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).

Environmental exposure unit simulates natural seasonal birch pollen exposures while maximizing change in allergic symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Birch pollen is a prevalent aeroallergen during the springtime allergy season. In field studies, variable allergen exposure and environmental factors can affect data quality while environmental exposure units (EEUs) deliver controlled, standardized, and reproducible allergen exposures. OBJECTIVE: To inform study design for EEU trials evaluating antiallergic therapies. METHODS: In this prospective study, 76 participants with birch allergy experienced 3 exposures to birch pollen: (1) an out-of-season EEU challenge (two 3-hour sessions on consecutive days); (2) a natural seasonal exposure; and (3) an in-season EEU challenge (3-hour exposure for 2 weeks after birch pollen season initiation). RESULTS: The total nasal symptom score, total ocular symptom score, and total symptom score (TSS = total nasal symptom score plus total ocular symptom score) were assessed every 30 minutes and daily during EEU and natural exposures. A high association between TSSs and day 2 of the out-of-season and in-season EEU challenges was noted, with a good association between the maximum TSS during the natural and in-season EEU challenges, and natural season and day 2 of the out-of-season EEU challenge (P < .001 for all). Participants had higher maximum change from the baseline TSS during day 2 of the out-of-season EEU challenge (12.4) vs the following: (1) first day (9.8); (2) in-season EEU challenge (8.4); and (3) natural seasonal exposure (7.6) (P < .001 for all). CONCLUSION: A strong association was seen between the presence of allergy symptoms and exposure to birch pollen in the EEU (maximum change in symptom scores during day 2) and in the field. A hybrid trial design may be useful to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of novel antiallergic therapies requiring fewer participants and shorter timelines and expediting treatment availability.

Technical standards in allergen exposure chambers worldwide - an EAACI Task Force Report.

Allergen exposure chambers (AECs) can be used for controlled exposure to allergenic and non-allergenic airborne particles in an enclosed environment, in order to (i) characterize the pathological features of respiratory diseases and (ii) contribute to and accelerate the clinical development of pharmacological treatments and allergen immunotherapy for allergic disease of the respiratory tract (such as allergic rhinitis, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and allergic asthma). In the guidelines of the European Medicines Agency for the clinical development of products for allergen immunotherapy (AIT), the role of AECs in determining primary endpoints in dose-finding Phase II trials is emphasized. Although methodologically insulated from the variability of natural pollen exposure, chamber models remain confined to supporting secondary, rather than primary, endpoints in Phase III registration trials. The need for further validation in comparison with field exposure is clearly mandated. On this basis, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) initiated a Task Force in 2015 charged to gain a better understanding of how AECs can generate knowledge about respiratory allergies and can contribute to the clinical development of treatments. Researchers working with AECs worldwide were asked to provide technical information in eight sections: (i) dimensions and structure of the AEC, (ii) AEC staff, (iii) airflow, air processing, and operating conditions, (iv) particle dispersal, (v) pollen/particle counting, (vi) safety and non-contamination measures, (vii) procedures for symptom assessments, (viii) tested allergens/substances and validation procedures. On this basis, a minimal set of technical requirements for AECs applied to the field of allergology is proposed.

Treatment Effect of the Tree Pollen SLIT-Tablet on Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis During Oak Pollen Season.

BACKGROUND: Birch, alder, hazel, and oak are members of the birch homologous group based on cross-reactivity toward the birch pollen allergen Betula verrucosa 1. Theoretically, allergy to these tree pollens may be treated by immunotherapy with one representative allergen extract. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate post hoc whether treatment of birch pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with a standardized tree sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet containing birch pollen extract reduces symptoms and symptom-relieving medication use during the oak pollen season (OPS). METHODS: In a randomized, multinational, double-blind trial (EudraCT-2015-004821-15), 634 participants (ages 12-65 years) received daily tree SLIT-tablet (12 SQ-Bet) or placebo before and during tree pollen season (alder/hazel plus birch pollen season [BPS]). Symptom-relieving medication was allowed. The primary end point was the average total combined score (sum of rhinoconjunctivitis daily symptom score and daily medication score) during BPS. Outcomes during the OPS (excluding overlapping BPS days) were analyzed post hoc. RESULTS: Relative improvements in average total combined score, daily symptom score, and daily medication score with the tree SLIT-tablet versus placebo during the OPS were 25%, 22%, and 32%, respectively (all P < .001). Significant correlations were observed between birch and oak serum immunoglobulin E (sIgE) at baseline (r = 0.86) and between birch and oak IgG4 after treatment (r = 0.72). Oak sIgE and IgG4 kinetics in response to tree SLIT-tablet treatment were similar to birch. CONCLUSIONS: The tree SLIT-tablet leads to significant improvement of rhinoconjunctivitis outcomes during the OPS, supporting the clinical relevance of immunological cross-reactivity toward birch and oak allergens.

