Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre-including this research content-immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

No abstract

Concerns for anaphylaxis may hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization efforts. We convened a multidisciplinary group of international experts in anaphylaxis composed of allergy, infectious disease, emergency medicine, and front-line clinicians to systematically develop recommendations regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immediate allergic reactions. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, the World Health Organizstion (WHO) global coronavirus database, and the gray literature (inception, March 19, 2021) were systematically searched. Paired reviewers independently selected studies addressing anaphylaxis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate allergy, and accuracy of allergy testing for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy. Random effects models synthesized the data to inform recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, agreed upon using a modified Delphi panel. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine anaphylaxis is 7.91 cases per million (n [ 41,000,000 vaccinations; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.02-15.59; 26 studies, moderate certainty), the incidence of 0.15 cases per million patient-years (95% CI 0.11-0.2), and the

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Allergen exposure chambers (AECs) are clinical facilities allowing for controlled exposure of subjects to allergens in an enclosed environment. AECs have contributed towards characterizing the pathophysiology of respiratory allergic diseases and the pharmacological properties of new therapies. In addition, they are complementary to and offer some advantages over traditional multicentre field trials for evaluation of novel therapeutics. To date, AEC studies conducted have been monocentric and have followed protocols unique to each centre. Because there are technical differences among AECs, it may be necessary to define parameters to standardize the AECs so that studies may be extrapolated for driving basic immunological research and for marketing authorization purposes by regulatory authorities. Methods: For this task force initiative of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), experts from academia and regulatory agencies

The heterogeneous nature of asthma has been understood for decades, but the precise categorization of asthma has taken on new clinical importance in the era of specific biologic therapy. The simple categories of allergic and non-allergic asthma have given way to more precise phenotypes that hint at underlying biologic mechanisms of variable airflow limitation and airways inflammation. Understanding these mechanisms is of particular importance for the approximately 10% of patients with severe asthma. Biomarkers that aid in phenotyping allow physicians to “personalize” treatment with targeted biologic agents. Unfortunately, testing for these biomarkers is not routine in patients whose asthma is refractory to standard therapy. Scientific advances in the recognition of sensitive and specific biomarkers are steadily outpacing the clinical availability of reliable and non-invasive assessment methods designed for the prompt and specific diagnosis, classification, treatment, and monitoring of severe asthma patients. This article provides a practical overview of current biomarkers and testing methods for prompt, effective management of patients with severe asthma that is refractory to standard therapy.

Rationale, aims and objectives The standard of preventive care for poorly controlled seasonal allergic rhinitis (AR) is subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with allergen extracts, administered in a physician's office. As an alternative to SCIT, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is now an option for patients with seasonal AR. Oralair™, a SLIT tablet containing freeze-dried allergen extracts of five grasses [cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata), meadow grass (Poa pratensis), rye grass (Lolium perenne), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum) and timothy grass (Phleum pratense)], and Grazax™, a SLIT tablet containing a standardized extract of grass pollen allergen from timothy grass (P pratenase), are two such agents currently available in many countries. However, headto-head comparative data are not available. In this study, an indirect comparison on efficacy, safety and cost was undertaken between Oralair™, Grazax™ and SCIT. Methods A systematic review was conducted for double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials evaluating Oralair™, Grazax™ or SCIT in patients with grass-induced seasonal AR. Using placebo as the common control, an indirect statistical comparison between treatments was performed using meta regression analysis with active drug as the primary independent variable. An economic analysis, which included both direct and indirect costs for the Canadian setting, was also undertaken. Results Overall, 20 placebo-controlled trials met the study inclusion criteria. The indirect analysis suggested improved efficacy with Oralair™ over SCIT [standardized mean difference (SMD) in AR symptom control = −0.21; P = 0.007] and Grazax™ (SMD = −0.18; P = 0.018). In addition, there were no significant differences in the risk of discontinuation due to adverse events between therapies. Oralair™ was associated with cost savings against year-round SCIT ($2471), seasonal SCIT ($948) and Grazax™ ($1168) during the first year of therapy. Conclusions Oralair™ has at least non-inferior efficacy and comparable safety against SCIT and Grazax™ at a lower annual cost.