Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are a matter of great concern, both for outpatient and in hospital care. The evaluation of these patients is complex, because in vivo tests have a suboptimal sensitivity and can be time-consuming, expensive and potentially risky, especially drug provocation tests. There are several currently available in vitro methods that can be classified into two main groups: those that help to characterize the active phase of the reaction and those that help to identify the culprit drug. The utility of these in vitro methods depends on the mechanisms involved, meaning that they cannot be used for the evaluation of all types of DHRs. Moreover, their effectiveness has not been defined by a consensus agreement between experts in the field. Thus, the European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has organized a task force to provide data and recommendations regarding the available in vitro methods for DHR diagnosis. We have found that although there are many in vitro tests, few of them can be given a recommendation of grade B or above mainly because there is a lack of well-controlled studies, most information comes from small studies with few subjects and results are not always confirmed in later studies. Therefore, it is necessary to validate the currently available in vitro tests in a large series of well-characterized patients with DHR and to develop new tests for diagnosis.

A recent survey of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Drug Allergy Interest Group (DAIG) on how European allergy specialists deal with betalactam (BL) hypersensitivity demonstrated a significant heterogeneity in current practice, suggesting the need to review and update existing EAACI guidelines in order to make the diagnostic procedures as safe and accurate, but also as cost-effective, as pos-Mono

BackgroundChronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) can be debilitating, difficult to treat, and frustrating for patients and physicians. Real‐world evidence for the burden of CSU is limited. The objective of this study was to document disease duration, treatment history, and disease activity, as well as impact on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and work among patients with inadequately controlled CSU, and to describe its humanistic, societal, and economic burden.MethodsThis international observational study assessed a cohort of 673 adult patients with CSU whose symptoms persisted for ≥12 months despite treatment. Demographics, disease characteristics, and healthcare resource use in the previous 12 months were collected from medical records. Patient‐reported data on urticaria and angioedema symptoms, HRQoL, and work productivity and activity impairment were collected from a survey and a diary.ResultsAlmost 50% of patients had moderate‐to‐severe disease activity as reported by Urticaria Activity Score. Mean (SD) Dermatology Life Quality Index and Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire scores were 9.1 (6.62) and 33.6 (20.99), respectively. Chronic spontaneous urticaria markedly interfered with sleep and daily activities. Angioedema in the previous 12 months was reported by 66% of enrolled patients and significantly affected HRQoL. More than 20% of patients reported ≥1 hour per week of missed work; productivity impairment was 27%. These effects increased with increasing disease activity. Significant healthcare resources and costs were incurred to treat CSU.ConclusionsChronic spontaneous urticaria has considerable humanistic and economic impacts. Patients with greater disease activity and with angioedema experience greater HRQoL impairments.

Mobile health (mHealth) uses mobile communication devices such as smartphones and tablet computers to support and improve health‐related services, data and information flow, patient self‐management, surveillance, and disease management from the moment of first diagnosis to an optimized treatment. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology created a task force to assess the state of the art and future potential of mHealth in allergology. The task force endorsed the “Be He@lthy, Be Mobile” WHO initiative and debated the quality, usability, efficiency, advantages, limitations, and risks of mobile solutions for allergic diseases. The results are summarized in this position paper, analyzing also the regulatory background with regard to the “General Data Protection Regulation” and Medical Directives of the European Community. The task force assessed the design, user engagement, content, potential of inducing behavioral change, credibility/accountability, and privacy policies of mHealth products. The perspectives of healthcare professionals and allergic patients are discussed, underlining the need of thorough investigation for an effective design of mHealth technologies as auxiliary tools to improve quality of care. Within the context of precision medicine, these could facilitate the change in perspective from clinician‐ to patient‐centered care. The current and future potential of mHealth is then examined for specific areas of allergology, including allergic rhinitis, aerobiology, allergen immunotherapy, asthma, dermatological diseases, food allergies, anaphylaxis, insect venom, and drug allergy. The impact of mobile technologies and associated big data sets are outlined. Facts and recommendations for future mHealth initiatives within EAACI are listed.

Background Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID‐19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized. Method Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre‐vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccines, and literature was analysed. Results No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID‐19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1—anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2—anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3—recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4—suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5—confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick‐to‐prick skin test with the left‐over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable. Conclusions These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID‐19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated.

An accurate diagnosis of β-lactam (BL) allergy can reduce patient morbidity and mortality. Our aim was to investigate the availability of BL reagents, their use and test procedures in different parts of Europe, as well as any differences in the diagnostic workups for evaluating subjects with BL hypersensitivity. A survey was emailed to all members of the EAACI Drug Allergy Interest Group (DAIG) between February and April 2016, and the questionnaire was meant to study the management of suspected BL hypersensitivity. The questionnaire was emailed to 82 DAIG centres and answered by 57. Amoxicillin alone or combined to clavulanic acid were the most commonly involved BL except in the Danish centre, where penicillin V was the most

Background ASSURE‐CSU revealed differences in physician and patient reporting of angioedema. This post hoc analysis was conducted to evaluate the actual rate of angioedema in the study population and explore differences between patients with and without angioedema.MethodsThis international observational study assessed 673 patients with inadequately controlled chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Physicians abstracted angioedema data from medical records, which were compared with patient‐reported data. Patients in the Yes‐angioedema category had angioedema reported in the medical record and a patient‐reported source. For those in the No‐angioedema category, angioedema was reported in neither the medical record nor a patient‐reported source. Those in the Misaligned category had angioedema reported in only one source. Statistical comparisons between Yes‐angioedema and No‐angioedema categories were conducted for measures of CSU activity, health‐related quality of life (HRQoL), productivity and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). Regression analyses explored the relationship between Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score and angioedema, adjusting for important covariates.ResultsAmong evaluable patients, 259 (40.3%), 173 (26.9%) and 211 (32.8%) were in the Yes‐angioedema, No‐angioedema and Misaligned category, respectively. CSU activity and impact on HRQoL, productivity, and HCRU was greater for Yes‐angioedema patients than No‐angioedema patients. After covariate adjustment, mean DLQI score was significantly higher (indicating worse HRQoL) for patients with angioedema versus no angioedema (9.88 vs 7.27, P < .001). The Misaligned category had similar results with Yes‐angioedema on all outcomes.ConclusionsAngioedema in CSU seems to be under‐reported but has significant negative impacts on HRQoL, daily activities, HCRU and work compared with no angioedema.

No abstract