Community-based asthma assessment in young children: adaptations for a multicentre longitudinal study in South Asia.

Background: Systematic assessment of childhood asthma is challenging in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings due to the lack of standardised and validated methodologies. We describe the contextual challenges and adaptation strategies in the implementation of a community-based asthma assessment in four resource-constrained settings in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. Method: We followed a group of children of age 6-8 years for 12 months to record their respiratory health outcomes. The study participants were enrolled at four study sites of the 'Aetiology of Neonatal Infection in South Asia (ANISA)' study. We standardised the research methods for the sites, trained field staff for uniform data collection and provided a 'Child Card' to the caregiver to record the illness history of the participants. We visited the children on three different occasions to collect data on respiratory-related illnesses. The lung function of the children was assessed in the outreach clinics using portable spirometers before and after 6-minute exercise, and capillary blood was examined under light microscopes to determine eosinophil levels. Results: We enrolled 1512 children, 95.5% (1476/1512) of them completed the follow-up, and 81.5% (1232/1512) participants attended the lung function assessment tests. Pre- and post-exercise spirometry was performed successfully in 88.6% (1091/1232) and 85.7% (1056/1232) of children who attempted these tests. Limited access to health care services, shortage of skilled human resources, and cultural diversity were the main challenges in adopting uniform procedures across all sites. Designing the study implementation plan based on the local contexts and providing extensive training of the healthcare workers helped us to overcome these challenges. Conclusion: This study can be seen as a large-scale feasibility assessment of applying spirometry and exercise challenge tests in community settings of LMICs and provides confidence to build capacity to evaluate children's respiratory outcomes in future translational research studies.

Guidelines for the prevention and management of children and adolescents with COVID-19.

Children are the future of the world, but their health and future are facing great uncertainty because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In order to improve the management of children with COVID-19, an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts developed a rapid advice guideline at the beginning of the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020. After publishing the first version of the rapid advice guideline, the panel has updated the guideline by including additional stakeholders in the panel and a comprehensive search of the latest evidence. All recommendations were supported by systematic reviews and graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Expert judgment was used to develop good practice statements supplementary to the graded evidence-based recommendations. The updated guideline comprises nine recommendations and one good practice statement. It focuses on the key recommendations pertinent to the following issues: identification of prognostic factors for death or pediatric intensive care unit admission; the use of remdesivir, systemic glucocorticoids and antipyretics, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure; breastfeeding; vaccination; and the management of pediatric mental health. CONCLUSION: This updated evidence-based guideline intends to provide clinicians, pediatricians, patients and other stakeholders with evidence-based recommendations for the prevention and management of COVID-19 in children and adolescents. Larger studies with longer follow-up to determine the effectiveness and safety of systemic glucocorticoids, IVIG, noninvasive ventilation, and the vaccines for COVID-19 in children and adolescents are encouraged. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Several clinical practice guidelines for children with COVID-19 have been developed, but only few of them have been recently updated. • We developed an evidence-based guideline at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak and have now updated it based on the results of a comprehensive search of the latest evidence. WHAT IS NEW: • The updated guideline provides key recommendations pertinent to the following issues: identification of prognostic factors for death or pediatric intensive care unit admission; the use of remdesivir, systemic glucocorticoids and antipyretics, intravenous immunoglobulin for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure; breastfeeding; vaccination; and the management of pediatric mental health.

Mixed-methods evaluation of a nurse-led allergy clinic model in primary care: Feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: It is now widely acknowledged that there are serious shortcomings in allergy care provision for patients seen in primary care. We sought to assess the feasibility of delivering and evaluating a new nurse-led allergy service in primary care, measured by recruitment, retention and estimates of the potential impact of the intervention on disease-specific quality of life. METHODS: Mixed-methods evaluation of a nurse-led primary care-based allergy clinic in Edinburgh, UK undertaken during the period 2017-2021 with a focus on suspected food allergy and atopic eczema in young children, allergic rhinitis in children and young people, and suspected anaphylaxis in adults. Prior to March 2020, patients were seen face-to-face (Phase 1). Due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, recruitment was halted between March-August 2020, and a remote clinic was restarted in September 2020 (Phase 2). Disease-specific quality of life was measured at baseline and 6-12 weeks post intervention using validated instruments. Quantitative data were descriptively analysed. We undertook interviews with 16 carers/patients and nine healthcare professionals, which were thematically analysed. RESULTS: During Phase 1, 426/506 (84%) referred patients met the eligibility criteria; 40/46 (87%) of Phase 2 referrals were eligible. Males and females were recruited in approximately equal numbers. The majority (83%) of referrals were for possible food allergy or anaphylaxis. Complete data were available for 338/426 (79%) patients seen in Phase 1 and 30/40 (75%) in Phase 2. Compared with baseline assessments, there were improvements in disease-specific quality of life for most categories of patients. Patients/carers and healthcare professionals reported high levels of satisfaction, this being reinforced by the qualitative interviews in which convenience and speed of access to expert opinion, the quality of the consultation, and patient/care empowerment were particularly emphasised. CONCLUSION: This large feasibility trial has demonstrated that it is possible to recruit, deliver and retain individuals into a nurse-led allergy clinic with both face-to-face and remote consultations. Our data indicate that the intervention was considered acceptable to patients/carers and healthcare professionals. The before-after data of disease-specific quality of life suggest that the intervention may prove effective, but this now needs to be confirmed through a formal randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov reference NCT03826953.

