Induction of IL-10-producing type 2 innate lymphoid cells by allergen immunotherapy is associated with clinical response.

The role of innate immune cells in allergen immunotherapy that confers immune tolerance to the sensitizing allergen is unclear. Here, we report a role of interleukin-10-producing type 2 innate lymphoid cells (IL-10+ ILC2s) in modulating grass-pollen allergy. We demonstrate that KLRG1+ but not KLRG1- ILC2 produced IL-10 upon activation with IL-33 and retinoic acid. These cells attenuated Th responses and maintained epithelial cell integrity. IL-10+ KLRG1+ ILC2s were lower in patients with grass-pollen allergy when compared to healthy subjects. In a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we demonstrated that the competence of ILC2 to produce IL-10 was restored in patients who received grass-pollen sublingual immunotherapy. The underpinning mechanisms were associated with the modification of retinol metabolic pathway, cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction, and JAK-STAT signaling pathways in the ILCs. Altogether, our findings underscore the contribution of IL-10+ ILC2s in the disease-modifying effect by allergen immunotherapy.

IL-1ß, IL-4 and IL-12 control the fate of group 2 innate lymphoid cells in human airway inflammation in the lungs.

Group 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2s) secrete type 2 cytokines, which protect against parasites but can also contribute to a variety of inflammatory airway diseases. We report here that interleukin 1ß (IL-1ß) directly activated human ILC2s and that IL-12 induced the conversion of these activated ILC2s into interferon-γ (IFN-γ)-producing ILC1s, which was reversed by IL-4. The plasticity of ILCs was manifested in diseased tissues of patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), which displayed IL-12 or IL-4 signatures and the accumulation of ILC1s or ILC2s, respectively. Eosinophils were a major cellular source of IL-4, which revealed cross-talk between IL-5-producing ILC2s and IL-4-producing eosinophils. We propose that IL-12 and IL-4 govern ILC2 functional identity and that their imbalance results in the perpetuation of type 1 or type 2 inflammation.

Human IL-25- and IL-33-responsive type 2 innate lymphoid cells are defined by expression of CRTH2 and CD161.

Innate lymphoid cells (ILCs) are emerging as a family of effectors and regulators of innate immunity and tissue remodeling. Interleukin 22 (IL-22)- and IL-17-producing ILCs, which depend on the transcription factor RORγt, express CD127 (IL-7 receptor α-chain) and the natural killer cell marker CD161. Here we describe another lineage-negative CD127(+)CD161(+) ILC population found in humans that expressed the chemoattractant receptor CRTH2. These cells responded in vitro to IL-2 plus IL-25 and IL-33 by producing IL-13. CRTH2(+) ILCs were present in fetal and adult lung and gut. In fetal gut, these cells expressed IL-13 but not IL-17 or IL-22. There was enrichment for CRTH2(+) ILCs in nasal polyps of chronic rhinosinusitis, a typical type 2 inflammatory disease. Our data identify a unique type of human ILC that provides an innate source of T helper type 2 (T(H)2) cytokines.

Mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (SYNAPSE): In-depth sinus surgery analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) often require repeat sinus surgery. Mepolizumab reduced the need for sinus surgery in the SYNAPSE trial; this analysis sought to provide a more in-depth assessment of surgery endpoints in SYNAPSE. METHODS: SYNAPSE was a double-blind Phase III trial (NCT03085797) in adults with recurrent, refractory, severe, CRSwNP eligible for repeat sinus surgery despite standard of care treatments and previous surgery. Patients were randomized (1:1) to mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneously or placebo, plus standard of care, every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. Time to first inclusion on a waiting list for sinus surgery and time to first actual sinus surgery (both up to week 52) were assessed; the latter endpoint was also analyzed post hoc according to time since last sinus surgery before study screening and baseline blood eosinophil count. RESULTS: Among 407 patients (mepolizumab: 206; placebo: 201), mepolizumab versus placebo reduced the risk of being included on a waiting list for sinus surgery (week 52 Kaplan-Meier probability estimate [95% confidence interval]: 13.9% [9.8%, 19.5%] vs. 28.5% [22.7%, 35.4%]). Mepolizumab versus placebo reduced the risk of sinus surgery irrespective of time (<3 vs ≥3 years) since patients' last sinus surgery prior to study screening (hazard ratios [95% confidence intervals] 0.28 [0.09, 0.84] and 0.50 [0.26, 0.98], respectively) and baseline blood eosinophil count. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab reduced the risk of further sinus surgery in patients with recurrent, refractory, severe CRSwNP, irrespective of the patient baseline characteristics assessed.

