Severity grading system for acute allergic reactions: A multidisciplinary Delphi study

The Safety of Aztreonam Versus Ceftazidime in Patients Labeled With Penicillin Allergy: A Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Penicillin allergy is the most common drug allergy among hospitalized patients. Traditionally, aztreonam is recommended for patients labeled with penicillin allergy (PLWPA) in our institutional empirical antibiotic guidelines. Due to a global aztreonam shortage in December 2022, the antimicrobial stewardship unit recommended ceftazidime as a substitute. There is a paucity of real-world data on the safety profile of ceftazidime in PLWPA. Hence, we evaluated tolerability outcomes of ceftazidime use in PLWPA.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study compared PLWPA in Singapore General Hospital who received aztreonam (October 2022-December 2022) or ceftazidime (December 2022-February 2023). Patients were stratified according to their risk of allergic reaction (AR) based on history of penicillin allergy. The severity of AR was based on the Delphi study grading system. The primary outcome was development of AR after initiation of aztreonam or ceftazidime. The secondary tolerability outcomes include hepatotoxicity and neurotoxicity.

FINDINGS

There were 168 patients in the study; 69 were men (41.1%) and the median age was 69 years (interquartile range: 59-76 years). Incidence of AR was statistically similar in both arms: 1 of 102 patients (0.98%) in the aztreonam arm vs 2 of 66 patients (3.03%) in the ceftazidime arm (P = 0.33). The patient in the aztreonam arm was deemed at medium risk of having an AR and developed localized rashes (grade 1). Both patients in the ceftazidime arm were deemed at high risk of AR and developed localized skin reaction (grade 1). Hepatotoxicity was observed in 1 patient prescribed aztreonam. No patients in the ceftazidime arm developed adverse events.

IMPLICATIONS

Ceftazidime appears to be better tolerated and cheaper compared with aztreonam in PLWPA, and serves as an antimicrobial stewardship strategy to conserve broader-spectrum antibiotics use.

A systematic review and expert Delphi Consensus recommendation on the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab: A position paper of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

BACKGROUND

Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha subunit, thus blocking the effects of IL-4 and IL-13, and has shown efficacy in treating various conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and others. Because of its immune modulatory effects, clinical trials that studied dupilumab did not allow patients to receive live vaccines during the clinical trials because of an abundance of caution, and thus package inserts recommend that patients who are being treated with dupilumab should avoid live vaccines. Because dupilumab is now approved for use in patients from 6 months of age for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, this reported contraindication is now posing a clinical dilemma for patients and clinicians.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of literature on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in patients who are receiving dupilumab and to provide expert guidance on the use of vaccines in patients who are receiving dupilumab.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed, and an expert Delphi Panel was assembled.

RESULTS

The available literature on patients who received vaccinations while using dupilumab overall suggests that live vaccines are safe and that the vaccine efficacy, in general, is not affected by dupilumab. The expert Delphi panel agreed that the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab was likely safe and effective.

CONCLUSION

Vaccines (including live vaccines) can be administered to patients receiving dupilumab in a shared decision-making capacity.

Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT): International Delphi consensus for procedural preparation and consent

BACKGROUND

Despite the promise of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to treat food allergies, this procedure is associated with potential risk. There is no current agreement about what elements should be included in the preparatory or consent process.

OBJECTIVE

We developed consensus recommendations about the OIT process considerations and patient-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and developed a consensus OIT consent process and information form.

METHODS

We convened a 36-member Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT) panel of allergy experts to develop a consensus OIT patient preparation, informed consent process, and framework form. Consensus for themes and statements was reached using Delphi methodology, and the consent information form was developed.

RESULTS

The expert panel reached consensus for 4 themes and 103 statements specific to OIT preparatory procedures, of which 76 statements reached consensus for inclusion specific to the following themes: general considerations for counseling patients about OIT; patient- and family-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and during OIT; indications for initiating OIT; and potential contraindications and precautions for OIT. The panel reached consensus on 9 OIT consent form themes: benefits, risks, outcomes, alternatives, risk mitigation, difficulties/challenges, discontinuation, office policies, and long-term management. From these themes, 219 statements were proposed, of which 189 reached consensus, and 71 were included on the consent information form.

CONCLUSION

We developed consensus recommendations to prepare and counsel patients for safe and effective OIT in clinical practice with evidence-based risk mitigation. Adoption of these recommendations may help standardize clinical care and improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

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.

Safety and Effectiveness of Bypassing Oral Immunotherapy Buildup With an Initial Phase of Sublingual Immunotherapy for Higher-Risk Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

Because of its favorable safety, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for food allergy has been proposed as an alternative treatment for those in whom oral immunotherapy (OIT) is of higher risk-older children, adolescents, adults, and those with a history of severe reactions. Although safe, SLIT has been shown to be less effective than OIT.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the safety of multifood SLIT in pediatric patients aged 4 to 18 years and the effectiveness of bypassing OIT buildup with an initial phase of SLIT.

