Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 10% to 40% of the population. It reduces quality of life and school and work performance and is a frequent reason for office visits in general practice. Medical costs are large, but avoidable costs associated with lost work productivity are even larger than those incurred by asthma. New evidence has accumulated since the last revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines in 2010, prompting its update. We sought to provide a targeted update of the ARIA guidelines. The ARIA guideline panel identified new clinical questions and selected questions requiring an update. We performed systematic reviews of health effects and the evidence about patients' values and preferences and resource requirements (up to June 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision frameworks to develop recommendations. The 2016 revision of the ARIA guidelines provides both updated and new recommendations about the pharmacologic treatment of AR. Specifically, it addresses the relative merits of using oral H1-antihistamines, intranasal H1-antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and leukotriene receptor antagonists either alone or in combination. The ARIA guideline panel provides specific recommendations for the choice of treatment and the rationale for the choice and discusses specific considerations that clinicians and patients might want to review to choose the management most appropriate for an individual patient. Appropriate treatment of AR might improve patients' quality of life and school and work productivity. ARIA recommendations support patients, their caregivers, and health care providers in choosing the optimal treatment.

When drug reactions resembling allergy occur, they are called drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) before showing the evidence of either drug‐specific antibodies or T cells.DHRs may be allergic or nonallergic in nature, with drug allergies being immunologically mediatedDHRs. These reactions are typically unpredictable. They can be life‐threatening, may require or prolong hospitalization, and may necessitate changes in subsequent therapy. Both underdiagnosis (due to under‐reporting) and overdiagnosis (due to an overuse of the term ‘allergy’) are common. A definitive diagnosis of such reactions is required in order to institute adequate treatment options and proper preventive measures. Misclassification based solely on theDHRhistory without further testing may affect treatment options, result in adverse consequences, and lead to the use of more‐expensive or less‐effective drugs, in contrast to patients who had undergone a complete drug allergy workup. Several guidelines and/or consensus documents on general or specific drug class‐inducedDHRs are available to support the medical decision process. The use of standardized systematic approaches for the diagnosis and management ofDHRs carries the potential to improve outcomes and should thus be disseminated and implemented. Consequently, theInternationalCollaboration inAsthma,Allergy andImmunology (iCAALL), formed by theEuropeanAcademy ofAllergy andClinicalImmunology (EAACI), theAmericanAcademy ofAllergy,Asthma andImmunology (AAAAI), theAmericanCollege ofAllergy,Asthma andImmunology (ACAAI), and theWorldAllergyOrganization (WAO), has decided to issue anInternationalCONsensus (ICON) on drug allergy. The purpose of this document is to highlight the key messages that are common to many of the existing guidelines, while critically reviewing and commenting on any differences and deficiencies of evidence, thus providing a comprehensive reference document for the diagnosis and management of DHRs.

The gut microbiota has an important role in the gut barrier, inflammation and metabolic functions. Studies have identified a close association between the intestinal barrier and metabolic diseases, including obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Recently, Akkermansia muciniphila has been reported as a beneficial bacterium that reduces gut barrier disruption and insulin resistance. Here we evaluated the role of A. muciniphila-derived extracellular vesicles (AmEVs) in the regulation of gut permeability. We found that there are more AmEVs in the fecal samples of healthy controls compared with those of patients with T2D. In addition, AmEV administration enhanced tight junction function, reduced body weight gain and improved glucose tolerance in high-fat diet (HFD)-induced diabetic mice. To test the direct effect of AmEVs on human epithelial cells, cultured Caco-2 cells were treated with these vesicles. AmEVs decreased the gut permeability of lipopolysaccharide-treated Caco-2 cells, whereas Escherichia coli-derived EVs had no significant effect. Interestingly, the expression of occludin was increased by AmEV treatment. Overall, these results imply that AmEVs may act as a functional moiety for controlling gut permeability and that the regulation of intestinal barrier integrity can improve metabolic functions in HFD-fed mice.