Appropriate treatment of AR might improve patients' quality of life and school and work productivity. ARIA recommendations support patients, their caregivers, and health care providers in choosing the optimal treatment.

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 pocket guide is the result of a consensus reached between members of the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA(2) LEN) and Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA). The aim of the current pocket guide is to offer a comprehensive set of recommendations on the use of skin prick tests in allergic rhinitis-conjunctivitis and asthma in daily practice. This pocket guide is meant to give simple answers to the most frequent questions raised by practitioners in Europe, including 'practicing allergists', general practitioners and any other physicians with special interest in the management of allergic diseases. It is not a long or detailed scientific review of the topic. However, the recommendations in this pocket guide were compiled following an in-depth review of existing guidelines and publications, including the 1993 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology position paper, the 2001 ARIA document and the ARIA update 2008 (prepared in collaboration with GA(2) LEN). The recommendations cover skin test methodology and interpretation, allergen extracts to be used, as well as indications in a variety of settings including paediatrics and developing countries.

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.

Lasting immunity following SARS-CoV-2 infection is questioned because serum antibodies decline in convalescence. However, functional immunity is mediated by long-lived memory T and B (Bmem) cells. Therefore, we generated fluorescently-labeled tetramers of the spike receptor binding domain (RBD) and nucleocapsid protein (NCP) to determine the longevity and immunophenotype of SARS-CoV-2-specific Bmem cells in COVID-19 patients. A total of 36 blood samples were obtained from 25 COVID-19 patients between 4 and 242 days post-symptom onset including 11 paired samples. While serum IgG to RBD and NCP was identified in all patients, antibody levels began declining at 20 days post-symptom onset. RBD- and NCP-specific Bmem cells predominantly expressed IgM+ or IgG1+ and continued to rise until 150 days. RBD-specific IgG+ Bmem were predominantly CD27+, and numbers significantly correlated with circulating follicular helper T cell numbers. Thus, the SARS-CoV-2 antibody response contracts in convalescence with persistence of RBD- and NCP-specific Bmem cells. Flow cytometric detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific Bmem cells enables detection of long-term immune memory following infection or vaccination for COVID-19.

This article continues the comprehensive international consensus (ICON) statement on allergen immunotherapy (AIT). The initial article also recently appeared in the Journal. The conclusions below focus on key mechanisms of AIT-triggered tolerance, requirements in allergen standardization, AIT cost-effectiveness, and regulatory guidance. Potential barriers to and facilitators of the use of AIT are described in addition to future directions. International allergy specialists representing the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; and the World Allergy Organization critically reviewed the existing literature and prepared this summary of recommendations for best AIT practice. The authors contributed equally and reached consensus on the statements presented herein.

Selection of pharmacotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis aims to control the disease and depends on (1) patient empowerment, preferences, and age; (2) prominent symptoms, symptom severity, and multimorbidity; (3) efficacy and safety of treatment 1 ; (4) speed of onset of action of treatment; (5) current treatment; (6) historic response to treatment; (7) effect on sleep and work productivity 2,3 ; (8) self-management strategies; and (9) resource use. 4,5 An algorithm was devised 5 and digitalized 6 to step up or step down allergic rhinitis treatment based on control. However, its

Background Large observational implementation studies are needed to triangulate the findings from randomized control trials as they reflect “real‐world” everyday practice. In a pilot study, we attempted to provide additional and complementary insights on the real‐life treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) using mobile technology. Methods A mobile phone app (Allergy Diary, freely available in Google Play and Apple App stores) collects the data of daily visual analog scales (VAS) for (i) overall allergic symptoms, (ii) nasal, ocular, and asthma symptoms, (iii) work, as well as (iv) medication use using a treatment scroll list including all medications (prescribed and over the counter (OTC)) for rhinitis customized for 15 countries. Results A total of 2871 users filled in 17 091 days of VAS in 2015 and 2016. Medications were reported for 9634 days. The assessment of days appeared to be more informative than the course of the treatment as, in real life, patients do not necessarily use treatment on a daily basis; rather, they appear to increase treatment use with the loss of symptom control. The Allergy Diary allowed differentiation between treatments within or between classes (intranasal corticosteroid use containing medications and oral H1‐antihistamines). The control of days differed between no [best control], single, or multiple treatments (worst control). Conclusions This study confirms the usefulness of the Allergy Diary in accessing and assessing everyday use and practice in AR. This pilot observational study uses a very simple assessment (VAS) on a mobile phone, shows novel findings, and generates new hypotheses.