METHODS

Patients aged 4 to 18 years were offered (multi)food SLIT. Patients built up to 2 mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of 3 to 5 visits under nurse supervision. After 1 to 2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC) (cumulative dose, 300 mg protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

RESULTS

Between summer 2020 and winter 2023, 188 patients were enrolled in SLIT (median age, 11 years). Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department, but none experienced grade 4 (severe) reaction. A subset of 20 patients had 50 low-dose OFCs to 300 mg protein and 35 (70%) OFCs were successful, thereby bypassing OIT buildup.

CONCLUSIONS

In combination with very favorable safety of SLIT, with no life-threatening reactions and few reactions requiring epinephrine, we propose that an initial phase of SLIT to bypass supervised OIT buildup be considered for children in whom OIT is considered to be of higher risk.

Evaluating Hymenoptera Venom Allergy Severity: A Data-Centric Comparison of Grading Instruments

INTRODUCTION

While a consensus seems to have been reached with regard to the definition of anaphylaxis, there is no universal instrument for scoring allergic reaction severity despite more than 30 having been proposed by the time of writing. This severely hampers comparison of data between studies. While scales have been compared with regard to their utility in grading food-related reactions, no such comparisons have been made for Hymenoptera venom-associated reactions.

METHODS

The study conducted a retrospective analysis to compare the severity of Hymenoptera venom allergy reactions in 104 participants with suspected Hymenoptera venom allergy. The study applied six grading instruments to each reaction, also evaluating them against the NIAID/FAAN anaphylaxis criteria. Sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) for identifying anaphylaxis were calculated. Severity scales were simplified into "mild," "moderate," and "severe" categories. The most common severity grade across the five scales was determined using a custom function to establish a consensus severity grade.

RESULTS

The most common culprit insects were honeybees (49.0%). Among the 88 participants with generalized reactions, the highest proportion had involvement of four organ systems. The scales showed high specificity for detecting anaphylaxis, especially when using higher grades of the Mueller, WAO, and Dribin scales. The diagnostic yields (AUC) varied, with the WAO scale having the highest AUC (0.94) for grades 3, 4, and 5. Spearman correlation analysis showed the strongest correlations seen between the Brown and Dribin, Ring and Messmer and Dribin, and Ring and Messmer and Reisman scales. The lowest correlations were observed with the Mueller scale when paired with the WAO, Reisman, and Dribin scales. An inter-rater reliability analysis showed substantial agreement between scales with the same number of grading levels. The agreement was highest for the Brown and Dribin scales, indicating a strong consistency in reaction severity classification across different instruments.

CONCLUSION

While all instruments were effective in stratifying reactions, they showed limitations in differentiating milder phenotypes. The Brown and Dribin scales stood out for their high agreement with the consensus score and sensitivity in identifying anaphylaxis. Our findings suggest that adopting either of these scales could significantly unify the reporting of allergic reactions. We believe the format of an instrument should be tailored to its intended purpose, with clinical decision aids being simpler and research tools being more detailed.

Updated grading system for systemic allergic reactions: Joint Statement of the World Allergy Organization Anaphylaxis Committee and Allergen Immunotherapy Committee

There is a lack of consensus over the description and severity assignment of allergic adverse reactions to immunotherapy, although there seems to be a consensus at least in terms of using the World Allergy Organization (WAO) grading systems to describe local adverse events for Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT) and Systemic Allergic Reactions (SARs) to Subcutaneous Immunotherapy (SCIT) amongst the major national/regional allergy societies. In this manuscript, we propose a modification of the previous WAO Grading system for SARs, which aligns with the newly-proposed Consortium for Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions in Food Allergy (version 3.0). We hope this can facilitate a unified grading system appropriate to SARs due to allergen immunotherapy, independent of allergen and route of administration, and across clinical and research practice.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 mRNA Vaccination Appears Safe in Pediatric Patients With Hypersensitivity to Polyethylene Glycolated Escherichia coli L-asparaginase

Polyethylene glycol-asparaginase (PEGAsp) is an established component of acute leukemia therapy. Hypersensitivity reactions to PEGAsp occur in 10% to 15% of patients, with polyethylene glycol suggested as the antigenic culprit. As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines contain polyethylene glycol, the safety of administration of these vaccines to patients with prior PEGAsp hypersensitivity has been questioned. Between December 21, 2020 and March 3, 2022, 66 patients with acute leukemia and PEGAsp allergy received COVID-19 vaccination. No patients (0/66 0%, 95% CI: 0%-5.4%) experienced an allergic reaction to the vaccine. COVID-19 mRNA vaccination appears to be safe in pediatric and young adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia with PEGAsp allergy.

Research gaps and future needs for allergen prediction in food safety

The allergenicity and protein risk assessments in food safety are facing new challenges. Demands for healthier and more sustainable food systems have led to significant advances in biotechnology, the development of more complex foods, and the search for alternative protein sources. All this has increased the pressure on the safety assessment prediction approaches anchored into requirements defined in the late 90's. In 2022, the EFSA's Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms published a scientific opinion focusing on the developments needed for allergenicity and protein safety assessments of new products derived from biotechnology. Here, we further elaborate on the main elements described in this scientific opinion and prioritize those development needs requiring critical attention. The starting point of any new recommendation would require a focus on clinical relevance and the development of a fit-for-purpose database targeted for specific risk assessment goals. Furthermore, it is imperative to review and clarify the main purpose of the allergenicity risk assessment. An internationally agreed consensus on the overall purpose of allergenicity risk assessment will accelerate the development of fit-for-purpose methodologies, where the role of exposure should be better clarified. Considering the experience gained over the last 25 years and recent scientific developments in the fields of biotechnology, allergy, and risk assessment, it is time to revise and improve the allergenicity safety assessment to ensure the reliability of allergenicity assessments for food of the future.

