Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 10% to 40% of the population. It reduces quality of life and school and work performance and is a frequent reason for office visits in general practice. Medical costs are large, but avoidable costs associated with lost work productivity are even larger than those incurred by asthma. New evidence has accumulated since the last revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines in 2010, prompting its update. We sought to provide a targeted update of the ARIA guidelines. The ARIA guideline panel identified new clinical questions and selected questions requiring an update. We performed systematic reviews of health effects and the evidence about patients' values and preferences and resource requirements (up to June 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision frameworks to develop recommendations. The 2016 revision of the ARIA guidelines provides both updated and new recommendations about the pharmacologic treatment of AR. Specifically, it addresses the relative merits of using oral H1-antihistamines, intranasal H1-antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and leukotriene receptor antagonists either alone or in combination. The ARIA guideline panel provides specific recommendations for the choice of treatment and the rationale for the choice and discusses specific considerations that clinicians and patients might want to review to choose the management most appropriate for an individual patient. 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.

This update and revision of the international guideline for urticaria was developed following the methods recommended by Cochrane and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. It is a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA²LEN) and its Urticaria and Angioedema Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCAREs and ACAREs), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF; EuroGuiDerm), and the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology with the participation of 64 delegates of 50 national and international societies and from 31 countries. The consensus conference was held on 3 December 2020. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Urticaria is a frequent, mast cell–driven disease that presents with wheals, angioedema, or both. The lifetime prevalence for acute urticaria is approximately 20%. Chronic spontaneous or inducible urticaria is disabling, impairs quality of life, and affects performance at work and school. This updated version of the international guideline for urticaria covers the definition and classification of urticaria and outlines expert‐guided and evidence‐based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria.

Currently, testing for immunoglobulin E (IgE) sensitization is the cornerstone of diagnostic evaluation in suspected allergic conditions. This review provides a thorough and updated critical appraisal of the most frequently used diagnostic tests, both in vivo and in vitro. It discusses skin tests, challenges, and serological and cellular in vitro tests, and provides an overview of indications, advantages and disadvantages of each in conditions such as respiratory, food, venom, drug, and occupational allergy. Skin prick testing remains the first line approach in most instances; the added value of serum specific IgE to whole allergen extracts or components, as well as the role of basophil activation tests, is evaluated. Unproven, non-validated, diagnostic tests are also discussed. Throughout the review, the reader must bear in mind the relevance of differentiating between sensitization and allergy; the latter entails not only allergic sensitization, but also clinically relevant symptoms triggered by the culprit allergen.

Background and objectives: Urticaria is a frequent skin condition, but reliable prevalence estimates from population studies particularly of the chronic form are scarce. The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate and summarize the prevalence of chronic urticaria by evaluating population‐based studies worldwide.Methods: We performed a systematic search in PUBMED and EMBASE for population‐based studies of cross‐sectional or cohort design and studies based on health insurance/system databases. Risk of bias was assessed using a specific tool for prevalence studies. For meta‐analysis, we used a random effects model.Results: Eighteen studies were included in the systematic evaluation and 11 in the meta‐analysis including data from over 86 000 000 participants. Risk of bias was mainly moderate, whereas the statistical heterogeneity (I²) between the studies was high. Asian studies combined showed a higher point prevalence of chronic urticaria (1.4%, 95%‐CI 0.5‐2.9) than those from Europe (0.5%, 0.2‐1.0) and Northern American (0.1%, 0.1‐0.1). Women were slightly more affected than men, whereas in children < 15 years we did not find a sex‐specific difference in the prevalence. The four studies that examined time trends indicated an increasing prevalence of chronic urticaria over time.Conclusions: On a global level, the prevalence of chronic urticaria showed considerable regional differences. There is a need to obtain more sex‐specific population‐based and standardized international data particularly for children and adolescents, different chronic urticaria subtypes and potential risk and protective factors.