Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook a systematic review to assess the effectiveness, cost‐effectiveness, and safety of AIT in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.Methods: We searched nine international biomedical databases for published, in‐progress, and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Our primary outcomes of interest were symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores. Secondary outcomes of interest included cost‐effectiveness and safety. Data were descriptively summarized and then quantitatively synthesized using random‐effects meta‐analyses.Results: We identified 5960 studies of which 160 studies satisfied our eligibility criteria. There was a substantial body of evidence demonstrating significant reductions in standardized mean differences (SMD) of symptom (SMD −0.53, 95% CI −0.63, −0.42), medication (SMD −0.37, 95% CI −0.49, −0.26), and combined symptom and medication (SMD −0.49, 95% CI −0.69, −0.30) scores while on treatment that were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses. There was in comparison a more modest body of evidence on effectiveness post‐discontinuation of AIT, suggesting a benefit in relation to symptom scores.Conclusions: AIT is effective in improving symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis while on treatment, and there is some evidence suggesting that these benefits are maintained in relation to symptom scores after discontinuation of therapy.

This EAACI position paper aims at providing a state‐of‐the‐art overview on nonallergic rhinitis (NAR). A significant number of patients suffering from persistent rhinitis are defined as nonallergic noninfectious rhinitis (NANIR) patients, often denominated in short as having NAR. NAR is defined as a symptomatic inflammation of the nasal mucosa with the presence of a minimum of two nasal symptoms such as nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and/or itchy nose, without clinical evidence of endonasal infection and without systemic signs of sensitization to inhalant allergens. Symptoms of NAR may have a wide range of severity and be either continuously present and/or induced by exposure to unspecific triggers, also called nasal hyperresponsiveness (NHR). NHR represents a clinical feature of both AR and NAR patients. NAR involves different subgroups: drug‐induced rhinitis, (nonallergic) occupational rhinitis, hormonal rhinitis (including pregnancy rhinitis), gustatory rhinitis, senile rhinitis, and idiopathic rhinitis (IR). NAR should be distinguished from those rhinitis patients with an allergic reaction confined to the nasal mucosa, also called “entopy” or local allergic rhinitis (LAR). We here provide an overview of the current consensus on phenotypes of NAR, recommendations for diagnosis, a treatment algorithm, and defining the unmet needs in this neglected area of research.

This report has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Task Force on Allergic Rhinitis (AR) comorbidities. The aim of this multidisciplinary European consensus document is to highlight the role of multimorbidities in the definition, classification, mechanisms, recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of AR, and to define the needs in this neglected area by a literature review. AR is a systemic allergic disease and is generally associated with numerous multi-morbid disorders, including asthma, eczema, food allergies, eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE), conjunctivitis, chronic middle ear effusions, rhinosinusitis, adenoid hypertrophy, olfaction disorders, obstructive sleep apnea, disordered sleep and consequent behavioural and educational effects. This report provides up-to-date usable information to: (1) improve the knowledge and skills of allergists, so as to ultimately improve the overall quality of patient care; (2) to increase interest in this area; and (3) to present a unique contribution to the field of upper inflammatory disease.

Passali D, et al. Asia Pac Allergy. 2018 Jan;8:e7. https://doi.org/10.5415/apallergy.2018.8.e7

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.