Asthma, rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis (AD) are interrelated clinical phenotypes that partly overlap in the human interactome. The concept of “one‐airway‐one‐disease,” coined over 20 years ago, is a simplistic approach of the links between upper‐ and lower‐airway allergic diseases. With new data, it is time to reassess the concept. This article reviews (i) the clinical observations that led to Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), (ii) new insights into polysensitization and multimorbidity, (iii) advances in mHealth for novel phenotype definitions, (iv) confirmation in canonical epidemiologic studies, (v) genomic findings, (vi) treatment approaches, and (vii) novel concepts on the onset of rhinitis and multimorbidity. One recent concept, bringing together upper‐ and lower‐airway allergic diseases with skin, gut, and neuropsychiatric multimorbidities, is the “Epithelial Barrier Hypothesis.” This review determined that the “one‐airway‐one‐disease” concept does not always hold true and that several phenotypes of disease can be defined. These phenotypes include an extreme “allergic” (asthma) phenotype combining asthma, rhinitis, and conjunctivitis. Rhinitis alone and rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity represent two distinct diseases with the following differences: (i) genomic and transcriptomic background (Toll‐Like Receptors and IL‐17 for rhinitis alone as a local disease; IL‐33 and IL‐5 for allergic and non‐allergic multimorbidity as a systemic disease), (ii) allergen sensitization patterns (mono‐ or pauci‐sensitization versus polysensitization), (iii) severity of symptoms, and (iv) treatment response. In conclusion, rhinitis alone (local disease) and rhinitis with asthma multimorbidity (systemic disease) should be considered as two distinct diseases, possibly modulated by the microbiome, and may be a model for understanding the epidemics of chronic and autoimmune diseases.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) represents a widespread chronic skin disease associated with different atopic disorders and allergies. These associations, similar to overall AD pathophysiology, are entangled, multifactorial and they are yet to be clarified. IgE and non IgE mediated pathomechanisms appear to be implicated in AD. Allergens constitute key aspects in AD pathogenesis, as they may serve as trigger factors. This review emphasizes mainly house dust mites (HDM), as they are likely the most relevant airborne allergen for AD. Here we review in a concise form the mite allergens, the role of molecular diagnosis and the treatment strategies for HDM. Strategies of avoiding allergens, with a few exceptions, are not enough to control children's AD; recent studies show HDM avoidance procedures in diagnosed AD are insufficient. Regardless, some guidelines acknowledge the benefit of mattress and pillow covers in patients with dust mite sensitization that are unresponsive to optimal AD management. Most clinical trials investigating allergen‑specific immunotherapy (AIT) as a potential treatment for AD were done with adult patients; a scarce number of studies looked into the efficacy of AIT as a treatment option in children suffering from AD, with conflicting data among them. One of the most feasible of these studies showed significant improvement of AD outcomes only in the mild/moderate group, but not in the severe group. Uncontrolled studies are hard to interpret, considering the natural history of remitting and relapsing of AD, in many of the patients, without clinical interventions. More AIT studies, especially pediatric studies, are required in order to either prove the reproducibility of positive results or to deny its effectiveness.

The Health Economics of Allergic Diseases (HEAD) registry is a European‐based registry developed by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in collaboration with national allergy societies to facilitate standardised allergic disease management. Using an observational design, this first registry‐based study describes care patterns for allergic diseases and their impact on the healthcare system (diagnostic and management costs), society (missed work/school days and disability pension/support) and patients (out‐of‐pocket costs) in 778 adults and children with allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis and food allergy, from four countries (Belgium, Italy, Romania and Spain). The average total costs per patient and per year were €1329.55 ± 1947.39, with indirect costs of €338.68 ± 1629.61. Direct costs consisted of €82.74 ± 585.90 for hospitalisations, €17.50 ± 125.07 for the emergency department, €172.94 ± 323.17 for specialists, €22.70 ± 132.42 for primary care, €4.85 ± 136.84 for psychologists, €21.24 ± 82.47 for diagnosis and €104.81 ± 469.26 for treatments. Indirect costs were out‐of‐pocket consultation fees (€16.24 ± 106.40), medications (€161.90 ± 710.58), transportation (€44.15 ± 218.51), private insurance (€16.77 ± 157.91), avoidance (€8.65 ± 92.99) and environmental control (€99.33 ± 955.23). Adults missed 1.02 ± 3.20 workdays, children missed 0.53 ± 2.18 schooldays and burdened their families with 1.38 ± 13.83 lost days. There was a high degree of heterogeneity across countries for management patterns and for costs. The significant burden of allergic diseases calls for immediate action for better management.

