Global assessment of the knowledge and confidence in managing allergic disorders among primary care pediatricians across Europe: An EAACI task force report.

BACKGROUND: Pediatricians are often the first point of contact for children in Primary Care (PC), but still perceive gaps in their allergy knowledge. We investigated self-perceived knowledge gaps and educational needs in pediatricians across healthcare systems in Europe so that future educational initiatives may better support the delivery of allergy services in PC. METHOD: A multinational survey was circulated to pediatricians who care for children and adolescents with allergy problems in PC by the EAACI Allergy Educational Needs in Primary Care Pediatricians Task Force from February to March 2023. A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess the level of agreement with questionnaire statements. Thirty surveys per country were the cut-off for inclusion and statistical analysis. RESULTS: In this study, 1991 respondents were obtained from 56 countries across Europe and 210 responses were from countries with a cut-off below 30 participants per country. Primary care pediatricians (PCPs) comprised 74.4% of the respondents. The majority (65.3%) were contracted to state or district health services. 61.7% had awareness of guidelines for onward allergy referral in their countries but only 22.3% were aware of the EAACI competencies document for allied health professionals for allergy. Total sample respondents versus PCPs showed 52% and 47% of them have access to allergy investigations in their PC facility (mainly specific IgE and skin prick tests); 67.6% and 58.9% have access to immunotherapy, respectively. The main barrier to referral to a specialist was a consideration that the patient's condition could be diagnosed and treated in this PC facility, (57.8% and 63.6% respectively). The main reasons for referral were the need for hospital assessment, and partial response to first-line treatment (55.4% and 59.2%, 47% and 50.7%, respectively). Learning and assessment methods preference was fairly equally divided between Traditional methods (45.7% and 50.1% respectively) and e-learning 45.5% and 44.9%, respectively. Generalist physicians (GPs) have the poorest access to allergy investigations (32.7%, p = .000). The majority of the total sample (91.9%) assess patients with allergic pathology. 868 (43.6%) and 1117 (46.1%), received allergy training as undergraduates and postgraduates respectively [these proportions in PCPs were higher (45% and 59%), respectively]. PCPs with a special interest in allergology experienced greater exposure to allergy teaching as postgraduates. GPs received the largest amount of allergy teaching as undergraduates. Identifying allergic disease based on clinical presentation, respondents felt most confident in the management of eczema/atopic dermatitis (87.4%) and rhinitis/asthma (86.2%), and least confident in allergen immunotherapy (36.9%) and latex allergy (30.8%). CONCLUSION: This study exploring the confidence of PCPs to diagnose, manage, and refer patients with allergies, demonstrated knowledge gaps and educational needs for allergy clinical practice. It detects areas in need of urgent improvement especially in latex and allergen immunotherapy. It is important to ensure the dissemination of allergy guidelines and supporting EAACI documents since the majority of PCPs lack awareness of them. This survey has enabled us to identify what the educational priorities of PCPs are and how they would like to have them met.

Promoting and achieving excellence in the delivery of Integrated Allergy Care: the European Academy of Allergy & Clinical Immunology competencies for allied health professionals working in allergy.

The multi-disciplinary team approach is an effective model for patient care. Allied health professionals (AHPs) are an important part of such teams, bringing specific knowledge and skills related to the target patient population. The AHPs most often involved in allergy care are nurses and dietitians. Nurses are often involved in the care of patients with all types of allergy and also with asthma, whilst allergy-specialist dietitians provide vital nutritional and dietary support for the diagnosis and management of food allergy. There are many other AHPs who have a role to play in allergy care, including physiotherapists, psychologists, pharmacists and speech therapists, and their involvement is likely to develop as allergy care becomes more rooted in the community. With the development of multi-professional teams comes the requirement for disease-specific knowledge and skill sets, with all allergy team members required to have baseline knowledge and competency of the condition being managed. Whilst some competencies for AHPs practising in other disease states have been published, none are available for allergic disease against which AHPs can be benchmarked. The European Academy of Allergy & Clinical Immunology (EAACI) recognised this need, and supported the establishment of a Task Force to develop allergy-focussed competencies for AHPs. The varied skills, expertise and professional background of the Task Force members enabled the creation of a set of allergy competencies relevant to all AHPs working in allergy. It is recognised that the training and allergy expertise of AHPs, and their role within the allergy setting, will vary considerably depending on the country. However, it is important for patient care, that all AHP involved in allergy services have access to training, of a sufficiently high enough level to be aspirational and enable the continued growth and development of a wide range of allergy services, given the increasing need. The EAACI competencies will provide an important benchmark for allergy knowledge and skills against which education and training can be designed and health care professionals can subsequently be measured. However, more importantly, the EAACI AHP allergy competencies will enable the development and reach of specialist allergy services, with allergy-specialist AHPs undertaking key roles, especially in the community care setting.

The urgent need for a harmonized severity scoring system for acute allergic reactions.

The accurate assessment and communication of the severity of acute allergic reactions are important to patients, clinicians, researchers, the food industry, and public health and regulatory authorities. Severity has different meanings to different stakeholders with patients and clinicians rating the significance of particular symptoms very differently. Many severity scoring systems have been generated, most focusing on the severity of reactions following exposure to a limited group of allergens. They are heterogeneous in format, none has used an accepted developmental approach, and none has been validated. Their wide range of outcome formats has led to difficulties with interpretation and application. Therefore, there is a persisting need for an appropriately developed and validated severity scoring system for allergic reactions that work across the range of allergenic triggers and address the needs of different stakeholder groups. We propose a novel approach to develop and then validate a harmonized scoring system for acute allergic reactions, based on a data-driven method that is informed by clinical and patient experience and other stakeholders' perspectives. We envisage two formats: (i) a numerical score giving a continuum from mild to severe reactions that are clinically meaningful and are useful for allergy healthcare professionals and researchers, and (ii) a three-grade-based ordinal format that is simple enough to be used and understood by other professionals and patients. Testing of reliability and validity of the new approach in a range of settings and populations will allow eventual implementation of a standardized scoring system in clinical studies and routine practice.

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.

Allergen manufacturing and quality aspects for allergen immunotherapy in Europe and the United States: An analysis from the EAACI AIT Guidelines Project.

Adequate quality is essential for any medicinal product to be eligible for marketing. Quality includes verification of the identity, content and purity of a medicinal product in combination with a specified production process and its control. Allergen products derived from natural sources require particular considerations to ensure adequate quality. Here, we describe key aspects of the documentation on manufacturing and quality aspects for allergen immunotherapy products in the European Union and the United States. In some key parts, requirements in these areas are harmonized while other fields are regulated separately between both regions. Essential differences are found in the use of Reference Preparations, or the requirement to apply standardized assays for potency determination. As the types of products available are different in specific regions, regulatory guidance for such products may also be available in one specific region only, such as for allergoids in the European Union. Region-specific issues and priorities are a result of this. As allergen products derived from natural sources are inherently variable in their qualitative and quantitative composition, these products present special challenges to balance the variability and ensuring batch-to-batch consistency. Advancements in scientific knowledge on specific allergens and their role in allergic disease will consequentially find representation in future regulatory guidelines.

EAACI Guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: IgE-mediated food allergy.

Food allergy can result in considerable morbidity, impairment of quality of life, and healthcare expenditure. There is therefore interest in novel strategies for its treatment, particularly food allergen immunotherapy (FA-AIT) through the oral (OIT), sublingual (SLIT), or epicutaneous (EPIT) routes. This Guideline, prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Task Force on Allergen Immunotherapy for IgE-mediated Food Allergy, aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for active treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy with FA-AIT. Immunotherapy relies on the delivery of gradually increasing doses of specific allergen to increase the threshold of reaction while on therapy (also known as desensitization) and ultimately to achieve post-discontinuation effectiveness (also known as tolerance or sustained unresponsiveness). Oral FA-AIT has most frequently been assessed: here, the allergen is either immediately swallowed (OIT) or held under the tongue for a period of time (SLIT). Overall, trials have found substantial benefit for patients undergoing either OIT or SLIT with respect to efficacy during treatment, particularly for cow's milk, hen's egg, and peanut allergies. A benefit post-discontinuation is also suggested, but not confirmed. Adverse events during FA-AIT have been frequently reported, but few subjects discontinue FA-AIT as a result of these. Taking into account the current evidence, FA-AIT should only be performed in research centers or in clinical centers with an extensive experience in FA-AIT. Patients and their families should be provided with information about the use of FA-AIT for IgE-mediated food allergy to allow them to make an informed decision about the therapy.

