The availability of allergen molecules ('components') from several protein families has advanced our understanding of immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated responses and enabled 'component-resolved diagnosis' (CRD). The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Molecular Allergology User's Guide (MAUG) provides comprehensive information on important allergens and describes the diagnostic options using CRD. Part A of the EAACI MAUG introduces allergen molecules, families, composition of extracts, databases, and diagnostic IgE, skin, and basophil tests. Singleplex and multiplex IgE assays with components improve both sensitivity for low-abundance allergens and analytical specificity; IgE to individual allergens can yield information on clinical risks and distinguish cross-reactivity from true primary sensitization. Part B discusses the clinical and molecular aspects of IgE-mediated allergies to foods (including nuts, seeds, legumes, fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, milk, egg, meat, fish, and shellfish), inhalants (pollen, mold spores, mites, and animal dander), and Hymenoptera venom. Diagnostic algorithms and short case histories provide useful information for the clinical workup of allergic individuals targeted for CRD. Part C covers protein families containing ubiquitous, highly cross-reactive panallergens from plant (lipid transfer proteins, polcalcins, PR-10, profilins) and animal sources (lipocalins, parvalbumins, serum albumins, tropomyosins) and explains their diagnostic and clinical utility. Part D lists 100 important allergen molecules. In conclusion, IgE-mediated reactions and allergic diseases, including allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma, food reactions, and insect sting reactions, are discussed from a novel molecular perspective. The EAACI MAUG documents the rapid progression of molecular allergology from basic research to its integration into clinical practice, a quantum leap in the management of allergic patients.

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...

The European Anaphylaxis Registry confirmed food as the major elicitor of anaphylaxis in children, specifically hen's egg, cow's milk, and nuts. Reactions to insect venom were seen more in young adulthood. Intensive care unit admissions and grade IV/fatal reactions were rare. The registry will serve as a systematic foundation for a continuous description of this multiform condition.

Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for IgEmediated Food Allergy. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we sought to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT in the management of food allergy. Methods: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis that involved searching nine international electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRS). Eligible studies were independently assessed by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and the Cochrane ACROBAT-NRS tool for quasi-RCTs. Random-effects meta-analyses were undertaken, with planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

No abstract

This pilot phase of a pan-European registry for severe allergic reactions provides for the first time data on anaphylaxis throughout Europe, demonstrates its potential functionality and allows a comparison of symptom patterns, elicitors and treatment habits between referral centres and countries.

Antonella Muraro, Margitta Worm and Graham Roberts equally contributed as guideline chairs.This paper sets out the updated European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) guideline regarding the diagnosis, acute management, and prevention of anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a clinical emergency and all healthcare professionals need to be familiar with its recognition and management. Anaphylaxis is a lifethreatening reaction characterized by acute onset of symptoms involving different organ systems and requiring immediate medical intervention. 1 Although the fatality rate due to anaphylaxis remains low, 2 the frequency of hospitalization from food and drug-induced anaphylaxis has been increasing in recent years. 3 The symptoms of anaphylaxis are highly variable. 4,5 Data from patients experiencing anaphylaxis revealed that skin and mucosal symptoms occur most frequently (>90% of cases) followed by symptoms involving the respiratory and cardiovascular systems (>50%). Food, drug, and Hymenoptera venom are the most common elicitors of anaphylactic reactions. 5,6 The prevalence of the various causes of anaphylaxis are age-dependent and vary in different geographical regions. In Europe, typical causes of food-induced anaphylaxis in children are peanut, hazelnut, milk, and egg and in adults, wheat, celery, and shellfish; fruits such as peach are also typical causes of food-induced anaphylaxis in adults in some European countries such as Spain and Italy. 7,8 Venom-induced anaphylaxis is typically caused by wasp and bee venom. 9 Drug-induced anaphylaxis is typically caused by antibiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. 10,11 Among antibiotics, beta-lactam antibiotics are the leading eliciting allergens. 12 At times, there is an occupational cause. 13 Co-factors may be aggravating factors in anaphylaxis, examples are exercise, stress, infection, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and alcohol. [14][15][16] In some cases, the cause is not obvious (idiopathic anaphylaxis) and investigations for rarer allergens or differential diagnoses should be considered. [17][18][19] This guideline, updated from 2014, 20 provides evidence-based guidance to help manage anaphylaxis. The primary audience is clinical allergists (specialists and subspecialists), primary care, paediatricians, emergency physicians, anaesthetists and intensivists, nurses, dieticians, and other healthcare professionals. The guideline was

Anaphylaxis has been defined as a 'severe, life-threatening generalized or systemic hypersensitivity reaction'. However, data indicate that the vast majority of foodtriggered anaphylactic reactions are not life-threatening. Nonetheless, severe lifethreatening reactions do occur and are unpredictable. We discuss the concepts surrounding perceptions of severe, life-threatening allergic reactions to food by different stakeholders, with particular reference to the inclusion of clinical severity as a factor in allergy and allergen risk management. We review the evidence regarding factors that might be used to identify those at most risk of severe allergic reactions to food, and the consequences of misinformation in this regard. For example, a significant proportion of food-allergic children also have asthma, yet almost none will experience a fatal food-allergic reaction; asthma is not, in itself, a strong predictor for fatal anaphylaxis. The relationship between dose of allergen exposure and symptom severity is unclear. While dose appears to be a risk factor in at least a subgroup of patients, studies report that individuals with prior anaphylaxis do not have a lower eliciting dose than those reporting previous mild reactions. It is therefore important to consider severity and sensitivity as separate factors, as a highly sensitive individual will not necessarily experience severe symptoms during an allergic reaction. We identify the knowledge gaps that need to be addressed to improve our ability to better identify those most at risk of severe food-induced allergic reactions.