Introduction: The most common clinical manifestation of mango allergy is contact dermatitis, which can be localized or systemic. The sensitising substances that have long been suspected are alk(en)yl catechols and/or alk(en)yl resorcinols. Methods: We reviewed the original articles published on Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library before 15 September 2021, on the topic of contact allergy induced by mango and we synthesized the key data. Results: We found 12 case reports and four case series, with a total of 37 patients. Only seven of these cases were reported in patients from mango-cultivating countries, the other 30 were from countries where mango cultivation does not occur, and 26 were also from countries where poison ivy/oak are commonly found. We found that contact dermatitis may occur on the first exposure to mango due to previous sensitisation to urushiol-containing plants. The diagnosis was confirmed by patch testing in some of the cases. There was great heterogeneity between the reagents used. Conclusion: Mango fruit is frequently consumed, but mango induced contact dermatitis, the main hypersensitivity reaction induced by mango, is rare. Further data is necessary for a better understanding of sensitising substances and, consecutively, standardization of patch test reagents.

Human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a granulopoietic growth factor used in the treatment of neutropenia following chemotherapy, myeloablative treatment, or healthy donors preparing for allogeneic transplantation. Few hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) have been reported, and its true prevalence is unknown. We aimed to systematically characterize G-CSF-induced HRs while including a comprehensive list of adverse reactions. We reviewed articles published before January 2024 by searching in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases using a combination of the keywords listed, selected the ones needed, and extracted relevant data. The search resulted in 68 entries, 17 relevant to our study and 7 others found from manually searching bibliographic sources. A total of 40 cases of G-CSF-induced HR were described and classified as immediate (29) or delayed (11). Immediate ones were mostly caused by filgrastim (13 minimum), with at least 9 being grade 5 on the WAO anaphylaxis scale. Delayed reactions were mostly maculopapular exanthemas and allowed for the continuation of G-CSF. Reactions after first exposure frequently appeared and were present in at least 11 of the 40 cases. Only five desensitization protocols have been found concerning the topic at hand in the analyzed data. We believe this study brings to light the research interest in this topic that could benefit from further exploration, and propose regular updating to include the most recently published evidence.

Background: Hypersensitivity reactions induced by chemotherapeutic drugs may influence the course of the oncologic disease by preventing doctors from prescribing first‐line therapy. In order to prevent another hypersensitivity reaction to the culprit chemotherapeutic agent, the physician can decide between two possibilities: premedication or desensitisation protocols. Rapid drug desensitisation showed successful results for most patients, but some of them may develop symptoms. Although omalizumab is not licensed as premedication or adjuvant therapy in chemotherapy desensitisation protocols, there have been published some case reports and small sample size studies that indicated promising results.Methods: We reviewed all the published literature regarding the use of omalizumab during chemotherapy desensitisation protocols.Results and conclusions: We found a great heterogeneity between the doses and the interval between omalizumab injections and chemotherapy ‐ rapid drug desensitisation, but most of the studies showed promising results. As a corollary, we propose a dose regimen of omalizumab administered before the first desensitisation protocol. Then, omalizumab should be administered one day before every chemotherapy regimen. Omalizumab might be used as an adjuvant therapy and might be a solution for a hopeless situation.