Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update

Artificial intelligence and machine learning for anaphylaxis algorithms

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anaphylaxis is a severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reaction that requires rapid identification and intervention. Current management includes early recognition, prompt administration of epinephrine, and immediate medical attention. However, challenges remain in accurate diagnosis, timely treatment, and personalized care. This article reviews the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning in enhancing anaphylaxis management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Artificial intelligence and machine learning can analyze vast datasets to identify patterns and predict anaphylactic episodes, improve diagnostic accuracy through image and biomarker analysis, and personalize treatment plans. Artificial intelligence-powered wearable devices and decision support systems can facilitate real-time monitoring and early intervention. The ethical considerations of artificial intelligence use, including data privacy, transparency, and bias mitigation, are also discussed.

SUMMARY

Future directions include the development of predictive models, enhanced diagnostic tools, and artificial intelligence-driven educational resources. By leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning, healthcare providers can improve the management of anaphylaxis, ensuring better patient outcomes and advancing personalized medicine.

Food-triggered anaphylaxis in adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Adult food allergy, either unresolved from childhood, or new-onset in adult-life, is known to be increasingly prevalent. Although much of the reported anaphylaxis in adults is due to drug reactions, foods are becoming an increasingly important trigger, affecting adults of all ages, with a wide variation in food triggers which are often quite different to those reported in children.

RECENT FINDINGS

Peanuts are well known to cause anaphylaxis in some adult populations, but other legumes such as soy may be more relevant in others. Reactions to natto, fermented soybeans, are currently mainly reported in Japan, but changing dietary practices and an increase in plant-based eating mean natto, other forms of soy and other legumes are increasingly linked to anaphylaxis in Western countries. Anaphylaxis to red meat, caused by sensitization to galactose-α-1,3-galactose and first reported in North America, is now a more world-wide concern. Co-factor induced anaphylaxis is increasingly associated with both wheat allergy and lipid transfer protein allergy.

SUMMARY

More research is urgently needed to characterize adult food allergy, its triggers and symptom severity. Unusual food triggers and potential co-factors should be considered, so that anaphylaxis in adults can be correctly managed, not merely labelled as idiopathic.

Evidence-based use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Epinephrine is the first line treatment for anaphylaxis, however, there are limited data to support this. This review examines data surrounding evidence for the use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis, data on prescription for and use of epinephrine autoinjectors, and data examining newer routes of delivery of epinephrine; with a focus on recent publications over the past few years.

RECENT FINDINGS

With recent epidemiologic studies of anaphylaxis and new forms of epinephrine being studied, new data on the effects of epinephrine are aiding in the understanding of epinephrine's effects and the shortcomings of epinephrine both in its effect and utility in the real world.

SUMMARY

Epinephrine is still considered the first line therapy for anaphylaxis, and we are starting to have a better understanding of its effects in both healthy patients and those with anaphylaxis.

Tryptase in drug-induced anaphylaxis: the need for acute and baseline values

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this narrative review was to summarize data and official recommendations purporting to paired tryptase determination in patients experiencing drug-induced anaphylaxis, published between January 1, 2023 and June 1, 2024.

RECENT FINDINGS

Three main lines of evidence obtained through paired acute and baseline tryptase determination were identified: diagnostic criterion for hypersensitivity reactions involving systemic mast cell activation; differential diagnostic criterion for hypersensitivity reactions involving other mechanisms of immediate reactions; and added value of acute and baseline tryptase levels for personalized management following drug-induced anaphylaxis: cause, risk of recurrence, underlying mast cell conditions including hereditary α-tryptasemia, familial clusters.

SUMMARY

The implementation of existing guidelines which consensually recommend paired tryptase measurement is a persistent unmet need hampering optimal diagnosis of drug-induced anaphylaxis and patient management. Another major unmet need is the lack of standardized recommendations for hereditary α-tryptasemia testing and counselling. Progress in this field is seen at a rapid pace, requiring significant efforts of continued medical education for practicing clinicians and laboratory specialists worldwide.

