Short course of grass allergen peptides immunotherapy over 3 weeks reduces seasonal symptoms in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with/without asthma: A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy with peptide hydrolysates from Lolium perenne (LPP) is an alternative treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis with or without asthma. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of a cumulative dose of 170 µg LPP administered subcutaneously over 3 weeks. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 554 adults with grass pollen rhinoconjunctivitis were randomized (1:2 ratio) to receive 8 subcutaneous injections of placebo or 170 µg LPP administered in increasing doses in 4 visits over 3 weeks. The primary outcome was the combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) measured over the peak pollen season. Reactivity to conjunctival provocation test (CPT) and quality of life (QOL) was assessed as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: The mean reduction in CSMS in the LPP vs placebo group was -15.5% (P = .041) during the peak period and -17.9% (P = .029) over the entire pollen season. LPP-treated group had a reduced reactivity to CPT (P < .001) and, during the pollen season, a lower rhinoconjunctivitis QOL global score (P = .005) compared with placebo group. Mostly mild and WAO grade 1 early systemic reaction (ESR) were observed ≤30 minutes in 10.5% of LPP-treated patients, whereas 3 patients with a medical history of asthma (<1%) experienced a serious ESR that resolved with rescue medication. CONCLUSION: Lolium perenne pollen peptides administered over 3 weeks before the grass pollen season significantly reduced seasonal symptoms and was generally safe and well-tolerated.

EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) is an allergic disorder of the nose and eyes affecting about a fifth of the general population. Symptoms of AR can be controlled with allergen avoidance measures and pharmacotherapy. However, many patients continue to have ongoing symptoms and an impaired quality of life; pharmacotherapy may also induce some side-effects. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only currently available treatment that targets the underlying pathophysiology, and it may have a disease-modifying effect. Either the subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes may be used. This Guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on AIT for AR and is part of the EAACI presidential project "EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy." It aims to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations and has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis. Its generation has followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included involvement of the full range of stakeholders. In general, broad evidence for the clinical efficacy of AIT for AR exists but a product-specific evaluation of evidence is recommended. In general, SCIT and SLIT are recommended for both seasonal and perennial AR for its short-term benefit. The strongest evidence for long-term benefit is documented for grass AIT (especially for the grass tablets) where long-term benefit is seen. To achieve long-term efficacy, it is recommended that a minimum of 3 years of therapy is used. Many gaps in the evidence base exist, particularly around long-term benefit and use in children.

EAACI guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: Hymenoptera venom allergy.

Hymenoptera venom allergy is a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction following a honeybee, vespid, or ant sting. Systemic-allergic sting reactions have been reported in up to 7.5% of adults and up to 3.4% of children. They can be mild and restricted to the skin or moderate to severe with a risk of life-threatening anaphylaxis. Patients should carry an emergency kit containing an adrenaline autoinjector, H1 -antihistamines, and corticosteroids depending on the severity of their previous sting reaction(s). The only treatment to prevent further systemic sting reactions is venom immunotherapy. This guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on Venom Immunotherapy as part of the EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy initiative. The guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of venom immunotherapy, has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis and produced using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included representation from a range of stakeholders. Venom immunotherapy is indicated in venom-allergic children and adults to prevent further moderate-to-severe systemic sting reactions. Venom immunotherapy is also recommended in adults with only generalized skin reactions as it results in significant improvements in quality of life compared to carrying an adrenaline autoinjector. This guideline aims to give practical advice on performing venom immunotherapy. Key sections cover general considerations before initiating venom immunotherapy, evidence-based clinical recommendations, risk factors for adverse events and for relapse of systemic sting reaction, and a summary of gaps in the evidence.

Decreasing the undernotification of anaphylaxis deaths in Brazil through the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11 revision.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, an analysis of the Brazilian mortality database demonstrated undernotification of anaphylaxis deaths due, at least in part, to difficult coding under the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10. This work triggered a cascade of strategic international actions supported by the Joint Allergy Academies and the ICD World Health Organization (WHO) representatives to update the classifications of allergic disorders for the ICD-11 revision. These efforts have resulted in the construction of the new 'Allergic and hypersensitivity conditions' section under the 'Disorders of the Immune system' chapter. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the capacity of the new ICD-11 revision to capture anaphylaxis deaths. METHODS: We re-estimated the anaphylaxis deaths that occurred in Brazil during the period 2008 to 2010, utilizing this new framework and the database of the Brazilian mortality information system that had initially been extracted in May 2011. However, in 2016, a manual review of each of the 3638 records was performed. RESULTS: We identified 639 anaphylaxis deaths, of which 95% were classified as 'definitive anaphylaxis deaths'. In contrast to the 2012 published data, we found a higher number of cases; moreover, all 606 definitive anaphylaxis deaths would be considered as underlying causes of death utilizing the ICD-11 revision. CONCLUSION: This study is the first example of how the new 'Allergic and hypersensitivity conditions' section of the forthcoming ICD-11 can improve the quality of official vital statistics data and the visibility of an important public health concern. This research will facilitate comprehensive, comparable population-based epidemiologic data collection on anaphylaxis.

