Erratum to "IgE allergy diagnostics and other relevant tests in allergy, a World Allergy Organization position paper" [World Allergy Organ J 13/2 (2020) 100080].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.waojou.2019.100080.].

IgE allergy diagnostics and other relevant tests in allergy, a World Allergy Organization position paper.

Currently, testing for immunoglobulin E (IgE) sensitization is the cornerstone of diagnostic evaluation in suspected allergic conditions. This review provides a thorough and updated critical appraisal of the most frequently used diagnostic tests, both in vivo and in vitro. It discusses skin tests, challenges, and serological and cellular in vitro tests, and provides an overview of indications, advantages and disadvantages of each in conditions such as respiratory, food, venom, drug, and occupational allergy. Skin prick testing remains the first line approach in most instances; the added value of serum specific IgE to whole allergen extracts or components, as well as the role of basophil activation tests, is evaluated. Unproven, non-validated, diagnostic tests are also discussed. Throughout the review, the reader must bear in mind the relevance of differentiating between sensitization and allergy; the latter entails not only allergic sensitization, but also clinically relevant symptoms triggered by the culprit allergen.

World Allergy Organization Anaphylaxis Guidelines: 2013 update of the evidence base.

The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis are a widely disseminated and used resource for information about anaphylaxis. They focus on patients at risk, triggers, clinical diagnosis, treatment in health care settings, self-treatment in the community, and prevention of recurrences. Their unique strengths include a global perspective informed by prior research on the global availability of essentials for anaphylaxis assessment and management and a global agenda for anaphylaxis research. Additionally, detailed colored illustrations are linked to key concepts in the text [Simons et al.: J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011;127:593.e1-e22]. The recommendations in the original WAO Anaphylaxis Guidelines for management of anaphylaxis in health care settings and community settings were based on evidence published in peer-reviewed, indexed medical journals to the end of 2010. These recommendations remain unchanged and clinically relevant. An update of the evidence base was published in 2012 [Simons et al.: Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2012;12:389-399]. In 2012 and early 2013, major advances were reported in the following areas: further characterization of patient phenotypes; development of in vitro tests (for some allergens) that help distinguish clinical risk of anaphylaxis from asymptomatic sensitization; epinephrine (adrenaline) research, including studies of a new epinephrine auto-injector for use in community settings, and randomized controlled trials of immunotherapy to prevent food-induced anaphylaxis. Despite these advances, the need for additional prospective studies, including randomized controlled trials of interventions in anaphylaxis is increasingly apparent. This 2013 Update highlights publications from 2012 and 2013 that further contribute to the evidence base for the recommendations made in the original WAO Anaphylaxis Guidelines. Ideally, it should be used in conjunction with these Guidelines and with the 2012 Guidelines Update.

2012 Update: World Allergy Organization Guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis published in early 2011 provide a global perspective on patient risk factors, triggers, clinical diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of anaphylaxis. In this 2012 Update, subsequently published, clinically relevant research in these areas is reviewed. RECENT FINDINGS: Patient risk factors and co-factors that amplify anaphylaxis have been documented in prospective studies. The global perspective on the triggers of anaphylaxis has expanded. The clinical criteria for the diagnosis of anaphylaxis that are promulgated in the Guidelines have been validated. Some aspects of anaphylaxis treatment have been prospectively studied. Novel investigations of self-injectable epinephrine for treatment of anaphylaxis recurrences in the community have been performed. Progress has been made with regard to measurement of specific IgE to allergen components (component-resolved testing) that might help to distinguish clinical risk of future anaphylactic episodes to an allergen from asymptomatic sensitization to the allergen. New strategies for immune modulation to prevent food-induced anaphylaxis and new insights into subcutaneous immunotherapy to prevent venom-induced anaphylaxis have been described. SUMMARY: Research highlighted in this Update strengthens the evidence-based recommendations for assessment, management, and prevention of anaphylaxis made in the WAO Anaphylaxis Guidelines.

