Background: IgE‐mediated food allergy (FA) is a global health concern with substantial individual and societal implications. While diverse intervention strategies have been researched, inconsistencies in reported outcomes limit evaluations of FA treatments. To streamline evaluations and promote consistent reporting, the Core Outcome Measures for Food Allergy (COMFA) initiative aimed to establish a Core Outcome Set (COS) for FA clinical trials and observational studies of interventions.Methods: The project involved a review of published clinical trials, trial protocols and qualitative literature. Outcomes found as a result of review were categorized and classified, informing a two‐round online‐modified Delphi process followed by hybrid consensus meeting to finalize the COS.Results: The literature review, taxonomy mapping and iterative discussions with diverse COMFA group yielded an initial list of 39 outcomes. The iterative online and in‐person meetings reduced the list to 13 outcomes for voting in the formal Delphi process. One more outcome was added based on participant suggestions after the first Delphi round. A total of 778 participants from 52 countries participated, with 442 participating in both Delphi rounds. No outcome met a priori criteria for inclusion, and one was excluded as a result of the Delphi. Thirteen outcomes were brought to the hybrid consensus meeting as a result of Delphi and two outcomes, ‘allergic symptoms’ and ‘quality of life’ achieved consensus for inclusion as ‘core’ outcomes.Conclusion: In addition to the mandatory reporting of adverse events for FA clinical trials or observational studies of interventions, allergic symptoms and quality of life should be measured as core outcomes. Future work by COMFA will define how best to measure these core outcomes.

A large amount of published research points to the interesting concept (hypothesis) that magnesium (Mg) status may have relevance for the outcome of COVID-19 and that Mg could be protective during the COVID disease course. As an essential element, Mg plays basic biochemical, cellular, and physiological roles required for cardiovascular, immunological, respiratory, and neurological functions. Both low serum and dietary Mg have been associated with the severity of COVID-19 outcomes, including mortality; both are also associated with COVID-19 risk factors such as older age, obesity, type 2 diabetes, kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and asthma. In addition, populations with high rates of COVID-19 mortality and hospitalization tend to consume diets high in modern processed foods, which are generally low in Mg. In this review, we review the research to describe and consider the possible impact of Mg and Mg status on COVID-19 showing that (1) serum Mg between 2.19 and 2.26 mg/dL and dietary Mg intakes > 329 mg/day could be protective during the disease course and (2) inhaled Mg may improve oxygenation of hypoxic COVID-19 patients. In spite of such promise, oral Mg for COVID-19 has thus far been studied only in combination with other nutrients. Mg deficiency is involved in the occurrence and aggravation of neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19, including memory loss, cognition, loss of taste and smell, ataxia, confusion, dizziness, and headache. Potential of zinc and/or Mg as useful for increasing drug therapy effectiveness or reducing adverse effect of anti-COVID-19 drugs is reviewed. Oral Mg trials of patients with COVID-19 are warranted.

The objective of this study was to examine the changes of blood pressure and hemodynamic parameters after oral magnesium supplementation in patients with essential hypertension. The single-arm non-blinded intervention study comprised 48 patients (19 men; 29 women) whose antihypertensive therapy was not changed for at least one month. The participants were asked to consume (daily at home) 300 mg of oral magnesium-oxide supplementation product for one month and to have their blood pressure and hemodynamic parameters (thoracic fluid content, stroke volume, stroke index, cardiac output, cardiac index, acceleration index, left cardiac work index and systemic vascular resistance index, heart rate) measured in the hospital before and after the intervention. Measurements were performed with impedance cardiography. After magnesium supplementation, systolic and diastolic pressures were significantly decreased (mean ± standard deviation (SD)/mmHg/from 139.7 ± 15.0 to 130.8 ± 13.4 and from 88.0 ± 10.4 to 82.2 ± 9.0, respectively; both p < 0.001). The two significant hemodynamic changes were the decrease of systemic vascular resistance index (dyn s m²/cm⁵) and left cardiac work index (kg m/m²)/mean ± SD from 2319.3 ± 753.3 to 2083.0 ± 526.9 and from 4.8 ± 1.4 to 4.4 ± 0.9, respectively; both p < 0.05). The observed hemodynamic changes may explain lowering blood pressure after magnesium supplementation.

Heart failure (HF) and atherosclerosis represent two major cardiovascular diseases that are intricately linked, both contributing significantly to global morbidity, mortality, and healthcare burden. Despite substantial progress in diagnostic methods and therapeutic strategies, the overall impact of these conditions remains considerable. This is largely due to their complex and overlapping pathophysiological mechanisms, persistent residual atherosclerotic risk, and the ongoing challenges associated with implementing guideline-directed medical therapy for HF in routine clinical practice. Recent advancements in the management of diverse HF phenotypes, lipid abnormalities, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and obesity have facilitated the adoption of multidrug regimens. These include beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), which have collectively improved outcomes in HF populations. This review aims to elucidate the shared pathophysiological mechanisms linking these conditions and to examine their clinical overlap with ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, dyslipidemia, and obesity.

Background: Heterogeneity in outcome reporting and inconsistent use of outcome measurement instruments in allergy and clinical immunology research affects the comparability, synthesis, and clinical applicability of study findings. Harmonisation efforts, particularly Core Outcome Set (COS) development, aim to address these challenges by establishing standardised, evidence‐based and consensus‐driven outcome recommendations. This systematic review aims to map available COS and other harmonisation processes (HP) in allergy and clinical immunology, evaluate their methodological approaches, and assess their alignment with established development standards. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the COMET Initiative database until June 7, 2024 to identify COS and HP. We included studies if they provided recommendations on ‘core’ outcomes and/or outcome measurement instruments. Data extraction included disease focus, methodological approach, stakeholder involvement, and adherence to the Core Outcome Set‐STAndards for Development criteria. We synthesised the data at the initiative (process) level rather than the publication level because harmonisation initiatives are frequently iterative and reported across multiple papers (e.g., protocol, Delphi rounds, consensus statement, and subsequent instrument‐selection outputs). Results: A total of 15,612 records were identified, with 44 studies (representing 22 initiatives both finished and in development) meeting inclusion criteria. The majority of initiatives focused on asthma ( n = 9), followed by eczema (atopic dermatitis n = 2; hand eczema = 1; eczema = 1), urticaria ( n = 2), allergic rhinitis ( n = 2), chronic rhinosinusitis ( n = 1), celiac disease ( n = 1), Immunoglobulin E (IgE)—mediated food allergy ( n = 1), eosinophilic esophagitis ( n = 1), and hereditary angioedema ( n = 1). No COS or HP addressed drug allergy, anaphylaxis, or other immune‐mediated allergic conditions. ‘Quality of life’ was consistently included in all COS with ‘signs and symptoms’, ‘exacerbations’ and ‘disease control’ frequently selected as well. Methodological approaches to COS development varied widely, with most employing Delphi surveys, consensus meetings, and stakeholder involvement, though levels of engagement differed. COS developers inconsistently adhered to Core Outcome Set‐STAndards for Development criteria, with some initiatives demonstrating rigorous methodology while others lacked transparency in key developmental steps. Conclusion: This review highlights growing efforts to harmonise outcome assessment in allergy and clinical immunology. Major gaps remain in coverage and methodological rigour. Quality of life and patient‐reported symptoms are frequently recommended outcomes, yet definitions and measurement tools are inconsistent. Strengthening methodological consistency and expanding COS development to neglected areas are critical next steps to improve outcome reliability and comparability in the field.