Field-testing the new anaphylaxis' classification for the WHO International Classification of Diseases-11 revision.

BACKGROUND: To consolidate the new classification model addressed to the allergic and hypersensitivity conditions according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11 revision timeline, we here propose real-life application of quality assurance methodology to evaluate sensitivity and accuracy of the 'Anaphylaxis' subsection. METHODS: We applied field-testing methodology by analysing all the consecutive inpatients' files documented as allergies from the University Hospital of Montpellier electronic database for the period of 1 year. The files clinically validated as being anaphylaxis were manually blind-coded under ICD-10 and current ICD-11 beta draft. The correspondence of coding and the impressions regarding sensibility were evaluated. RESULTS: From all 2318 files related to allergic or hypersensitivity conditions, 673 had some of the anaphylaxis ICD-10 codes; 309 files (46%) from 209 patients had anaphylaxis and allergic or hypersensitivity comorbidities description. The correspondence between the two coders was perfect for 162 codes from all 309 entities (52.4%) (Cohen-kappa value 0.63) with the ICD-10 and for 221 codes (71.5%) (Cohen-kappa value 0.77) with the ICD-11. There was a high agreement regarding sensibility of the ICD-11 usability (Cohen-kappa value 0.75). CONCLUSION: We here propose the first attempt of real-life application to validate the new ICD-11 'Anaphylaxis' subsection. Clearer was the improvement in accuracy reaching 71.5% of agreement when ICD-11 was used. By allowing all the relevant diagnostic terms for anaphylaxis to be included into the ICD-11 framework, WHO has recognized their importance not only to clinicians but also to epidemiologists, statisticians, healthcare planners and other stakeholders.

European Survey on Adverse Systemic Reactions in Allergen Immunotherapy (EASSI): a real-life clinical assessment.

BACKGROUND: Outside clinical trials, data on systemic reactions (SRs) due to allergen immunotherapy (AIT) are scarce. METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal, web-based survey of 'real-life' respiratory allergen immunotherapy (AIT) clinical practice was conducted in France, Germany and Spain. SRs were recorded and coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) and risk factors associated with SRs were identified. RESULTS: A total of 4316 patients (corresponding to 4363 ongoing courses of AIT) were included. A total of 109 SRs were recorded, and 90 patients (2.1%) presented at least one SR. Most of the SRs occurred in subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) (89%, n = 97). The most frequently reported symptoms were urticaria, rhinitis, dyspnoea and cough. Respiratory symptoms appeared before skin symptoms. Most SRs occurred during the up-dosing phase (75.8%) and were mild in severity (71.6%). Intramuscular adrenaline was administered in 17 SRs, but only 65% of these were subsequently classified as anaphylaxis. Independent risk factors for SRs during SCIT were as follows: the use of natural extracts (odds ratio, OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 2.74 [1.61-4.87], P = 0.001), the absence of symptomatic allergy medications (1.707 [1.008-2.892], P = 0.047), asthma diagnosis (1.74 [1.05-2.88], P = 0.03), sensitization to animal dander (1.93 [1.21-3.09], P = 0.006) or pollen (1.16 [1.03-1.30], P = 0.012) and cluster regimens (vs rush) (4.18 [1.21-14.37], P = 0.023). A previous episode of anaphylaxis increased the risk for anaphylaxis in SCIT (OR [95% CI] = 17.35 [1.91-157.28], P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: AIT for respiratory allergy is safe, with a low number of SRs observed in real-life clinical practice. A personalized analysis of risk factors could be used to minimize SRs.

Defining pollen exposure times for clinical trials of allergen immunotherapy for pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis - an EAACI position paper.

