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...

Allergic rhinitis is a very common disorder that affects people of all ages, peaking in the teenage years. It is frequently ignored, underdiagnosed, misdiagnosed, and mistreated, which not only is detrimental to health but also has societal costs. Although allergic rhinitis is not a serious illness, it is clinically relevant because it underlies many complications, is a major risk factor for poor asthma control, and affects quality of life and productivity at work or school. Management of allergic rhinitis is best when directed by guidelines. A diagnostic trial of a pharmacotherapeutic agent could be started in people with clinically identified allergic rhinitis; however, to confirm the diagnosis, specific IgE reactivity needs to be recorded. Documented IgE reactivity has the added benefit of guiding implementation of environmental controls, which could substantially ameliorate symptoms of allergic rhinitis and might prevent development of asthma, especially in an occupational setting. Many classes of drug are available, effective, and safe. In meta-analyses, intranasal corticosteroids are superior to other treatments, have a good safety profile, and treat all symptoms of allergic rhinitis effectively. First-generation antihistamines are associated with sedation, psychomotor retardation, and reduced academic performance. Only immunotherapy with individually targeted allergens has the potential to alter the natural history of allergic rhinitis. Patients' education is a vital component of treatment. Even with the best pharmacotherapy, one in five affected individuals remains highly symptomatic, and further research is needed in this area.

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, first published in 2007. It was produced by the Standards of Care Committee of the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, using accredited methods. Allergic rhinitis is common and affects 10-15% of children and 26% of adults in the UK, it affects quality of life, school and work attendance, and is a risk factor for development of asthma. Allergic rhinitis is diagnosed by history and examination, supported by specific allergy tests. Topical nasal corticosteroids are the treatment of choice for moderate to severe disease. Combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine is more effective than either alone and provides second line treatment for those with rhinitis poorly controlled on monotherapy. Immunotherapy is highly effective when the specific allergen is the responsible driver for the symptoms. Treatment of rhinitis is associated with benefits for asthma. Non-allergic rhinitis also is a risk factor for the development of asthma and may be eosinophilic and steroid-responsive or neurogenic and non- inflammatory. Non-allergic rhinitis may be a presenting complaint for systemic disorders such as granulomatous or eosinophilic polyangiitis, and sarcoidoisis. Infective rhinitis can be caused by viruses, and less commonly by bacteria, fungi and protozoa.

BackgroundAnaphylaxis during general anaesthesia is rare but often severe. Identification of the cause of anaphylaxis and recommendation of a range of drugs or agents likely to be safer for future surgery is a collaborative venture between the allergists and the anaesthesiologists, but it often poses a significant challenge.MethodsA total of 31 patients who attended the Drug Allergy Unit at University College London Hospital with suspected perioperative anaphylaxis between March 2013 and January 2016 were reviewed retrospectively.ResultsThe culprit drug was identified in 21 patients (67.7%): antibiotics (n = 11, 52.3%), neuromuscular blocking agents (n = 8, 38.1%), morphine (n = 1, 4.8%) and gelofusine (n = 1, 4.8%). No cause was identified in six patients (19.4%), and four patients (12.9%) had non‐allergic reactions.ConclusionOur results confirm that antibiotics and neuromuscular blocking agents are common causative agents of perioperative anaphylaxis in the United Kingdom.