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.

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.

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.

Health economic analysis of allergen immunotherapy for the management of allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy: A systematic overview

BACKGROUND

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing guidelines for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, IgE-mediated food allergy and venom allergy. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook systematic reviews to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions. This study focusses on synthesizing data and gaps in the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions.

METHODS

We produced summaries of evidence in each domain, and then, synthesized findings on health economic data identified from four recent systematic reviews on allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy, respectively. The quality of these studies was independently assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for health economic evaluations.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these, 19 studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of AIT in allergic rhinitis, of which seven were based on data from randomized controlled trials with economic evaluations conducted from a health system perspective. This body of evidence suggested that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) would be considered cost-effective using the (English) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). However, the quality of the studies and the general lack of attention to characterizing uncertainty and handling missing data should be taken into account when interpreting these results. For asthma, there were three eligible studies, all of which had significant methodological limitations; these suggested that SLIT, when used in patients with both asthma and allergic rhinitis, may be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £10 726 per QALY. We found one economic modelling study for venom allergy which, despite being based largely on expert opinion and plausible assumptions, suggested that AIT for bee and wasp venom allergy is only likely to be cost-effective for very high-risk groups who may be exposed to multiple exposures to venom/year (eg bee keepers). We found no eligible studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of AIT is limited and of low methodological quality, but suggests that AIT may be cost-effective for people with allergic rhinitis with or without asthma and in high-risk subgroups for venom allergy. We were unable to draw any conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.

EAACI guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: Prevention of allergy

Allergic diseases are common and frequently coexist. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a disease-modifying treatment for IgE-mediated allergic disease with effects beyond cessation of AIT that may include important preventive effects. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) has developed a clinical practice guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations for AIT for the prevention of (i) development of allergic comorbidities in those with established allergic diseases, (ii) development of first allergic condition, and (iii) allergic sensitization. This guideline has been developed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) framework, which involved a multidisciplinary expert working group, a systematic review of the underpinning evidence, and external peer-review of draft recommendations. Our key recommendation is that a 3-year course of subcutaneous or sublingual AIT can be recommended for children and adolescents with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR) triggered by grass/birch pollen allergy to prevent asthma for up to 2 years post-AIT in addition to its sustained effect on AR symptoms and medication. Some trial data even suggest a preventive effect on asthma symptoms and medication more than 2 years post-AIT. We need more evidence concerning AIT for prevention in individuals with AR triggered by house dust mites or other allergens and for the prevention of allergic sensitization, the first allergic disease, or for the prevention of allergic comorbidities in those with other allergic conditions. Evidence for the preventive potential of AIT as disease-modifying treatment exists but there is an urgent need for more high-quality clinical trials.

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To inform the development of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for allergic asthma, we assessed the evidence on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review, which involved searching nine databases. Studies were screened against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

98 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Short-term symptom scores were reduced with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -1.11 (95% CI -1.66, -0.56). This was robust to a prespecified sensitivity analyses, but there was evidence suggestive of publication bias. Short-term medication scores were reduced SMD -1.21 (95% CI -1.87, -0.54), again with evidence of potential publication bias. There was no reduction in short-term combined medication and symptom scores SMD 0.17 (95% CI -0.23, 0.58), but one study showed a beneficial long-term effect. For secondary outcomes, subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) improved quality of life and decreased allergen-specific airway hyperreactivity (AHR), but this was not the case for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). There were no consistent effects on asthma control, exacerbations, lung function, and nonspecific AHR. AIT resulted in a modest increased risk of adverse events (AEs). Although relatively uncommon, systemic AEs were more frequent with SCIT; however no fatalities were reported. The limited evidence on cost-effectiveness was mainly available for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and this suggested that SLIT is likely to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

AIT can achieve substantial reductions in short-term symptom and medication scores in allergic asthma. It was however associated with a modest increased risk of systemic and local AEs. More data are needed in relation to secondary outcomes, longer-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook a systematic review to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of AIT in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

METHODS

We searched nine international biomedical databases for published, in-progress, and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Our primary outcomes of interest were symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores. Secondary outcomes of interest included cost-effectiveness and safety. Data were descriptively summarized and then quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 5960 studies of which 160 studies satisfied our eligibility criteria. There was a substantial body of evidence demonstrating significant reductions in standardized mean differences (SMD) of symptom (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.63, -0.42), medication (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.49, -0.26), and combined symptom and medication (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.69, -0.30) scores while on treatment that were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses. There was in comparison a more modest body of evidence on effectiveness post-discontinuation of AIT, suggesting a benefit in relation to symptom scores.