BACKGROUND: Clinical efficacy of pollen allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been broadly documented in randomized controlled trials. The underlying clinical endpoints are analysed in seasonal time periods predefined based on the background pollen concentration. However, any validated or generally accepted definition from academia or regulatory authorities for this relevant pollen exposure intensity or period of time (season) is currently not available. Therefore, this Task Force initiative of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) aimed to propose definitions based on expert consensus. METHODS: A Task Force of the Immunotherapy and Aerobiology and Pollution Interest Groups of the EAACI reviewed the literature on pollen exposure in the context of defining relevant time intervals for evaluation of efficacy in AIT trials. Underlying principles in measuring pollen exposure and associated methodological problems and limitations were considered to achieve a consensus. RESULTS: The Task Force achieved a comprehensive position in defining pollen exposure times for different pollen types. Definitions are presented for 'pollen season', 'high pollen season' (or 'peak pollen period') and 'high pollen days'. CONCLUSION: This EAACI position paper provides definitions of pollen exposures for different pollen types for use in AIT trials. Their validity as standards remains to be tested in future studies.

Biomarkers for monitoring clinical efficacy of allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and allergic asthma: an EAACI Position Paper.

BACKGROUND: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is an effective treatment for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) with or without asthma. It is important to note that due to the complex interaction between patient, allergy triggers, symptomatology and vaccines used for AIT, some patients do not respond optimally to the treatment. Furthermore, there are no validated or generally accepted candidate biomarkers that are predictive of the clinical response to AIT. Clinical management of patients receiving AIT and efficacy in randomised controlled trials for drug development could be enhanced by predictive biomarkers. METHOD: The EAACI taskforce reviewed all candidate biomarkers used in clinical trials of AR patients with/without asthma in a literature review. Biomarkers were grouped into seven domains: (i) IgE (total IgE, specific IgE and sIgE/Total IgE ratio), (ii) IgG-subclasses (sIgG1, sIgG4 including SIgE/IgG4 ratio), (iii) Serum inhibitory activity for IgE (IgE-FAB and IgE-BF), (iv) Basophil activation, (v) Cytokines and Chemokines, (vi) Cellular markers (T regulatory cells, B regulatory cells and dendritic cells) and (vii) In vivo biomarkers (including provocation tests?). RESULTS: All biomarkers were reviewed in the light of their potential advantages as well as their respective drawbacks. Unmet needs and specific recommendations on all seven domains were addressed. CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended to explore the use of allergen-specific IgG4 as a biomarker for compliance. sIgE/tIgE and IgE-FAB are considered as potential surrogate candidate biomarkers. Cytokine/chemokines and cellular reponses provided insight into the mechanisms of AIT. More studies for confirmation and interpretation of the possible association with the clinical response to AIT are needed.

Allergen immunotherapy for insect venom allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of insect venom allergy. To inform this process, we sought to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of insect venom allergy. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review, which involved searching 15 international biomedical databases for published and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened and critically appraised using established instruments. Data were descriptively summarized and, where possible, meta-analysed. RESULTS: Our searches identified a total of 16 950 potentially eligible studies; of which, 17 satisfied our inclusion criteria. The available evidence was limited both in volume and in quality, but suggested that venom immunotherapy (VIT) could substantially reduce the risk of subsequent severe systemic sting reactions (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.03-0.26); meta-analysis showed that it also improved disease-specific quality of life (risk difference = 1.41, 95% CI 1.04-1.79). Adverse effects were experienced in both the build-up and maintenance phases, but most were mild with no fatalities being reported. The very limited evidence found on modelling cost-effectiveness suggested that VIT was likely to be cost-effective in those at high risk of repeated systemic sting reactions and/or impaired quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The limited available evidence suggested that VIT is effective in reducing severe subsequent systemic sting reactions and in improving disease-specific quality of life. VIT proved to be safe and no fatalities were recorded in the studies included in this review. The cost-effectiveness of VIT needs to be established.

Allergen exposure chambers: harmonizing current concepts and projecting the needs for the future - an EAACI Position Paper.