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

United States Drug Allergy Registry (USDAR) grading scale for immediate drug reactions

BACKGROUND

There is no accepted grading system classifying the severity of immediate reactions to drugs.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to present a proposed grading system developed through the consensus of drug allergy experts from the United States Drug Allergy Registry (USDAR) Consortium.

METHODS

The USDAR investigators sought to develop a consensus severity grading system for immediate drug reactions that is applicable to clinical care and research.

RESULTS

The USDAR grading scale scores severity levels on a scale of 0 to 4. A grade of no reaction (NR) is used for patients who undergo challenge without any symptoms or signs, and it would confirm a negative challenge result. A grade 0 reaction is indicative of primarily subjective complaints that are commonly seen with both historical drug reactions and during drug challenges, and it would suggest a low likelihood of a true drug allergic reaction. Grades 1 to 4 meet the criteria for a positive challenge result and may be considered indicative of a drug allergy. Grade 1 reactions are suggestive of a potential immediate drug reaction with mild symptoms. Grade 2 reactions are more likely to be immediate drug reactions of moderate severity. Grade 3 reactions have features suggestive of a severe allergic reaction, whereas grade 4 reactions are life-threatening reactions such as anaphylactic shock and fatal anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSION

This proposed grading schema for immediate drug reactions improves on prior schemata by being developed specifically for immediate drug reactions and being easy to implement in clinical and research practice.

Living with food allergies: the experiences of adult patients and caregivers

Background

Few studies have addressed how food allergy may impact differently on the daily lives of adults with food allergies and caregivers for food-allergic dependents.

Objective

To explore similarities and differences in life experiences and unmet needs between individuals caring for a child with food allergy and adults with food allergy world-wide.

Methods

Two multinational, virtual, interactive, moderated discussions of specific questions between respectively people with food allergies and caregivers for people with food allergies, with experienced clinicians participating.

Results

Sixteen individuals living with food allergies and nine caregivers took part in the two roundtables. Food avoidance and antihistamines were the most common treatments for food-allergic reactions in both groups. Caregivers reported greater burden of disease on affected individuals and families than did adult patients. Adult panelists considered autoinjectors easy to use but caregivers reported additional emotional stress thinking about autoinjector use. Caregivers described an ever-present fear of inattention and of overlooking a risk factor for a severe reaction, whereas adult panelists showed a determination not to let their food allergies interfere with living their lives. Both groups had safety-conscious attitudes to treatments, but adult patients emphasized convenience while caregivers prioritized reduced severity of reactions and eliminated fear. Both groups confirmed the need for improved, trusted sources of information, and for resources and training programs for any new therapies.

Conclusion

The interactive exchange provided insights into differences between adult patients and caregivers, notably in fear and confidence in daily life, severity of disease impact, and unmet needs for treatments.

Early Peanut Immunotherapy in Children (EPIC) trial: protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of peanut oral immunotherapy in children under 5 years of age

INTRODUCTION

Food allergy is a major public health challenge in Australia. Despite widespread uptake of infant feeding and allergy prevention guidelines the incidence of peanut allergy in infants has not fallen, and prevalence of peanut allergy in school-aged children continues to rise. Therefore, effective and accessible treatments for peanut allergy are required. There is high-quality evidence for efficacy of oral immunotherapy in children aged 4-17 years old; however, few randomised trials have investigated peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) in young children. Furthermore, the use of food products for OIT with doses prepared and administered by parents without requiring pharmacy compounding has the potential to reduce costs associated with the OIT product.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Early Peanut Immunotherapy in Children is an open-label randomised controlled trial of peanut OIT compared with standard care (avoidance) to induce desensitisation in children aged 1-4 years old with peanut allergy. n=50 participants will be randomised 1:1 to intervention (daily peanut OIT for 12 months) or control (peanut avoidance). The primary outcome is the proportion of children in each group with a peanut eliciting dose >600 mg peanut protein as assessed by open peanut challenge after 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes include safety as assessed by frequency and severity of treatment-related adverse events, quality of life measured using age-appropriate food allergy-specific questionnaires and immunological changes during OIT.

ETHICS

The trial is approved by the Child and Adolescent Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee and prospectively registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

DISSEMINATION

Trial outcomes will be published in a peer-review journal and presented and local and national scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12621001001886.

A Puzzling Mast Cell Trilogy: Anaphylaxis, MCAS, and Mastocytosis

Our knowledge of biology and mast cell (MC) function, as well as disorders associated with the pathologic activation of MCs, has evolved over the last few decades. Anaphylaxis, mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and mastocytosis are interrelated yet distinct conditions within the spectrum of mast cell activation disorders. Nevertheless, all three conditions can co-exist in one and the same patient, as pathologic MC activation is the key finding in all three. When mediator release is excessive and involves multiple systems, anaphylaxis and MCAS may occur. Furthermore, mastocytosis is a clonal disorder of MCs and often presents with anaphylaxis and MCAS. Nevertheless, in some cases, even the proliferative and accumulative features of MCs in mastocytosis can account for symptoms and disease progression. In each case, diagnosis can be only made when the diagnostic consensus criteria are fulfilled. The current article aims to provide a concise clinical update and pinpoint the main difficulties in diagnosing these puzzling disorders of MCs in medical practice.