CONCLUSIONS

AIT is effective in improving symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis while on treatment, and there is some evidence suggesting that these benefits are maintained in relation to symptom scores after discontinuation of therapy.

Erratum to: Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: protocol for a systematic review

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13601-016-0099-6.].

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic asthma: a systematic overview of systematic reviews

Background

There is clinical uncertainty about the effectiveness and safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the treatment of allergic asthma.

Objectives

To undertake a systematic overview of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT for the treatment of allergic asthma.

Methods

We searched nine electronic databases from inception to October 31, 2015. Systematic reviews were independently screened by two reviewers against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool for systematic reviews. Data were descriptively and thematically synthesized.

Results

We identified nine eligible systematic reviews; these focused on delivery of AIT through the following routes: subcutaneous (SCIT; n = 3); sublingual (SLIT; n = 4); and both SCIT and SLIT (n = 2). This evidence found that AIT delivered by SCIT and SLIT can improve medication and symptom scores and measures of bronchial hyper-reactivity. The impact on measures of lung function or asthma control was however less clear. We found no systematic review level evidence on the cost-effectiveness of SCIT or SLIT. SLIT had a favorable safety profile when compared to SCIT, particularly in relation to the risk of systemic reactions.

Conclusions

AIT has the potential to achieve reductions in symptom and medication scores, but there is no clear or consistent evidence that measures of lung function can be improved. Bearing in mind the limitations of synthesizing evidence from systematic reviews and the fact that these reviews include mainly dated studies, a systematic review of current primary studies is now needed to update this evidence base, estimate the effectiveness of AIT on asthma outcomes and to investigate the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of SCIT and SLIT.

Allergen immunotherapy for IgE-mediated food allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for IgE-mediated Food Allergy. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we sought to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT in the management of food allergy.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis that involved searching nine international electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRS). Eligible studies were independently assessed by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and the Cochrane ACROBAT-NRS tool for quasi-RCTs. Random-effects meta-analyses were undertaken, with planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 1814 potentially relevant papers from which we selected 31 eligible studies, comprising of 25 RCTs and six NRS, studying a total of 1259 patients. Twenty-five trials evaluated oral immunotherapy (OIT), five studies investigated sublingual immunotherapy, and one study evaluated epicutaneous immunotherapy. The majority of these studies were in children. Twenty-seven studies assessed desensitization, and eight studies investigated sustained unresponsiveness postdiscontinuation of AIT. Meta-analyses demonstrated a substantial benefit in terms of desensitization (risk ratio (RR) = 0.16, 95% CI 0.10, 0.26) and suggested, but did not confirm sustained unresponsiveness (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.08, 1.13). Only one study reported on disease-specific quality of life (QoL), which reported no comparative results between OIT and control group. Meta-analyses revealed that the risk of experiencing a systemic adverse reaction was higher in those receiving AIT, with a more marked increase in the risk of local adverse reactions. Sensitivity analysis excluding those studies judged to be at high risk of bias demonstrated the robustness of summary estimates of effectiveness and safety of AIT for food allergy. None of the studies reported data on health economic analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

AIT may be effective in raising the threshold of reactivity to a range of foods in children with IgE-mediated food allergy whilst receiving (i.e. desensitization) and post-discontinuation of AIT. It is, however, associated with a modest increased risk in serious systemic adverse reactions and a substantial increase in minor local adverse reactions. More data are needed in relation to adults, long term effects, the impact on QoL and the cost-effectiveness of AIT.

National clinical practice guidelines for food allergy and anaphylaxis: an international assessment

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines are important tools to promote evidence-based clinical care, but not all countries have the capacity or infrastructure to develop these in-house. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has recently developed guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and management of food allergy and the management of anaphylaxis. In order to inform dissemination, adaptation and implementation plans, we sought to identify countries that have/do not have national guidelines for food allergy and anaphylaxis.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched PubMed to identify countries with guidelines for food allergy and/or anaphylaxis from the inception of this database to December 2016. This was supplemented with a search of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Guideline Clearinghouse in order to identify any additional guidelines that may not have been reported in the peer-reviewed literature. Data were descriptively and narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

Overall, 5/193 (3%) of countries had at least one guideline for food allergy or anaphylaxis. We found that one (1%) country had a national guideline for the prevention of food allergy, three (2%) countries had a guideline for the diagnosis of food allergy and three (2%) countries had a guideline for the management of food allergy. Three (2%) countries had an anaphylaxis guideline.

