Inhaled corticosteroids in early COVID-19 – a tale of many facetsLudger Klimek1, Cezmi A. Akdis2, Marek Jutel3, Torsten Zuberbier4, Jean Bousquet5-71. Center for Rhinology and Allergology, Wiesbaden, Germany.2. Swiss Institute of Allergy and Asthma Research (SIAF), University of Zurich - Christine Kühne - Center for Allergy Research and Education (CK-CARE), Davos, Switzerland.3. Department of Clinical Immunology, Medical University of Wroclaw, ALL-MED Medical Research Institute, Wrocław, Poland.4. Clinic for Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Charité - University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany.5. Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany6. Comprehensive Allergy Center, Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany7. Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Montpellier, France

Background: The German Therapy Allergen Ordinance (TAO) triggered an ongoing upheaval in the market for house dust mite (HDM) allergen immunotherapy (AIT) products. Three HDM subcutaneous AIT (SCIT) products hold approval in Germany and therefore will be available after the scheduled completion of the TAO procedure in 2026. In general, data from clinical trials on the long-term effectiveness of HDM AIT are rare. We evaluated real-world data (RWD) in a retrospective, observational cohort study based on a longitudinal claims database including 60% of all German statutory healthcare prescriptions to show the long-term effectiveness of one of these products in daily life. Methods: Subjects between 5 to 70 years receiving their first (index) prescription of SCIT with a native HDM product (SCIT group) between 2009 and 2013 were included. The exactly 3:1 matched control group received prescriptions for only symptomatic AR medication (non-AIT group); the evaluation period for up to 6 years of follow-up ended in February 2017. Study endpoints were the progression of allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma, asthma occurrence and time to the onset of asthma after at least 2 treatment years. Results: 892 subjects (608 adults, 284 children/adolescents) were included in the SCIT group and 2676 subjects (1824 adults, 852 children/adolescents) in the non-AIT group. During the follow-up period after at least two years of SCIT, the number of prescriptions in the SCIT group was reduced by 62.8% (p<0.0001) for AR medication and by 42.4% for asthma medication (p=0.0003). New‐onset asthma risk was significantly reduced in the SCIT vs non‐AIT group by 27.0% (p=0.0212). The asthma preventive effect of SCIT occurred 15 months after start of the treatment. In the SCIT group, the time to onset of asthma was reduced compared to the non-AIT group (p=0.0010). Conclusion: In this RWD analysis patients aged between 5 to 70 years benefited from SCIT with a native HDM product in terms of the reduced progression of AR and asthma after at least 2 years of treatment in the long term. The effects lasted for up to six years after treatment termination. A significantly reduced risk of asthma onset was observed, starting after 15 months of treatment.

There is increasing understanding, globally, that climate change and increased pollution will have a profound and mostly harmful effect on human health. This review brings together international experts to describe both the direct (such as heat waves) and indirect (such as vector-borne disease incidence) impacts of climate change depending on their vulnerability (i.e., diseases) on an international, economic, political and environmental context. This unique review also expands on these issues to address a third category of potential longer-term impacts on global health: famine, population dislocation, and environmental justice and education. This scholarly resource explores these issues fully, linking them to global health in urban and rural settings in developed and developing countries. The review finishes with a practical discussion of action that health professionals around the world in our field can yet take.

Following the emergency use authorization of the vaccine mRNA-1273 on 18th December 2020 in the US and the vaccine BNT162b2 one week earlier, two mRNA vaccines are in currently used for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Phase 3 pivotal trials on both vaccines excluded individuals with a history of allergy to vaccine components. Immediately after the initiation of vaccination in the United Kingdom, Canada, and in the US, anaphylactic reactions have been reported. While the culprit trigger requires investigation, initial reports suggested the excipient polyethylene glycol 2000 (PEG-2000), which is contained in both vaccines as PEG-micellar carrier system as the potential culprit. Surface PEG chains form a hydrate shell to increase stability and prevent opsonization. Allergic reactions to such PEG-ylated lipids are rarely IgE-mediated, but may result from complement activation-related pseudoallergy (CARPA) that has been described to similar liposomes. In addition, mRNA-1273 also contains tromethamine (trometamol), which has been reported to cause anaphylaxis to e.g. gadolinium-based or iodinated contrast media. Skin prick-, intradermal-, epicutaneous- tests, in vitro sIgE assessment, evaluation of sIgG/IgM, as well as basophil activation test are in use to demonstrate allergic reactions to various components of the vaccines.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine BNT162b2 received approval and within the first few days of public vaccination several severe anaphylaxis cases occurred. An investigation is taking place to understand the cases and their triggers. The vaccine will be administered to a large number of individuals worldwide and concerns raised for severe adverse events might occur. With the current information, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) states its position for the following preliminary recommendations that are to be revised as soon as more data emerges. To minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions in vaccinated individuals, it is urgently required to understand the specific nature of the reported severe allergic reactions, including the background medical history of the individuals affected and the mechanisms involved. To achieve this goal all clinical and laboratory information should be collected and reported. Mild and moderate allergic patients should not be excluded from the vaccine as the exclusion of all these patients from vaccination may have a significant impact on reaching the goal of population immunity. Health care practitioners vaccinating against COVID-19 are required to be sufficiently prepared to recognise and treat anaphylaxis properly with the ability to administer adrenaline. A mandatory observation period after vaccine administration of at least 15 minutes for all individuals should be followed. The current guidelines, which exclude patients with severe allergies from vaccination with BNT162b2, should be re-evaluated after more information and experience with the new vaccine develops.