Two-year results of tapered dupilumab for CRSwNP demonstrates enduring efficacy established in the first 6 months.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is an anti-T2-inflammatory biological registered for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), indicated by integrated CRS-care pathways when optimal medico-surgical treatment yields insufficient CRS control. This study aims to evaluate long-term results with focus on established therapeutic efficacy while tapering dupilumab. METHODS: Real-life, prospective observational cohort study in single tertiary referral center with add-on dupilumab as primary biological treatment in adult (≥18 years) biological-naïve CRSwNP patients per the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS)2020-indication with a 2-year follow-up. Tapering (increasing interdose interval) applied every 24 weeks, conditional to sufficient treatment response and CRS control. RESULTS: Mean scores (s.d.) of all co-primary outcomes improved significantly from baseline ( 228) to the 48 ( 214) and 96-weeks ( 99) timepoints: Nasal Polyp Score (0-8) improved from 5,3 (1,9) to 1,4 (1,8) and 1,3 (1,7); SinoNasal Outcome Test (SNOT)-22 (0-110) improved from 53,6 (19,6) to 20,2 (15,4) and 21,2 (15,6); Sniffin'Sticks-12 identification test (0-12; 0-6 anosmia, 7-10 hyposmia, 11-12 normosmia) improved from 3,7 (2,4) to 7,7 (2,9) and 7,3 (3,04); Asthma Control Test (5-25; >19 indicating well-controlled asthma) improved from 18,5 (4,8) to 21,8 (3,8) and 21,4 (3,9). Tapering was feasible in 79,5% of the patients at the 24-weeks timepoint, and in 93,7% and 95,8% at the 48- and 96-weeks timepoints, respectively. One-way repeated-measures ANOVA demonstrated no significant alterations of individual co-primary outcome mean-scores from 24 weeks onward. CONCLUSION: This first long-term real-life prospective observational cohort study shows high therapeutic efficacy of dupilumab for severe CRswNP in the first 2 years. Therapeutic efficacy is principally established within 24 weeks and endures while tapering dupilumab conditional to treatment response and CRS control.

European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology position paper on endoscopic scoring of nasal polyposis.

Nasal endoscopy is not only used for the diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), but also for monitoring the response to therapy playing an important role in both daily practice and research. In contrast to patient-reported outcomes, endoscopic nasal polyp scoring by independent blinded readers is an objective measurement, not influenced by the placebo effect. It is safer and cheaper compared with computed tomography imaging and therefore, better suited for regular assessments of the extent of the disease. Since the early 90s, a variety of endoscopic staging methods have been proposed and used in clinical research, making it hard to compare results from different studies. This paper resulted from a task force with experts in the field of CRSwNP, originated by the Ear, Nose and Throat section of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and aims to provide a unified endoscopic NP scoring system that can serve as a reference standard for researchers, but also as a useful tool for practitioners involved in the management of CRSwNP.

Consistent trajectories of rhinitis control and treatment in 16,177 weeks: The MASK-air® longitudinal study.

INTRODUCTION: Data from mHealth apps can provide valuable information on rhinitis control and treatment patterns. However, in MASK-air®, these data have only been analyzed cross-sectionally, without considering the changes of symptoms over time. We analyzed data from MASK-air® longitudinally, clustering weeks according to reported rhinitis symptoms. METHODS: We analyzed MASK-air® data, assessing the weeks for which patients had answered a rhinitis daily questionnaire on all 7 days. We firstly used k-means clustering algorithms for longitudinal data to define clusters of weeks according to the trajectories of reported daily rhinitis symptoms. Clustering was applied separately for weeks when medication was reported or not. We compared obtained clusters on symptoms and rhinitis medication patterns. We then used the latent class mixture model to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS: We analyzed 113,239 days (16,177 complete weeks) from 2590 patients (mean age ± SD = 39.1 ± 13.7 years). The first clustering algorithm identified ten clusters among weeks with medication use: seven with low variability in rhinitis control during the week and three with highly-variable control. Clusters with poorly-controlled rhinitis displayed a higher frequency of rhinitis co-medication, a more frequent change of medication schemes and more pronounced seasonal patterns. Six clusters were identified in weeks when no rhinitis medication was used, displaying similar control patterns. The second clustering method provided similar results. Moreover, patients displayed consistent levels of rhinitis control, reporting several weeks with similar levels of control. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 16 patterns of weekly rhinitis control. Co-medication and medication change schemes were common in uncontrolled weeks, reinforcing the hypothesis that patients treat themselves according to their symptoms.

Tranexamic acid for the reduction of bleeding during functional endoscopic sinus surgery.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis, with or without nasal polyps, can have a major impact on a person's quality of life. Treatment is usually conservative and may include nasal saline, intranasal corticosteroids, antibiotics or systemic corticosteroids. If these treatments fail endoscopic sinus surgery can be considered. During surgery, visibility of the surgical field is important for the identification of important anatomic landmarks and structures that contribute to safety. Impaired visualisation can lead to complications during surgery, inability to complete the operation or a longer duration of surgery. Different methods are used to decrease intraoperative bleeding, including induced hypotension, topical or systemic vasoconstrictors or total intravenous anaesthesia. Another option is tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic agent, which can be administered topically or intravenously. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of peri-operative tranexamic acid versus no therapy or placebo on operative parameters in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (with or without nasal polyps) who are undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 10 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intravenous, oral or topical tranexamic acid with no therapy or placebo in the treatment of patients (adults and children) with chronic rhinosinusitis, with or without nasal polyps, undergoing FESS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcome measures were surgical field bleeding score (e.g. Wormald or Boezaart grading system), intraoperative blood loss and significant adverse effects (seizures or thromboembolism within 12 weeks of surgery). Secondary outcomes were duration of surgery, incomplete surgery, surgical complications and postoperative bleeding (placing of packing or revision surgery) in the first two weeks after surgery. We performed subgroup analyses for methods of administration, different dosages, different forms of anaesthesia, use of thromboembolic prophylaxis and children versus adults. We evaluated each included study for risk of bias and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies in the review, with a total of 942 participants. Sample sizes in the included studies ranged from 10 to 170. All but two studies included adult patients (≥ 18 years). Two studies included children. Most studies had more male patients (range 46.6% to 80%). All studies were placebo-controlled and four studies had three treatment arms. Three studies investigated topical tranexamic acid; the other studies reported the use of intravenous tranexamic acid. For our primary outcome, surgical field bleeding score measured with the Boezaart or Wormald grading score, we pooled data from 13 studies. The pooled result demonstrated that tranexamic acid probably reduces the surgical field bleeding score, with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of -0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.51; 13 studies, 772 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A SMD below -0.70 represents a large effect (in either direction). Tranexamic acid may result in a slight reduction in blood loss during surgery compared to placebo with a mean difference (MD) of -70.32 mL (95% CI -92.28 to -48.35 mL; 12 studies, 802 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tranexamic acid probably has little to no effect on the development of significant adverse events (seizures or thromboembolism) within 24 hours of surgery, with no events in either group and a risk difference (RD) of 0.00 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 8 studies, 664 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there were no studies reporting significant adverse event data with a longer duration of follow-up. Tranexamic acid probably results in little difference in the duration of surgery with a MD of -13.04 minutes (95% CI -19.27 to -6.81; 10 studies, 666 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Tranexamic acid probably results in little to no difference in the incidence of incomplete surgery, with no events in either group and a RD of 0.00 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.09; 2 studies, 58 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and likely results in little to no difference in surgical complications, again with no events in either group and a RD of 0.00 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.09; 2 studies, 58 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although these numbers are too small to draw robust conclusions. Tranexamic acid may result in little to no difference in the likelihood of postoperative bleeding (placement of packing or revision surgery within three days of surgery) (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; 6 studies, 404 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no studies with longer follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence to support the beneficial value of topical or intravenous tranexamic acid during endoscopic sinus surgery with respect to surgical field bleeding score. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests a slight decrease in total blood loss during surgery and duration of surgery. Whilst there is moderate-certainty evidence that tranexamic acid does not lead to more immediate significant adverse events compared to placebo, there is no evidence regarding the risk of serious adverse events more than 24 hours after surgery. There is low-certainty evidence that tranexamic acid may not change postoperative bleeding. There is not enough evidence available to draw robust conclusions about incomplete surgery or surgical complications.