Beyond the appearances: exploring complexities in anaphylaxis differential diagnosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anaphylaxis is a severe, and potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity reaction whose diagnosis is based on clinical signs and symptoms and their prompt recognition. The presence of mimics and unusual presentations necessitate a careful evaluation and expertise in the field, due to potential diagnostic errors and hence a delay in the treatment.The aim of this review is to analyze and make an overview of the potential differential diagnosis of anaphylaxis, focusing on the clinical challenges of recognizing these conditions effectively among similar others.

RECENT FINDINGS

The presence of mimics and unusual presentations of anaphylaxis necessitate a careful evaluation, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive diagnostic approach.Tryptase is well known marker of mast cells activation, and a useful tool assisting the diagnosis of anaphylaxis, helping to differentiate it from atypical mimickers.

SUMMARY

The differential diagnosis of anaphylaxis comprises a very wide setting, and a systematic approach assessing different categories of cardiovascular, skin, respiratory airway, neuropsychiatric, and hematologic systems, can facilitate recognition of the correct diagnosis of this complex and life-threatening condition.

Incidence of and risk factors for paediatric perioperative anaphylaxis in the USA

BACKGROUND

Perioperative anaphylaxis is a serious and often life-threatening immediate hypersensitivity reaction. There are few published data on paediatric perioperative anaphylaxis (pPOA). We evaluated the incidence of and risk factors involved in the occurrence of pPOA within a large US national database.

METHODS

Deidentified data from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2005 to 2014 were used to identify pPOA cases and to conduct a retrospective multivariate analysis of preselected independent variables.

RESULTS

Among 3,601,180 surgeries and procedures in children aged 0-18 yr, 297 pPOA cases were identified for an incidence of one in 12,125 surgeries and procedures. Compared with controls, pPOA cases had an increased median length of stay (6 vs 2 days; P<0.001) and median hospital cost ($54 719 vs $5109; P<0.0001). The age groups between 6 and 12 yr (odds ratio [OR] 7.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-12.9; P<0.001) and 13 and 17 yr (OR 8.5; 95% CI 4.7-15.2; P<0.001) were associated with increased odds of pPOA. Transplant (OR 46.3; 95% CI 20.8-102.9; P<0.001), cardiac (OR 16.4; 95% CI 7.5-35.9; P<0.001), and vascular (OR 15.2; 95% CI 7.5-30.7; P<0.001) procedures posed the highest risk for pPOA. Chronic pulmonary disease, coagulopathy, and fluid and electrolyte disorders were also associated with pPOA (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.5-3.3; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of pPOA was one in 12,125 cases. Risk factors included age, procedure type, and comorbidities.

Applying the dissemination and implementation sciences to allergy and immunology: A Work Group Report from the AAAAI Quality, Adherence, and Outcomes Committee

Translating evidence-based practice (EBP) into real-world clinical settings often takes a considerable amount of time and resources. In allergy and immunology, the dissemination and implementation (D&I) sciences facilitate the study of how variations in knowledge, resources, patient populations, and staffing models lead to differences in the clinical care of asthma, allergic disease, and primary immunodeficiency. Despite the need for validated approaches to study how to best apply EBP in the real world, the D&I sciences are underutilized. To address this gap, an American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) work group was convened to provide an overview for the role of the D&I sciences in clinical care and future research within the field. For the D&I sciences to be leveraged effectively, teams should be multidisciplinary and inclusive of community and clinical partners, and multimethods approaches to data collection and analyses should be used. Used appropriately, the D&I sciences provide important tools to promote EBP and health equity as well as optimization of clinical practice in allergy and immunology.

Development and Evaluation of Modified Criteria for Infant and Toddler Anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Current clinical criteria for identifying anaphylaxis do not account for unique aspects of infant anaphylaxis presentation and have not been validated in patients younger than 2 years of age. This may contribute to under recognition and is thus an unmet need.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate age-specific signs and symptoms that more accurately identify anaphylaxis in young children and to develop and compare modified criteria for "likely anaphylaxis" against the widely used 2006 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (NIAID/FAAN) criteria.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of 337 clinical encounters presenting with suspected allergic or anaphylactic reactions to a pediatric emergency department. Modified criteria for likely anaphylaxis were developed and evaluated against the NIAID/FAAN criteria.

