Updated grading system for systemic allergic reactions: Joint Statement of the World Allergy Organization Anaphylaxis Committee and Allergen Immunotherapy Committee.

There is a lack of consensus over the description and severity assignment of allergic adverse reactions to immunotherapy, although there seems to be a consensus at least in terms of using the World Allergy Organization (WAO) grading systems to describe local adverse events for Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT) and Systemic Allergic Reactions (SARs) to Subcutaneous Immunotherapy (SCIT) amongst the major national/regional allergy societies. In this manuscript, we propose a modification of the previous WAO Grading system for SARs, which aligns with the newly-proposed Consortium for Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions in Food Allergy (version 3.0). We hope this can facilitate a unified grading system appropriate to SARs due to allergen immunotherapy, independent of allergen and route of administration, and across clinical and research practice.

Fatal and Near-Fatal Anaphylaxis: Data From the European Anaphylaxis Registry and National Health Statistics.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is a serious systemic reaction-data on fatal and near-fatal reactions are limited. OBJECTIVE: To better understand clinical patterns and risks factors of severe anaphylaxis by a deep analysis of data from fatal and near-fatal anaphylaxis. METHODS: Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry on fatal/near-fatal anaphylactic reactions and national data on anaphylaxis fatalities were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 305 fatal/near-fatal reactions among children and adults including 35 fatalities from the European Anaphylaxis Registry were identified. The most frequent elicitors were drugs, insects, and food. Male patients (66%/60%) were more frequently affected. Male sex, higher age, concomitant mastocytosis, and cardiovascular disease were associated with a more severe outcome. With increasing reaction severity, skin symptoms were less frequently observed (45% of fatal reactions). In parallel, anaphylaxis mortality rates were studied. The data show that anaphylaxis mortality rates increased in Germany from 0.48 (2009) to 0.59 per 1,000,000 population per year (2020). This increase was apparent only in the female population. In this data set, drugs were the most frequent elicitor of anaphylaxis fatalities, and the rate for this increased over time. CONCLUSIONS: We identified not only elicitors but also individual factors to be associated with an increased risk of fatal anaphylaxis. Such patients should be recognized and managed with great caution. The increase in drug-induced fatalities points to the need for a better allergological care of patients suffering from drug hypersensitivity.

Global disparities in availability of epinephrine auto-injectors.

Background: Anaphylaxis is the most severe clinical presentation of acute systemic allergic reactions and can cause death. Given the prevalence of anaphylaxis within healthcare systems, it is a high priority public health issue. However, management of anaphylaxis - both acute and preventative - varies by region. Methods: The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Anaphylaxis Committee and the WAO Junior Members Steering Group undertook a global online survey to evaluate local practice in the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis across regions. Results: Responses were received from WAO members in 66 countries. While intramuscular epinephrine (adrenaline) is first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, some countries continue to recommend alternative routes in contrast to guidelines. Epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) devices, prescribed to individuals at ongoing risk of anaphylaxis in the community setting, are only available in 60% of countries surveyed, mainly in high-income countries. Many countries in South America, Africa/Middle-East and Asian-Pacific regions do not have EAI available, or depend on individual importation. In countries where EAIs are commercially available, national policies regarding the availability of EAIs in public settings are limited to few countries (16%). There is no consensus regarding the time patients should be observed following emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. Conclusion: This survey provides a global snapshot view of the current management of anaphylaxis, and highlights key unmet needs including the global availability of epinephrine for self-injection as a key component of anaphylaxis management.

Refractory Anaphylaxis: A New Entity for Severe Anaphylaxis.

Anaphylaxis reactions lie on a spectrum of severity, ranging from relatively mild lower respiratory involvement (depending on the definition of anaphylaxis used) to more severe reactions that are refractory to initial treatment with epinephrine and may rarely cause death. A variety of grading scales exist to characterize severe reactions, but there is a lack of consensus about the optimal approach to define severity. More recently, a new entity called refractory anaphylaxis (RA) has emerged in the literature, characterized by the persistence of anaphylaxis despite initial epinephrine treatment. However, slightly different definitions have been proposed to date. In this Rostrum, we review these definitions as well as data relating to epidemiology, elicitors, risk factors, and management of RA. We propose a need to align the different definitions for RA, to improve epidemiological surveillance, advance our understanding of the pathophysiology of RA, and optimize management strategies to reduce morbidity and mortality.

Patient-centered digital biomarkers for allergic respiratory diseases and asthma: The ARIA-EAACI approach - ARIA-EAACI Task Force Report.

