Background Biological therapies relieve symptoms in allergic and inflammatory diseases so may also benefit people with IgE-mediated food allergy. We systematically reviewed the highest quality published evidence to inform forthcoming GA 2LEN guidelines. Methods We searched six bibliographic databases from 1946 to 30 September 2021 for randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and quasi-randomised trials about biological monotherapy in people with IgE-mediated food allergy confirmed by oral food challenge. We found 3 trials with 118 participants. We used the GRADE approach. We summarised the findings narratively because studies were too heterogeneous to conduct meta-analysis. Results We included one randomised trial about etokimab, one about omalizumab and one about the discontinued TNX-901. All were in people with peanut allergy in the USA, mostly aged 13+ years. There were trends towards improved tolerance of peanut during treatment, with no increase in adverse events compared to placebo. However, we have very low certainty about the evidence. No trial reported on quality of life or cost-effectiveness. Conclusions Our review of the highest quality research found that there is not yet enough certainty of evidence to support offering etokimab or omalizumab widely for food allergy. Clinicians may consider the merits for individuals, but large randomised trials with standardised measures need to confirm the safety and efficacy and the most suitable candidates, doses and durations of treatment.
Background: Although well described in adults, there are scarce and heterogeneous data on the diagnosis and management of chronic urticaria (CU) in children (0-18 years) throughout Europe. Our aim was to explore country differences and identify the extent to which the EAACI/GA²LEN/EDF/WAO guideline recommendations for paediatric urticaria are implemented. Methods: The EAACI Taskforce for paediatric CU disseminated an online clinical survey among EAACI paediatric section members. Members were asked to answer 35 multiple choice questions on current practices in their respective centres. Results: The survey was sent to 2,773 physicians of whom 358 (13.8%) responded, mainly paediatric allergists (80%) and paediatricians (49.7%), working in 69 countries. For diagnosis, Southern European countries used significantly more routine tests (e.g., autoimmune testing, allergological tests, and parasitic investigation) than Northern European countries. Most respondents (60.3%) used a 2nd generation antihistamine as first- line treatment of whom 64.8% up dosed as a second- line. Omalizumab, was used as a second line treatment by 1.7% and third-line by 20.7% of respondents. Most clinicians (65%) follow EAACI/WAO/GA2LEN/EDF guidelines when diagnosing CU, and only 7.3% follow no specific guidelines. Some clinicians prefer to follow national guidelines (18.4%, mainly Northern European) or the AAAAI practice parameter (1.7%). Conclusions: Even though most members of the Paediatric Section of EAACI are familiar with the EAACI/WAO/GA2LEN/EDF guidelines, a significant number do not follow them. Also, the large variation in diagnosis and treatment strengthens the need to re-evaluate, update and standardize guidelines on the diagnosis and management of CU in children.
Immune modulation is a key therapeutic tool for allergic diseases and asthma. It can be achieved in an antigen-specific way via allergen immunotherapy (AIT) or in endotype-driven approach using biologicals that target the major pathways of the type 2 (T2) immune response: IgE, IL-5 and IL-4/IL-13. COVID-19 vaccine provides an excellent opportunity to tackle the global pandemics and is currently being applied in an accelerated rhythm worldwide. It works as well through immune modulation. Thus, as there is an obvious interference between these treatment modalities recommendations on how they should be applied in sequence are expected. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) gathered an outstanding expert panel under its Research and Outreach Committee (ROC). This expert panel was called to evaluate the evidence and formulate recommendation on the administration of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with allergic diseases and asthma receiving AIT or biologicals. The panel also formulated recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine in association with biologicals targeting the type 1 or type 3 immune response. In formulating recommendations, the panel evaluated the mechanisms of COVID-19 infection, of COVID-19 vaccine, of AIT and of biologicals and considered the data published for other anti-infectious vaccines administered concurrently with AIT or biologicals.