Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies on allergen immunotherapy.

Nonrandomized studies (NRS) on allergen immunotherapy (AIT) particularly lend themselves to evaluate outcomes that are insufficiently addressed in randomized controlled studies (RCTs). However, NRS are prone to several sources of bias, which limit their validity. We aimed at comparing AIT effects between RCTs and NRS and evaluate the reasons for discrepancies in study results. In this analysis, we compared NRS on AIT (including subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy, SCIT and SLIT, respectively) with SLIT and SCIT RCTs from published meta-analyses, assessing the Risk of Bias (RoB) for each study and the certainty of evidence from NRS and RCTs using the GRADE approach. We found: (1) very serious RoB in the 7 NRS included in the meta-analysis showing a large difference between AIT and controls (standardized mean difference [SMD] for symptom score [SS], -1.77; 95% CI, -2.30, -1.24; p < .001; I2 = 95%) with very low certainty evidence; (2) serious RoB in the 13 SCIT-RCTs reporting a moderate-to-high difference between SCIT and controls (SMD for SS, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.12, -0.49; p < .001; I2 = 88%) with moderate certainty evidence; (3) low RoB in the 13 SLIT-RCTs reporting a small benefit (SMD for SS, -0.28; 95% CI, -0.37, -0.19; p < .001; I2 = 54.2%) with high certainty evidence. Similar results were reported for medication score. Our evidence is sufficient to conclude that the magnitude of effect estimates of NRS and RCTs directly correlate with the degree of RoB and inversely with the overall evidence certainty. NRS, which are more affected than RCTs by bias resulting in low certainty evidence, showed the largest effect size. Sound NRS are needed to complement RCTs.

Toward clinically applicable biomarkers for asthma: An EAACI position paper.

Inflammation, structural, and functional abnormalities within the airways are key features of asthma. Although these processes are well documented, their expression varies across the heterogeneous spectrum of asthma. Type 2 inflammatory responses are characterized by increased levels of eosinophils, FeNO, and type 2 cytokines in blood and/or airways. Presently, type 2 asthma is the best-defined endotype, typically found in patients with allergic asthma, but surprisingly also in nonallergic patients with (severe) asthma. The etiology of asthma with non-type 2 inflammation is less clear. During the past decade, targeted therapies, including biologicals and small molecules, have been increasingly integrated into treatment strategies of severe asthma. These treatments block specific inflammatory pathways or single mediators. Single or composite biomarkers help to identify patients who will benefit from these treatments. So far, only a few inflammatory biomarkers have been validated for clinical application. The European Academy of Allergy & Clinical Immunology Task Force on Biomarkers in Asthma was initiated to review different biomarker sampling methods and to investigate clinical applicability of new and existing inflammatory biomarkers (point-of-care) to support diagnosis, targeted treatment, and monitoring of severe asthma. Subsequently, we discuss existing and novel targeted therapies for asthma as well as applicable biomarkers.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Italian Healthcare Workers: Latent Profiles and Their Relationships to Predictors and Outcome.

Vaccine hesitancy and conspiracy beliefs among healthcare workers (HCWs) represent operational priorities that require urgent attention. Identifying and classifying specific subpopulation of hesitancy is crucial to customize educational and intervention strategies to enhance the acceptance and uptake rate of vaccination. Thus, the main purpose of our study was to empirically identify latent profiles of vaccine hesitancy among Italian HCWs adopting a person-centered approach and investigating their relationships with antecedents and intention to get a fourth dose of COVID-19 vaccine. We conducted latent profile analyses (LPA) to identify different configurations of vaccine hesitancy based on five antecedents of vaccination: confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility among a sample of Italian HCWs (n = 573). LPA revealed four distinct profiles: believer (61.5%), middler (24.7%), hesitant (9.00%), and rejecter (4.7%). Having conspiracy beliefs was associated with a greater likelihood of membership in all but believer. Finally, the likelihood of intention to get a fourth dose of COVID-19 vaccine was lowest in the rejector and hesitant profiles. Theoretical contributions and implications for practice are discussed.

Exercise-induced anaphylaxis with an Ayurvedic drug as cofactor: A case report.

BACKGROUND: The practice of Indian Ayurvedic medicine is spreading in Western countries and Shilajit is one of the most used drugs, for its antioxidant activities and immunomodulatory effects. Albeit Shilajit has showed a high degree of safety, it can act as cofactor of anaphylaxis, especially in condition at high risk, such as mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS). We reported this case to sensitize practitioners to investigate to the use of complementary and alternative medicine, in case of exercise-induced anaphylaxis (EIAn). CASE SUMMARY: A 43-year-old woman, working as a dance teacher, developed urticaria after ingestion of rice, tuna and Shilajit, which did not respond to intramuscular corticosteroids. Subsequently, she developed dyspnoea and hypotension with loss of consciousness that arose 1 h after sexual activity. The patient did not refer personal history of atopy. Specific IgE for main food allergens resulted negative, with total IgE levels of 14 IU/L. Oral provocation test with Shilajit was not perfomed because the patient refused, but we performed prick-by-prick and patch test that resulted negative. Serum tryptase at the time of anaphylaxis was 20.6 µg/L that fell down to of 10.6 µg/L after therapy, but has remained at the high value after two days and during the follow-up. We performed an analysis of the c-KIT gene in peripheral blood, which was negative. We felt the diagnosis consistent with EIAn in a patient with a possible MCAS. CONCLUSION: In Western countries the use of drugs from Ayurvedic medicine is more common than in the past. These substances can be cofactors of anaphylaxis in patients with risk factors.