Biomarkers for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with rhinitis and/or asthma are urgently needed. Although some biologic biomarkers exist in specialist care for asthma, they cannot be largely used in primary care. There are no validated biomarkers in rhinitis or allergen immunotherapy (AIT) that can be used in clinical practice. The digital transformation of health and health care (including mHealth) places the patient at the center of the health system and is likely to optimize the practice of allergy. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) and EAACI (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) developed a Task Force aimed at proposing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as digital biomarkers that can be easily used for different purposes in rhinitis and asthma. It first defined control digital biomarkers that should make a bridge between clinical practice, randomized controlled trials, observational real-life studies and allergen challenges. Using the MASK-air app as a model, a daily electronic combined symptom-medication score for allergic diseases (CSMS) or for asthma (e-DASTHMA), combined with a monthly control questionnaire, was embedded in a strategy similar to the diabetes approach for disease control. To mimic real-life, it secondly proposed quality-of-life digital biomarkers including daily EQ-5D visual analogue scales and the bi-weekly RhinAsthma Patient Perspective (RAAP). The potential implications for the management of allergic respiratory diseases were proposed.

WAO consensus on DEfinition of Food Allergy SEverity (DEFASE).

Background: While several scoring systems for the severity of anaphylactic reactions have been developed, there is a lack of consensus on definition and categorisation of severity of food allergy disease as a whole. Aim: To develop an international consensus on the severity of food allergy (DEfinition of Food Allergy Severity, DEFASE) scoring system, to be used globally. Methods Phase 1: We conducted a mixed-method systematic review (SR) of 11 databases for published and unpublished literature on severity of food allergy management and set up a panel of international experts. Phase 2: Based on our findings in Phase 1, we drafted statements for a two-round modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) survey. A purposefully selected multidisciplinary international expert panel on food allergy (n = 60) was identified and sent a structured questionnaire, including a set of statements on different domains of food allergy severity related to symptoms, health-related quality of life, and economic impact. Participants were asked to score their agreement on each statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Median scores and percentage agreements were calculated. Consensus was defined a priori as being achieved if 70% or more of panel members rated a statement as "strongly agree" to "agree" after the second round. Based on feedback, 2 additional online voting rounds were conducted. Results: We received responses from 92% of Delphi panel members in round 1 and 85% in round 2. Consensus was achieved on the overall score and in all of the 5 specific key domains as essential components of the DEFASE score. Conclusions: The DEFASE score is the first comprehensive grading of food allergy severity that considers not only the severity of a single reaction, but the whole disease spectrum. An international consensus has been achieved regarding a scoring system for food allergy disease. It offers an evaluation grid, which may help to rate the severity of food allergy. Phase 3 will involve validating the scoring system in research settings, and implementing it in clinical practice.

Latin American anaphylaxis registry.

Background: Recent data about clinical features, triggers and management of anaphylaxis in Latin America is lacking. Objective: To provide updated and extended data on anaphylaxis in this region. Method: An online questionnaire was used, with 67 allergy units involved from 12 Latin-American countries and Spain. Among data recorded, demographic information, clinical features, severity, triggering agents, and treatment were received. Results: Eight hundred and seventeen anaphylactic reactions were recorded. No difference in severity, regardless of pre-existing allergy or asthma history was found. Drug induced anaphylaxis (DIA) was most frequent (40.6%), followed by food induced anaphylaxis (FIA) (32.9%) and venom induced anaphylaxis (VIA) (12%). FIA and VIA were more common in children-adolescents. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and beta-lactam antibiotics (BLA) were the most frequent drugs involved. Milk (61.1% of FIA) and egg (15.4% of FIA) in children, and shellfish (25.5% of FIA), fresh fruits (14.2% of FIA), and fish (11.3% of FIA) in adults were the most common FIA triggers. Fire ants were the most frequent insect triggers, and they induced more severe reactions than triggers of FIA and DIA (p < 0.0001). Epinephrine was used in 43.8% of anaphylaxis episodes. After Emergency Department treatment, epinephrine was prescribed to 13% of patients. Conclusions: Drugs (NSAIDs and BLA), foods (milk and egg in children and shellfish, fruits and fish in adults) and fire ants were the most common inducers of anaphylaxis. Epinephrine was used in less than half of the episodes emphasizing the urgent need to improve dissemination and implementation of anaphylaxis guidelines.

Digitally-enabled, patient-centred care in rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity: The ARIA-MASK-air® approach.