Allergy to oak pollen in North America.

Background: Oak pollen is an important allergen in North America. The genus Quercus (oak) belongs to the family Fagaceae under the order Fagales. Objective: The objective of this article was to narratively review the oak pollen season, clinical and epidemiologic aspects of allergy to oak pollen, oak taxonomy, and oak allergen cross-reactivity, with a focus on the North American perspective. Methods: A PubMed literature review (no limits) was conducted. Publications related to oak pollen, oak-related allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis, and oak-related allergic asthma were selected for review. Results: Oak species are common throughout the United States and contribute up to 50% to overall atmospheric pollen loads. Mean peak oak pollen counts can reach >2000 grains/m³. The start of the oak pollen season generally corresponds to the seasonal shift from winter to spring based on latitude and elevation, and may begin as early as mid February. The duration of the season can last > 100 days and, in general, is longer at lower latitudes. In the United States, ∼30% of individuals with allergy are sensitized to oak. The oak pollen season correlates with increased allergic rhinitis symptom-relieving medication use and asthma-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Oak falls within the birch homologous group. Extensive immunologic cross-reactivity has been demonstrated between oak pollen and birch pollen allergens, and, more specifically, their major allergens Que a 1 and Bet v 1. The cross-reactivity between oak and birch has implications for allergy immunotherapy (AIT) because guidelines suggest selecting one representative allergen within a homologous group for AIT, a principle that would apply to oak. Conclusion: Allergy to oak pollen is common in North America and has a substantial clinical impact. Oak pollen allergens are cross-reactive with birch pollen allergens, which may have implications for AIT.

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.

Clinical symptoms and biomarkers of Bermuda grass-induced allergic rhinitis using the nasal allergen challenge model.

BACKGROUND: Bermuda grass is a prevalent allergen that flourishes in tropical climates. Its exposure is traditionally believed to be low in Ontario due to the colder environment. However, high sensitization rates have been observed in Kingston, Ontario. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate whether its allergens can provoke allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms in sensitized participants from south-eastern Ontario and determine if nasal allergen challenge (NAC) model is appropriate to study Bermuda grass-induced AR. METHODS: Twenty-one participants sensitized to Bermuda grass and 12 nonallergic participants completed a titrated NAC with increasing allergen concentrations at a screening visit. Total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and peak nasal inspiratory flow were collected before allergen exposure and 10 minutes after delivery of each concentration. Twelve participants with a Bermuda grass allergy who met the qualifying criteria (TNSS ≥ 8 and peak nasal inspiratory flow fall ≥ 50%) and 11 nonallergic controls returned for single-dose NAC visit. RESULTS: At titrated NAC, 19 of 21 sensitized participants met the criteria of positive allergic response when challenged. During single-dose NAC, participants with allergy had significantly greater TNSS between 15 minutes and 3 hours after NAC than controls. Likewise, allergic participants had a significantly increased number of nasal lavage eosinophils at both 1 and 6 hours after NAC. Bermuda grass-specific immunoglobulin E was significantly increased in Bermuda grass allergic participants at NAC than screening visit. CONCLUSION: Although Bermuda grass is a non-native allergen in Ontario, it can induce AR symptoms in sensitized participants, and the NAC model is appropriate to study Bermuda grass-induced AR.

Persistence of the clinical effect of grass allergen peptide immunotherapy after the second and third grass pollen seasons.