Severe food allergy reactions are associated with α-tryptase

BACKGROUND

Increased TPSAB1 copy numbers encoding ⍺-tryptase are associated with severe reactions in adults with Hymenoptera venom allergy, systemic mastocytosis, and idiopathic anaphylaxis.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to assess the association between ⍺-tryptase and severity of food allergy.

METHODS

A total of 119 subjects underwent tryptase genotyping; 82 of them were from an observational food allergy cohort at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), and 37 were from a cohort of children who reacted to peanut oral food challenge (OFC) at Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago. The primary predictor was presence or absence of ⍺-tryptase. The primary outcomes for both cohorts were measures of severity of food allergy reaction. Secondary outcomes included OFC symptom scores (Bock/Practical Allergy [PRACTALL] and Severity Grading Score for Acute Reactions [SGSAR]). Correlation between total α-tryptase isoforms and OFC scores was also assessed to account for gene dosage effects.

RESULTS

Among the subjects in the NIAID cohort, the presence of ⍺-tryptase was associated with a higher prevalence of food-triggered anaphylaxis than in those with only β-tryptase (P = .026). Similarly, only 1 of 6 subjects in the OFC cohort with only β-tryptase (17%) had a severe reaction, whereas 20 of 31 of subjects with α-tryptase (65%) had a severe reaction (P = .066). Subjects with ⍺-tryptase also had higher total SGSAR scores than did the subjects with no ⍺-tryptase (P = .003). In addition, there were also significant positive correlations between ⍺-tryptase isoform copy numbers and both higher total SGSAR and Bock/PRACTALL OFC scores (P = .008 and P = .003, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The presence of α-tryptase in subjects is correlated with a higher prevalence of anaphylaxis or severe reaction to food than in subjects without any α-tryptase.

Severe Anaphylactic Reactions to Home Doses of Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

Severe anaphylactic reactions to home doses may occur during food allergy oral immunotherapy (OIT).

OBJECTIVE

To study the rate and risk factors for such reactions.

METHODS

We studied all patients aged greater than 3.5 years who completed OIT in a single center between April 2010 and January 2020. All home epinephrine-treated reactions (HETRs) were identified. High-grade HETRs (HG-HETRs) were defined as HETRs involving respiratory (SpO2 of 94% or less), cardiovascular (low blood pressure), or central nervous system impairment (loss of consciousness). We investigated the rate and risk factors for HG-HETRs.

RESULTS

A total of 1,637 OIT treatments were studied: milk (880), peanut (346), tree nuts (221), sesame (115), and egg (75). Of 390 identified HETRs, 30 HG-HETRs occurred during 27 treatments (1.65% of all treatments). Nearly all (26 of 30) were during milk OIT in patients with house dust mite (HDM) sensitization and asthma (26 of 30 each). Of the 30 patients with HG-HETRs, 21 recovered with one or two epinephrine treatments, but nine (0.55% of all treatments) did not respond to a second dose of epinephrine and were deemed to have refractory anaphylaxis. Three patients required intensive care unit admission and three received epinephrine drip, but none required ventilatory support. Risk factors for HG-HETRs included milk OIT (P = .031), asthma (P = .02) and HDM sensitization (P = .02). No specific triggers for HG-HETR were identified. Of patients with HG-HETRs, 25.9% were fully desensitized, including the four non-milk treated patients; 22.2% were partially desensitized; and 51.9% failed.

CONCLUSIONS

High-grade HETRs are uncommon, particularly refractory anaphylactic reactions to home OIT doses. Although milk OIT, asthma, and HDM sensitization are the main risk factors for such reactions, identification of patients who are at risk is challenging.

Contextual community epinephrine prescribing: Is more always better?

OBJECTIVE

Prompt administration of epinephrine is first-line management of anaphylaxis. Although severe anaphylaxis may require more than 1 epinephrine dose, multiple epinephrine device packs may not be necessary for all patients at risk for allergic reactions.

DATA SOURCES

A narrative review was used to describe key considerations to contextualize community epinephrine prescribing.

RESULTS

Anaphylaxis has a lifetime prevalence of 1.6% to 5.1%. Meeting diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis is not required for epinephrine treatment of a severe allergic reaction. A "1-2-3" approach to anaphylaxis treatment is important to clearly relay central management steps: promptly administer a first dose of intramuscular epinephrine with proper positioning, and activate emergency medical services if immediate symptom resolution does not occur; consider a second dose of intramuscular epinephrine with consideration of oxygen administration and intravenous fluid if initial epinephrine response is not adequate; and consider a third intramuscular epinephrine dose together with consideration of intravenous fluid support and oxygen for continued lack of appropriate response. Although multiple epinephrine doses may be required to treat severe anaphylaxis, 90% of anaphylaxis cases do not require more than 1 epinephrine dose. A universal requirement for multiple epinephrine devices in patients without a history of anaphylaxis is not cost-effective. Patients without a history of anaphylaxis may be managed without multiple device prescriptions within a patient-preference sensitive paradigm of care.