MASK-air® , a validated mHealth app (Medical Device regulation Class IIa) has enabled large observational implementation studies in over 58,000 people with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. It can help to address unmet patient needs in rhinitis and asthma care. MASK-air® is a Good Practice of DG Santé on digitally-enabled, patient-centred care. It is also a candidate Good Practice of OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). MASK-air® data has enabled novel phenotype discovery and characterisation, as well as novel insights into the management of allergic rhinitis. MASK-air® data show that most rhinitis patients (i) are not adherent and do not follow guidelines, (ii) use as-needed treatment, (iii) do not take medication when they are well, (iv) increase their treatment based on symptoms and (v) do not use the recommended treatment. The data also show that control (symptoms, work productivity, educational performance) is not always improved by medications. A combined symptom-medication score (ARIA-EAACI-CSMS) has been validated for clinical practice and trials. The implications of the novel MASK-air® results should lead to change management in rhinitis and asthma.

Different phenotypes of drug-induced anaphylaxis-Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry.

BACKGROUND: Drugs are a frequent cause of severe anaphylactic reactions. Here, we analyze a large dataset on drug induced anaphylaxis regarding elicitors, risk factors, symptoms, and treatment. METHODS: Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry (2007-2019) with 1815 reported cases of drug-induced anaphylaxis were studied accordingly. RESULTS: Drugs are the third most frequent cause of anaphylaxis reported in the Anaphylaxis Registry. Among the eliciting groups of drugs analgesics and antibiotics were far most often reported. Female and senior patients were more frequently affected, while the number of children with DIA was low. DIA patients had symptoms affecting the skin and mucous membranes (n = 1525, 84.02%), the respiratory (n = 1300, 71.63%), the cardiovascular (n = 1251, 68.93%) and the gastrointestinal system (n = 549, 30.25%). Drugs caused significant more severe reactions, occurred more often in medical facilities and led to increased hospitalization rates in comparison to food and insect venom induced anaphylaxis. Adrenaline was used more often in patients with DIA than in anaphylaxis due to other causes. Patients with skin symptoms received more antihistamines and corticosteroids in the acute treatment, while gastrointestinal symptoms led to less adrenaline use. CONCLUSION: The study contributes to a better understanding of DIA, with a large number of cases from Europe supporting previous data, e.g., analgesics and antibiotics being the most frequent culprits for DIA. Female gender and higher age are relevant risk factors and despite clear recommendations, the emergency treatment of DIA is not administered according to the guidelines.

Cutoff Values of MASK-air Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

BACKGROUND: In clinical and epidemiological studies, cutoffs of patient-reported outcome measures can be used to classify patients into groups of statistical and clinical relevance. However, visual analog scale (VAS) cutoffs in MASK-air have not been tested. OBJECTIVE: To calculate cutoffs for VAS global, nasal, ocular, and asthma symptoms. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study design of all MASK-air participants, we compared (1) approaches based on the percentiles (tertiles or quartiles) of VAS distributions and (2) data-driven approaches based on clusters of data from 2 comparators (VAS work and VAS sleep). We then performed sensitivity analyses for individual countries and for VAS levels corresponding to full allergy control. Finally, we tested the different approaches using MASK-air real-world cross-sectional and longitudinal data to assess the most relevant cutoffs. RESULTS: We assessed 395,223 days from 23,201 MASK-air users with self-reported allergic rhinitis. The percentile-oriented approach resulted in lower cutoff values than the data-driven approach. We obtained consistent results in the data-driven approach. Following the latter, the proposed cutoff differentiating "controlled" and "partly-controlled" patients was similar to the cutoff value that had been arbitrarily used (20/100). However, a lower cutoff was obtained to differentiate between "partly-controlled" and "uncontrolled" patients (35 vs the arbitrarily-used value of 50/100). CONCLUSIONS: Using a data-driven approach, we were able to define cutoff values for MASK-air VASs on allergy and asthma symptoms. This may allow for a better classification of patients with rhinitis and asthma according to different levels of control, supporting improved disease management.

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.

Real-world data using mHealth apps in rhinitis, rhinosinusitis and their multimorbidities.