Patients with asthma and comorbid allergic rhinitis: is optimal quality of life achievable in real life?

OBJECTIVES: Asthma trials suggest that patients reaching total disease control have an optimal Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). Moreover, rhinitis is present in almost 80% of asthmatics and impacts asthma control and patient HRQoL. We explored whether optimal HRQoL was reachable in a real-life setting, and evaluated the disease and patient related patterns associated to optimal HRQoL achievement. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Asthma and rhinitis HRQoL, illness perception, mood profiles, rhinitis symptoms and asthma control were assessed by means of validated tools in patients classified according to GINA and ARIA guidelines. Optimal HRQoL, identified by a Rhinasthma Global Summary (GS) score ≤20 (score ranging from 0 to 100, where 100 represents the worst possible HRQoL), was reached by 78/209 (37.32%). With the exception of age, no associations were found between clinical and demographic characteristics and optimal HRQoL achievement. Patients reaching an optimal HRQoL differed in disease perception and mood compared to those not reaching an optimal HRQoL. Asthma control was significantly associated with optimal HRQoL (χ(2) = 49.599; p<0.001) and well-controlled and totally controlled patients significantly differed in achieving optimal HRQoL (χ(2) = 7.617; p<0.006). CONCLUSION: Approximately one third of the patients in our survey were found to have an optimal HRQoL. While unsatisfactory disease control was the primary reason why the remainder failed to attain optimal HRQoL, it is clear that illness perception and mood also played parts. Therefore, therapeutic plans should be directed not only toward achieving the best possible clinical control of asthma and comorbid rhinitis, but also to incorporating individualized elements according to patient-related characteristics.

World allergy organization guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis.

The illustrated World Allergy Organization (WAO) Anaphylaxis Guidelines were created in response to absence of global guidelines for anaphylaxis. Uniquely, before they were developed, lack of worldwide availability of essentials for the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis was documented. They incorporate contributions from more than 100 allergy/immunology specialists on 6 continents. Recommendations are based on the best evidence available, supported by references published to the end of December 2010. The Guidelines review patient risk factors for severe or fatal anaphylaxis, co-factors that amplify anaphylaxis, and anaphylaxis in vulnerable patients, including pregnant women, infants, the elderly, and those with cardiovascular disease. They focus on the supreme importance of making a prompt clinical diagnosis and on the basic initial treatment that is urgently needed and should be possible even in a low resource environment. This involves having a written emergency protocol and rehearsing it regularly; then, as soon as anaphylaxis is diagnosed, promptly and simultaneously calling for help, injecting epinephrine (adrenaline) intramuscularly, and placing the patient on the back or in a position of comfort with the lower extremities elevated. When indicated, additional critically important steps include administering supplemental oxygen and maintaining the airway, establishing intravenous access and giving fluid resuscitation, and initiating cardiopulmonary resuscitation with continuous chest compressions. Vital signs and cardiorespiratory status should be monitored frequently and regularly (preferably, continuously). The Guidelines briefly review management of anaphylaxis refractory to basic initial treatment. They also emphasize preparation of the patient for self-treatment of anaphylaxis recurrences in the community, confirmation of anaphylaxis triggers, and prevention of recurrences through trigger avoidance and immunomodulation. Novel strategies for dissemination and implementation are summarized. A global agenda for anaphylaxis research is proposed.

Allergy immunotherapy tablet: Grazax® for the treatment of grass pollen allergy.