BACKGROUND: Allergen exposure chambers (AECs) are clinical facilities allowing for controlled exposure of subjects to allergens in an enclosed environment. AECs have contributed towards characterizing the pathophysiology of respiratory allergic diseases and the pharmacological properties of new therapies. In addition, they are complementary to and offer some advantages over traditional multicentre field trials for evaluation of novel therapeutics. To date, AEC studies conducted have been monocentric and have followed protocols unique to each centre. Because there are technical differences among AECs, it may be necessary to define parameters to standardize the AECs so that studies may be extrapolated for driving basic immunological research and for marketing authorization purposes by regulatory authorities. METHODS: For this task force initiative of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), experts from academia and regulatory agencies met with chamber operators to list technical, clinical and regulatory unmet needs as well as the prerequisites for clinical validation. RESULTS: The latter covered the validation process, standardization of challenges and outcomes, intra- and interchamber variability and reproducibility, in addition to comparability with field trials and specifics of paediatric trials and regulatory issues. CONCLUSION: This EAACI Position Paper aims to harmonize current concepts in AECs and to project unmet needs with the intent to enhance progress towards use of these facilities in determining safety and efficacy of new therapeutics in the future.

Optimization and simplification of the Allergic and Hypersensitivity conditions classification for the ICD-11.

BACKGROUND: Since 2013, an international collaboration of Allergy Academies, including first the World Allergy Organization (WAO), the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI), and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), and then the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI), the Latin American Society of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (SLAAI), and the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (APAAACI), has spent tremendous efforts to have a better and updated classification of allergic and hypersensitivity conditions in the forthcoming International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11 version by providing evidences and promoting actions for the need for changes. The latest action was the implementation of a classification proposal of hypersensitivity/allergic diseases built by crowdsourcing the Allergy Academy leaderships. METHODS: Following bilateral discussions with the representatives of the ICD-11 revision, a face-to-face meeting was held at the United Nations Office in Geneva and a simplification process of the hypersensitivity/allergic disorders classification was carried out to better fit the ICD structure. RESULTS: We are here presenting the end result of what we consider to be a model of good collaboration between the World Health Organization and a specialty. CONCLUSION: We strongly believe that the outcomes of all past and future actions will impact positively the recognition of the allergy specialty as well as the quality improvement of healthcare system for allergic and hypersensitivity conditions worldwide.

Specific allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic eczema: a Cochrane systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is an effective allergy treatment, but it is unclear whether SIT is effective for atopic eczema (AE). We undertook a systematic review to assess SIT efficacy and safety for treating AE. METHODS: We searched databases, ongoing clinical trials registers, and conference proceedings up to July 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SIT using standardized allergen extracts, compared with placebo/control, for treating AE in patients with allergic sensitization were eligible. RESULTS: We identified 12 eligible trials with 733 participants. Interventions included subcutaneous (six trials), sublingual (four trials), oral or intradermal SIT in children/adults allergic to house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen or other inhalants. Risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow-up and nonblinding as the main concerns. For our primary outcomes, three studies (208 participants) reported no significant difference - patient-reported global disease severity improvement RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.45, 1.26); and eczema symptoms mean difference -0.74 on a 20-point scale (95% CI -1.98, 0.50). Two studies (85 participants) reported a significant difference - SIT improved global disease severity RR 2.85 (95% CI 1.02, 7.96); and itch mean difference -4.20 on a 10-point scale (95% CI -3.69, -4.71). Meta-analysis was limited due to extreme statistical heterogeneity. For some secondary outcomes, meta-analyses showed benefits for SIT, for example investigator-rated improvement in eczema severity RR 1.48 (95% CI 1.16, 1.88; six trials, 262 participants). We found no evidence of adverse effects. The overall quality of evidence was low. CONCLUSION: We found no consistent evidence that SIT is effective for treating AE, but due to the low quality of evidence further research is needed to establish whether SIT has a role in AE treatment.

Effector cell signature in peripheral blood following nasal allergen challenge in grass pollen allergic individuals.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have demonstrated the time course of inflammatory mediators in nasal fluids following nasal allergen challenge (NAC), whereas the effects of NAC on cells in the periphery are unknown. We examined the time course of effector cell markers (for basophils, dendritic cells and T cells) in peripheral blood after nasal grass pollen allergen challenge. METHODS: Twelve participants with seasonal allergic rhinitis underwent a control (diluent) challenge followed by NAC after an interval of 14 days. Nasal symptoms and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) were recorded along with peripheral basophil, T-cell and dendritic cell responses (flow cytometry), T-cell proliferative responses (thymidine incorporation), and cytokine expression (FluoroSpot assay). RESULTS: Robust increases in nasal symptoms and decreases in PNIF were observed during the early (0-1 h) response and modest significant changes during the late (1-24 h) response. Sequential peaks in peripheral blood basophil activation markers were observed (CD107a at 3 h, CD63 at 6 h, and CD203c(bright) at 24 h). T effector/memory cells (CD4(+) CD25(lo) ) were increased at 6 h and accompanied by increases in CD80(+) and CD86(+) plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs). Ex vivo grass antigen-driven T-cell proliferative responses and the frequency of IL-4(+) CD4(+) T cells were significantly increased at 6 h after NAC when compared to the control day. CONCLUSION: Basophil, T-cell, and dendritic cell activation increased the frequency of allergen-driven IL-4(+) CD4(+) T cells, and T-cell proliferative responses are detectable in the periphery after NAC. These data confirm systemic cellular activation following a local nasal provocation.