The prevalence of non-allergic rhinitis phenotypes in the general population: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) can be subdivided into several phenotypes: rhinorrhea of the elderly, rhinitis medicamentosa, smokers', occupational, hormonal, drug-induced, gustatory, and idiopathic rhinitis. There are two pathophysiological endotypes of NAR: inflammatory and neurogenic. Phenotypes may serve as an indicator of an underlying endotype and, therefore, help to guide the treatment. The prevalence of each phenotype in the general population is currently unknown. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL: Cross-sectional questionnaire-based study in the general population of the Netherlands. RESULTS: The prevalence of chronic rhinitis in the general population was 40% (N = 558, of those, 65% had NAR and 28% AR, in 7% allergy status is unknown). Individuals with NAR (N = 363) had significantly more complaints in October-February. Those with AR (N = 159) had significantly more complaints in April-August. The most common NAR phenotypes were idiopathic (39%) and rhinitis medicamentosa (14%), followed by occupational (8%), smokers' (6%), hormonal (4%), gustatory (4%), and rhinorrhea of the elderly (4%). The least prevalent phenotype was drug induced (1%). Nineteen percent of the NAR group could not be classified into any of the phenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to describe the prevalences of NAR phenotypes in the general population. AR and NAR have a distinct seasonality pattern with NAR being more prevalent in autumn/winter and AR in spring/summer. Our data on the prevalence of phenotypes may help clinicians to anticipate the type of patients at their clinic and help guide a tailored treatment approach. The high prevalence of rhinitis medicamentosa is alarming, since this is a potentially preventable phenotype.

Updates in biologic therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and NSAID-exacerbated respiratory disease.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) associated with type 2 inflammation and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-exacerbated respiratory disease (N-ERD) can be difficult to control with standard medical therapy and sinus surgery. In this group, biologicals are potentially promising treatment options. The phase III clinical trials for omalizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab and benralizumab in CRSwNP have demonstrated favourable outcomes. Moving forward, direct comparisons among biologicals, refining patient selection criteria for specific biologicals, determining optimal treatment duration and monitoring long-term outcomes are areas of emerging interest. This review summarizes the clinical evidence from the recent 2 years on the role of biologicals in severe CRSwNP and N-ERD, and proposes an approach towards decision-making in their use.

Comparison of rhinitis treatments using MASK-air® data and considering the minimal important difference.

BACKGROUND: Different treatments exist for allergic rhinitis (AR), including pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy (AIT), but they have not been compared using direct patient data (i.e., "real-world data"). We aimed to compare AR pharmacological treatments on (i) daily symptoms, (ii) frequency of use in co-medication, (iii) visual analogue scales (VASs) on allergy symptom control considering the minimal important difference (MID) and (iv) the effect of AIT. METHODS: We assessed the MASK-air® app data (May 2015-December 2020) by users self-reporting AR (16-90 years). We compared eight AR medication schemes on reported VAS of allergy symptoms, clustering data by the patient and controlling for confounding factors. We compared (i) allergy symptoms between patients with and without AIT and (ii) different drug classes used in co-medication. RESULTS: We analysed 269,837 days from 10,860 users. Most days (52.7%) involved medication use. Median VAS levels were significantly higher in co-medication than in monotherapy (including the fixed combination azelastine-fluticasone) schemes. In adjusted models, azelastine-fluticasone was associated with lower average VAS global allergy symptoms than all other medication schemes, while the contrary was observed for oral corticosteroids. AIT was associated with a decrease in allergy symptoms in some medication schemes. A difference larger than the MID compared to no treatment was observed for oral steroids. Azelastine-fluticasone was the drug class with the lowest chance of being used in co-medication (adjusted OR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.71-0.80). CONCLUSION: Median VAS levels were higher in co-medication than in monotherapy. Patients with more severe symptoms report a higher treatment, which is currently not reflected in guidelines.

Behavioural patterns in allergic rhinitis medication in Europe: A study using MASK-air® real-world data.

BACKGROUND: Co-medication is common among patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), but its dimension and patterns are unknown. This is particularly relevant since AR is understood differently across European countries, as reflected by rhinitis-related search patterns in Google Trends. This study aims to assess AR co-medication and its regional patterns in Europe, using real-world data. METHODS: We analysed 2015-2020 MASK-air® European data. We compared days under no medication, monotherapy and co-medication using the visual analogue scale (VAS) levels for overall allergic symptoms ('VAS Global Symptoms') and impact of AR on work. We assessed the monthly use of different medication schemes, performing separate analyses by region (defined geographically or by Google Trends patterns). We estimated the average number of different drugs reported per patient within 1 year. RESULTS: We analysed 222,024 days (13,122 users), including 63,887 days (28.8%) under monotherapy and 38,315 (17.3%) under co-medication. The median 'VAS Global Symptoms' was 7 for no medication days, 14 for monotherapy and 21 for co-medication (p < .001). Medication use peaked during the spring, with similar patterns across different European regions (defined geographically or by Google Trends). Oral H1 -antihistamines were the most common medication in single and co-medication. Each patient reported using an annual average of 2.7 drugs, with 80% reporting two or more. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic rhinitis medication patterns are similar across European regions. One third of treatment days involved co-medication. These findings suggest that patients treat themselves according to their symptoms (irrespective of how they understand AR) and that co-medication use is driven by symptom severity.