BACKGROUND: Grass allergen peptides are in development for the treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. A previous randomized, placebo-controlled study demonstrated that grass allergen peptides significantly improved total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom scores (TRSSs) after posttreatment challenge (PTC) to rye grass in an environmental exposure unit after 1 intervening grass pollen season (GPS1). OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy/safety of 4 dosing regimens of grass allergen peptides after a second (GPS2) and third (GPS3) intervening GPS in the environmental exposure unit. METHODS: Eligible subjects who were randomized in the parent study (GPS1) during the first year of recruitment were invited to participate in GPS2 and GPS3, which took place 1 and 2 years after treatment cessation, respectively. Participants were not treated further, and both participants and study personnel remained blinded. The primary efficacy end point was the change in mean TRSS (reported every 30 minutes) from GPS1 baseline to the follow-up PTC calculated across all time points over days 2 to 4 for GPS2 and across hours 1 to 3 over days 2 to 4 for GPS3. Secondary efficacy end points and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two and 85 participants were enrolled in GPS2 and GPS3, respectively. A numerically greater, but not statistically significant improvement from baseline in mean TRSS at PTC was observed in the group receiving one 6-nmol intradermal injection every 2 weeks for 14 weeks group compared with the placebo at GPS2 (-6.0 vs -3.6, P = .0535) and GPS3 (-6.2 vs -3.6, P = .1128). Similar findings were observed for the group receiving one 6-nmol intradermal injection every 2 weeks for 14 weeks at GPS3 (-6.4 vs -3.6, P = .0759). No adverse safety signals were detected. CONCLUSION: Treatment with grass allergen peptides led to an improvement in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms after 3 intervening GPSs, corresponding to up to 2 years off treatment.

Clinical standardization of two controlled allergen challenge facilities: The Environmental Exposure Unit and the Biogenics Research Chamber.

BACKGROUND: Controlled allergen challenge facilities (CACF), in disparate geographic regions with dissimilar engineering and base populations, have historically functioned as single, independent sites in clinical allergy trials. We aimed to demonstrate "between-unit reproducibility" to allow controlled challenge trials of participants using 2 CACFs. OBJECTIVE: To compare and standardize 2 CACFs located in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and San Antonio, Texas, by examining participant-reported symptom severity during qualifying and treatment visits and evaluating response to treatment, while using the same allergen. METHODS: At 2 different CACFs, participants were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover intervention trial with cetirizine 10 mg. Different distribution devices delivered common short ragweed pollen via laminar air flow and maintained an airborne concentration of 3500 ± 700 grains/m3 in both facilities. A 1-hour "sham" run with no pollen release preceded a priming exposure of 3 hours and was followed 3 days later by a qualifying/treatment 5-hour exposure. At least 14 days later, another priming exposure was followed by the crossover exposure and treatment. RESULTS: Forty-eight and 43 subjects completed the study at Kingston and San Antonio, respectively. Demographics were similar. Fewer than 10% exhibited symptoms with sham exposure. No significant differences were found between the 2 facilities in maximal total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score, total nasal symptom score, and total ocular symptom score, nor in areas under the curve. In both facilities, no significant effects of cetirizine 10 mg over placebo were detected. CONCLUSION: The results were equivalent, demonstrating that the 2 CACFs can be used together in dual-center clinical trials and show the possibility of multicenter trials involving multiple CACFs.

Repeatability of nasal allergen challenge results: Further validation of the allergic rhinitis clinical investigator collaborative protocols.

BACKGROUND: Nasal allergen challenge (NAC) models have been used to study allergic rhinitis and new therapies. Symptoms and biological samples can be evaluated at time points after allergen exposure. OBJECTIVE: To verify protocol repeatability and adequate interval between allergen exposures. METHODS: Ten ragweed allergic participants were exposed to incrementally increasing dosages of ragweed allergen intranasally until they achieved a total nasal symptom score (TNSS) of 8 of 12 and a peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) of 50% reduction or more from baseline. Three weeks later, participants were challenged with a cumulative dose equal to the sum of all the allergen doses received at screening. TNSS and PNIF were recorded at regular intervals, including a 24-hour assessment. A subsequent visit was conducted after a further 3 weeks. Nasal secretion samples were collected for cytokine and eosinophil quantification. RESULTS: Nine participants completed all visits. TNSS and PNIF responses followed previous patterns, with an initial peak at 30 minutes followed by a gradual decline. Most participants reported similar patterns at both NAC visits, although some did not demonstrate the same phenotype at both visits. Some experienced a secondary symptom increase 24 hours after NAC. Eosinophil and cytokine sections followed a similar pattern at both NAC visits. CONCLUSION: NAC is an adequate method for modeling AR in humans, demonstrating appropriate repeatability of symptoms, nasal mucosal eosinophil, and cytokines. The 24-hour time point, previously not studied in our model, may be beneficial in evaluation of long-acting medications. This three-week interval NAC model will be beneficial for studies in which before and after treatment comparisons are desired.

Lack of effect of Timothy grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablet on birch pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in an environmental exposure unit.

BACKGROUND: Timothy grass pollen allergen extract tablets (Grastek) are standardized sublingual immunotherapy tablets (SLIT-T) approved for the treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis (AR) and conjunctivitis. Many grass allergic patients are also cosensitized to birch pollen. Whether Timothy grass SLIT-T can confer symptomatic benefits for birch pollen-induced AR symptoms is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the treatment effect of Timothy grass SLIT-T for birch pollen-induced AR in participants sensitized to both grass and birch pollen using an environmental exposure unit (EEU). METHODS: This study was a phase 4, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study that enrolled participants aged 18 to 65 years allergic to both timothy grass and birch pollen. After a baseline EEU birch pollen challenge, in which a minimum total nasal symptom score (TNSS) of 6 of 12 was required for enrollment, participants were randomized to receive Timothy grass SLIT-T or placebo taken once daily for 4 months. No confirmatory grass pollen challenge was performed. The primary end point was the change in TNSS averaged from assessments from hours 2 to 5 during the posttreatment birch pollen challenge compared with baseline. The secondary and exploratory end points included temporally identical changes in total ocular symptom score (TOSS), total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score (TRSS), and individual symptom scores. RESULTS: The difference in TNSS reduction after 4 months of therapy between the Timothy grass SLIT-T and placebo group was not significant (P = .83). Reductions in TOSS (P = .19) and TRSS (P = .67) were also comparable between groups. Findings between groups for individual symptom scores were similar (all P > .40), except for watery eyes, in which symptom reduction was slightly better in the placebo arm (P = .01). Timothy grass SLIT-T was well tolerated, and no serious adverse effects occurred. CONCLUSION: A bystander effect of grass SLIT-T on birch pollen-induced AR symptoms was not detected. Symptomatic benefits of grass SLIT-T are likely allergen specific. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02394600.

Investigating Immune Gene Signatures in Peripheral Blood from Subjects with Allergic Rhinitis Undergoing Nasal Allergen Challenge.

Nasal allergen challenge (NAC) is a human model of allergic rhinitis (AR) that delivers standardized allergens locally to the nasal mucosa allowing clinical symptoms and biospecimens such as peripheral blood to be collected. Although many studies have focused on local inflammatory sites, peripheral blood, an important mediator and a component of the systemic immune response, has not been well studied in the setting of AR. We sought to investigate immune gene signatures in peripheral blood collected after NAC under the setting of AR. Clinical symptoms and peripheral blood samples from AR subjects were collected during NAC. Fuzzy c-means clustering method was used to identify immune gene expression patterns in blood over time points (before NAC and 1, 2, and 6 h after NAC). We identified and validated seven clusters of differentially expressed immune genes after NAC onset. Clusters 2, 3, and 4 were associated with neutrophil and lymphocyte frequencies and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio after the allergen challenge. The patterns of the clusters and immune cell frequencies were associated with the clinical symptoms of the AR subjects and were significantly different from healthy nonallergic subjects who had also undergone NAC. Our approach identified dynamic signatures of immune gene expression in blood as a systemic immune response associated with clinical symptoms after NAC. The immune gene signatures may allow cross-sectional investigation of the pathophysiology of AR and may also be useful as a potential objective measurement for diagnosis and treatment of AR combined with the NAC model.

