drawn on data from a systematic review of the literature, more recent published studies and multistakeholder expert clinical opinion. This Guideline is aimed at healthcare professionals who are encouraged to take the recommendations into account in the context of delivering clinical care. This Guideline is not a substitute for professional clinical judgment, which professionals need to exercise in the context of delivering personalised healthcare. AbstractAllergic 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 766 | ROBERTS, PFAAR ET AL. 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. | ME TH ODOLOGYThis Guideline was produced using the Appraisal of Guidelines forResearch & Evaluation (AGREE II) approach, 17,18 a structured approach to guideline production (see Table S1). This is designed to ensure appropriate representation of the full range of stakeholders, a careful search for and critical appraisal of the relevant literature, a systematic approach to the formulation and presentation of recommendations and steps to ensure that the risk of bias is minimized at each step of the process. The process started on April 2015 beginning with detailed face-to-face discussions agreeing on the process and the key clinical areas to address, followed by face-to-face meetings, and regular web conferences in which professional and lay representatives participated. | Clarifying the scope and purpose of the guidelinesThe scope of this EAACI Guideline is multifaceted...

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.

BackgroundFilaggrin (FLG) loss-of-function mutations lead to an impaired skin barrier associated with peanut allergy. Household peanut consumption is associated with peanut allergy, and peanut allergen in household dust correlates with household peanut consumption.ObjectiveWe sought to determine whether environmental peanut exposure increases the odds of peanut allergy and whether FLG mutations modulate these odds.MethodsExposure to peanut antigen in dust within the first year of life was measured in a population-based birth cohort. Peanut sensitization and peanut allergy (defined by using oral food challenges or component-resolved diagnostics [CRD]) were assessed at 8 and 11 years. Genotyping was performed for 6 FLG mutations.ResultsAfter adjustment for infantile atopic dermatitis and preceding egg skin prick test (SPT) sensitization, we found a strong and significant interaction between natural log (ln [loge]) peanut dust levels and FLG mutations on peanut sensitization and peanut allergy. Among children with FLG mutations, for each ln unit increase in the house dust peanut protein level, there was a more than 6-fold increased odds of peanut SPT sensitization, CRD sensitization, or both in children at ages 8 years, 11 years, or both and a greater than 3-fold increased odds of peanut allergy compared with odds seen in children with wild-type FLG. There was no significant effect of exposure in children without FLG mutations. In children carrying an FLG mutation, the threshold level for peanut SPT sensitization was 0.92 μg of peanut protein per gram (95% CI, 0.70-1.22 μg/g), that for CRD sensitization was 1.03 μg/g (95% CI, 0.90-1.82 μg/g), and that for peanut allergy was 1.17 μg/g (95% CI, 0.01-163.83 μg/g).ConclusionEarly-life environmental peanut exposure is associated with an increased risk of peanut sensitization and allergy in children who carry an FLG mutation. These data support the hypothesis that peanut allergy develops through transcutaneous sensitization in children with an impaired skin barrier.

IMPORTANCE Sublingual immunotherapy and subcutaneous immunotherapy are effective in seasonal allergic rhinitis. Three years of continuous treatment with subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy has been shown to improve symptoms for at least 2 years following discontinuation of treatment. OBJECTIVE To assess whether 2 years of treatment with grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy, compared with placebo, provides improved nasal response to allergen challenge at 3-year follow-up. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-parallel-group study performed in a single academic center, Imperial College London, of adult patients with moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis (interfering with usual daily activities or sleep). First enrollment was March 2011, last follow-up was February 2015.INTERVENTIONS Thirty-six participants received 2 years of sublingual immunotherapy (daily tablets containing 15 μg of major allergen Phleum p 5 and monthly placebo injections), 36 received subcutaneous immunotherapy (monthly injections containing 20 μg of Phleum p 5 and daily placebo tablets) and 34 received matched double-placebo. Nasal allergen challenge was performed before treatment, at 1 and 2 years of treatment, and at 3 years (1 year after treatment discontinuation). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESTotal nasal symptom scores (TNSS; range; 0 [best] to 12 [worst]) were recorded between 0 and 10 hours after challenge. The minimum clinically important difference for change in TNSS within an individual is 1.08. The primary outcome was TNSS comparing sublingual immunotherapy vs placebo at year 3. Subcutaneous immunotherapy was included as a positive control. The study was not powered to compare sublingual immunotherapy with subcutaneous immunotherapy. RESULTS Among 106 randomized participants (mean age, 33.5 years; 34 women [32.1%]), 92 completed the study at 3 years. In the intent-to-treat population, mean TNSS score for the sublingual immunotherapy group was 6.36 (95% CI, 5.76 to 6.96) at pretreatment and 4.73 (95% CI, 3.97 to 5.48) at 3 years, and for the placebo group, the score was 6.06 (95% CI, 5.23 to 6.88) at pretreatment and 4.81 (95% CI, 3.97 to 5.65) at 3 years. The between-group difference (adjusted for baseline) was −0.18 (95% CI, −1.25 to 0.90; [P = .75]).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis, 2 years of sublingual grass pollen immunotherapy was not significantly different from placebo in improving the nasal response to allergen challenge at 3-year follow-up.