CONCLUSION

Anaphylaxis prevention involves appropriate education to avoid allergen triggers, recognize symptoms of an allergic reaction, rapidly access and administer intramuscular epinephrine, and appropriately activate emergency medical services when needed. For patients with previous anaphylaxis, particularly those who have required more than 1 dose of epinephrine to treat an allergic reaction, possessing multiple epinephrine devices is an important part of managing community anaphylaxis risk.

How to define severity: A review of allergic reaction severity scoring systems

Numerous scoring systems have been developed to improve and standardize the diagnosis and management of acute allergic reactions and anaphylaxis; however, considerable variability exists among these systems. This review article discusses existing severity scoring systems and identifies specific knowledge gaps that remain. Future research is needed to resolve the limitations of existing grading systems, including attempting to link reaction severity with treatment advice and conducting validation studies in different clinical settings, patient populations, and geographies to promote grading system application and dissemination in both clinical care and research.

Overview of Allergy and Anaphylaxis

Allergic reactions and anaphylaxis occur on a severity continuum from mild and self-limited to potentially life-threatening or fatal reactions. Anaphylaxis is typically a multiorgan phenomenon involving a broad range of effector cells and mediators. Emergency department visits for anaphylaxis are increasing, especially among children. There is a broad differential diagnosis for anaphylaxis, and the diagnosis of anaphylaxis can be aided by the use of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network clinical diagnostic criteria. Risk factors for severe anaphylaxis include older age, delayed epinephrine administration, and cardiopulmonary comorbidities.

Investigation of the underuse of adrenaline (epinephrine) and prognosis among patients with anaphylaxis at emergency department admission

Background

Anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal condition; in severe cases of anaphylaxis, the cardiovascular system is often heavily involved. Adrenaline (epinephrine) is a cornerstone of the initial treatment of anaphylaxis. The use of epinephrine remains below expectations in clinical practice. Whether the underuse of epinephrine affects the prognosis of patients with anaphylaxis is still unclear.

Materials and methods

This retrospective study included patients with anaphylaxis between 2011 and 2020 who were admitted to an emergency department (ED) in Taiwan. All patients were divided into two groups based on the use of epinephrine (or not), and we compared the demographic characteristics, allergens, clinical manifestations, management, and patient outcomes.

Results

We reviewed the records of 314 subjects (216 males, 98 females; mean age: 52.78 ± 16.02 years) who visited our ED due to anaphylaxis; 107 (34.1%) and 207 (65.9%) patients were categorized into the epinephrine use group and the non-epinephrine use group, respectively. Arrival via ambulance (p = 0.019), hypotension (p = 0.002), airway compromise (p < 0.001) and altered consciousness (p < 0.001) were the deciding factors for epinephrine use among anaphylactic patients in the ED. The epinephrine use group had higher rates of other inotropic agent usage and fluid challenge. More than 90% of patients received bed rest, steroids, antihistamines, and monitoring. The epinephrine use group had a longer ED length of stay (387.64 ± 374.71 vs. 313.06 ± 238.99 min, p = 0.03) and a greater need of hospitalization. Among all severe symptoms, hypotension was the most tolerated decision factor for not using epinephrine. In this retrospective analysis, some patients with serious anaphylaxis did not experience adverse outcomes or death even without the use of epinephrine at ED admission. Emergent care focuses first on the airway, breathing, and circulation (ABC) and may compensate for the underusage of epinephrine. This could be the reason why epinephrine was underused among patients with anaphylaxis in the ED.

Conclusion

In summary, early ABC management continues to play an important role in treating patients with severe anaphylaxis, even when epinephrine is not immediately available in clinical scenarios.

The future of food allergy: Challenging existing paradigms of clinical practice

The field of food allergy has seen tremendous change over the past 5-10 years with seminal studies redefining our approach to prevention and management and novel testing modalities in the horizon. Early introduction of allergenic foods is now recommended, challenging the previous paradigm of restrictive avoidance. The management of food allergy has shifted from a passive avoidance approach to active interventions that aim to provide protection from accidental exposures, decrease allergic reaction severity and improve the quality of life of food-allergic patients and their families. Additionally, novel diagnostic tools are making their way into clinical practice with the goal to reduce the need for food challenges and assist physicians in the-often complex-diagnostic process. With all the new developments and available choices for diagnosis, prevention and therapy, shared decision-making has become a key part of medical consultation, enabling patients to make the right choice for them, based on their values and preferences. Communication with patients has also become more complex over time, as patients are seeking advice online and through social media, but the information found online may be outdated, incorrect, or lacking in context. The role of the allergist has evolved to embrace all the above exciting developments and provide patients with the optimal care that fits their needs. In this review, we discuss recent developments as well as the evolution of the field of food allergy in the next decade.