Clinical contraindications to allergen immunotherapy: an EAACI position paper.

Clinical indications for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in respiratory and Hymenoptera venom allergy are well established; however, clinical contraindications to AIT are not always well documented. There are some discrepancies when classifying clinical contraindications for different forms of AIT as 'absolute' or 'relative'. EAACI Task Force on 'Contraindications to AIT' was created to evaluate and review current literature on clinical contraindications, and to update recommendations for both sublingual and subcutaneous AIT for respiratory and venom immunotherapy. An extensive review of the literature was performed on the use of AIT in asthma, autoimmune disorders, malignant neoplasias, cardiovascular diseases, acquired immunodeficiencies and other chronic diseases (including mental disorders), in patients treated with ß-blockers, ACE inhibitors or monoamine oxidase inhibitors, in children under 5 years of age, during pregnancy and in patients with poor compliance. Each topic was addressed by the following three questions: (1) Are there any negative effects of AIT on this concomitant condition/disease? (2) Are more frequent or more severe AIT-related side-effects expected? and (3) Is AIT expected to be less efficacious? The evidence, for the evaluation of these clinical conditions as contraindications, was limited, and most of the conclusions were based on case reports. Based on an extended literature research, recommendations for each medical condition assessed are provided. The final decision on the administration of AIT should be based on individual evaluation of any medical condition and a risk/benefit assessment for each patient.

Constructing a classification of hypersensitivity/allergic diseases for ICD-11 by crowdsourcing the allergist community.

The global allergy community strongly believes that the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) offers a unique opportunity to improve the classification and coding of hypersensitivity/allergic diseases via inclusion of a specific chapter dedicated to this disease area to facilitate epidemiological studies, as well as to evaluate the true size of the allergy epidemic. In this context, an international collaboration has decided to revise the classification of hypersensitivity/allergic diseases and to validate it for ICD-11 by crowdsourcing the allergist community. After careful comparison between ICD-10 and 11 beta phase linearization codes, we identified gaps and trade-offs allowing us to construct a classification proposal, which was sent to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) sections, interest groups, executive committee as well as the World Allergy Organization (WAO), and American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) leaderships. The crowdsourcing process produced comments from 50 of 171 members contacted by e-mail. The classification proposal has also been discussed at face-to-face meetings with experts of EAACI sections and interest groups and presented in a number of business meetings during the 2014 EAACI annual congress in Copenhagen. As a result, a high-level complex structure of classification for hypersensitivity/allergic diseases has been constructed. The model proposed has been presented to the WHO groups in charge of the ICD revision. The international collaboration of allergy experts appreciates bilateral discussion and aims to get endorsement of their proposals for the final ICD-11.

A comparative analysis of symptom and medication scoring methods used in clinical trials of sublingual immunotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Symptom and medication use are the key outcomes for assessing the efficacy of subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT). Our objective was to explore the similarities and differences between existing scoring mechanisms used in clinical trials of SLIT for seasonal allergens and characterize the impact that such differences may have on efficacy reporting. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy of SLIT for seasonal allergic rhinitis (2009-2013) were selected for review. Simulated and published data were used to demonstrate differences in scoring methods. Symptom and medication scoring methods across trials, although all designed to achieve the same objective, included important differences. The maximum daily symptom score (DSS) can vary widely depending on the number of symptoms assessed, and terminology of symptoms is not consistent. Similarly, daily medication scoring (DMS) methods differ greatly among studies and are dependent on medications allowed and weighting of scores assigned to each medication. When published DSS and DMS scores were used to calculate simulated daily combined scores (DCSs) based on various published methods, changes from placebo ranged from 19% to 29% when assuming all variables other than the DSS and DMS methods were equal. Variations in trial design, analysis, and seasonal characteristics also have effects on symptom and medication scoring outcomes. We identified multiple differences in trial scoring methods and design that make comparison among trials difficult. Symptom, medication, or combined scores cannot be indirectly compared among trials without taking the methods of scoring and other trial differences into account.

