the existing literature by demonstrating a reduced rate of severe exacerbations in patients with asthma by using an SSRI/SNRI without limiting the analytic sample to a high-illness-severity subgroup defined by symptoms of asthma or depression. Future work should include a prospective, placebo controlled study with individuals who have asthma and no comorbid mental health condition, verified by a mental health professional.

Practical guidance for the diagnosis and management of secondary hypogammaglobulinemia: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Primary Immunodeficiency and Altered Immune Response Committees.

Secondary hypogammaglobulinemia (SHG) is characterized by reduced immunoglobulin levels due to acquired causes of decreased antibody production or increased antibody loss. Clarification regarding whether the hypogammaglobulinemia is secondary or primary is important because this has implications for evaluation and management. Prior receipt of immunosuppressive medications and/or presence of conditions associated with SHG development, including protein loss syndromes, are histories that raise suspicion for SHG. In patients with these histories, a thorough investigation of potential etiologies of SHG reviewed in this report is needed to devise an effective treatment plan focused on removal of iatrogenic causes (eg, discontinuation of an offending drug) or treatment of the underlying condition (eg, management of nephrotic syndrome). When iatrogenic causes cannot be removed or underlying conditions cannot be reversed, therapeutic options are not clearly delineated but include heightened monitoring for clinical infections, supportive antimicrobials, and in some cases, immunoglobulin replacement therapy. This report serves to summarize the existing literature regarding immunosuppressive medications and populations (autoimmune, neurologic, hematologic/oncologic, pulmonary, posttransplant, protein-losing) associated with SHG and highlights key areas for future investigation.

Safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy in patients with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: Severe asthma (SA) has been identified as a risk factor for severe systemic reactions (SR) to allergen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). However, the incidence and characterization of SRs in SA in comparison to less severe or no asthma is not known. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize the incidence of SRs in patients with SA receiving SCIT in comparison to patients with no asthma or less SA. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients receiving SCIT from a multicenter national network of private allergy practices between January 2015 and December 2019. Demographics, asthma severity (International Classification of Diseases-10 codes), concomitant medications, aeroallergen skin testing, measures of asthma control with the asthma control test and forced expiratory volume in 1 second values, SCIT prescription, and an SR standardized form were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 65,855 patients, with 1072 patients having SA receiving SCIT, were included with a total of 4415 SRs (19.9 SR per 10,000 injection visits). Severe asthma had 23.9 SRs per 10,000 injection visits (incidence rate, 0.239; 95% confidence interval [0.189-0.298]). There were 155 grade III or IV SRs; 5 (3.2%) occurred in the SA group. There was no difference in rates of grade III or IV SRs between SA and no asthma and in rates of total SRs between SA and less SA. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of patients with SA undergoing multiallergen SCIT drawn from a diverse outpatient allergy population, the diagnosis of SA was not associated with increased moderate-severe SRs compared with patients without asthma and any severity of asthma.

Adverse Reactions to Biologic Medications Used in Allergy and Immunology Diseases.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of biologic therapies has risen exponentially over recent years, allowing for unprecedented disease control within numerous areas of Allergy/Immunology. With this expanded use, awareness and understanding of adverse reactions to biologic agents have also increased. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple biologic adverse reaction phenotypes have been described, but significant overlap in clinical features across phenotypes exists. Given considerable phenotypic overlap, a targeted testing approach may not always be clear, and more recent classifications focus on management decision making using tools of diagnostic challenges and rapid drug desensitizations, guiding clinicians in developing a management plan when the exact underlying mechanism is not clearly known. With increased clinical experience with omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, tezepelumab, rituximab, and TNF-inhibitors, there is a growing appreciation to the spectrum and particularities of adverse reactions to these agents which are outlined in this review. Our understanding of the clinical presentation and management of adverse reactions to biologic medications encountered in Allergy/Immunology has grown. Opportunities remain to further define optimal diagnostic and management strategies for these reactions.

Non-IgE-Mediated Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Non-IgE-mediated drug reactions have traditionally been poorly defined and studied, though they are the most common form of hypersensitivity. Their presentations are highly variable and can range in severity from mild, cutaneous-only reactions to severe systemic disease. RECENT FINDINGS: The most notable advance in non-IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions is in diagnostics. HLA alleles have traditionally been used for identifying certain patients at risk for abacavir hypersensitivity syndrome, but more recent studies have shown several other HLA alleles associated with severe cutaneous adverse reactions with various medications. This article also highlights the use of delayed intradermal testing for radiocontrast media and patch testing for delayed antibiotic reactions. Drug reactions remain a major cause of morbidity and reason for treatment changes. Non-IgE-mediated reactions have had an increase in research interest over the past decade with an increased emphasis on better understanding the clinical presentation and underlying pathophysiology.

Peanut allergy diagnosis: A 2020 practice parameter update, systematic review, and GRADE analysis.

Given the burden of disease and the consequences of a diagnosis of peanut allergy, it is important that peanut allergy be accurately diagnosed so that an appropriate treatment plan can be developed. However, a test that indicates there is peanut sensitization present (eg, a "positive" test) is not always associated with clinical reactivity. This practice parameter addresses the diagnosis of IgE-mediated peanut allergy, both in children and adults, as pertaining to 3 fundamental questions, and based on the systematic reviews and meta-analyses, makes recommendations for the clinician who is evaluating a patient for peanut allergy. These questions relate to when diagnostic tests should be completed, which diagnostic tests to utilize, and the utility (or lack thereof) of diagnostic testing to predict the severity of a future allergic reaction to peanut.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update.

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Anaphylaxis-a 2020 practice parameter update, systematic review, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis.

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potential life-threatening systemic allergic reaction that may have a wide range of clinical manifestations. Severe anaphylaxis and/or the need for repeated doses of epinephrine to treat anaphylaxis are risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis. Antihistamines and/or glucocorticoids are not reliable interventions to prevent biphasic anaphylaxis, although evidence supports a role for antihistamine and/or glucocorticoid premedication in specific chemotherapy protocols and rush aeroallergen immunotherapy. Evidence is lacking to support the role of antihistamines and/or glucocorticoid routine premedication in patients receiving low- or iso-osmolar contrast material to prevent recurrent radiocontrast media anaphylaxis. Epinephrine is the first-line pharmacotherapy for uniphasic and/or biphasic anaphylaxis. After diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis, all patients should be kept under observation until symptoms have fully resolved. All patients with anaphylaxis should receive education on anaphylaxis and risk of recurrence, trigger avoidance, self-injectable epinephrine education, referral to an allergist, and be educated about thresholds for further care.