RESULTS

The study population included 33% infants (age < 12 mo), 39% toddlers (age 12 mo to < 36 mo), and 29% children (age ≥ 36 mo). The NIAID/FAAN criteria captured 85% of all patient encounters in the study and the modified criteria captured 98% (P < .001). Compared with NIAID/FAAN criteria, modified criteria had 22.8% improved performance among infants (p < .001) and 10.3% improved performance among toddlers (P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

We developed modified anaphylaxis clinical criteria that incorporated symptoms specific to infants and young children. The modified criteria increased identification of anaphylaxis in infants and potentially toddlers. Future research is needed to validate our findings on a larger cohort.

Perioperative anaphylaxis: updates on pathophysiology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Perioperative anaphylaxis has historically been attributed to IgE/FcεRI-mediated reactions; there is now recognition of allergic and nonallergic triggers encompassing various reactions beyond IgE-mediated responses. This review aims to present recent advancements in knowledge regarding the mechanisms and pathophysiology of perioperative anaphylaxis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Emerging evidence highlights the role of the mast-cell related G-coupled protein receptor X2 pathway in direct mast cell degranulation, shedding light on previously unknown mechanisms. This pathway, alongside traditional IgE/FcεRI-mediated reactions, contributes to the complex nature of anaphylactic reactions. Investigations into the microbiota-anaphylaxis connection are ongoing, with potential implications for future treatment strategies. While serum tryptase levels serve as mast cell activation indicators, identifying triggers remains challenging. A range of mediators have been associated with anaphylaxis, including vasoactive peptides, proteases, lipid molecules, cytokines, chemokines, interleukins, complement components, and coagulation factors.

SUMMARY

Further understanding of clinical endotypes and the microenvironment where anaphylactic reactions unfold is essential for standardizing mediator testing and characterization in perioperative anaphylaxis. Ongoing research aims to elucidate the mechanisms, pathways, and mediators involved across multiple organ systems, including the cardiovascular, respiratory, and integumentary systems, which will be crucial for improving patient outcomes.

New insights into chronic inducible urticaria

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU) is a group of long-persisting and challenging to manage diseases, characterized by recurrent wheals and angioedema induced by definite triggers. In this review, we address recent findings on CIndU pathogenesis, diagnosis as well as its treatment, and we discuss novel potential targets that may lead to the development of more effective therapies for CIndU patients.

RECENT ADVANCES

Meaningful advances in the understanding of its pathogenesis have been reported in the last decades. Novel CIndU-specific patient-reported outcome measures enable a closer and better evaluation of patients. CIndU is a hard-to-treat disease that highly impairs quality of life (QoL) of affected patients. Provocation tests allow to diagnose CIndU subtypes. The only licensed and recommended treatment for CIndU are second generation non-sedating H1-antihistamines, which lack efficacy in many cases. Omalizumab off-label use has been assessed in all types of CIndU with overall good outcomes. Promising emerging therapies currently assessed in chronic spontaneous urticaria are paving the path for novel treatments for CIndU.

Trends in anaphylaxis management during COVID-19

Background

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially life-threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction that commonly occurs in the community setting and is best managed with epinephrine.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) pandemic on trends in acute at-home anaphylactic events, including emergency room (ER) visits and treatment for anaphylaxis.

Methods

We used data from 2 sources: survey data from the Food Allergy Research and Education Patient Registry and the electronic medical records of patients who presented to the Tampa General Hospital ER with a diagnosis of anaphylaxis. We collected data from events during the COVID-19 epidemic as well as before and after availability of the COVID-19 vaccine. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

A total of 190 Food Allergy Research and Education survey responses were completed. Of the 190 respondents, 63 reported that the COVID-19 pandemic changed how they responded to an allergic reaction. Of the 63 patients, 71% avoided seeking medical care outside the home, 30% used self-medication more quickly than usual, and 14% delayed their use of medication. Only 87 events (46%) were treated with epinephrine. From April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2022, a total of 4358 individuals presented to the Tampa General Hospital ER with an International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, diagnosis code of anaphylaxis or allergic reaction. Only 718 individuals received epinephrine in the ER. In all, 867 patients presented 1 year before March 1, 2020 (before availability of the COVID-19 vaccine), and 1833 patients presented 1 year after April 1, 2021 (after availability of the vaccine).