Challenges in the implementation of the EAACI AIT guidelines: A situational analysis of current provision of allergen immunotherapy.

PURPOSE: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) has produced Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT). We sought to gauge the preparedness of primary care to participate in the delivery of AIT in Europe. METHODS: We undertook a mixed-methods, situational analysis. This involved a purposeful literature search and two surveys: one to primary care clinicians and the other to a wider group of stakeholders across Europe. RESULTS: The 10 papers identified all pointed out gaps or deficiencies in allergy care provision in primary care. The surveys also highlighted similar concerns, particularly in relation to concerns about lack of knowledge, skills, infrastructural weaknesses, reimbursement policies and communication with specialists as barriers to evidence-based care. Almost all countries (92%) reported the availability of AIT. In spite of that, only 28% and 44% of the countries reported the availability of guidelines for primary care physicians and specialists, respectively. Agreed pathways between specialists and primary care physicians were reported as existing in 32%-48% of countries. Reimbursement appeared to be an important barrier as AIT was only fully reimbursed in 32% of countries. Additionally, 44% of respondents considered accessibility to AIT and 36% stating patient costs were barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Successful working with primary care providers is essential to scaling-up AIT provision in Europe, but to achieve this, the identified barriers must be overcome. Development of primary care interpretation of guidelines to aid patient selection, establishment of disease management pathways and collaboration with specialist groups are required as a matter of urgency.

Challenges in the implementation of EAACI guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: A global perspective on the regulation of allergen products.

Regulatory approaches for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) products and the availability of high-quality AIT products are inherently linked to each other. While allergen products are available in many countries across the globe, their regulation is very heterogeneous. First, we describe the regulatory systems applicable for AIT products in the European Union (EU) and in the United States (US). For Europe, a depiction of the different types of relevant procedures, as well as the committees involved, is provided and the fundamental role of national agencies of the EU member states in this complex and unique network is highlighted. Furthermore, the regulatory agencies from Australia, Canada, Japan, Russia, and Switzerland provided information on the system implemented in their countries for the regulation of allergen products. While AIT products are commonly classified as biological medicinal products, they are made available by varying types of procedures, most commonly either by obtaining a marketing authorization or by being distributed as named patient products. Exemptions from marketing authorizations in exceptional cases, as well as import of allergen products from other countries, are additional tools applied by countries to ensure availability of needed AIT products. Several challenges for AIT products are apparent from this analysis and will require further consideration.

Results of an allergy educational needs questionnaire for primary care.

It is well recognized that knowledge of allergic conditions is suboptimal in primary care. The Primary Care Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology undertook an educational needs survey to better understand what they were and how best to meet them, in the primary care environment. An electronic questionnaire was devised and distributed as widely as possible. A total of 2226 people from 63 countries opened the e-questionnaire of which 692 provided evaluable responses. In total, 81% were medical doctors with 299 possessing additional qualifications. Self-declared gaps in knowledge were expressed for most manifestations of allergy with a correspondingly high self-expressed educational need. The preferred learning modalities were online guidelines (69.6%) and courses (68.8%) followed closely by workshops (68%), structured online modules (63.9%) and small local working groups (59.75%). Podcasts and webinars scored poorly with only 25% expressing these as preferred learning modes although there was an age gradient. The preferred electronic platform was the personal computer (82.6%). A better understanding of the needs of primary care should help guide the design of educational initiatives to meet those needs.

Allergy management in primary care across European countries -- actual status.

The standard of care for allergies within a primary care (PC) setting has a strong influence on disease prevention and control, quality of life, and patient satisfaction. The level of knowledge of allergic diseases and the accessibility to regular follow-up are essential. EAACI and IPCRG conducted a survey to evaluate the actual status of care for allergic diseases in PC. Access to allergy and asthma specialist treatment was identified as the greatest 'unmet need'. The average waiting time between a referral and being seen in a public health service is usually >6 weeks. Referring the patients to an 'organ' specialist is much easier compared with referral to an allergist. Most PCPs have access to blood tests for total and specific IgE. Skin prick testing is available in only half of the cases, while provocation tests, allergen quantification in homes, and a dietician service are even less available. 20.6% of practices do not have access to allergy tests at all. Other issues raised were low political or general public awareness, lack of understanding by the patients of their allergic disease, the need to invest in PC, and to achieve sufficient competence at the appropriate level of care.