Randomised controlled trial of intravenous nafamostat mesylate in COVID pneumonitis: Phase 1b/2a experimental study to investigate safety, Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

BACKGROUND: Many repurposed drugs have progressed rapidly to Phase 2 and 3 trials in COVID19 without characterisation of Pharmacokinetics /Pharmacodynamics including safety data. One such drug is nafamostat mesylate. METHODS: We present the findings of a phase Ib/IIa open label, platform randomised controlled trial of intravenous nafamostat in hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonitis. Patients were assigned randomly to standard of care (SoC), nafamostat or an alternative therapy. Nafamostat was administered as an intravenous infusion at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/h for a maximum of seven days. The analysis population included those who received any dose of the trial drug and all patients randomised to SoC. The primary outcomes of our trial were the safety and tolerability of intravenous nafamostat as an add on therapy for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonitis. FINDINGS: Data is reported from 42 patients, 21 of which were randomly assigned to receive intravenous nafamostat. 86% of nafamostat-treated patients experienced at least one AE compared to 57% of the SoC group. The nafamostat group were significantly more likely to experience at least one AE (posterior mean odds ratio 5.17, 95% credible interval (CI) 1.10 - 26.05) and developed significantly higher plasma creatinine levels (posterior mean difference 10.57 micromol/L, 95% CI 2.43-18.92). An average longer hospital stay was observed in nafamostat patients, alongside a lower rate of oxygen free days (rate ratio 0.55-95% CI 0.31-0.99, respectively). There were no other statistically significant differences in endpoints between nafamostat and SoC. PK data demonstrated that intravenous nafamostat was rapidly broken down to inactive metabolites. We observed no significant anticoagulant effects in thromboelastometry. INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19, we did not observe evidence of anti-inflammatory, anticoagulant or antiviral activity with intravenous nafamostat, and there were additional adverse events. FUNDING: DEFINE was funded by LifeArc (an independent medical research charity) under the STOPCOVID award to the University of Edinburgh. We also thank the Oxford University COVID-19 Research Response Fund (BRD00230).

Effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other eicosanoid pathway modifiers on antiviral and allergic responses: EAACI task force on eicosanoids consensus report in times of COVID-19.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and other eicosanoid pathway modifiers are among the most ubiquitously used medications in the general population. Their broad anti-inflammatory, antipyretic, and analgesic effects are applied against symptoms of respiratory infections, including SARS-CoV-2, as well as in other acute and chronic inflammatory diseases that often coexist with allergy and asthma. However, the current pandemic of COVID-19 also revealed the gaps in our understanding of their mechanism of action, selectivity, and interactions not only during viral infections and inflammation, but also in asthma exacerbations, uncontrolled allergic inflammation, and NSAIDs-exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD). In this context, the consensus report summarizes currently available knowledge, novel discoveries, and controversies regarding the use of NSAIDs in COVID-19, and the role of NSAIDs in asthma and viral asthma exacerbations. We also describe here novel mechanisms of action of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs), outline how to predict responses to LTRA therapy and discuss a potential role of LTRA therapy in COVID-19 treatment. Moreover, we discuss interactions of novel T2 biologicals and other eicosanoid pathway modifiers on the horizon, such as prostaglandin D2 antagonists and cannabinoids, with eicosanoid pathways, in context of viral infections and exacerbations of asthma and allergic diseases. Finally, we identify and summarize the major knowledge gaps and unmet needs in current eicosanoid research.

COVID-19 pandemic and allergen immunotherapy-an EAACI survey.

BACKGROUND: As in many fields of medical care, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in an increased uncertainty regarding the safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Therefore, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) aimed to analyze the situation in different countries and to systematically collect all information available regarding tolerability and possible amendments in daily practice of sublingual AIT (SLIT), subcutaneous AIT (SCIT) for inhalant allergies and venom AIT. METHODS: Under the framework of the EAACI, a panel of experts in the field of AIT coordinated by the Immunotherapy Interest Group set-up a web-based retrospective survey (SurveyMonkey® ) including 27 standardized questions on practical and safety aspects on AIT in worldwide clinical routine. RESULTS: 417 respondents providing AIT to their patients in daily routine answered the survey. For patients (without any current symptoms to suspect COVID-19), 60% of the respondents informed of not having initiated SCIT (40% venom AIT, 35% SLIT) whereas for the maintenance phase of AIT, SCIT was performed by 75% of the respondents (74% venom AIT, 89% SLIT). No tolerability concern arises from this preliminary analysis. 16 physicians reported having performed AIT despite (early) symptoms of COVID-19 and/or a positive test result for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). CONCLUSIONS: This first international retrospective survey in atopic diseases investigated practical aspects and tolerability of AIT during the COVID-19 pandemic and gave no concerns regarding reduced tolerability under real-life circumstances. However, the data indicate an undertreatment of AIT, which may be temporary, but could have a long-lasting negative impact on the clinical care of allergic patients.