Conclusions

According to the survey and ER data capture, only 16% of patients received epinephrine. After COVID-19 vaccine availability there were more ER visits for anaphylaxis among patients seen in a tertiary care teaching hospital.

Stinging Ant Anaphylaxis: Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment

Stinging ants represent a wide range of over 200 different species across the world, of which Solenopsis, Myrmecia, Pogonomyrmex, and Brachyponera genera account for a substantial economic and healthcare burden. S. invicta (red imported fire ant [IFA]) and M. pilosula (jack jumper ant [JJA]) are 2 species of high clinical importance, known to cause anaphylaxis in humans, with numerous reported fatalities. Diagnostic testing should be performed in patients with a history of a systemic reaction with skin testing and/or in vitro specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) testing. In vitro testing is commercially available for IFA through whole-body extract specific IgE and JJA venom-specific IgE, but not widely available for other stinging ant species. Commercial venom component testing for IFA and JJA is currently not available. Patients with a clinical history and positive specific IgE testing should undergo treatment with specific immunotherapy, which is currently available for IFA and JJA. Buildup may be performed using conventional, semi-rush, rush, or ultra-rush schedules with similar risk profiles for IFA. Optimal duration for whole=body extract immunotherapy for IFA and specific JJA venom immunotherapy is not well studied, but generally recommended for at least 3 to 5 years. Sting challenges are used in research settings, primarily to assess treatment efficacy of immunotherapy.

Life-Threatening Anaphylaxis due to Cerebrolysin®

In this case report, we describe a well-documented, severe anaphylactic reaction after intravenous administration of cerebrolysin, a neurotrophic agent derived from highly purified porcine brain tissue, consisting of peptides and free amino acids. Cerebrolysin has been in use for decades, in various neurological diseases, but especially stroke and traumatic brain injury, with the aim of enhancing cognitive performance. After administration of cerebrolysin to an 85-year-old male patient suffering from subacute stroke, he developed a fulminant anaphylactic reaction. Following institutional standards, vital functions were quickly restored. The anaphylactic reaction was clearly confirmed by laboratory tests. To date, only rare cases of anaphylaxis due to cerebrolysin have been published in the literature. The current report is intended to raise awareness for the possibility of such a reaction, given the widespread use of cerebrolysin in several indications in mostly critical patients. The case shows how a completely unexpected life-threatening situation can be successfully treated by targeted measures, if the situation is recognized quickly. In light of this event, we consider pathophysiology of allergic reactions and treatment guidelines.

Management of Refractory Anaphylaxis: An Overview of Current Guidelines

In this review, we compare different refractory anaphylaxis (RA) management guidelines focusing on cardiovascular involvement and best practice recommendations, discuss postulated pathogenic mechanisms underlining RA and highlight knowledge gaps and research priorities. There is a paucity of data supporting existing management guidelines. Therapeutic recommendations include the need for the timely administration of appropriate doses of aggressive fluid resuscitation and intravenous (IV) adrenaline in RA. The preferred second-line vasopressor (noradrenaline, vasopressin, metaraminol and dopamine) is unknown. Most guidelines recommend IV glucagon for patients on beta-blockers, despite a lack of evidence. The use of methylene blue or extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is also suggested as rescue therapy. Despite recent advances in understanding the pathogenesis of anaphylaxis, the factors that lead to a lack of response to the initial adrenaline and thus RA are unclear. Genetic factors, such as deficiency in platelet activating factor-acetyl hydrolase or hereditary alpha-tryptasaemia, mastocytosis may modulate reaction severity or response to treatment. Further research into the underlying pathophysiology of RA may help define potential new therapeutic approaches and reduce the morbidity and mortality of anaphylaxis.

