Rhinitis is a common problem in childhood and adolescence and impacts negatively on physical, social and psychological well-being. This position paper, prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Taskforce on Rhinitis in Children, aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and therapy of paediatric rhinitis. Rhinitis is characterized by at least two nasal symptoms: rhinorrhoea, blockage, sneezing or itching.

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 Methods We searched nine international biomedical databases for published, in‐progress, and unpublished evidence.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.

BackgroundThe European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). To inform the development of recommendations, we sought to critically assess the systematic review evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for ARC.MethodsWe undertook a systematic overview, which involved searching nine international biomedical databases from inception to October 31, 2015. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Systematic Review Checklist for systematic reviews. Data were descriptively synthesized.ResultsOur searches yielded a total of 5932 potentially eligible studies, from which 17 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. Eight of these were judged to be of high, five moderate and three low quality. These reviews suggested that, in carefully selected patients, subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) immunotherapy resulted in significant reductions in symptom scores and medication requirements. Serious adverse outcomes were rare for both SCIT and SLIT. Two systematic reviews reported some evidence of potential cost savings associated with use of SCIT and SLIT.ConclusionsWe found moderate-to-strong evidence that SCIT and SLIT can, in appropriately selected patients, reduce symptoms and medication requirements in patients with ARC with reassuring safety data. This evidence does however need to be interpreted with caution, particularly given the heterogeneity in the populations, allergens and protocols studied. There is a lack of data on the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of SCIT and SLIT. We are now systematically reviewing all the primary studies, including recent evidence that has not been incorporated into the published systematic reviews.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13601-017-0159-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.