CONCLUSIONS

This study concludes that the overwhelming majority of countries do not have any national clinical practice guidelines for food allergy or anaphylaxis.

Anaphylaxis: epidemiology, aetiology and relevance for the clinic

INTRODUCTION

Anaphylaxis is responsible for considerable morbidity and may in some cases prove fatal. Areas covered: This review summarises the findings from recent studies on the epidemiology and aetiology of anaphylaxis and draws on the insights from this work and recent international guidelines to consider the implications for clinical care. Acute management of anaphylaxis is centred on early recognition, treatment with adrenaline (epinephrine) and other essential life-support measures. The importance of longer-term care of patients with a history of or at risk of anaphylaxis are also considered with a view to minimising the risk of further reactions. Tailored individual anaphylaxis management plans should be a routine component of this longer-term care with provision of adrenaline auto-injectors to those at risk of further episodes of anaphylaxis. More generally, there is a need to ensure that there are standard protocols in place to ensure that risks of triggering anaphylaxis are minimised and appropriate acute and long-term care are provided if reactions occur. Expert commentary: It is important to be aware that anaphylaxis may occur in patients of any age, sex or ethnicity. Early recognition and prompt treatment with adrenaline are potentially life-saving. Careful assessment of risk and appropriate long-term management are key to improving long-term outcomes in those at risk of repeat episodes of anaphylaxis.

Idiopathic Anaphylaxis

Idiopathic anaphylaxis is a rare life-threatening disorder with symptoms similar to other forms of anaphylaxis. There is lack of a robust evidence base underpinning the treatment of anaphylaxis and even less so for idiopathic anaphylaxis. Much of the evidence therefore comes from relatively small case series and expert opinion. Idiopathic anaphylaxis is a diagnosis of exclusion, requiring a thorough history and careful diagnostic work-up investigating possible triggers and underlying predisposing factors. Key diagnostic tests include skin-prick testing, tests for specific-IgE, component-resolved diagnostics, and in some cases for allergen challenge tests. Other recognized causes of anaphylaxis, such as foods, medications, insect stings, latex, and exercise, should all be considered, as should differential diagnoses such as asthma. While the cause of idiopathic anaphylaxis remains unknown, prompt treatment with intramuscular epinephrine (adrenaline) administered into the anterolateral aspect of the thigh is associated with good prognosis. There may also be a role for H1-antihistamines and corticosteroids as second-line agents. Patients need to be carefully monitored for signs of deterioration and/or a possible protracted or biphasic reaction. Patients with frequent episodes of anaphylaxis (e.g., six or more episodes/year) should be considered for preventive therapy, which may include corticosteroids, H1- and H2-antihistamines, and, in some cases, mast cell stabilizers such as ketotifen. Alternative immune-suppressants (e.g., methotrexate) and anti-IgE may rarely also need to be considered. In many cases, the frequency of anaphylaxis declines such that regular use of corticosteroids can be discontinued after 9–12 months. Pediatric patients should be treated with similar regimens as adults, but with appropriate dose adjustments. Patients should carry their self-injectable epinephrine and other emergency medications at all times in order to deal with emergency situations.

Quality indicators for the acute and long-term management of anaphylaxis: a systematic review

Background

The quality of acute and long-term anaphylaxis management is variable and this contributes to the poor outcomes experienced by many patients. Clinical practice guidelines have the potential to improve outcomes, but implementing guideline recommendations in routine practice is challenging. Quality indicators have the potential to support guideline implementation efforts.

Objective

To identify quality indicators to support the acute and long-term management of anaphylaxis.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of the literature that involved searching Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL databases for peer-reviewed published literature for the period 1 January 2005–31 December 2015. Additionally we searched Google for grey and unpublished literature. The identified indicators were descriptively summarized against the most recent international anaphylaxis guidelines (i.e. those produced by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) and critically evaluated using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s criteria for indicator development.

