National clinical practice guidelines for allergen immunotherapy: An international assessment applying AGREE-II.

BACKGROUND: Since 1988, numerous allergen immunotherapy guidelines (AIT-GLs) have been developed by national and international organizations to guide physicians in AIT. Even so, AIT is still severely underused. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate AIT-GLs with AGREE-II, developed in 2010 by McMaster University methodologists to comprehensively evaluate GL quality. METHODS: Allergist, from different continents, knowledgeable in AIT and AGREE-II trained were selected into the project team. The project received methodologists' guidance. AIT-GLs in any language were sought from 1980 to 2016; AIT-GLs were AGREE II-evaluated by at least 2 team members, independently; discrepancies were resolved in a second round, by team discussion or methodologists' consulting. RESULTS: We found 31 AIT-GLs (15 post-2010), ranging from local consensus reports to international position papers (EAACI, AAAAI-ACAAI, WAO). Pre-2010 GLs scored 1.6-4.6 (23%-67%) and post-2010 GLs scored 2.1-6 (30%-86%), on a 7-point Likert scale. The highest scores went to: German-Austrian-Swiss (6.0), Mexican (5.1), and the AAAAI/ACAAI AIT-GL (4.7). These were also the only 3 GLs that received "yes" of both evaluators to the item: "I would recommend this GL for use." The domains of "Stakeholder involvement" and "Rigor of Development" only scored 3/7, and "Applicability" scored the lowest. Strikingly, newer GLs only scored clearly better in "Editorial independence" and "Global evaluation." CONCLUSIONS: In AIT-GLs, there is still a lot of room for improvement, especially in domains crucial for the dissemination. For some GLs, the "Scientific rigor" domain flawed. When resources are limited, transculturizing a high-quality GL might be preferable over developing a GL from zero. Our study and AGREE-II could help to select the best candidate. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: We here evaluate allergen immunotherapy guideline (AIT-GL) quality. Only high-quality AIT-GLs should be consulted for AIT management decisions. In low-resource settings, transculturization of these is preferred over developing low-quality guidelines.

Recommendations for the prevention and diagnosis of asthma in children: Evidence from international guidelines adapted for Mexico.

BACKGROUND: With the availability of high-quality asthma guidelines worldwide, one possible approach of developing a valid guideline, without re-working the evidence, already analysed by major guidelines, is the ADAPTE approach, as was used for the development of National Guidelines on asthma. METHODS: The guidelines development group (GDG) covered a broad range of experts from medical specialities, primary care physicians and methodologists. The core group of the GDG searched the literature for asthma guidelines 2005 onward, and analysed the 11 best guidelines with AGREE-II to select three mother guidelines. Key clinical questions were formulated covering each step of the asthma management. RESULTS: The selected mother guidelines are British Thoracic Society (BTS), GINA and GEMA 2015. Responses to the questions were formulated according to the evidence in the mother guidelines. Recommendations or suggestions were made for asthma treatment in Mexico by the core group, and adjusted during several rounds of a Delphi process, taking into account: 1. Evidence; 2. Safety; 3. Cost; 4. Patient preference - all these set against the background of the local reality. Here the detailed analysis of the evidence present in BTS/GINA/GEMA sections on prevention and diagnosis in paediatric asthma are presented for three age-groups: children with asthma ≤5 years, 6-11 years and ≥12 years. CONCLUSIONS: For the prevention and diagnosis sections, applying the AGREE-II method is useful to develop a scientifically-sustained document, adjusted to the local reality per country, as is the Mexican Guideline on Asthma.

Similar biological activity in skin prick test for Oralair® (8200 BAU) and Grazax® (6200 BAU) reinforces effective SLIT dosing level.

In Europe, allergen extracts are standardized based on skin prick wheal size in 20-30 allergic subjects. To understand the biological activity of clinically effective Sublingual immunotherapy, we used this method to determine the biological activity of solution and tablet Timothy grass pollen (TIM) extracts, compared to an FDA-approved extract (Reference) of 10 000 BAU/ml. Blinded, quadruplicate skin prick tests with concentrate and three serial half-log dilutions allowed the construction of a semilogarithmic regression line per extract. Bioequivalent allergy units (BAU) values were obtained from the comparison with reference. Extracts and dilutions showed a neat linear dose response (all: R2 > 0.98) in 33 rhinitis patients. Relative potencies: Staloral® 12 000 BAU/ml, Soluprick® 10 300 BAU/ml, Oralair® 8200 BAU, and Grazax® 6200 BAU. Even though all extract concentrates differed in wheal size (P = 0.01-0.001), Grazax® producing a 25% smaller wheal size than Oralair® , and the biological activity of these clinically effective TIM tablets led in the same range (6200-8200 BAU; 0.92-1.23 cm2 ). SLIT dose-finding studies for other pollens might start with allergen extracts producing 1.1 cm2 wheal surface.