Digital health is an umbrella term which encompasses eHealth and benefits from areas such as advanced computer sciences. eHealth includes mHealth apps, which offer the potential to redesign aspects of healthcare delivery. The capacity of apps to collect large amounts of longitudinal, real-time, real-world data enables the progression of biomedical knowledge. Apps for rhinitis and rhinosinusitis were searched for in the Google Play and Apple App stores, via an automatic market research tool recently developed using JavaScript. Over 1500 apps for allergic rhinitis and rhinosinusitis were identified, some dealing with multimorbidity. However, only six apps for rhinitis (AirRater, AllergyMonitor, AllerSearch, Husteblume, MASK-air and Pollen App) and one for rhinosinusitis (Galenus Health) have so far published results in the scientific literature. These apps were reviewed for their validation, discovery of novel allergy phenotypes, optimisation of identifying the pollen season, novel approaches in diagnosis and management (pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy) as well as adherence to treatment. Published evidence demonstrates the potential of mobile health apps to advance in the characterisation, diagnosis and management of rhinitis and rhinosinusitis patients.

Commercialized kits to assess T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 S peptides. A pilot study in health care workers.

Background: It is crucial to assess the levels of protection generated by natural infection or SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, mainly in individuals professionally exposed and in vulnerable groups. Measuring T-cell responses may complement antibody tests currently in use as correlates of protection. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of a validated assay of T-cell responses. Methods: Twenty health-care-workers (HCW) were included. Antibody test to SARS-CoV-2 N and S-proteins in parallel with a commercially available whole-blood-interferon-gamma-release-assay (IGRA) to S-peptides and two detection methods, CLIA and ELISA were determined. Results: IGRA test detected T-cell responses in naturally exposed and vaccinated HCW already after first vaccination dose. The correlation by the two detection methods was very high (R > 0.8) and sensitivity and specificity ranged between 100 and 86% and 100-73% respectively. Even though there was a very high concordance between specific antibody levels and the IGRA assay in the ability to detect immune response to SARS-CoV-2, there was a relatively low quantitative correlation. In the small group primed by natural infection, one vaccine dose was sufficient to reach immune response plateau. IGRA was positive in one, with Ig(S) antibody negative vaccinated immunosuppressed HCW illustrating another advantage of the IGRA-test. Conclusion: Whole-blood-IGRA-tests amenable to automation and constitutes a promising additional tool for measuring the state of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2; they are applicable to large number of samples and may become a valuable correlate of protection to COVID-19, particularly for vulnerable groups at risk of being re-exposed to infection, as are health-care-workers.

Introducción: Es fundamental evaluar los niveles de protección inmune en infectados o tras la vacunación frente a SARS-CoV-2. La cuantificación de la respuesta inmune celular T puede complementar la determinación de anticuerpos. Evaluamos la viabilidad de un ensayo comercial validado de respuesta celular T específica frente a SARS-CoV-2. Métodos: Se incluyeron veinte trabajadores sanitarios (TS). Medimos anticuerpos contra las proteínas N y S de SARS-CoV-2 y realizamos el ensayo de liberación de interferón-gamma (IFNγ) en sangre completa (IGRA) frente a péptidos de la proteína S. IFNγ se determinó mediante dos métodos de detección: CLIA y ELISA. Resultados: IGRA detectó respuesta celular T en TS tanto infectados como vacunados. La correlación de los dos métodos de detección de IFNγ fue muy alta (R >0,8) y la sensibilidad y la especificidad variaron entre 100 y 86% y 100-73% respectivamente. Hubo una concordancia muy alta entre los niveles de anticuerpos específicos y el ensayo IGRA aunque la correlación cuantitativa fue relativamente baja. En el grupo de infectados, una dosis de vacuna fue suficiente para alcanzar el «plateau¼ de respuesta inmune. IGRA fue claramente positivo en un profesional vacunado inmunosuprimido que presentaba anticuerpos contra la proteína S negativos. Conclusiones: IGRA frente a péptidos de la proteína-S es susceptible de automatización y constituye una herramienta prometedora para medir la respuesta inmune celular frente a SARS-CoV-2; es aplicable a un gran número de muestras y puede servir para valorar la protección, particularmente en los grupos vulnerables en riesgo de volver a exponerse a la infección, como los TS.

Commercialized kits to assess T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 S peptides. A pilot study in health care workers

