drawn on data from a systematic review of the literature, more recent published studies and multistakeholder expert clinical opinion. This Guideline is aimed at healthcare professionals who are encouraged to take the recommendations into account in the context of delivering clinical care. This Guideline is not a substitute for professional clinical judgment, which professionals need to exercise in the context of delivering personalised healthcare. AbstractAllergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) is an allergic disorder of the nose and eyes affecting about a fifth of the general population. Symptoms of AR can be controlled with allergen avoidance measures and pharmacotherapy. However, many patients continue to have ongoing symptoms and an impaired quality of life; pharmacotherapy may also induce some side-effects. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only currently available treatment that targets the underlying pathophysiology, and it may have a disease-modifying effect. Either the subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes may be used. This Guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on AIT for AR and is part of the EAACI presidential project "EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy." It aims to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations and has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis. Its generation has followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach.The process included involvement of the full range of stakeholders. In general, broad evidence for the clinical efficacy of AIT for AR exists but a product-specific evaluation of evidence is recommended. In general, SCIT and SLIT are recommended for both seasonal and perennial AR for its short-term benefit. The strongest evidence for long-term benefit is documented for grass AIT (especially for the grass 766 | ROBERTS, PFAAR ET AL. tablets) where long-term benefit is seen. To achieve long-term efficacy, it is recommended that a minimum of 3 years of therapy is used. Many gaps in the evidence base exist, particularly around long-term benefit and use in children. | ME TH ODOLOGYThis Guideline was produced using the Appraisal of Guidelines forResearch & Evaluation (AGREE II) approach, 17,18 a structured approach to guideline production (see Table S1). This is designed to ensure appropriate representation of the full range of stakeholders, a careful search for and critical appraisal of the relevant literature, a systematic approach to the formulation and presentation of recommendations and steps to ensure that the risk of bias is minimized at each step of the process. The process started on April 2015 beginning with detailed face-to-face discussions agreeing on the process and the key clinical areas to address, followed by face-to-face meetings, and regular web conferences in which professional and lay representatives participated. | Clarifying the scope and purpose of the guidelinesThe scope of this EAACI Guideline is multifaceted...

Hymenoptera venom allergy is a potentially life‐threatening allergic reaction following a honeybee, vespid, or ant sting. Systemic‐allergic sting reactions have been reported in up to 7.5% of adults and up to 3.4% of children. They can be mild and restricted to the skin or moderate to severe with a risk of life‐threatening anaphylaxis. Patients should carry an emergency kit containing an adrenaline autoinjector, H1‐antihistamines, and corticosteroids depending on the severity of their previous sting reaction(s). The only treatment to prevent further systemic sting reactions is venom immunotherapy. This guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on Venom Immunotherapy as part of the EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy initiative. The guideline aims to provide evidence‐based recommendations for the use of venom immunotherapy, has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta‐analysis and produced using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included representation from a range of stakeholders. Venom immunotherapy is indicated in venom‐allergic children and adults to prevent further moderate‐to‐severe systemic sting reactions. Venom immunotherapy is also recommended in adults with only generalized skin reactions as it results in significant improvements in quality of life compared to carrying an adrenaline autoinjector. This guideline aims to give practical advice on performing venom immunotherapy. Key sections cover general considerations before initiating venom immunotherapy, evidence‐based clinical recommendations, risk factors for adverse events and for relapse of systemic sting reaction, and a summary of gaps in the evidence.

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.

Clinical indications for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in respiratory and Hymenoptera venom allergy are well established; however, clinical contraindications to AIT are not always well documented. There are some discrepancies when classifying clinical contraindications for different forms of AIT as 'absolute' or 'relative'. EAACI Task Force on 'Contraindications to AIT' was created to evaluate and review current literature on clinical contraindications, and to update recommendations for both sublingual and subcutaneous AIT for respiratory and venom immunotherapy. An extensive review of the literature was performed on the use of AIT in asthma, autoimmune disorders, malignant neoplasias, cardiovascular diseases, acquired immunodeficiencies and other chronic diseases (including mental disorders), in patients treated with b-blockers, ACE inhibitors or monoamine oxidase inhibitors, in children under 5 years of age, during pregnancy and in patients with poor compliance. Each topic was addressed by the following three questions: (1) Are there any negative effects of AIT on this concomitant condition/disease? (2) Are more frequent or more severe AIT-related side-effects expected? and (3) Is AIT expected to be less efficacious? The evidence, for the evaluation of these clinical conditions as contraindications, was limited, and most of the conclusions were based on case reports. Based on an extended literature research, recommendations for each medical condition assessed are provided. The final decision on the administration of AIT should be based on individual evaluation of any medical condition and a risk/benefit assessment for each patient.Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been used worldwide for over a century and is currently the only causative therapy for the treatment of respiratory allergies (1-3), and Hymenoptera venom allergy (4). Although clinical indications for AIT are specific and widely accepted, clinical contraindications to AIT differ between various guidelines (1, 2, 4, 5).Allergy 70 (2015) 897-909

A novel strain of human coronaviruses, named by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) 1 as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has emerged and