Efficacy and safety of hymenoptera venom immunotherapy

Background: Being stung by Hymenoptera species can cause life-threatening anaphylaxis. Although venom immunotherapy (VIT) seems to be the most effective treatment, its long-term efficacy, and risk factors for adverse events remain unclear. Objective: The objective was to investigate the long-term efficacy of VIT and evaluate adverse events and risk factors related to this. Method: Patients who received VIT in a tertiary-care adult allergy clinic between January 2005 and July 2022 were included. Patients' data were compared with those of individuals who had been diagnosed with bee and/or wasp venom allergy during the same period but had not received VIT and experienced field re-stings. Results: The study included 105 patients with venom allergy, of whom 68 received VIT and 37 did not receive VIT. Twenty-three patients (34%) completed 5 years of VIT, and the overall mean ± standard deviation VIT duration was 46.9 ± 20.9 months. Re-stings occurred in 5 of 23 patients who completed 5 years of VIT, and none of them developed a systemic reaction. Eighteen patients (40%) experienced re-stings after prematurely discontinuing VIT, of whom eight (44%) developed a systemic reaction. In the control group of patients who did not receive VIT, 26 patients (70.3%) experienced re-stings, and all had systemic reactions (100%), with no change in their median Mueller scores. There was a significant difference in the median Mueller score change between the patients who received VIT and the controls who did not (p = 0.016). A total of 13 patients (19%) experienced adverse events while receiving VIT, which were systemic reactions in nine honeybee VIT. The use of β-blockers was determined as the most important risk factor (odds ratio 15.9 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-208.8]; p = 0.035). Conclusion: It was confirmed that VIT was effective in both reducing the incidence and the severity of re-sting reactions. These effects were more pronounced in the patients who completed 5 years of VIT.

Anaphylaxis in Practice: A Guide to the 2023 Practice Parameter Update

This review summarizes new research developments and clinical practice recommendations for the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis presented in the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters 2023 Anaphylaxis practice parameter Update. It is intended to serve as a high-level summary of the 2023 practice parameter, which makes clinically impactful recommendations based on evidence that has emerged since the 2015 practice parameter. We invite clinicians to explore the full 2023 practice parameter to understand the research methods and underlying evidence that have informed the recommendations summarized here. There are new and evolving diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis, rules for defining elevated tryptase levels, and recognition of signs and symptoms particular to infants and toddlers. The administration of epinephrine should not be used as a surrogate to diagnose anaphylaxis. Risk factors for anaphylaxis should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Patient counseling and shared decision-making are essential to support patients' treatment decisions and capacity to manage the risk of anaphylaxis at home and in other community settings. Activation of emergency medical services after home epinephrine administration may not be required in all cases, and patients should be engaged in shared decision-making to determine when home management may be appropriate.

The Cost-effectiveness of Omalizumab for Treatment of Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is an anti-IgE therapy newly approved by the Food and Drug Administration for allergen agnostic treatment of single or multiple food allergies in patients aged 1 year or older.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab as a food allergy treatment.

METHODS

We evaluated health and economic outcomes in Markov cohorts of simulated food allergic infants randomized to receive omalizumab using a 15-year horizon. Monte Carlo simulation was used (n = 40,000 subjects) to evaluate cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective, incorporating both a family-level and individual-level analysis. We included family-level analysis to incorporate a broad perspective for health utility change, given treatment effects likely benefit all parties at home (eg, caregivers, siblings), not just the patient, representing the sum of changes in all such persons. Supplemental analyses explored lower omalizumab cost and home initiation. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the family-level cohort analysis, omalizumab exceeded cost-effectiveness thresholds ($185,183/quality-adjusted life-years [QALY]). In a comparison of the omalizumab strategy (OMA) with the non-omalizumab strategy, the cost of OMA exceeded the non-omalizumab strategy ($315,020 vs $136,609) with greater incremental effectiveness (12.668 vs 11.699 QALY). In the individual-level analysis, the cost-effectiveness of OMA was $573,698/QALY. In base-case assessments, OMA was cost-effective (willingness to pay, $100,000/QALY) at a health state utility (HSU) improvement of 0.265. The value-based cost of OMA ranged from $14,166 to $23,791 when it was considered at the individual and family-unit levels. Requiring OMA administration in the clinic was not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $260,239).

CONCLUSIONS

In the base case and at current pricing, omalizumab is not cost-effective, but it could be at a lower retail price or when use creates large health utility shifts in the family and patient.

Topical corticosteroids for hives and itch (urticaria): Systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Topical corticosteroids are widely used as a treatment for itch and wheals (urticaria), but their benefits and harms are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of topical corticosteroids for the treatment of urticaria.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from database inception to March 23, 2024, for randomized trials comparing topical corticosteroids with placebo for patients with urticaria (either chronic spontaneous or inducible urticaria or acute urticaria elicited from skin/intradermal allergy testing). Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses addressed urticaria severity, itch severity (numeric rating scale; range 0-10; higher is worse), and adverse events. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023455182.

RESULTS

A total of 19 randomized controlled trials enrolled 379 participants with a median of mean age of 30.1 (range 21.1-44.0) years. Compared with placebo, topical corticosteroids may reduce wheal size (ratio of means 0.47, 95% CI 0.38-0.59; low certainty) and itch severity (mean difference -1.30, 95% CI -5.07 to 2.46; very low certainty). Topical corticosteroids result in little to no difference in overall adverse events (94 fewer patients per 1000, 95% credible intervals 172 fewer to 12 more; high certainty).

CONCLUSION

Compared with placebo, topical corticosteroids may result in a reduction of wheal size and little to no difference in overall adverse events. Topical corticosteroids may reduce itch severity, but the evidence is very uncertain. Future large, randomized trials addressing the use of topical corticosteroids would further support optimal urticaria management.

Development of neffy, an Epinephrine Nasal Spray, for Severe Allergic Reactions

Epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs) are used for the treatment of severe allergic reactions in a community setting; however, their utility is limited by low prescription fulfillment rates, failure to carry, and failure to use due to fear of needles. Given that delayed administration of epinephrine is associated with increased morbidity/mortality, there has been a growing interest in developing needle-free, easy-to-use delivery devices. neffy (epinephrine nasal spray) consists of three Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved components: epinephrine, Intravail A3 (absorption enhancer), and a Unit Dose Spray (UDS). neffy's development pathway was established in conjunction with the FDA and the European Medicines Agency and included multiple clinical trials to evaluate pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses under a variety of conditions, such as self-administration and allergic and infectious rhinitis, as well as an animal anaphylaxis model of severe hypotension, where neffy demonstrated a pharmacokinetic profile that is within the range of approved injection products and a pharmacodynamic response that is as good or better than injections. The increased pulse rate (PR) and blood pressure (BP) observed even one minute following the administration of neffy confirm the activation of α and β adrenergic receptors, which are the key components of epinephrine's mechanism of action. The results suggest that neffy will provide a safe and effective needle-free option for the treatment of severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

Shared Decision-Making in Insect Sting Allergy: To Bee or Not to Bee?

Evaluation and management of insect sting allergy are often not straightforward when there is uncertainty about the history of reaction, the significance of test results, and the risk of severe reaction to future stings. Patients encounter misinformation about the chance of reaction and may have strong beliefs about the need for treatment. Shared decision-making encourages the clinician to listen to the patients' concerns and beliefs, share relevant information and evidence, and partner with patients to incorporate their values and preferences. This review discusses some major decision points in diagnosis and treatment of insect-allergic patients, with attention to the potential burdens or harms that are important to patients and factors that relate to patients' values and preferences concerning the choices they must make. This is especially true in patients with no history of moderate to severe sting anaphylaxis in whom the risk may be overestimated, but it can also be important in patients who underestimate the risk associated with severe sting anaphylaxis. Clinicians should become more knowledgeable about patient-important beliefs and outcomes and engage in shared decision-making to help patients understand and be comfortable with the choices they must make.

Remimazolam anaphylaxis in a patient not allergic to brotizolam: a case report and literature review

BACKGROUND

Remimazolam is a recently developed, ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine that is used as a general anesthetic. Some cases of remimazolam anaphylaxis have been reported, but its characteristics are not fully understood. We present an interesting case report and review of the literature to better understand remimazolam anaphylaxis.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 75-year-old man scheduled for robot-assisted gastrectomy was administered remimazolam for the induction of general anesthesia. After intubation, low end-expiratory CO2, high airway pressure and concurrent circulatory collapse were observed. Bronchoscopy revealed marked tracheal and bronchial edema, which we diagnosed as anaphylaxis. The patient suffered cardiac arrest after bronchoscopy but recovered immediately with intravenous adrenaline administration and chest compressions. We performed skin prick tests for the drugs used during induction except for remimazolam, considering the high risk of systemic adverse reactions to remimazolam. We diagnosed remimazolam anaphylaxis because the skin prick test results for the other drugs used during anesthesia were negative, and these drugs could have been used without allergic reactions during the subsequent surgery. Furthermore, this patient had experienced severe anaphylactic-like reactions when he underwent cardiac surgery a year earlier, in which midazolam had been used, but it was not thought to be the allergen at that time. Based on these findings, cross-reactivity to remimazolam and midazolam was suspected. However, the patient had previously received another benzodiazepine, brotizolam, to which he was not allergic, suggesting that cross-reactivity of remimazolam may vary among benzodiazepines. In this article, we reviewed the 11 cases of remimazolam anaphylaxis that have been described in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Remimazolam is an ultrashort-acting sedative; however, it can cause life-threatening anaphylaxis. In addition, its cross-reactivity with other benzodiazepines is not fully understood. To increase the safety of this drug, further research and more experience in its use are needed.

Decisions With Patients, Not for Patients: Shared Decision-Making in Allergy and Immunology

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an increasingly implemented patient-centered approach to navigating patient preferences regarding diagnostic and treatment options and supported decision-making. This therapeutic approach prioritizes the patient's perspectives, considering current medical evidence to provide a balanced approach to clinical scenarios. In light of numerous recent guideline recommendations that are conditional in nature and are clinical scenarios defined by preference-sensitive care options, there is a tremendous opportunity for SDM and validated decision aids. Despite the expansion of the literature on SDM, formal acceptance among clinicians remains inconsistent. Surprisingly, a significant disparity exists between clinicians' self-reported adherence to SDM principles and patients' perceptions of its implementation during clinical encounters. This discrepancy underscores a fundamental issue in the delivery of health care, where clinicians may overestimate their integration of SDM, while patients' experiences suggest otherwise. This review critically examines the factors contributing to this inconsistency, including barriers within the health care system, clinician attitudes and behaviors, and patient expectations and preferences. By elucidating these factors in the fields of food allergy, asthma, eosinophilic esophagitis, and other allergic diseases, this review aims to provide insights into bridging the gap between clinician perception and patient experience in SDM. Addressing this discordance is crucial for advancing patient-centered care and ensuring that SDM is not merely a theoretical concept but a tangible reality in the.

Serologic measurements for peanut allergy: Predicting clinical severity is complex

Allergist-immunologists use serologic peanut allergy testing to maximize test sensitivity and specificity while minimizing cost and inconvenience. Recent advances toward this goal include a better understanding of specific IgE (sIgE) and component testing, epitope-sIgE assays, and basophil activation testing. Predicting reaction severity with serologic testing is challenged by a range of co-factors that influence reaction severity, such as the amount and form of any allergen consumed and comorbid disease. In 2020, the Allergy Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters recommended Ara h 2-sIgE as the most cost-effective diagnostic test for peanut allergy because of its superior performance, when compared with skin prick testing and serum IgE. Basophil activation testing, a functional test of allergic response not evaluated in the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters guideline, is a promising option for both allergy diagnosis and prognosis. Similarly, epitope-sIgE testing may improve prediction of reaction thresholds, but further validation is needed. Despite advances in food allergy testing, many of these tools remain limited by cost, accessibility, and feasibility. In addition, there is a need for further research on how atopic dermatitis may be modifying serologic food allergy severity assessments. Given these limitations, allergy test selection requires a shared decision-making approach so that a patient's values and preferences regarding financial impact, inconvenience, and psychological effects are considered in the context of clinician expertise on the timing and use of optimized testing.