Grading the severity of anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite no global consensus on a definition of anaphylaxis, there is increasing recognition that just as allergic reactions lie on a spectrum of severity, the same is for anaphylaxis. A variety of severity scores exist in the literature. We review the approaches taken to develop these scores, and their relative advantages and disadvantages.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been four recent comparisons of published severity scores. All have highlighted the heterogeneity between scoring systems, and the lack of transferability from one approach to another. Notably, only one score has been developed using a data-driven approach, and none has undergone formal and comprehensive validation.

SUMMARY

It is unclear whether a single severity score is achievable, or indeed desirable. If the aim is to guide management of acute reactions, then assignment of severity is not only unnecessary but might delay treatment and cause harm. Severity scores are needed in the research setting, but require an approach which can discriminate between reactions of similar but nonidentical severity (particularly, nonanaphylaxis reactions). Any approach should be fit for purpose, informed by patient and clinician experience, and ideally be data-driven to minimize subjective bias and facilitate objective validation.

Frequency of headache in emergency department patients with anaphylaxis: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Multiple anaphylaxis mediators have been demonstrated to provoke migraine-like attacks following intravascular infusion, suggesting that anaphylaxis could cause headache; however, headache is rarely noted in anaphylaxis and is not included among diagnostic criteria.

OBJECTIVE

Our study objectives were to estimate the frequency of headache among prospectively enrolled emergency department (ED) patients with anaphylaxis and assess the association of headache with patient and anaphylaxis characteristics.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of ED patients aged ≥5 years who met anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria from January 8, 2020 to September 9, 2022 was conducted. The primary outcome of interest was headache frequency among patients who met at least one anaphylaxis criterion. We explored the association of headache with patient characteristics and anaphylaxis characteristics.

RESULTS

We included 63 patients with anaphylaxis. In all, 17 (27%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17%-40%) patients reported the presence of a headache. Female patients had more than a nine times increased odds of having headache (odds ratio [OR] 9.3, 95% CI 1.14-77.1, p = 0.016). Presentation with headache was associated with the presence of dyspnea (OR 5.5, 95% CI 1.56-19.7, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Headache in anaphylaxis may be more common than previously recognized, especially in females. Larger prospective studies are needed to characterize headache as a marker of neurological involvement in anaphylaxis.

Milk Allergen Micro-Array (MAMA) for Refined Detection of Cow's-Milk-Specific IgE Sensitization

BACKGROUND

Immunoglobulin-E(IgE)-mediated hypersensitivity to cow's milk allergens is a frequent cause of severe and life-threatening anaphylactic reactions. Besides case histories and controlled food challenges, the detection of the IgE antibodies specific to cow's milk allergens is important for the diagnosis of cow-milk-specific IgE sensitization. Cow´s milk allergen molecules provide useful information for the refined detection of cow-milk-specific IgE sensitization.

METHODS

A micro-array based on ImmunoCAP ISAC technology was developed and designated milk allergen micro-array (MAMA), containing a complete panel of purified natural and recombinant cow's milk allergens (caseins, α-lactalbumin, β-lactoglobulin, bovine serum albumin-BSA and lactoferrin), recombinant BSA fragments, and α-casein-, α-lactalbumin- and β-lactoglobulin-derived synthetic peptides. Sera from 80 children with confirmed symptoms related to cow's milk intake (without anaphylaxis: n = 39; anaphylaxis with a Sampson grade of 1-3: n = 21; and anaphylaxis with a Sampson grade of 4-5: n = 20) were studied. The alterations in the specific IgE levels were analyzed in a subgroup of eleven patients, i.e., five who did not and six who did acquire natural tolerance.

RESULTS

The use of MAMA allowed a component-resolved diagnosis of IgE sensitization in each of the children suffering from cow's-milk-related anaphylaxis according to Sampson grades 1-5 requiring only 20-30 microliters of serum. IgE sensitization to caseins and casein-derived peptides was found in each of the children with Sampson grades of 4-5. Among the grade 1-3 patients, nine patients showed negative reactivity to caseins but showed IgE reactivity to alpha-lactalbumin (n = 7) or beta-lactoglobulin (n = 2). For certain children, an IgE sensitization to cryptic peptide epitopes without detectable allergen-specific IgE was found. Twenty-four children with cow-milk-specific anaphylaxis showed additional IgE sensitizations to BSA, but they were all sensitized to either caseins, alpha-lactalbumin, or beta-lactoglobulin. A total of 17 of the 39 children without anaphylaxis lacked specific IgE reactivity to any of the tested components. The children developing tolerance showed a reduction in allergen and/or peptide-specific IgE levels, whereas those remaining sensitive did not.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of MAMA allows for the detection, using only a few microliters of serum, of IgE sensitization to multiple cow's milk allergens and allergen-derived peptides in cow-milk-allergic children with cow-milk-related anaphylaxis.

