Nasal allergen challenge (NAC) is an important tool to diagnose allergic rhinitis. In daily clinical routine, experimentally, or when measuring therapeutic success clinically, nasal allergen challenge is fundamental. It is further one of the key diagnostic tools when initiating specific allergen immunotherapy. So far, national recommendations offered guidance on its execution; however, international divergence left many questions unanswered. These differences in the literature caused EAACI to initiate a task force to answer unmet needs and find a consensus in executing nasal allergen challenge. On the basis of a systematic review containing nasal allergen challenges of the past years, task force members reviewed evidence, discussed open issues, and studied variations of several subjective and objective assessment parameters to propose a standardized way of a nasal allergen challenge procedure in clinical practice. Besides an update on indications, contraindications, and preparations for the test procedure, main recommendations are a bilaterally challenge with standardized allergens, with a spray device offering 0.1 mL per nostril. A systematic catalogue for positivity criteria is given for the variety of established subjective and objective assessment methods as well as a schedule for the challenge procedure. The task force recommends a unified protocol for NAC for daily clinical practice, aiming at eliminating the previous difficulty of comparing NAC results due to unmet needs.

This report has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Task Force on Allergic Rhinitis (AR) comorbidities. The aim of this multidisciplinary European consensus document is to highlight the role of multimorbidities in the definition, classification, mechanisms, recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of AR, and to define the needs in this neglected area by a literature review. AR is a systemic allergic disease and is generally associated with numerous multi-morbid disorders, including asthma, eczema, food allergies, eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE), conjunctivitis, chronic middle ear effusions, rhinosinusitis, adenoid hypertrophy, olfaction disorders, obstructive sleep apnea, disordered sleep and consequent behavioural and educational effects. This report provides up-to-date usable information to: (1) improve the knowledge and skills of allergists, so as to ultimately improve the overall quality of patient care; (2) to increase interest in this area; and (3) to present a unique contribution to the field of upper inflammatory disease.

Because of the inflammatory mechanisms of most chronic upper airway diseases such as rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis, systemic steroids have been used for their treatment for decades. However, it has been very well documented that—potentially severe—side-effects can occur with the accumulation of systemic steroid courses over the years. A consensus document summarizing the benefits of systemic steroids for each upper airway disease type, as well as highlighting the potential harms of this treatment is currently lacking. Therefore, a panel of international experts in the field of Rhinology reviewed the available literature with the aim of providing recommendations for the use of systemic steroids in treating upper airway disease.

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.

Introduction The COVID‐19 pandemic dramatically disrupts health care around the globe. The impact of the pandemic on chronic urticaria (CU) and its management are largely unknown. Aim To understand how CU patients are affected by the COVID‐19 pandemic; how specialists alter CU patient management; and the course of CU in patients with COVID‐19. Materials and Methods Our cross‐sectional, international, questionnaire‐based, multicenter UCARE COVID‐CU study assessed the impact of the pandemic on patient consultations, remote treatment, changes in medications, and clinical consequences. Results The COVID‐19 pandemic severely impairs CU patient care, with less than 50% of the weekly numbers of patients treated as compared to before the pandemic. Reduced patient referrals and clinic hours were the major reasons. Almost half of responding UCARE physicians were involved in COVID‐19 patient care, which negatively impacted on the care of urticaria patients. The rate of face‐to‐face consultations decreased by 62%, from 90% to less than half, whereas the rate of remote consultations increased by more than 600%, from one in 10 to more than two thirds. Cyclosporine and systemic corticosteroids, but not antihistamines or omalizumab, are used less during the pandemic. CU does not affect the course of COVID‐19, but COVID‐19 results in CU exacerbation in one of three patients, with higher rates in patients with severe COVID‐19. Conclusions The COVID‐19 pandemic brings major changes and challenges for CU patients and their physicians. The long‐term consequences of these changes, especially the increased use of remote consultations, require careful evaluation.