Results

Our searches revealed 830 publications, from which we identified five sources for 54 indicators addressing both acute (n = 27) and long-term (n = 27) management of anaphylaxis. The majority of indicators were developed through expert consensus with relatively few of these having been formally piloted or tested to demonstrate that they could discriminate between variations in practice and/or that they were sensitive to change.

Conclusions

There is a need for a comprehensive set of quality indicators for anaphylaxis management. We have however identified some indicators for the acute and long-term management of anaphylaxis that could with relatively little additional work support efforts to translate guideline recommendations into clinical care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13601-017-0151-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Allergen immunotherapy for insect venom allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of insect venom allergy. To inform this process, we sought to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of insect venom allergy.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review, which involved searching 15 international biomedical databases for published and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened and critically appraised using established instruments. Data were descriptively summarized and, where possible, meta-analysed.

RESULTS

Our searches identified a total of 16 950 potentially eligible studies; of which, 17 satisfied our inclusion criteria. The available evidence was limited both in volume and in quality, but suggested that venom immunotherapy (VIT) could substantially reduce the risk of subsequent severe systemic sting reactions (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.03-0.26); meta-analysis showed that it also improved disease-specific quality of life (risk difference = 1.41, 95% CI 1.04-1.79). Adverse effects were experienced in both the build-up and maintenance phases, but most were mild with no fatalities being reported. The very limited evidence found on modelling cost-effectiveness suggested that VIT was likely to be cost-effective in those at high risk of repeated systemic sting reactions and/or impaired quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited available evidence suggested that VIT is effective in reducing severe subsequent systemic sting reactions and in improving disease-specific quality of life. VIT proved to be safe and no fatalities were recorded in the studies included in this review. The cost-effectiveness of VIT needs to be established.

Allergen immunotherapy for the prevention of allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a need to establish the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the prevention of allergic disease.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened nine international biomedical databases. Studies were quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Overall, meta-analysis found no conclusive evidence that AIT reduced the risk of developing a first allergic disease over the short term (RR = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.04-2.09) and no randomized controlled evidence was found in relation to its longer-term effects for this outcome. There was, however, a reduction in the short-term risk of those with allergic rhinitis developing asthma (RR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.30-0.54), with this finding being robust to a pre-specified sensitivity analysis. We found inconclusive evidence that this benefit was maintained over the longer term: RR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.31-1.23. There was evidence that the risk of new sensitization was reduced over the short term, but this was not confirmed in the sensitivity analysis: RR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.24-2.18. There was no clear evidence of any longer-term reduction in the risk of sensitization: RR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.08-2.77. AIT appeared to have an acceptable side effect profile.

CONCLUSIONS

AIT did not result in a statistically significant reduction in the risk of developing a first allergic disease. There was, however, evidence of a reduced short-term risk of developing asthma in those with allergic rhinitis, but it is unclear whether this benefit was maintained over the longer term. We are unable to comment on the cost-effectiveness of AIT.

Allergen immunotherapy for IgE-mediated food allergy: protocol for a systematic review

Background

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for IgE-mediated food allergy. We seek to critically assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in IgE-mediated food allergy.

Methods

We will undertake a systematic review, which will involve searching international biomedical databases for published, in progress and unpublished evidence. Studies will be independently screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data will be descriptively and, if possible and appropriate, quantitatively synthesised.

Discussion

The findings from this review will be used to inform the development of recommendations for EAACI’s Guidelines on AIT.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13601-016-0113-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Allergen immunotherapy for the prevention of allergic disease: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for the Prevention of Allergic Disease. We seek to critically assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of AIT in the prevention of allergic disease.

METHODS

We will undertake a systematic review, which will involve searching international biomedical databases for published, in progress and unpublished evidence. Studies will be independently screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data will be descriptively and, if possible and appropriate, quantitatively synthesized.

DISCUSSION

The findings from this review will be used to inform the development of recommendations for EAACI's Guidelines on AIT.

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: protocol for a systematic review

Background

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for the Management of Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis. We seek to critically assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Methods

We will undertake a systematic review, which will involve searching international biomedical databases for published, in progress and unpublished evidence. Studies will be independently screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data will be descriptively and, if possible and appropriate, quantitatively synthesised.

Conclusion

The findings from this review will be used to inform the development of recommendations for EAACI’s Guidelines on AIT.

Allergen immunotherapy for insect venom allergy: protocol for a systematic review

Background

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for the Management of Insect Venom Allergy. We seek to critically assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of insect venom allergy.

Methods

We will undertake a systematic review, which will involve searching international biomedical databases for published, in progress and unpublished evidence. Studies will be independently screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data will be descriptively and, if possible and appropriate, quantitatively synthesised.

Discussion

The findings from this review will be used to inform the development of recomendations for EAACI’s Guidelines on AIT.

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic asthma: protocol for a systematic review

Background

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Asthma. We seek to critically assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of allergic asthma.

Methods

We will undertake a systematic review, which will involve searching international biomedical databases for published, in progress and unpublished evidence. Studies will be independently screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data will be descriptively and, if possible and appropriate, quantitatively synthesised.

Discussion

The findings from this review will be used to inform the development of recommendations for EAACI’s Guidelines on AIT.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13601-016-0094-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Anaphylaxis in the community: a questionnaire survey of members of the UK Anaphylaxis Campaign

Objectives

To examine the circumstances, features and management of anaphylaxis in children and adults.

Design

Self-completed questionnaire.

Participants

The age of participants ranged from 0 to 72 years.

Setting

We analysed data from self-completed questionnaires collected over a 12-year period, i.e. 2001–2013, available to people by phone and, since 2012, for online completion through the Anaphylaxis Campaign.

Main outcome measure

We analysed data from self-completed questionnaires collected over a 12- year period, i.e. 2001-2013, available to people by phone and, since 2012, for online completion through the Anaphylaxis Campaign

Results

In total, 356 questionnaires were submitted, of which 54 did not meet the criteria for anaphylaxis. The remaining 302 anaphylactic reactions originated from 243 individuals; 193 (64%) of these reactions were in children. Approximately half of all reactions occurred at home (n = 148; 49%); 61% (n = 193) of reactions occurred in those reporting a history of asthma, and many (n = 76; 41%) of these individuals had asthma that they classified as being severe. In 57% (n = 173) cases, the respondent reacted to a known allergen. Self-injectable adrenaline (epinephrine) was available in 79% of the cases, and it was only used in 38% of episodes. The usage of self-injected adrenaline was lower in children (30%) than in adults (54%), even though 82% of children had adrenaline available at the time of the reaction compared to 74% of adults.

Conclusions

These data suggest that the majority of anaphylaxis reactions are triggered by exposure to known food allergens and that approximately half of these reactions occur at home. Access to self-injectable adrenaline was sub-optimal and when available it was only used in a minority of cases. Avoiding triggers, access to self-injectable adrenaline and its prompt use in the context of reactions need to be reinforced.

Estimating the prevalence of aero-allergy and/or food allergy in infants, children and young people with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema/dermatitis in primary care: multi-centre, cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the primary care-based prevalence of moderate-to-severe atopic eczema/dermatitis in children and to estimate what proportion had co-morbid aero-allergy and/or food allergy that was contributing to their atopic eczema/dermatitis.

DESIGN

Multi-centre, cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

Infants, children and young people aged between 0-17 years.

SETTING

Primary Care.

METHODS

General practice electronic health records were interrogated to identify children (0-17 years) with current moderate-to-severe atopic eczema/dermatitis. Eligible children were assessed by an allergy specialist nurse, this involving a detailed allergy history, examination and, if appropriate, measurement of total IgE and specific IgE to relevant aero-allergens and/or food allergens.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence of atopic eczema, moderate to severe atopic eczema, IgE-mediated atopic eczema.

RESULTS

We recruited eight practices, which together enrolled 16,877 children. Of these, 4331 (25.7%; 95% CI 25.0, 26.3) children had a recorded diagnosis of atopic eczema/dermatitis and 1316 (7.8%; 95% CI 7.4, 8.2) had treatment indicative of current moderate-to-severe atopic eczema/dermatitis. We recruited 159 children for clinical assessment, and complete data were available for 157. The clinical assessment revealed that 130/157 (82.8%) had no indication of IgE-mediated allergy contributing to their atopic eczema/dermatitis; the remaining 27/157 (17.2%; 95% CI 12.1, 23.9) were on clinical assessment considered to possibly have underlying IgE-mediated disease. Specific IgE tests were positive in 14/27 (51.9%; 95% CI 34.0, 69.3) children. Of the 14 children who tested positive, six (42.9%; 95% CI 21.4, 67.4) were positive to food allergens and six (42.9%; 95% CI 21.4, 67.4) to aero-allergens; the remaining two (14.3%; 95% CI 4.0, 40.0) were positive to both food and aero-allergens.