Development of an action plan for acute food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome in Japan

Reports of food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) in Japan have been increasing. However, the disease itself and the treatment options are poorly understood by both patients and medical professionals. The objective of this study is to develop an action plan for acute FPIES in Japan. We prepared a single-sheet action plan that describes the management of acute FPIES episodes for caregivers on one side and medical professionals on the reverse side. To evaluate the content of the action plan, we distributed a questionnaire to caregivers of patients with FPIES and to physicians who would encounter patients with FPIES. Changes to the FPIES action plan were made based on the feedback from the participants. The Delphi method was utilized to finalize the action plan. The participants of the initial survey found the action plan to be useful but the process for determining severity to be impractical. After discussion, the authors made appropriate improvements. By the Delphi method, consensus was reached on the revised FPIES action plan. In conclusion, this Japanese FPIES action plan was created by physicians from multiple subspecialties and caregivers of patients with FPIES. The action plan may improve the management of acute FPIES reactions in the Japanese community.

Trends and Variation in Pediatric Anaphylaxis Care From 2016 to 2022

BACKGROUND

Variation in the use of treatments and hospitalization for anaphylaxis would suggest a lack of consensus in therapeutic approach.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate trends and practice variation in the emergency department (ED) care of children with anaphylaxis in a large US cohort.

METHODS

We conducted a 48-site retrospective cohort study using the Pediatric Health Information System from January 2016 through September 2022. Children younger than 18 years with a primary diagnosis of anaphylaxis were included. Care trends were assessed using negative binomial regression modeling. Rates of medication use, hospitalizations, and revisits were reported as medians with interquartile ranges (IQRs).

RESULTS

There were 42,909 ED visits for anaphylaxis, with a 4.2% per-year increase in visit incidence (95% CI, 1.8-6.7) during the study period. The median hospitalization rate was 3.5% (IQR, 2.2-6.0), and the 3-day ED revisit rate was 0.6% (IQR, 0.4-0.9). The hospital-level median use of therapies included intramuscular epinephrine (55.3%; IQR, 50.1-59.9), systemic steroids (73.8%; IQR, 63.9-81.4), antihistamines (59.9%; IQR, 53.5-65.5), H2-receptor antagonists (56.8%; IQR, 42.3-66.2), bronchodilators (15.1%; IQR, 12.5-17.0), inhaled epinephrine (1.1%; IQR, 0.6-1.9), and fluid boluses (19.8%; IQR, 11.3-29.3). Severe reactions requiring intensive care unit admission (1.5%; IQR, 0.8-2.2), vasopressors (0.3%; IQR, 0.0-0.6), and intubation (0.2%; IQR, 0.0-0.3) were rare.

CONCLUSIONS

ED visits for anaphylaxis increased during the study period, but hospitalization rates were low. Substantial variation exists between EDs regarding the use of anaphylaxis therapies, supporting the need for future research to evaluate the efficacy of these medications.

Post hoc analysis examining symptom severity reduction and symptom absence during food challenges in individuals who underwent oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy: results from three trials

PURPOSE

Peanut allergy and its current management, involving peanut avoidance and use of rescue medication during instances of accidental exposure, are burdensome to patients and their caregivers and can be a source of stress, uncertainty, and restriction. Physicians may also be frustrated with a lack of effective and safe treatments other than avoidance in the current management of peanut allergy. Efficacy, determined using double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs), of oral immunotherapy with peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH; Palforzia^®) was demonstrated versus placebo in children and adolescents aged 4 to 17 years in multiple phase 3 trials; continued benefit of PTAH was shown in a follow-on trial. The DBPCFC is a reproducible, rigorous, and clinically meaningful assessment accepted by regulatory authorities to evaluate the level of tolerance as an endpoint for accidental exposures to peanut in real life. It also provides useful clinical and patient-relevant information, including the amount of peanut protein an individual with peanut allergy can consume without experiencing dose-limiting symptoms, severity of symptoms, and organs affected upon ingestion of peanut protein. We explored symptoms of peanut exposure during DBPCFCs from phase 3 and follow-on trials of PTAH to further characterize treatment efficacy from a perspective relevant to patients, caregivers, and clinicians.

METHODS

Symptom data recorded during screening and/or exit DBPCFCs from participants aged 4 to 17 years receiving PTAH or placebo were examined post hoc across three PTAH trials (PALISADE [ARC003], ARC004 [PALISADE follow-on], and ARTEMIS [ARC010]). The maximum peanut protein administered as a single dose during DBPCFCs was 1000 mg (PALISADE and ARTEMIS) and 2000 mg (ARC004). Symptoms were classified by system organ class (SOC) and maximum severity. Endpoints were changes in symptom severity and freedom from symptoms (ie, asymptomatic) during DBPCFC. Relative risk (RR) was calculated for symptom severity by SOC and freedom from symptoms between groups; descriptive statistics were used to summarize all other data.