Evaluating enrollment and outcome criteria in trials of biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) generally involves intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) and saline irrigation, followed by short courses of systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or surgery with postoperative medical therapy for patients who do not respond to INCS. However, both SCS use and surgery are associated with a range of adverse effects or complications, have a high recurrence rate, and are unsuitable for some patients. Biologics targeting the underlying pathophysiology are promising treatment alternatives for these patients. Dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab are approved for use in patients with severe, uncontrolled CRSwNP. However, the lack of a consistent definition of severe CRSwNP makes the decision to initiate biologic treatment particularly complex. Furthermore, the position of each biologic in the overall management of CRSwNP remains to be clarified. DATA SOURCES: Publications reporting results of phase III trials of dupilumab, omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab in the treatment of CRSwNP. STUDY SELECTIONS: Randomized, controlled phase III trials of biologics approved for CRSwNP. RESULTS: These trials all used different enrollment criteria. We discuss the complexities of assessing CRSwNP disease severity and highlight how these impact comparisons of the populations and outcomes of the phase III biologic trials. CONCLUSION: To position biologic agents appropriately within the existing CRSwNP treatment paradigm, future trials will need to include comparable patient populations and standardized outcome measures. Such trials will help to ensure that biologic treatment is targeted appropriately to support optimal clinical outcomes.

Highlights in the advances of chronic rhinosinusitis.

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a complex upper airway inflammatory disease with a broad spectrum of clinical variants. As our understanding of the disease pathophysiology evolves, so too does our philosophy towards the approach and management of CRS. Endotyping is gaining favour over phenotype-based classifications, owing to its potential in prognosticating disease severity and delivering precision treatment. Endotyping is especially useful in challenging CRS with nasal polyposis cases, for whom novel treatment options such as biologicals are now available. The latest European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS2020) reflects these changes with updated rhinosinusitis classifications and new integrated care pathways. With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, physicians and rhinologists have to balance the responsibility of managing their patients' upper airway while adequately protecting themselves from droplet and aerosol transmission. This review summarises the key updates from EPOS2020, endotype-based classification and biomarkers. The role of biologicals in CRS and the lessons we can draw from their use in severe asthma will be examined. Finally, the principles of CRS management during COVID-19 will also be discussed.

Management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis during the COVID-19 pandemic-An EAACI position paper.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis is regarded as a chronic airway disease. According to WHO recommendations, it may be a risk factor for COVID-19 patients. In most CRSwNP cases, the inflammatory changes affecting the nasal and paranasal mucous membranes are type-2 (T2) inflammation endotypes. METHODS: The current knowledge on COVID-19 and on treatment options for CRS was analyzed by a literature search in Medline, Pubmed, international guidelines, the Cochrane Library and the Internet. RESULTS: Based on international literature, on current recommendations by WHO and other international organizations as well as on previous experience, a panel of experts from EAACI and ARIA provided recommendations for the treatment of CRS during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Intranasal corticosteroids remain the standard treatment for CRS in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Surgical treatments should be reduced to a minimum and surgery preserved for patients with local complications and for those with no other treatment options. Systemic corticosteroids should be avoided. Treatment with biologics can be continued with careful monitoring in noninfected patients and should be temporarily interrupted during the course of the COVID-19 infection.

Vaccines and allergic reactions: The past, the current COVID-19 pandemic, and future perspectives.

Vaccines are essential public health tools with a favorable safety profile and prophylactic effectiveness that have historically played significant roles in reducing infectious disease burden in populations, when the majority of individuals are vaccinated. The COVID-19 vaccines are expected to have similar positive impacts on health across the globe. While serious allergic reactions to vaccines are rare, their underlying mechanisms and implications for clinical management should be considered to provide individuals with the safest care possible. In this review, we provide an overview of different types of allergic adverse reactions that can potentially occur after vaccination and individual vaccine components capable of causing the allergic adverse reactions. We present the incidence of allergic adverse reactions during clinical studies and through post-authorization and post-marketing surveillance and provide plausible causes of these reactions based on potential allergenic components present in several common vaccines. Additionally, we review implications for individual diagnosis and management and vaccine manufacturing overall. Finally, we suggest areas for future research.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals for severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: A systematic review for the EAACI guidelines.