Immunotherapy is the only treatment for allergy that alters the natural course of this disease. Sublingual immunotherapy has been developed to make immunotherapy more suitable for allergic patients. In the largest clinical program ever conducted with grass allergen-specific immunotherapy, over 2000 adults and more than 500 children have been exposed to Grazax(®) (ALK-Abello A/S, Hoersholm, Denmark). Grazax is an oral lyophilisate tablet (allergy immunotherapy tablet [AIT]) for sublingual administration, containing 75,000 standardized quality tablet units of allergen extract of grass pollen (Phleum pratense). Grazax is indicated for treatment of grass pollen-induced rhinitis and conjunctivitis in adult and pediatric patients. Results from the GT-08 trial (first, second and third treatment years) showed a reduction of 31, 36 and 29%, respectively, in symptom scores and a reduction of 38, 45 and 40% of medication scores, respectively, compared with placebo. Subjects treated with Grazax also had an increased number of well days and a relevant improvement in quality of life. More subjects experienced excellent and complete rhinoconjunctivitis control in comparison with patients treated with symptomatic medications only. Grazax treatment is also associated with a sustained and relevant increase of specific IgG4. This increase is also observed after stopping AIT treatment. The most common adverse events related to Grazax treatment are local reactions, such as oral itch, edema of the mouth, ear pruritus, throat irritation and sneezing. Clinical efficacy of Grazax is observed also after 1 and 2 years of follow-up after stopping the AIT treatment. Grazax is efficacious and safe for treatment of grass-pollen rhinoconjunctivitis in both adults and children. Grazax is the first AIT showing a disease-modifying effect on grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjuctivitis.

Comparison of costs of sublingual immunotherapy and drug treatment in grass-pollen induced allergy: results from the SIMAP database study.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis is focused on the comparison of costs of allergic rhinitis (R) alone or with allergic asthma (R + A) in grass pollen allergy, for subjects treated with sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and symptomatic drugs, versus standard care controls. METHODS: The SIMAP (Sublingual IMmunotherapy in Allergic Patients) study is a longitudinal observational database operated by a network of Allergy centers. Patients suffering from grass pollen allergy were included in this analysis and assigned to SLIT (plus drugs as needed) or to treatment with drugs alone. Outcome measures included use of medications, SLIT, visits and tests. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service; unit costs were obtained from published sources to produce an average cost/patient for the first year after enrolment. RESULTS: One hundred and two patients were analyzed. Demographics were comparable in the two groups. Overall per patient yearly cost of treatment was higher in SLIT patients, both in the whole sample (euro311 vs. euro180/patient), in the R (euro288 vs. euro116) and R + A (euro362 vs. euro230) subpopulations, with R + A patients generating more costs than R patients in both groups. Nevertheless considerable savings were obtained in the cost of symptomatic drugs (-22% for R; -34% for R + A) in SLIT patients. CONCLUSIONS: Other studies have shown that SLIT can reduce the use of drugs for asthma and rhinitis, but this is the first time this outcome has been demonstrated in a routine care population (in the medical practice environment of an observational study) within the first year of treatment.

Nimesulide and meloxicam are a safe alternative drugs for patients intolerant to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

BACKGROUND: Pseudoallergic reactions to ASA and NSAIDs in general are frequent and difficult to manage. The challenge with the suspected drug is considered unethical, therefore the only possible approach is a challenge with alternative drugs. Selective COX2 inhibitors are considered the most suitable alternative drugs. We describe the comparative results and follow-up of an oral challenge with nimesulide and meloxicam, in NSAIDs intolerant patients. METHODS: 381 patients (118 male, 263 female, mean age 53.2 years) with a well documented pseudoallergic reaction to NSAIDs underwent an oral challenge with these alternative drugs. All 381 patients were given nimesulide 88 of them were also given meloxicam. All patients were re-interviewed at six-month intervals up to two years after challenge. RESULTS: 98.4% of the patients tolerated nimesulide and 95.4% tolerated meloxicam. The reactions occurred during challenges were mild and easily manageable. Three out of the six nimesulide-intolerant patients could tolerate meloxicam, whereas only one of the four meloxicam-intolerant patients could tolerate nimesulide. At the follow-up, 96% of patients with previous negative challenge could tolerate nimesulide and within the patients which took meloxicam after challenge no pseudoallergic reaction occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The herein described challenge with alternative drugs, meloxicam and nimesulide, is a safe tool for the management of NSAIDs-intolerant patients. The two tested drug are safe and reliable alternatives for these patients.