Questionnaire responses were scored on a 9-point Likert scale (consensus: mean score ≤3 with ≤1 outlier; near consensus: mean score ≤3.5 with ≤2 outliers; no consensus: mean score >3.5 or ≥3 outliers). *The SC used the results of the literature search to design the Delphi questionnaire, which consisted of 23 consensus statements. Published work identified in the literature search that was relevant to each consensus statement was provided to all participating experts for context. Owing to expert feedback on the questionnaire, which noted that some experts felt that they were not fully qualified to answer some questions outside their specialty, a post hoc subgroup analysis stratified by relevant specialty(ies) was conducted to explore whether this affected the levels of consensus.Based on feedback from the experts, which excluded all statements that had achieved consensus in the first round. One statement was made optional so that experts could abstain from voting if they felt that they did not have relevant expertise. Seven statements included responses from experts within the dermatology subgroup, which included experts with specialist knowledge about dermatological diseases (allergists, clinical immunologists, dermatologists, internal medicine specialists and paediatricians), or the respiratory subgroup, which included experts with a high level of knowledge about respiratory diseases (allergists, clinical immunologists, ENT specialists, internal medicine specialists, paediatricians and pulmonologists).§The SC and experts gathered virtually on 22 October 2020 to review and discuss the conclusions from the Delphi questionnaires. The virtual meeting was facilitated by Keena McKillen on behalf of OPEN Health Medical Communications. The SC moderated breakout sessions where the experts discussed how the results of the Delphi questionnaires may impact the holistic care of patients with type 2 inflammatory diseases within their respective specialties.At the virtual meeting, a member of the SC, U.S. Björnsdóttir, provided insight into the role of type 2 inflammation as a driver of eosinophilic esophagitis. After reviewing all available evidence, it was agreed that the corresponding consensus statement should be re-circulated to the expert group and SC as a third-round questionnaire.