ARIA-EAACI statement on severe allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines - An EAACI-ARIA Position Paper.

Further to the approval of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine BNT162b2, several severe anaphylaxis cases occured within the first few days of public vaccination. An investigation is taking place to understand the cases and their triggers. The vaccine will be administered to a large number of individuals worldwide and there are raising concerns that severe adverse events might occur. With the current information, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) states its position for the following preliminary recommendations that are to be revised as soon as more data emerge. To minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions in vaccinated individuals, it is urgently required to understand the specific nature of the reported severe allergic reactions, including the background medical history of the individuals affected and the mechanisms involved. To achieve this goal, all clinical and laboratory information should be collected and reported. Mild and moderate allergic patients should not be excluded from the vaccine as this could have a significant impact on reaching the goal of population immunity. Healthcare practitioners vaccinating against COVID-19 are required to be sufficiently prepared to recognize and treat anaphylaxis properly with the ability to administer adrenaline. Further to vaccine administration, a mandatory observation period of at least 15 minutes should be followed for all individuals. The current data have not shown any higher risk for patients suffering from allergic rhinitis or asthma, and this message should be clearly stated by physicians to enable our patients to trust the vaccine. More than 30% of the population suffers from allergic diseases and the benefit of the vaccination clearly outweighs the risk of severe COVID-19 development.

Immunology of COVID-19: Mechanisms, clinical outcome, diagnostics, and perspectives-A report of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI).

With the worldwide spread of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) resulting in declaration of a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on March 11, 2020, the SARS-CoV-2-induced coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has become one of the main challenges of our times. The high infection rate and the severe disease course led to major safety and social restriction measures worldwide. There is an urgent need of unbiased expert knowledge guiding the development of efficient treatment and prevention strategies. This report summarizes current immunological data on mechanisms associated with the SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 development and progression to the most severe forms. We characterize the differences between adequate innate and adaptive immune response in mild disease and the deep immune dysfunction in the severe multiorgan disease. The similarities of the human immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and the SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV are underlined. We also summarize known and potential SARS-CoV-2 receptors on epithelial barriers, immune cells, endothelium and clinically involved organs such as lung, gut, kidney, cardiovascular, and neuronal system. Finally, we discuss the known and potential mechanisms underlying the involvement of comorbidities, gender, and age in development of COVID-19. Consequently, we highlight the knowledge gaps and urgent research requirements to provide a quick roadmap for ongoing and needed COVID-19 studies.

A compendium answering 150 questions on COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2.

In December 2019, China reported the first cases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This disease, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has developed into a pandemic. To date, it has resulted in ~9 million confirmed cases and caused almost 500 000 related deaths worldwide. Unequivocally, the COVID-19 pandemic is the gravest health and socioeconomic crisis of our time. In this context, numerous questions have emerged in demand of basic scientific information and evidence-based medical advice on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Although the majority of the patients show a very mild, self-limiting viral respiratory disease, many clinical manifestations in severe patients are unique to COVID-19, such as severe lymphopenia and eosinopenia, extensive pneumonia, a "cytokine storm" leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome, endothelitis, thromboembolic complications, and multiorgan failure. The epidemiologic features of COVID-19 are distinctive and have changed throughout the pandemic. Vaccine and drug development studies and clinical trials are rapidly growing at an unprecedented speed. However, basic and clinical research on COVID-19-related topics should be based on more coordinated high-quality studies. This paper answers pressing questions, formulated by young clinicians and scientists, on SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, and allergy, focusing on the following topics: virology, immunology, diagnosis, management of patients with allergic disease and asthma, treatment, clinical trials, drug discovery, vaccine development, and epidemiology. A total of 150 questions were answered by experts in the field providing a comprehensive and practical overview of COVID-19 and allergic disease.

COVID-19 pandemic: Practical considerations on the organization of an allergy clinic-An EAACI/ARIA Position Paper.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has evolved into a pandemic infectious disease transmitted by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Allergists and other healthcare providers (HCPs) in the field of allergies and associated airway diseases are on the front line, taking care of patients potentially infected with SARS-CoV-2. Hence, strategies and practices to minimize risks of infection for both HCPs and treated patients have to be developed and followed by allergy clinics. METHOD: The scientific information on COVID-19 was analysed by a literature search in MEDLINE, PubMed, the National and International Guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Cochrane Library, and the internet. RESULTS: Based on the diagnostic and treatment standards developed by EAACI, on international information regarding COVID-19, on guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organizations, and on previous experience, a panel of experts including clinicians, psychologists, IT experts, and basic scientists along with EAACI and the "Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)" initiative have developed recommendations for the optimal management of allergy clinics during the current COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations are grouped into nine sections on different relevant aspects for the care of patients with allergies. CONCLUSIONS: This international Position Paper provides recommendations on operational plans and procedures to maintain high standards in the daily clinical care of allergic patients while ensuring the necessary safety measures in the current COVID-19 pandemic.