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...

Hymenoptera venom allergy is a potentially life‐threatening allergic reaction following a honeybee, vespid, or ant sting. Systemic‐allergic sting reactions have been reported in up to 7.5% of adults and up to 3.4% of children. They can be mild and restricted to the skin or moderate to severe with a risk of life‐threatening anaphylaxis. Patients should carry an emergency kit containing an adrenaline autoinjector, H1‐antihistamines, and corticosteroids depending on the severity of their previous sting reaction(s). The only treatment to prevent further systemic sting reactions is venom immunotherapy. This guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on Venom Immunotherapy as part of the EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy initiative. The guideline aims to provide evidence‐based recommendations for the use of venom immunotherapy, has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta‐analysis and produced using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included representation from a range of stakeholders. Venom immunotherapy is indicated in venom‐allergic children and adults to prevent further moderate‐to‐severe systemic sting reactions. Venom immunotherapy is also recommended in adults with only generalized skin reactions as it results in significant improvements in quality of life compared to carrying an adrenaline autoinjector. This guideline aims to give practical advice on performing venom immunotherapy. Key sections cover general considerations before initiating venom immunotherapy, evidence‐based clinical recommendations, risk factors for adverse events and for relapse of systemic sting reaction, and a summary of gaps in the evidence.

Food allergy can result in considerable morbidity, impairment of quality of life, and healthcare expenditure. There is therefore interest in novel strategies for its treatment, particularly food allergen immunotherapy (FA-AIT) through the oral (OIT), sublingual (SLIT), or epicutaneous (EPIT) routes. This Guideline, prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Task Force on Allergen Immunotherapy for IgE-mediated Food Allergy, aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for active treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy with FA-AIT. Immunotherapy relies on the delivery of gradually increasing doses of specific allergen to increase the threshold of reaction while on therapy (also known as desensitization) and ultimately to achieve post-discontinuation effectiveness (also known as tolerance or sustained unresponsiveness). Oral FA-AIT has most frequently been assessed: here, the allergen is either immediately swallowed (OIT) or held under the tongue for a period of time (SLIT). Overall, trials have found substantial benefit for patients undergoing either OIT or SLIT with respect to efficacy during treatment, particularly for cow's milk, hen's egg, and peanut allergies. A benefit post-discontinuation is also suggested, but not confirmed. Adverse events during FA-AIT have been frequently reported, but few subjects discontinue FA-AIT as a result of these. Taking into account the current evidence, FA-AIT should only be performed in research centers or in clinical centers with an extensive experience in FA-AIT. Patients and their families should be provided with information about the use of FA-AIT for IgE-mediated food allergy to allow them to make an informed decision about the therapy.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been used to treat allergic disease since the early 1900s. Despite numerous clinical trials and meta-analyses proving AIT efficacious, it remains underused and is estimated to be used in less than 10% of patients with allergic rhinitis or asthma worldwide. In addition, there are large differences between regions, which are not only due to socioeconomic status. There is practically no controversy about the use of AIT in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma, but for atopic dermatitis or food allergy, the indications for AIT are not well defined. The elaboration of a wider consensus is of utmost importance because AIT is the only treatment that can change the course of allergic disease by preventing the development of asthma and new allergen sensitizations and by inducing allergen-specific immune tolerance. Safer and more effective AIT strategies are being continuously developed both through elaboration of new allergen preparations and adjuvants and alternate routes of administration. A number of guidelines, consensus documents, or both are available on both the international and national levels. The international community of allergy specialists recognizes the need to develop a comprehensive consensus report to harmonize, disseminate, and implement the best AIT practice. Consequently, the International Collaboration in Asthma, Allergy and Immunology, formed by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; and the World Allergy Organization, has decided to issue an international consensus on AIT.

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been thoroughly documented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It is the only immune-modifying and causal treatment available for patients suffering from IgE-mediated diseases such as allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, allergic asthma and insect sting allergy. However, there is a high degree of clinical and methodological heterogeneity among the endpoints in clinical studies on AIT, for both subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy (SCIT and SLIT). At present, there are no commonly accepted standards for defining the optimal outcome parameters to be used for both primary and secondary endpoints. Methods: As elaborated by a Task Force (TF) of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Immunotherapy Interest Group, this Position Paper evaluates the currently used outcome parameters in different RCTs and also aims to provide recommendations for the optimal endpoints in future AIT trials for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Results: Based on a thorough literature review, the TF members have outlined recommendations for nine domains of clinical outcome measures. As the primary outcome, the TF recommends a homogeneous combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) as a simple and standardized method that balances both symptoms and the need for antiallergic medication in an equally weighted manner. All outcomes, grouped into nine domains, are reviewed. Conclusion: A standardized and globally harmonized method for analysing the clinical efficacy of AIT products in RCTs is required. The EAACI TF highlights the CSMS as the primary endpoint for future RCTs in AIT for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

We have prepared this document, “Sublingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2013 Update”, according to the evidence-based criteria, revising and updating chapters of the originally published paper, “Sublingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2009”, available at http://www.waojournal.org. Namely, these comprise: “Mechanisms of sublingual immunotherapy;” “Clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy” – reporting all the data of all controlled trials published after 2009; “Safety of sublingual immunotherapy” – with the recently published Grading System for adverse reactions; “Impact of sublingual immunotherapy on the natural history of respiratory allergy” – with the relevant evidences published since 2009; “Efficacy of SLIT in children” – with detailed analysis of all the studies; “Definition of SLIT patient selection” – reporting the criteria for eligibility to sublingual immunotherapy; “The future of immunotherapy in the community care setting”; “Methodology of clinical trials according to the current scientific and regulatory standards”; and “Guideline development: from evidence-based medicine to patients' views” – including the evolution of the methods to make clinical recommendations.Additionally, we have added new chapters to cover a few emerging crucial topics: “Practical aspects of schedules and dosages and counseling for adherence” – which is crucial in clinical practice for all treatments; “Perspectives and new approaches” – including recombinant allergens, adjuvants, modified allergens, and the concept of validity of the single products. Furthermore, “Raising public awareness about sublingual immunotherapy”, as a need for our patients, and strategies to increase awareness of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) among patients, the medical community, all healthcare stakeholders, and public opinion, are also reported in detail.

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is an effective treatment for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) with or without asthma. It is important to note that due to the complex interaction between patient, allergy triggers, symptomatology and vaccines used for AIT, some patients do not respond optimally to the treatment. Furthermore, there are no validated or generally accepted candidate biomarkers that are predictive of the clinical response to AIT. Clinical management of patients receiving AIT and efficacy in randomised controlled trials for drug development could be enhanced by predictive biomarkers. Method: The EAACI taskforce reviewed all candidate biomarkers used in clinical trials of AR patients with/without asthma in a literature review. Biomarkers were grouped into seven domains: (i) IgE (total IgE, specific IgE and sIgE/Total IgE ratio), (ii) IgG-subclasses (sIgG1, sIgG4 including SIgE/IgG4 ratio), (iii) Serum inhibitory activity for IgE (IgE-FAB and IgE-BF), (iv) Basophil activation, (v) Cytokines and Chemokines, (vi) Cellular markers (T regulatory cells, B regulatory cells and dendritic cells) and (vii) In vivo biomarkers (including provocation tests?). Results: All biomarkers were reviewed in the light of their potential advantages as well as their respective drawbacks. Unmet needs and specific recommendations on all seven domains were addressed.