BackgroundIt is crucial to assess the levels of protection generated by natural infection or SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, mainly in individuals professionally exposed and in vulnerable groups. Measuring T-cell responses may complement antibody tests currently in use as correlates of protection. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of a validated assay of T-cell responses.MethodsTwenty health-care-workers (HCW) were included. Antibody test to SARS-CoV-2 N and S-proteins in parallel with a commercially available whole-blood-interferon-gamma-release-assay (IGRA) to S-peptides and two detection methods, CLIA and ELISA were determined.ResultsIGRA test detected T-cell responses in naturally exposed and vaccinated HCW already after first vaccination dose. The correlation by the two detection methods was very high (R>0.8) and sensitivity and specificity ranged between 100 and 86% and 100-73% respectively. Even though there was a very high concordance between specific antibody levels and the IGRA assay in the ability to detect immune response to SARS-CoV-2, there was a relatively low quantitative correlation. In the small group primed by natural infection, one vaccine dose was sufficient to reach immune response plateau. IGRA was positive in one, with Ig(S) antibody negative vaccinated immunosuppressed HCW illustrating another advantage of the IGRA-test.ConclusionWhole-blood-IGRA-tests amenable to automation and constitutes a promising additional tool for measuring the state of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2; they are applicable to large number of samples and may become a valuable correlate of protection to COVID-19, particularly for vulnerable groups at risk of being re-exposed to infection, as are health-care-workers. (AU)

IntroducciónEs fundamental evaluar los niveles de protección inmune en infectados o tras la vacunación frente a SARS-CoV-2. La cuantificación de la respuesta inmune celular T puede complementar la determinación de anticuerpos. Evaluamos la viabilidad de un ensayo comercial validado de respuesta celular T específica frente a SARS-CoV-2.MétodosSe incluyeron veinte trabajadores sanitarios (TS). Medimos anticuerpos contra las proteínas N y S de SARS-CoV-2 y realizamos el ensayo de liberación de interferón-gamma (IFNγ) en sangre completa (IGRA) frente a péptidos de la proteína S. IFNγ se determinó mediante dos métodos de detección: CLIA y ELISA.ResultadosIGRA detectó respuesta celular T en TS tanto infectados como vacunados. La correlación de los dos métodos de detección de IFNγ fue muy alta (R>0,8) y la sensibilidad y la especificidad variaron entre 100 y 86% y 100-73% respectivamente. Hubo una concordancia muy alta entre los niveles de anticuerpos específicos y el ensayo IGRA aunque la correlación cuantitativa fue relativamente baja. En el grupo de infectados, una dosis de vacuna fue suficiente para alcanzar el «plateau» de respuesta inmune. IGRA fue claramente positivo en un profesional vacunado inmunosuprimido que presentaba anticuerpos contra la proteína S negativos.ConclusionesIGRA frente a péptidos de la proteína-S es susceptible de automatización y constituye una herramienta prometedora para medir la respuesta inmune celular frente a SARS-CoV-2; es aplicable a un gran número de muestras y puede servir para valorar la protección, particularmente en los grupos vulnerables en riesgo de volver a exponerse a la infección, como los TS. (AU)

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.

Allergen immunotherapy in MASK-air users in real-life: Results of a Bayesian mixed-effects model.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the effectiveness of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) on allergic rhinitis has been provided mostly by randomised controlled trials, with little data from real-life studies. OBJECTIVE: To compare the reported control of allergic rhinitis symptoms in three groups of users of the MASK-air® app: those receiving sublingual AIT (SLIT), those receiving subcutaneous AIT (SCIT), and those receiving no AIT. METHODS: We assessed the MASK-air® data of European users with self-reported grass pollen allergy, comparing the data reported by patients receiving SLIT, SCIT and no AIT. Outcome variables included the daily impact of allergy symptoms globally and on work (measured by visual analogue scales-VASs), and a combined symptom-medication score (CSMS). We applied Bayesian mixed-effects models, with clustering by patient, country and pollen season. RESULTS: We analysed a total of 42,756 days from 1,093 grass allergy patients, including 18,479 days of users under AIT. Compared to no AIT, SCIT was associated with similar VAS levels and CSMS. Compared to no AIT, SLIT-tablet was associated with lower values of VAS global allergy symptoms (average difference = 7.5 units out of 100; 95% credible interval [95%CrI] = -12.1;-2.8), lower VAS Work (average difference = 5.0; 95%CrI = -8.5;-1.5), and a lower CSMS (average difference = 3.7; 95%CrI = -9.3;2.2). When compared to SCIT, SLIT-tablet was associated with lower VAS global allergy symptoms (average difference = 10.2; 95%CrI = -17.2;-2.8), lower VAS Work (average difference = 7.8; 95%CrI = -15.1;0.2), and a lower CSMS (average difference = 9.3; 95%CrI = -18.5;0.2). CONCLUSION: In patients with grass pollen allergy, SLIT-tablet, when compared to no AIT and to SCIT, is associated with lower reported symptom severity. Future longitudinal studies following internationally-harmonised standards for performing and reporting real-world data in AIT are needed to better understand its 'real-world' effectiveness.