Treatment with grass allergen peptides improves symptoms of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: Synthetic peptide immunoregulatory epitopes are a new class of immunotherapy to treat allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). Grass allergen peptides, comprising 7 synthetic T-cell epitopes derived from Cyn d 1, Lol p 5, Dac g 5, Hol l 5, and Phl p 5, is investigated for treatment of grass pollen-induced ARC. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of intradermally administered grass allergen peptides. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated 3 regimens of grass allergen peptides versus placebo in patients with grass pollen-induced allergy (18-65 years). After a 4-day baseline challenge to rye grass in the environmental exposure unit (EEU), subjects were randomized to receive grass allergen peptides at 6 nmol at 2-week intervals for a total of 8 doses (8x6Q2W), grass allergen peptides at 12 nmol at 4-week intervals for a total of 4 doses (4x12Q4W), or grass allergen peptides at 12 nmol at 2-week intervals for a total of 8 doses (8x12Q2W) or placebo and treated before the grass pollen season. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score across days 2 to 4 of a 4-day posttreatment challenge (PTC) in the EEU after the grass pollen season. Secondary efficacy end points and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-two subjects were randomized. Significantly greater improvement (reduction of total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score from baseline to PTC) occurred across days 2 to 4 with grass allergen peptide 8x6Q2W versus placebo (-5.4 vs -3.8, respectively; P = .0346). Greater improvement at PTC also occurred for grass allergen peptide 8x6Q2W versus placebo (P = .0403) in patients with more symptomatic ARC. No safety signals were detected. CONCLUSION: Grass allergen peptide 8x6Q2W significantly improved ARC symptoms after rye grass allergen challenge in an EEU with an acceptable safety profile.

Efficacy of the novel nasal steroid S0597 tested in an environmental exposure unit.

BACKGROUND: S0597 is a novel glucocorticosteroid that was formulated as an intranasal spray to treat seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). In a previous phase 2 study, doses of 100 to 400 µg twice daily were well tolerated and more effective than placebo for improving nasal symptoms induced by grass pollen. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of a once-daily S0597 nasal spray for treatment of SAR induced by ragweed pollen in an environmental exposure unit (EEU). METHODS: A single-center, phase 2, randomized, double-blind study in 222 adults with SAR and a positive skin prick test result to short ragweed. Participants underwent ragweed pollen challenge in the EEU at the screening or priming visit and on days 1, 7, and 14 and received 50, 200, or 400 µg of S0597 or placebo in the evening for 13 days. The primary efficacy end point was change in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) from baseline to day 14. RESULTS: Improvement in TNSS from baseline to day 14 was statistically significant in all S0597 groups compared with placebo. Least-squares mean differences in change from baseline between active treatment and placebo were 1.18, 1.84, and 1.17 for the 50-, 200-, and 400-µg/d S0597 groups, respectively (P < .05). The 200-µg group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in all TNSS subscales (rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, sneezing, nasal itching) compared with placebo at days 7 and 14. CONCLUSION: Treatment with 50 to 400 µg of S0597 once daily was well tolerated and significantly more effective than placebo in relieving nasal symptoms of SAR associated with ragweed pollen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01940146.

Controlled Allergen Challenge Facilities and Their Unique Contributions to Allergic Rhinitis Research.

The aim of this study is to review advances in basic and clinical allergic rhinitis (AR) research over the past decade that have been conducted using controlled allergen challenge facility (CACF) models of allergen challenge. Databases, including PubMed, Medline, and Web of Science were searched for articles employing an ambient pollen exposure in a controlled facility to study AR, published between 2004 and the present date, using the terms as follows: CACF, Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU), Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC), Fraunhofer Institute Environmental Challenge Chamber, Atlanta Allergen Exposure Unit, Biogenics Research Chamber, Allergen BioCube, Chiba and Osaka Environmental Challenge Chamber, exposure unit, challenge chamber, or environmental exposure chamber. Articles were then selected for relevance to the goals of the present review, including important contributions toward clinical and/or basic science allergy research. CACFs offer sensitive, specific, and reproducible methodology for allergen challenge. They have been employed since the 1980s and offer distinct advantages over traditional in-season multicentre trials when evaluating new treatments for AR. They have provided clinically applicable efficacy and pharmacologic information about important allergy medications, including antihistamines, decongestants, antileukotrienes, immunotherapies, and nasal steroids. CACF models have also contributed to basic science and novel/experimental therapy research. To date, no direct studies have been conducted comparing outcomes from one CACF to another. Over the past decade, CACF models have played an essential role in investigating the pathophysiology of AR and evaluating new therapies. The future opportunities for this model continue to expand.