Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a global health problem with increasing prevalence and association with an enormous medical and socioeconomic burden. New recognition of immune cells such as type 2 innate lymphocytes (ILC2s), T helper (Th2) 2 cells, follicular helper T cells, follicular regulatory T cells, regulatory T cells, B cells, dendritic cells, and epithelial cells in AR pathogenesis has been updated in this review paper. An in‐depth understanding of the mechanisms underlying AR will aid the identification of biomarkers associated with disease and ultimately provide valuable parameters critical to guide personalized targeted therapy. As the only etiological treatment option for AR, allergen‐specific immunotherapy (AIT) has attracted increasing attention, with evidence for effectiveness of AIT recently demonstrated in several randomized controlled trials and long‐term real‐life studies. The exploration of biologics as therapeutic options has only involved anti‐IgE and anti‐type 2 inflammatory agents; however, the cost‐effectiveness of these agents remains to be elucidated precisely. In the midst of the currently on‐going COVID‐19 pandemic, a global life‐threatening disease, although some studies have indicated that AR is not a risk factor for severity and mortality of COVID‐19, this needs to be confirmed in multi‐centre, real‐life studies of AR patients from different parts of the world.

Update on pathomechanisms and treatments in allergic rhinitis

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has greatly affected health-care provision across the globe. Management of chronic ailments has become challenging because of the strained health-care resources and social distancing measures that prevent on-site clinical visits and treatments. Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a debilitating, chronic disease characterized by unpredictable swelling attacks in various parts of the body. Controlling HAE symptoms often requires long-term prophylactic medication use and regular medical care; however, limited scientific information has been published about HAE medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To gather patient and health-care professional (HCP) perspectives on the global impact that COVID-19 has had, and the future impact it will have on HAE medical care and to identify differences in perceptions across economic and geographic boundaries. Methods: We conducted two independent but similar online global surveys to capture patient and HCP perspectives on the impact that COVID-19 has had, and the future impact it will have on HAE medical care. Results: Both patients and HCPs globally reported that the pandemic has limited the availability of HAE medical care, and they expect the restrictions to continue far beyond the pandemic. In addition, the results of our study suggested that telehealth use has increased across the globe but has been more successfully implemented in high-income countries. Conclusion: Patients and HCPs expect that HAE-related care will be negatively impacted by the pandemic for many years. Disparities in medical care and technologic infrastructure may exacerbate these challenges in non-high-income countries. Supportive tools and global infrastructure should be established to provide aid to non-high-income countries throughout the pandemic and several years after.

Global perceptions of the current and future impacts of COVID-19 on hereditary angioedema management.

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR‐Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence‐based findings and recommendation from the full document.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/alr.23090

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis – 2023

Background Since the first reports of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, there have been 198 million confirmed cases worldwide as of August 2021. The scientific community has joined efforts to gain knowledge of the newly emerged virus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the immunopathological mechanisms leading to COVID-19, and its significance for patients with allergies and asthma. Methods Based on the current literature, recent advances and developments in COVID-19 in the context of allergic diseases were reviewed. Results and conclusions In this review, we discuss the prevalence of COVID-19 in subjects with asthma, attacks of hereditary angioedema, and other allergic diseases during COVID-19. Underlying mechanisms suggest a protective role of allergy in COVID-19, involving eosinophilia, SARS-CoV-2 receptors expression, interferon responses, and other immunological events, but further studies are needed to fully understand those associations. There has been significant progress in disease evaluation and management of COVID-19, and allergy care should continue during the COVID-19 pandemic. The European Academy of Allergy & Clinical Immunology (EAACI) launched a series of statements and position papers providing recommendations on the organization of the allergy clinic, handling of allergen immunotherapy, asthma, drug hypersensitivity, allergic rhinitis, and other allergic diseases. Treatment of allergies using biologics during the COVID-19 pandemic has also been discussed. Allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines, including severe anaphylaxis, have been reported. Vaccination is a prophylactic strategy that can lead to a significant reduction in the mortality and morbidity associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and in this review, we discuss the proposed culprit components causing rare adverse reactions and recommendations to mitigate the risk of anaphylactic events during the administration of the vaccines.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/clt2.12065

Recent advances and developments in COVID-19 in the context of allergic diseases.

Background: There are some adverse effects with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, but the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on attacks in hereditary angioedema (HAE) is not well defined. Objective: We aimed to investigate the influence of COVID-19 vaccination on the course of HAE. Method: The COVID-19 vaccination status was determined in 140 adult patients with HAE. The number and severity of attacks recorded from patients' diaries were evaluated at four different periods, comprising 1 month before the first dose, the period between the first and the second doses of COVID-19 vaccine in all the patients, the period between the second dose and the third doses in those who received three doses, and 1 month after the last vaccination dose. The disease and attack severities were assessed with the disease severity score (DSS) and 10-point visual analog scale, respectively. The patients were divided into two main groups as group 1 (those who had at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccines [n = 114]) and group 2 (those who had no vaccination [n = 26]). Only Sinovac and Biontech, which were only approved in Turkey. Results: The mean ± standard deviation DSS was significantly higher in the patients who experienced an attack after vaccination within 48 hours (6.61 ± 1.88 versus 4.14 ± 1.69; p < 0.001). Long-term prophylaxis was less common in the patients with an increased number of attacks (n = 5 (27.8%) versus n = 54 (56.3%); p = 0.027). The number of patients with less than a high school education was higher in group 2 (n = 23 [88.5%]) than in group 1 (n = 26 [3.1%]) (p < 0.001). The number of patients who had concerns about the triggering of a vaccine-induced HAE attack or about the possible vaccine adverse effects was higher in group 2 (n = 26 [100%]) than in group 1 (n = 74 [64.9%]). Conclusion: It seems that COVID-19 vaccination does not increase HAE attacks regardless of the type of the vaccines. We recommend that HAE activity should be under control before COVID-19 vaccination, and the patients should be well informed about the safety of the vaccines.

Positive perception of COVID-19 vaccination in HAE: No significant impact of vaccination on disease course.

Background Hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks can be provoked with psychological factors. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of anxiety, depression and stress related to COVID-19 pandemic on disease activity of HAE patients during the quarantine period (QP) and the return to normal period (RTNP). Methods This study was conducted between March 2020 and September 2020 in four allergy centres. Demographic, clinical features and mental health status were evaluated in QP (from March to the beginning of June) and RTNP (from June to the beginning of September) applied by the government. The 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS10) was used to define the severity of HAE attacks. Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) and Fear of COVID-19 (FC-19) scale were performed to assess mental health status. Results 139 HAE patients were included in the study. In QP, median attack numbers and median VAS10 scores were 5 (min-max: 0-45) and 6 (min-max: 0-10), respectively. HAE attack numbers, DASS-21 stress, anxiety, depression and total DASS-21 scores, and FC-19 scores were higher in QP than RTNP (p = 0.001, p 0.05). Conclusions This study revealed that the restriction measures during COVID-19 outbreak cause an increase in the number of HAE attacks in relation to anxiety, depression, stress and fear of COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, it is important to provide psychological support to HAE patients during the pandemic.

Impact of anxiety, stress and depression related to COVID-19 pandemic on the course of hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency.

BACKGROUND: The success of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) mostly depends on regular injections. Our aim was to investigate adherence to SCIT with aeroallergens during the COVID-19 pandemic and demonstrate clinical consequences of treatment disruptions in real life. METHODS: Visual analogue scale for quality of life (VAS-QoL), VAS for symptom scores (VAS-symptom), medication scores (MSs), and total symptom scores (TSS-6) were recorded during the pandemic in 327 adult allergic rhinitis and/or asthmatic patients receiving maintenance SCIT, and these scores were compared with the pre-pandemic data. Patients were grouped according to SCIT administration intervals; no delay (Group 1), <2 months (Group 2), and ≥2-month intervals (Group 3). RESULTS: A total of 104 (31.8%) patients (Group 3) were considered as nonadherent which was mostly related to receiving SCIT with HDMs and using public transportation for reaching the hospital. Median MS, VAS-symptom, and TSS-6 scores of Group 3 patients during the pandemic were higher than the pre-pandemic scores (p = 0.005, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively), whereas median VAS-QoL scores of Group 3 during the pandemic were lower than the pre-pandemic scores (p < 0.001). Median TSS-6 and VAS-symptom scores were the highest in Group 3 compared with other groups (p < 0.001 for each comparison). Median VAS-QoL scores were the lowest in Group 3 compared with Group 1 and Group 2 (p < 0.001, p = 0.043, respectively). CONCLUSION: When precautions in allergy clinics are carefully applied, adherence to SCIT can be high during a pandemic. Patients must be encouraged to regularly adhere to SCIT injections since delays in SCIT administration can deteriorate clinical symptoms.

Adherence to subcutaneous immunotherapy with aeroallergens in real-life practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Association of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) with sleep disturbance has not been evaluated in studies that involve a large number of patients. Objective: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the sleep attitude and circadian rhythm in patients with CSU. Methods: As the patient group, recently diagnosed 100 patients with CSU, 100 patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) as the patient control group, and 100 healthy controls (HCs) were included. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) questionnaire, sleep hygiene index (SHI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) questionnaire, and the morningness-eveningness questionnaire (MEQ) were filled to assess sleep quality and circadian rhythm. CSU disease activity was evaluated by urticaria activity score-7 (UAS-7). Patients with concomitant diseases, e.g., psychiatric illnesses, that possibly affect sleep status or those who use related medications and at moderate or high risk of obstructive sleep apnea according to the STOP-Bang questionnaire were excluded from the study. Results: PSQI, SHI, and ESS scores were higher, and the MEQ score was lower in patients with CSU and patients with AR than those in the HCs (p < 0.001, for each score). However, the scores were not different among the patients with CSU and the patients with AR. UAS-7 was only correlated with PSQI scores (r = 0.402, p < 0.001). In addition, blood eosinophil counts and the serum C Reactive Protein (CRP) level were correlated with sleep quality (p = 0.02). Conclusion: The poor sleep quality, impaired sleep hygiene, increased daytime sleepiness, and intermediate type of circadian rhythm were observed in the patients with CSU and the patients with AR. Physicians should be aware of sleep problems in patients with CSU that might affect their quality of life and the success of their treatment.

Common but neglected problem in chronic spontaneous urticaria: Sleep disturbance.

Introduction: Omalizumab is a humanized anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, which is effective in the treatment in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) who are unresponsive to antihistamine therapy. There are few studies in the literature evaluating omalizumab treatment response in patients with symptomatic dermographism (SDerm). The aim of this study was to compare the response to omalizumab treatment in patients with CSU and SDerm. Methods: Patients treated with omalizumab for the diagnosis of CSU and SDerm were evaluated retrospectively. Treatment response to omalizumab was evaluated with the urticaria control test (UCT). Quality of life was evaluated with the dermatology quality of life questionnaire (DLQI). Baseline UCT and DLQI were compared with UCT and DLQI after omalizumab treatment. Results: Evaluation was made of a total of 116 patients (CSU: 92, SDerm: 24), comprising 36 (31%) males and 80 (69%) females with a mean age of 38.95 ± 13.64 years. The most common accompanying comorbid disease was allergic rhinitis (n = 40, 34.5%). There was no statistically significant difference between patients with CSU and SDerm in respect of response to omalizumab treatment (p = 0.890). After omalizumab treatment, the increase in UCT and decrease in DLQI was statistically significant in all patient groups (p < 0.001; p < 0.001, respectively), patients with CSU (p < 0.001; p < 0.001, respectively) and SDerm (p < 0.001; p < 0.001, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between baseline (before omalizumab treatment) UCT (p = 0.804) and UCT after omalizumab treatment (p = 0.933) between patients with CSU and patients with SDerm. There was no statistically significant difference between baseline (before omalizumab treatment) DLQI (p = 0.356) and DLQI after omalizumab treatment (p = 0.145) between patients with CSU and patients with SDerm. Conclusion: Omalizumab treatment improved disease control and quality of life in patients with SDerm. The findings of this study should be supported by randomized placebo-controlled studies.

Comparison of Omalizumab Treatment Response in Patients with Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria and Symptomatic Dermographism: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION
Mepolizumab is a treatment option in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, which inhibits interleukin-5. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical features and laboratory data of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who were classified as super-responders, partial responders, or nonresponders to mepolizumab treatment.


METHODS
In this retrospective real-life study, the clinical features and laboratory data were compared between groups of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who were classified as super-responders, partial responders, or nonresponders to mepolizumab treatment.


RESULTS
Evaluation was made of a total of 55 patients, comprising 17 (30.9%) males and 38 (69.1%) females with a mean age of 51.28 ± 14.32 years. All the patients were receiving mepolizumab treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma, with 17 (30.9%) patients evaluated as super-responders, 26 (47.3%) as partial responders, and 12 (21.8%) as nonresponders. After mepolizumab treatment, there was a statistically significant decrease in asthma exacerbations, the number of oral corticosteroids (OCSs) used, the rate of hospitalization due to asthma attacks, and the eosinophil count (cells/µL) (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and <0.001, respectively). A statistically significant increase was determined in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) value (p = 0.010) and asthma control test (ACT) score (p < 0.001) after mepolizumab treatment. The baseline eosinophil count, eosinophil/lymphocyte ratio and FEV1 (%) values were significantly higher in the super-responder and partial responder groups (p < 0.001, p = 0.002, and p = 0.002, respectively). The baseline ACT score and the rate of chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps were significantly higher in the partial responder group (p = 0.004, p = 0.015, respectively). The rate of regular OCS use before mepolizumab treatment was significantly higher in the nonresponder group (p = 0.049). As a result of the receiver operating characteristics curve analysis, the blood eosinophil count (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.967, p < 0.001), eosinophil/lymphocyte ratio (AUC: 0.921, p < 0.001), and FEV1 (%) (AUC: 0.828, p = 0.002) were found to have diagnostic value in predicting the response to mepolizumab treatment in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.


CONCLUSION
Baseline eosinophil count, eosinophil/lymphocyte ratio, and FEV1 (%) were found to be important predictors of response to mepolizumab treatment. Further studies are needed to define the characterization of mepolizumab responders in the real world.

Evaluation of the Clinical Features and Laboratory Data of Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Classified as Super-Responders, Partial Responders, or Nonresponders to Mepolizumab Treatment: A Real-Life Study.

Osman Ozan Yeğit

Papers

Impact of anxiety, stress and depression related to COVID-19 pandemic on the course of hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency.

Adherence to subcutaneous immunotherapy with aeroallergens in real-life practice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Common but neglected problem in chronic spontaneous urticaria: Sleep disturbance.

Comparison of Omalizumab Treatment Response in Patients with Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria and Symptomatic Dermographism: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Evaluation of the Clinical Features and Laboratory Data of Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma Classified as Super-Responders, Partial Responders, or Nonresponders to Mepolizumab Treatment: A Real-Life Study.