Leveraging learning systems to improve quality and patient safety in allergen immunotherapy

Adverse events occur in all fields of medicine, including allergy-immunology, in which allergen immunotherapy medical errors can cause significant harm. Although difficult to experience, such errors constitute opportunities for improvement. Identifying system vulnerabilities can allow resolution of latent errors before they become active problems. We review key aspects and frameworks of the medical error response, acknowledging the fundamental responsibility of clinical teams to learn from harm. Adverse event response comprises 4 major phases: (1) event recognition and reporting, (2) investigation (for which root cause analysis can be helpful), (3) improvement (inclusive of the plan-do-study-act cycle), and (4) communication and resolution. Throughout the process, clinician wellness must be maintained. Adverse event prevention should be prioritized, and a human factors engineering approach can be useful. Quality improvement tools and approaches complement one another and together offer a meaningful avenue for error recovery and prevention.

Growing up with allergies: Transitioning from adolescence to adulthood

Allergic disease management for adolescents and young adults requires consideration of unique psychosocial challenges and opportunities. Erik Erikson's model for the Stages of Psychosocial Development is a useful lens through which we can understand adolescent and young adult experiences with allergic and immunologic disease, particularly with regard to identity and relationship development. It is important to provide anticipatory guidance for patients who are transitioning environments (eg, home to college), with attention to the anxiety-provoking demands for increased responsibility on top of new stressors such as academic and vocational demands. It is critical that health care professionals use an empathetic, shared decision-making approach regarding the emotional impact of allergy on a patient's social engagement. A patient's ability to develop positive lifelong habits is also shaped by their environment's "culture of wellness," and clinicians can encourage habits to promote healthy choices and effective disease management. Social media provides opportunities and challenges as a conduit for both social connection and possible misinformation. Overall, allergic disease management in adolescents and young adults is a "high-risk, high-reward" period of time-and with awareness, anticipation, and proactive action, health care professionals can better serve patients by leveraging this transitional period to promote positive approaches to management of allergies and asthma, trusting relationships, and personal responsibility.

Pharmacoequity and Biologics in the Allergy Clinic: Providing the Right Care, at the Right Time, Every Time, to Everyone

Pharmacoequity refers to equity in access to pharmacotherapy for all patients and is an especially large barrier to biologic agents in patients with allergic diseases. Value-based care models can prompt clinicians to address social determinants of health, promoting pharmacoequity. Pharmacoequity is influenced by numerous factors including socioeconomic status, which may be mediated through insurance status, educational attainment, and access to specialist care. In addition to lower socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, age, locations isolated from care systems, and off-label indications for biologic agents all constitute barriers to pharmacoequity. Whereas pharmaco-inequity is more apparent for expensive biologics, it also affects many other allergy treatments including epinephrine autoinjectors and SMART for asthma. Current programs aimed at alleviating cost barriers are imperfect. Patient assistance programs, manufacturer-sponsored free drug programs, and rebates often increase the complexity of care, with resultant inequity, particularly for patients with lower health literacy. Ultimately, single silver-bullet solutions are elusive. Long-term improvement instead requires a combination of research, advocacy, and creative problem-solving to design more intelligent and efficient systems that provide timely access to necessary care for every patient, every time.

A Rare Case of Argatroban-Induced Anaphylaxis in a Patient With Intermediate-High Risk Pulmonary Embolism

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is a rare and potentially devastating complication of heparin therapy. Patients with an absolute indication for anticoagulation, such as those with significant pulmonary embolism, must be switched to a different anticoagulant, such as argatroban, a direct thrombin inhibitor. We report a case of anaphylaxis to argatroban in a patient who was initially on heparin for intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism but developed suspected type II heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. This case highlights the significance of recognizing and treating anaphylactic reactions and the diagnostic challenges associated with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

Patient-Centered Practice Guidelines: GRADEing Evidence to Incorporate Certainty, Balance Between Benefits and Harms, Equity, Feasibility, and Cost-Effectiveness

The practice of medicine in recent years has emphasized the use of evidence-based clinical guidelines to help inform treatment decisions. Since its development in 2004, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach has offered a systematic process for reviewing and summarizing the certainty of evidence found in the medical literature regarding various treatment options. To develop truly patient-centered care guidelines, this appraisal of the certainty of evidence must be combined with an understanding of the balance between benefits and harms, patient preferences, equity, feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and policy implications. This review examines each of these domains in detail, exploring the process and benefits of developing relevant, patient-focused guidelines directly applicable to the practice of modern medicine.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

OBJECTIVE

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.