COVID-19 complications still present a huge burden on healthcare systems and warrant predictive risk models to triage patients and inform early intervention. Here, we profile 893 plasma proteins from 50 severe and 50 mild-moderate COVID-19 patients, and 50 healthy controls, and show that 375 proteins are differentially expressed in the plasma of severe COVID-19 patients. These differentially expressed plasma proteins are implicated in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and present targets for candidate drugs to prevent or treat severe complications. Based on the plasma proteomics and clinical lab tests, we also report a 12-plasma protein signature and a model of seven routine clinical tests that validate in an independent cohort as early risk predictors of COVID-19 severity and patient survival. The risk predictors and candidate drugs described in our study can be used and developed for personalized management of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) impacts quality of life, work and school productivity. Over the last years, an important body of evidence resulting from mHealth data has led to a better understanding of AR. Such advances have motivated an EAACI‐endorsed update of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines (ARIA 2024–2025). This manuscript presents the ARIA 2024–2025 recommendations for intranasal treatments, one of the mainstays for AR management. Methods: The ARIA 2024–2025 guideline panel issued recommendations following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence‐to‐decision framework. Several sources of evidence were used to inform panel judgments and recommendations, including systematic reviews, evaluation of mHealth and pharmacovigilance data, as well as a survey of experts on costs. Results: Eleven guideline questions concerning intranasal treatments for AR were prioritized, leading to recommendations. Overall, these questions concern the choice between different classes of intranasal medications—most notably, intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), antihistamines (INAH), fixed combinations of INAH+INCS and decongestants—or between different individual medications within each class. Four questions had not been evaluated in previous ARIA guidelines, while for the other three there was a change in the strength or directionality of recommendations. Overall, recommendations point to the suggested use of INAH+INCS over INAH or INCS and INCS over INAH. Conclusion: This ARIA 2024–2025 article supports patients, their caregivers, and healthcare professionals in choosing an intranasal treatment. However, decisions on AR treatment should consider the clinical variability of the disease, patients' values, and the affordability of medications.

This study aims to study the immune response and evaluate the performances of four new IgM and five IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits for detecting anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies against different antigens in symptomatic and asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. A total of 291 samples collected from symptomatic and asymptomatic RT–PCR-confirmed patients were used to evaluate the ELISA kits’ performance (EDI, AnshLabs, DiaPro, NovaLisa, and Lionex). The sensitivity was measured at three different time-intervals post symptoms onset or positive SARS-CoV-2 RT–PCR test (≤14, 14–30, >30 days). The specificity was investigated using 119 pre-pandemic serum samples. The sensitivity of all IgM kits gradually decreased with time, ranging from 48.7% (EDI)–66.4% (Lionex) at ≤14 days, 29.1% (NovaLisa)–61.8% (Lionex) at 14–30 days, and 6.0% (AnshLabs)–47.9% (Lionex) at >30 days. The sensitivity of IgG kits increased with time, peaking in the latest interval (>30 days) at 96.6% (Lionex). Specificity of IgM ranged from 88.2% (Lionex)–99.2% (EDI), while IgG ranged from 75.6% (DiaPro)–98.3% (Lionex). Among all RT–PCR-positive patients, 23 samples (7.9%) were seronegative by all IgG kits, of which only seven samples (30.4%) had detectable IgM antibodies. IgM assays have variable and low sensitivity, thus considered a poor marker for COVID-19 diagnosis. IgG assays can miss at least 8% of RT–PCR-positive cases.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all individuals across the globe in some way. Despite large numbers of reported seroprevalence studies, there remains a limited understanding of how the magnitude and epitope utilization of the humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 viral anti-gens varies within populations following natural infection. Here, we designed a quantitative, multi-epitope protein microarray comprising various nucleocapsid protein structural motifs, including two structural domains and three intrinsically disordered regions. Quantitative data from the microarray provided complete differentiation between cases and pre-pandemic controls (100% sensitivity and specificity) in a case-control cohort (n = 100). We then assessed the influence of disease severity, age, and ethnicity on the strength and breadth of the humoral response in a multi-ethnic cohort (n = 138). As expected, patients with severe disease showed significantly higher antibody titers and interestingly also had significantly broader epitope coverage. A significant increase in antibody titer and epitope coverage was observed with increasing age, in both mild and severe disease, which is promising for vaccine efficacy in older individuals. Additionally, we observed significant differences in the breadth and strength of the humoral immune response in relation to ethnicity, which may reflect differences in genetic and lifestyle factors. Furthermore, our data enabled localization of the immuno-dominant epitope to the C-terminal structural domain of the viral nucleocapsid protein in two independent cohorts. Overall, we have designed, validated, and tested an advanced serological assay that enables accurate quantitation of the humoral response post natural infection and that has revealed unexpected differences in the magnitude and epitope utilization within a population.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated and standardized tools that complement physician evaluations and guide treatment decisions. PROMs are crucial for monitoring atopic dermatitis (AD) and chronic urticaria (CU) in clinical practice, but there are unmet needs and knowledge gaps regarding their use in clinical practice. We investigated the global real-world use of AD and CU PROMs in allergology and dermatology clinics as well as their associated local and regional networks. Across 72 specialized allergy and dermatology centers and their local and regional networks, 2,534 physicians in 73 countries completed a 53-item questionnaire on the use of PROMs for AD and CU. Of 2,534 physicians, 1,308 were aware of PROMs. Of these, 14% and 15% used PROMs for AD and CU, respectively. Half of physicians who use PROMs do so only "rarely" or "sometimes". AD and CU PROM usage is associated with being female, younger, and a dermatologist. POSCORAD and UAS were the most utilized PROMs for AD and CU, respectively. Monitoring disease control and activity are the main drivers of the use of PROMs. Time constraints were the primary obstacle to using PROMs, followed by the impression that patients dislike PROMs. AD and CU PROM users would like training in selecting the proper PROM. Even though PROMs offer several benefits, their use in routine practice is suboptimal, and physicians perceive barriers to their use. It is essential to attain higher levels of PROM implementation in accordance with national and international standards.