Global classification and coding of hypersensitivity diseases - An EAACI - WAO survey, strategic paper and review.

Hypersensitivity diseases are not adequately coded in the International Coding of Diseases (ICD)-10 resulting in misclassification, leading to low visibility of these conditions and general accuracy of official statistics. To call attention to the inadequacy of the ICD-10 in relation to allergic and hypersensitivity diseases and to contribute to improvements to be made in the forthcoming revision of ICD, a web-based global survey of healthcare professionals' attitudes toward allergic disorders classification was proposed to the members of European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) (individuals) and World Allergy Organization (WAO) (representative responding on behalf of the national society), launched via internet and circulated for 6 week. As a result, we had 612 members of 144 countries from all six World Health Organization (WHO) global regions who answered the survey. ICD-10 is the most used classification worldwide, but it was not considered appropriate in clinical practice by the majority of participants. The majority indicated the EAACI-WAO classification as being easier and more accurate in the daily practice. They saw the need for a diagnostic system useful for nonallergists and endorsed the possibility of a global, cross-culturally applicable classification system of allergic disorders. This first and most broadly international survey ever conducted of health professionals' attitudes toward allergic disorders classification supports the need to update the current classifications of allergic diseases and can be useful to the WHO in improving the clinical utility of the classification and its global acceptability for the revised ICD-11.

Recommendations for the standardization of clinical outcomes used in allergen immunotherapy trials for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: an EAACI Position Paper.

BACKGROUND: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been thoroughly documented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It is the only immune-modifying and causal treatment available for patients suffering from IgE-mediated diseases such as allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, allergic asthma and insect sting allergy. However, there is a high degree of clinical and methodological heterogeneity among the endpoints in clinical studies on AIT, for both subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy (SCIT and SLIT). At present, there are no commonly accepted standards for defining the optimal outcome parameters to be used for both primary and secondary endpoints. METHODS: As elaborated by a Task Force (TF) of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Immunotherapy Interest Group, this Position Paper evaluates the currently used outcome parameters in different RCTs and also aims to provide recommendations for the optimal endpoints in future AIT trials for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. RESULTS: Based on a thorough literature review, the TF members have outlined recommendations for nine domains of clinical outcome measures. As the primary outcome, the TF recommends a homogeneous combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) as a simple and standardized method that balances both symptoms and the need for antiallergic medication in an equally weighted manner. All outcomes, grouped into nine domains, are reviewed. CONCLUSION: A standardized and globally harmonized method for analysing the clinical efficacy of AIT products in RCTs is required. The EAACI TF highlights the CSMS as the primary endpoint for future RCTs in AIT for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Tolerability during double-blind randomized phase I trials with the house dust mite allergy immunotherapy tablet in adults and children.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The orodispersible house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet (ALK, Denmark) is being developed for the treatment of HDM respiratory allergic disease. The objective of the 2 phase I trials was to investigate tolerability and the acceptable dose range of HDM SLIT-tablet treatment in adults and children with HDM respiratory allergic disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The trials were randomized, multiple-dose, dose-escalation, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase I trials including patients with HDM-induced asthma, with or without rhinoconjunctivitis. Both trials were registered in EudraCT (Trial 1: 2005-002151-41; Trial 2: 2007-000402-67). Trial 1 included 71 adults (18-63 years) and trial 2 included 72 children (5-14 years). Both trials included 6 dose groups that were randomized 3:1 to active treatment or placebo once daily for 28 days. Adverse events (AEs) were coded in MedDRA (version 8.1 or later). Immunological variables included specific IgE and IgE-blocking factor. RESULTS: No serious AEs were reported. In trial 1 (maximum dose, 32 development units [DU]), 1 patient in the 16 DU group discontinued due to AEs. The entire 32 DU group was discontinued as 1 patient had a severe adverse reaction. In trial 2 (maximum dose, 12 DU), no patients discontinued prematurely. The most frequently reported AEs were mild application-site related events. The total number of events was dose-related within each trial. HDM SLIT-tablet treatment induced changes in immunological parameters in a dose-dependent manner. CONCLUSIONS: These trials demonstrate that doses up to 12 DU of HDM SLIT-tablet were tolerated in the selected populations, and thus are suitable for further clinical investigations in adults and children with HDM respiratory allergic disease.