CONCLUSIONS

Although atopic eczema/dermatitis is a very common diagnosis in children in primary care, most appear to be relatively mild and/or transient. Only a small proportion of children had evidence of ongoing underlying IgE-mediated atopic eczema/dermatitis.

Anaphylaxis: guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Anaphylaxis is a clinical emergency, and all healthcare professionals should be familiar with its recognition and acute and ongoing management. These guidelines have been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Taskforce on Anaphylaxis. They aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for the recognition, risk factor assessment, and the management of patients who are at risk of, are experiencing, or have experienced anaphylaxis. While the primary audience is allergists, these guidelines are also relevant to all other healthcare professionals. The development of these guidelines has been underpinned by two systematic reviews of the literature, both on the epidemiology and on clinical management of anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening condition whose clinical diagnosis is based on recognition of a constellation of presenting features. First-line treatment for anaphylaxis is intramuscular adrenaline. Useful second-line interventions may include removing the trigger where possible, calling for help, correct positioning of the patient, high-flow oxygen, intravenous fluids, inhaled short-acting bronchodilators, and nebulized adrenaline. Discharge arrangements should involve an assessment of the risk of further reactions, a management plan with an anaphylaxis emergency action plan, and, where appropriate, prescribing an adrenaline auto-injector. If an adrenaline auto-injector is prescribed, education on when and how to use the device should be provided. Specialist follow-up is essential to investigate possible triggers, to perform a comprehensive risk assessment, and to prevent future episodes by developing personalized risk reduction strategies including, where possible, commencing allergen immunotherapy. Training for the patient and all caregivers is essential. There are still many gaps in the evidence base for anaphylaxis.

Management of anaphylaxis: a systematic review

To establish the effectiveness of interventions for the acute and long-term management of anaphylaxis, seven databases were searched for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series and - only in relation to adrenaline - case series investigating the effectiveness of interventions in managing anaphylaxis. Fifty-five studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. We found no robust studies investigating the effectiveness of adrenaline (epinephrine), H1-antihistamines, systemic glucocorticosteroids or methylxanthines to manage anaphylaxis. There was evidence regarding the optimum route, site and dose of administration of adrenaline from trials studying people with a history of anaphylaxis. This suggested that administration of intramuscular adrenaline into the middle of vastus lateralis muscle is the optimum treatment. Furthermore, fatality register studies have suggested that a failure or delay in administration of adrenaline may increase the risk of death. The main long-term management interventions studied were anaphylaxis management plans and allergen-specific immunotherapy. Management plans may reduce the risk of further reactions, but these studies were at high risk of bias. Venom immunotherapy may reduce the incidence of systemic reactions in those with a history of venom-triggered anaphylaxis.

The acute and long-term management of anaphylaxis: protocol for a systematic review

Background

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology is in the process of developing its Guideline for Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis, and this systematic review is one of seven inter-linked evidence syntheses that are being undertaken in order to provide a state-of-the-art synopsis of the current evidence base in relation to epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis and clinical management and impact on quality of life, which will be used to inform clinical recommendations.

The aims of this systematic review will be to assess the effectiveness of interventions for the acute management of anaphylaxis, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches for the long-term management of anaphylaxis.

Methods

A highly sensitive search strategy has been developed, and validated study design filters will be applied to retrieve all articles pertaining to the management of anaphylaxis from electronic bibliographic databases. We will systematically review the literature on the acute management of anaphylaxis by assessing the effectiveness of epinephrine, H1-antihistamines (versus placebo), systemic glucocorticosteroids, methylxanthines or any other treatments for the emergency management of people experiencing anaphylaxis. The main interventions that have been studied in the context of long-term management are anaphylaxis management plans and allergen-specific immunotherapy.

Discussion

There is at present little in the way of robust evidence to guide decisions on the acute and/or long-term management of anaphylaxis. Given the risk of death and the considerable morbidity associated with anaphylaxis these evidence gaps need to be filled wherever possible; this systematic review will make a start in this area.