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy and safety of biologicals for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) compared with the standard of care. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs. Critical and important CRSwNP-related outcomes were considered. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. RCTs evaluated (dupilumab-2, omalizumab-4, mepolizumab-2, and reslizumab-1) included 1236 adults, with follow-up of 20-64 weeks. Dupilumab reduces the need for surgery (NFS) or oral corticosteroid (OCS) use (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.20-0.39, moderate certainty) and improves with high certainty smell evaluated with UPSIT score (mean difference (MD) +10.54; 95% CI +9.24 to +11.84) and quality of life (QoL) evaluated with SNOT-22 (MD -19.14; 95% CI -22.80 to -15.47), with fewer treatment-related adverse events (TAEs) (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.89-1.02, moderate certainty). Omalizumab reduces NFS (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.78-0.92, high certainty), decreases OCS use (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.10-1.38, moderate certainty), and improves high certainty smell (MD +3.84; 95% CI +3.64 to +4.04) and QoL (MD -15.65; 95% CI -16.16 to -15.13), with increased TAE (RR 1.73; 95% CI 0.60-5.03, moderate certainty). There is low certainty for mepolizumab reducing NFS (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.64-0.94) and improving QoL (MD -13.3; 95% CI -23.93 to -2.67) and smell (MD +0.7; 95% CI -0.48 to +1.88), with increased TAEs (RR 1.64; 95% CI 0.41-6.50). The evidence for reslizumab is very uncertain.

ARIA digital anamorphosis: Digital transformation of health and care in airway diseases from research to practice.

Digital anamorphosis is used to define a distorted image of health and care that may be viewed correctly using digital tools and strategies. MASK digital anamorphosis represents the process used by MASK to develop the digital transformation of health and care in rhinitis. It strengthens the ARIA change management strategy in the prevention and management of airway disease. The MASK strategy is based on validated digital tools. Using the MASK digital tool and the CARAT online enhanced clinical framework, solutions for practical steps of digital enhancement of care are proposed.

COVID-19 pandemic: Practical considerations on the organization of an allergy clinic-An EAACI/ARIA Position Paper.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has evolved into a pandemic infectious disease transmitted by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Allergists and other healthcare providers (HCPs) in the field of allergies and associated airway diseases are on the front line, taking care of patients potentially infected with SARS-CoV-2. Hence, strategies and practices to minimize risks of infection for both HCPs and treated patients have to be developed and followed by allergy clinics. METHOD: The scientific information on COVID-19 was analysed by a literature search in MEDLINE, PubMed, the National and International Guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Cochrane Library, and the internet. RESULTS: Based on the diagnostic and treatment standards developed by EAACI, on international information regarding COVID-19, on guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organizations, and on previous experience, a panel of experts including clinicians, psychologists, IT experts, and basic scientists along with EAACI and the "Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)" initiative have developed recommendations for the optimal management of allergy clinics during the current COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations are grouped into nine sections on different relevant aspects for the care of patients with allergies. CONCLUSIONS: This international Position Paper provides recommendations on operational plans and procedures to maintain high standards in the daily clinical care of allergic patients while ensuring the necessary safety measures in the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Differentiation of COVID-19 signs and symptoms from allergic rhinitis and common cold: An ARIA-EAACI-GA2 LEN consensus.

BACKGROUND: Although there are many asymptomatic patients, one of the problems of COVID-19 is early recognition of the disease. COVID-19 symptoms are polymorphic and may include upper respiratory symptoms. However, COVID-19 symptoms may be mistaken with the common cold or allergic rhinitis. An ARIA-EAACI study group attempted to differentiate upper respiratory symptoms between the three diseases. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was used. The ARIA members who were seeing COVID-19 patients were asked to fill in a questionnaire on the upper airway symptoms of COVID-19, common cold and allergic rhinitis. RESULTS: Among the 192 ARIA members who were invited to respond to the questionnaire, 89 responded and 87 questionnaires were analysed. The consensus was then reported. A two-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in the symptom intensity between the three diseases (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This modified Delphi approach enabled the differentiation of upper respiratory symptoms between COVID-19, the common cold and allergic rhinitis. An electronic algorithm will be devised using the questionnaire.