Introduction: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is one of the most prevalent esophageal diseases and the leading cause of dysphagia and food impaction in children and young adults. This underlines the importance of optimizing diagnosys and treatment of the condition, especially after the increasing amount of knowledge on EoE recently published. Therefore, the UEG, EAACI ESPGHAN, and EUREOS deemed it necessary to update the current guidelines regarding conceptual and epidemiological aspects, diagnosis, and treatment of EoE. Methods: General methodology according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used in order to comply with current standards of evidence assessment in formulation of recommendations. An extensive literature search was conducted up to August 2015 and periodically updated. The working group consisted of gastroenterologists, allergists, pediatricians, otolaryngologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists. Systematic evidence-based reviews were performed based upon relevant clinical questions with respect to patient-important outcomes. Results: The guidelines include updated concept of EoE, evaluated information on disease epidemiology, risk factors, associated conditions, and natural history of EoE in children and adults. Diagnostic conditions and criteria, the yield of diagnostic and disease monitoring procedures, and evidence-based statements and recommendation on the utility of the several treatment options for patients EoE are provided. Recommendations on how to choose and implement treatment and long-term management are provided based on expert opinion and best clinical practice. Conclusion: Evidence-based recommendations for EoE diagnosis, treatment modalities, and patients' follow up are proposed in the guideline.

Skin tests are of paramount importance for the evaluation of drug hypersensitivity reactions. Drug skin tests are often not carried out because of lack of concise information on specific test concentrations. The diagnosis of drug allergy is often based on history alone, which is an unreliable indicator of true hypersensitivity.To promote and standardize reproducible skin testing with safe and nonirritant drug concentrations in the clinical practice, the European Network and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Interest Group on Drug Allergy has performed a literature search on skin test drug concentration in MEDLINE and EMBASE, reviewed and evaluated the literature in five languages using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. Where the literature is poor, we have taken into consideration the collective experience of the group.We recommend drug concentration for skin testing aiming to achieve a specificity of at least 95%. It has been possible to recommend specific drug concentration for betalactam antibiotics, perioperative drugs, heparins, platinum salts and radiocontrast media. For many other drugs, there is insufficient evidence to recommend appropriate drug concentration. There is urgent need for multicentre studies designed to establish and validate drug skin test concentration using standard protocols. For most drugs, sensitivity of skin testing is higher in immediate hypersensitivity compared to nonimmediate hypersensitivity.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma represent global health problems for all age groups. Asthma and rhinitis frequently coexist in the same subjects. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) was initiated during a World Health Organization workshop in 1999 (published in 2001). ARIA has reclassified AR as mild/moderate-severe and intermittent/persistent. This classification closely reflects patients' needs and underlines the close relationship between rhinitis and asthma. Patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals are confronted with various treatment choices for the management of AR. This contributes to considerable variation in clinical practice, and worldwide, patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals are faced with uncertainty about the relative merits and downsides of the various treatment options. In its 2010 Revision, ARIA developed clinical practice guidelines for the management of AR and asthma comorbidities based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. ARIA is disseminated and implemented in more than 50 countries of the world. Ten years after the publication of the ARIA World Health Organization workshop report, it is important to make a summary of its achievements and identify the still unmet clinical, research, and implementation needs to strengthen the 2011 European Union Priority on allergy and asthma in children.

When questioned, about 10% of the parents report suspected hypersensitivity to at least one drug in their children. However, only a few of these reactions can be confirmed as allergic after a diagnostic workup. There is still a lack of knowledge on drug hypersensitivity (DH) epidemiology, clinical spectrum, and appropriate diagnostic methods particularly in children. Meanwhile, the tools used for DH management in adults are applied also for children. Whereas this appears generally acceptable, some aspects of DH and management differ with age. Most reactions in children are still attributed to betalactams. Some manifestations, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-associated angioedema and serum sicknesslike reactions, are more frequent among young patients as compared to adults. Risk factors such as viral infections are particularly frequent in children, making the diagnosis challenging. The practicability and validity of skin test and other diagnostic procedures need further assessment in children. This study presents an up-to-date review on epidemiology, clinical spectrum, diagnostic tools, and current management of DH in children. A new general algorithm for the study of these reactions in children is proposed. Data are presented focusing on reported differences between pediatric and adult patients, also identifying unmet needs to be addressed in further research.

Immunization is highly effective in preventing infectious diseases and therefore an indispensable public health measure. Allergic patients deserve access to the same publicly recommended immunizations as non‐allergic patients unless risks associated with vaccination outweigh the gains. Whereas the number of reported possible allergic reactions to vaccines is high, confirmed vaccine‐triggered allergic reactions are rare. Anaphylaxis following vaccination is rare, affecting <1/100 000, but can occur in any patient. Some patient groups, notably those with a previous allergic reaction to a vaccine or its components, are at heightened risk of allergic reaction and require special precautions. Allergic reactions, however, may occur in patients without known risk factors and cannot be predicted by currently available tools. Unwarranted fear and uncertainty can result in incomplete vaccination coverage for children and adults with or without allergy. In addition to concerns about an allergic reaction to the vaccine itself, there is fear that routine childhood immunization may promote the development of allergic sensitization and disease. Thus, although there is no evidence that routine childhood immunization increases the risk of allergy development, such risks need to be discussed.

Perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions are rare. Subsequent allergy investigation is complicated by multiple simultaneous drug exposures, the use of drugs with potent effects and the many differential diagnoses to hypersensitivity in the perioperative setting. The approach to the investigation of these complex reactions is not standardized, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that collaboration between experts in the field of allergy/immunology/dermatology and anaesthesiology is needed to provide the best possible care for these patients. The EAACI task force behind this position paper has therefore combined the expertise of allergists, immunologists and anaesthesiologists. The aims of this position paper were to provide recommendations for the investigation of immediate-type perioperative hypersensitivity reactions and to provide practical information that can assist clinicians in planning and carrying out investigations. | 1873GARVEY Et Al.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic disease characterized clinically by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and histologically by eosinophil-predominant inflammation. EoE is frequently associated with concomitant atopic diseases and immunoglobulin E (IgE) sensitization to food allergens in children as well as to aeroallergens and cross-reactive plant allergen components in adults. Patients with EoE respond well to elemental and empirical food elimination diets. Recent research has, however, indicated that the pathogenesis of EoE is distinct from IgE-mediated food allergy. In this review, we discuss the individual roles of epithelial barrier defects, dysregulated innate and adaptive immune responses, and of microbiota in the pathogenesis of EoE. Although food has been recognized as a trigger factor of EoE, the mechanism by which it initiates or facilitates eosinophilic inflammation appears to be largely independent of IgE and needs to be further investigated. Understanding the pathogenic role of food in EoE is a prerequisite for the development of specific diagnostic tools and targeted therapeutic procedures.Abbreviations ACD, allergic contact dermatitis; AD, atopic dermatitis; APT, atopy patch test; DHR, drug hypersensitivity reactions; EoE, eosinophilic esophagitis; FPIES, food protein-induced enterocolitis; GERD, gastroesophageal reflux disease; GI, gastrointestinal; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; Ig, immunoglobulin; OAS, oral allergy syndrome; PPI-REE, proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia; SFED, six-food elimination diet; SPT, skin prick test; TCR, T-cell receptor; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.Allergy 71 (2016) 611-620

Mite-proof bedding covers, as part of a structured allergy-control program, reduced the level of exposure to mite allergens. Despite the success of the intervention, this single avoidance measure did not lead to a significant improvement of clinical symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis.