Allergic 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 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.

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.

Background: This guideline from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) recommends approaches to prevent the development of immediate‐onset / IgE‐mediated food allergy in infants and young children. It is an update of a 2014 EAACI guideline.Methods: The guideline was developed using the AGREE II framework and the GRADE approach. An international Task Force with representatives from 11 countries and different disciplinary and clinical backgrounds systematically reviewed research and considered expert opinion. Recommendations were created by weighing up benefits and harms, considering the certainty of evidence and examining values, preferences and resource implications. The guideline was peer‐reviewed by external experts, and feedback was incorporated from public consultation.Results: All of the recommendations about preventing food allergy relate to infants (up to 1 year) and young children (up to 5 years), regardless of risk of allergy. There was insufficient evidence about preventing food allergy in other age groups. The EAACI Task Force suggests avoiding the use of regular cow's milk formula as supplementary feed for breastfed infants in the first week of life. The EAACI Task Force suggests introducing well‐cooked, but not raw egg or uncooked pasteurized, egg into the infant diet as part of complementary feeding. In populations where there is a high prevalence of peanut allergy, the EAACI Task Force suggests introducing peanuts in an age‐appropriate form as part of complementary feeding. According to the studies, it appears that the most effective age to introduce egg and peanut is from four to 6 months of life. The EAACI Task Force suggests against the following for preventing food allergy: (i) avoiding dietary food allergens during pregnancy or breastfeeding; and (ii) using soy protein formula in the first 6 months of life as a means of preventing food allergy. There is no recommendation for or against the following: use of vitamin supplements, fish oil, prebiotics, probiotics or synbiotics in pregnancy, when breastfeeding or in infancy; altering the duration of exclusive breastfeeding; and hydrolysed infant formulas, regular cow's milk–based infant formula after a week of age or use of emollients.Conclusions: Key changes from the 2014 guideline include suggesting (i) the introduction of peanut and well‐cooked egg as part of complementary feeding (moderate certainty of evidence) and (ii) avoiding supplementation with regular cow's milk formula in the first week of life (low certainty of evidence). There remains uncertainty in how to prevent food allergy, and further well‐powered, multinational research using robust diagnostic criteria is needed.

Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for IgE‐mediated Food Allergy. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we sought to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost‐effectiveness of AIT in the management of food allergy.Methods: We undertook a systematic review and meta‐analysis that involved searching nine international electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRS). Eligible studies were independently assessed by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and the Cochrane ACROBAT‐NRS tool for quasi‐RCTs. Random‐effects meta‐analyses were undertaken, with planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.Results: We identified 1814 potentially relevant papers from which we selected 31 eligible studies, comprising of 25 RCTs and six NRS, studying a total of 1259 patients. Twenty‐five trials evaluated oral immunotherapy (OIT), five studies investigated sublingual immunotherapy, and one study evaluated epicutaneous immunotherapy. The majority of these studies were in children. Twenty‐seven studies assessed desensitization, and eight studies investigated sustained unresponsiveness postdiscontinuation of AIT. Meta‐analyses demonstrated a substantial benefit in terms of desensitization (risk ratio (RR) = 0.16, 95% CI 0.10, 0.26) and suggested, but did not confirm sustained unresponsiveness (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.08, 1.13). Only one study reported on disease‐specific quality of life (QoL), which reported no comparative results between OIT and control group. Meta‐analyses revealed that the risk of experiencing a systemic adverse reaction was higher in those receiving AIT, with a more marked increase in the risk of local adverse reactions. Sensitivity analysis excluding those studies judged to be at high risk of bias demonstrated the robustness of summary estimates of effectiveness and safety of AIT for food allergy. None of the studies reported data on health economic analyses.Conclusions: AIT may be effective in raising the threshold of reactivity to a range of foods in children with IgE‐mediated food allergy whilst receiving (i.e. desensitization) and post‐discontinuation of AIT. It is, however, associated with a modest increased risk in serious systemic adverse reactions and a substantial increase in minor local adverse reactions. More data are needed in relation to adults, long term effects, the impact on QoL and the cost‐effectiveness of AIT.