Hay fever in adolescents and adults

INTRODUCTION

Hay fever is found throughout the world. Epidemiological evidence suggests considerable geographical variation in its prevalence. Symptoms are caused by an IgE-mediated type 1 hypersensitivity reaction to airborne allergens such as pollen or fungal spores, and may also cause eye, sinus, respiratory, and systemic problems.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for hay fever in adolescents and adults? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS

We found 211 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: intranasal corticosteroids, oral antihistamines, intranasal antihistamines, oral leukotriene receptor antagonists, systemic corticosteroids, intranasal ipratropium bromide, oral decongestants, and combinations of these treatments.

Consultations for people from minority groups

This article provides practical suggestions on ways to improve communication with people from minority ethnic and faith groups

Seasonal allergic rhinitis in adolescents and adults

INTRODUCTION

Seasonal allergic rhinitis is found throughout the world. Epidemiological evidence suggests that there is considerable geographical variation in its prevalence. Symptoms are caused by an IgE mediated type 1 hypersensitivity reaction to air-borne allergens such as pollen or fungal spores, and may also cause eye, respiratory, and systemic problems.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for seasonal allergic rhinitis in adolescents and adults? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to September 2005 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS

We found 165 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: astemizole, intranasal azelastine, intranasal corticosteroids, intranasal ipratropium bromide, intranasal levocabastine, oral antihistamines, oral decongestants, oral leukotriene receptor antagonists, pseudoephedrine, systemic corticosteroids, terfenadine.

Pneumococcal vaccine for asthma

BACKGROUND

Infection with Streptococcus pneumoniae is an important cause of pneumonia and other serious illnesses, particularly amongst those with certain high-risk medical conditions such as asthma. Although pneumococcal vaccine is routinely advocated for people with asthma, there is uncertainty about the evidence base that underpins this recommendation.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of pneumococcal vaccine in reducing mortality or morbidity from pneumococcal disease in asthmatics.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised controlled trials were identified using the Cochrane Airways Group's register derived from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL electronic databases and hand searched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, in which pneumococcal vaccine has been compared with placebo or no treatment in people with clinician diagnosed asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently reviewed all abstracts and full papers of all articles of potential relevance were retrieved. Methodological quality was rated using the Cochrane approach and the Jadad rating scale. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. We planned to perform quantitative analyses of outcomes on an intention-to-treat basis, where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the three papers retrieved, only one satisfied the inclusion criteria and the methodological quality of this study was low (unblinded and inadequate allocation concealment). None of the data could be aggregated in a meta-analysis. Comparisons in a sub-set of 30 asthmatic children prone to recurrent episodes of otitis media, showed that pneumococcal vaccination decreased the incidence of acute asthma exacerbations from 10 to 7 (per child per year).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

This review found very limited evidence to support the routine use of pneumococcal vaccine in people with asthma. A randomised trial of vaccine efficacy in children and adults with asthma is needed.

Kinetic and equilibrium studies of incorporation of di-sulfonated aluminum phthalocyanine into unilamellar vesicles

The interactions of cis-di-sulfonated aluminum phthalocyanine (PcS(2)Al) with dimyristoylphosphatidylcholine (DMPC) unilamellar vesicles have been investigated by fluorescence spectroscopy. At pH 7.0, PcS(2)Al incorporates into the vesicles with a high affinity constant (2.7x10(6) M(-1), in terms of phospholipid concentration). The fluorescence changes following rapid mixing of PcS(2)Al with vesicles are biphasic. The first phase is attributed to the entry of PcS(2)Al into the vesicles, as deduced from the linear dependence of the rate upon lipid concentration. More surprisingly, this rate is strongly pH dependent with a marked maximum around pH 7.3, a result interpreted in terms of the coordination state of the aluminum ion in aqueous solutions. At this pH, a hydroxide ion neutralizes the residual positive charge of the metal ion that remains unbalanced after coordination by the phthalocyanine cycle. A water molecule is likely to complete the metal coordination sphere. Only this form, PcAl(+)(OH(-))(OH(2)), with an uncharged core is quickly incorporated into the vesicles. The protonation of OH(-) or the deprotonation of the coordinated H(2)O leading to a positively or negatively charged core, respectively, account for the observed pH effect. Studies on the effect of cholesterol addition and exchange of PcS(2)Al between vesicles and albumin all indicate the absence of transfer of the phthalocyanine between the vesicle hemileaflets, a result expected from the presence of the two negatively charged sulfonated groups at the ring periphery. Instead, the slower kinetic phase is likely due to the movement of the phthalocyanine becoming more buried within the outer leaflet upon the loss of the water molecule coordinated to the aluminum ion.