RESULTS

The risk of any respiratory (RR 0.42 [0.30-0.60], P < 0.0001), gastrointestinal (RR 0.34 [0.26-0.44], P < 0.0001), cardiovascular/neurological (RR 0.17 [0.08-0.39], P < 0.001), or dermatological (RR 0.33 [0.22-0.50], P < 0.0001) symptoms was significantly lower in participants treated with PTAH versus placebo upon exposure to peanut at the end of the PALISADE trial (ie, exit DBPCFC). Compared with placebo-treated participants (23.4%), the majority (76.3%) of PTAH-treated participants had no symptoms at the exit DBPCFC when tested at the peanut protein dose not tolerated (ie, reactive dose) during the screening DBPCFC. Significantly higher proportions of PTAH-treated participants were asymptomatic at doses ≤ 100 mg in the exit DBPCFC compared with placebo-treated participants (PALISADE: 69.35% vs 12.10%, RR 5.73 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.55-9.26]; P < 0.0001; ARTEMIS: 67.42% vs 13.95%, RR 4.83 [95% CI 2.28-10.25]; P < 0.0001); findings were similar at peanut protein doses ≤ 1000 mg (PALISADE: RR 15.56 [95% CI 5.05-47.94]; P < 0.0001; ARTEMIS: RR 34.74 [95% CI 2.19-551.03]; P < 0.0001). In ARC004, as the period of PTAH maintenance became longer, greater proportions of participants were asymptomatic at doses of peanut protein ≤ 1000 mg in the exit DBPCFC (from 37.63% after ~ 6 months of maintenance treatment [exit DBPCFC of PALISADE] to 45.54% after ~ 13 months and 58.06% after ~ 20 months of overall PTAH maintenance treatment).

CONCLUSIONS

PTAH significantly reduced symptom severity due to exposure to peanut, which is clinically relevant. When exposed to peanut, participants with peanut allergy treated with PTAH rarely had moderate or severe respiratory or cardiovascular/neurological symptoms. Oral immunotherapy with PTAH appears to reduce frequency and severity of allergic reactions in individuals with peanut allergy after accidental exposure to peanut and may enable them and their families to have an improved quality of life. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02635776, registered 17 December 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02635776?term=AR101&draw=2&rank=7 ; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02993107, registered 08 December 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02993107?term=AR101&draw=2&rank=6 ; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03201003, registered 22 June 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03201003 ? term = AR101&draw = 2&rank = 9.

WAO consensus on DEfinition of Food Allergy SEverity (DEFASE)

Background

While several scoring systems for the severity of anaphylactic reactions have been developed, there is a lack of consensus on definition and categorisation of severity of food allergy disease as a whole.

Aim

To develop an international consensus on the severity of food allergy (DEfinition of Food Allergy Severity, DEFASE) scoring system, to be used globally.

Methods Phase 1

We conducted a mixed-method systematic review (SR) of 11 databases for published and unpublished literature on severity of food allergy management and set up a panel of international experts.

Phase 2

Based on our findings in Phase 1, we drafted statements for a two-round modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) survey. A purposefully selected multidisciplinary international expert panel on food allergy (n = 60) was identified and sent a structured questionnaire, including a set of statements on different domains of food allergy severity related to symptoms, health-related quality of life, and economic impact. Participants were asked to score their agreement on each statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Median scores and percentage agreements were calculated. Consensus was defined a priori as being achieved if 70% or more of panel members rated a statement as "strongly agree" to "agree" after the second round. Based on feedback, 2 additional online voting rounds were conducted.

Results

We received responses from 92% of Delphi panel members in round 1 and 85% in round 2. Consensus was achieved on the overall score and in all of the 5 specific key domains as essential components of the DEFASE score.

Conclusions

The DEFASE score is the first comprehensive grading of food allergy severity that considers not only the severity of a single reaction, but the whole disease spectrum. An international consensus has been achieved regarding a scoring system for food allergy disease. It offers an evaluation grid, which may help to rate the severity of food allergy. Phase 3 will involve validating the scoring system in research settings, and implementing it in clinical practice.

Who Needs Epinephrine? Anaphylaxis, Autoinjectors, and Parachutes

International guidelines stipulate that intramuscular (IM) epinephrine (adrenaline) is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, with an established good safety profile. The availability of epinephrine autoinjectors (EAI) has greatly facilitated the lay administration of IM epinephrine in community settings. However, key areas of uncertainty remain around epinephrine usage. These include variations in prescribing EAI, what symptoms should prompt epinephrine administration, whether emergency medical services (EMS) need to be contacted after administration, and whether epinephrine administered via EAI reduces mortality from anaphylaxis or improves quality of life measures. We provide a balanced commentary on these issues. There is increasing recognition that a poor response to epinephrine, particularly after 2 doses, is a useful marker of severity and the need for urgent escalation. It is likely that patients who respond to a single epinephrine dose do not require EMS activation or emergency department transfer, but data are needed to demonstrate the safety of this approach. Lastly, patients at risk of anaphylaxis must be counseled against over-reliance on EAI alone.

Food allergies on vacation-there and back again

OBJECTIVE

Food allergy is an important public health concern that affects all facets of life, and travel is no exception. We sought to provide a scoping review regarding the literature pertaining to management of FA while traveling.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and Embase were queried for English-language articles published in the last 20 years containing "food allergy" and "travel".

STUDY SELECTIONS

The search produced 83 references which were reviewed. After removal of duplicates and irrelevant material, 23 references that discussed travel and FA remained, 13 of which were conference abstracts published as supplemental material.

RESULTS

Priorities for consideration by patient-families and their allergist-immunologist include concern for reactions away from home, proximity to emergency medical services, risk for various methods of travel including potential for cross-contact exposure resulting in symptoms, and considerations for international travel including language barriers.

CONCLUSION

Patients with FA must use careful planning and preparation to ensure access to safe food and emergency medications at all times while away from home.

Anaphylaxis: Long-term management and resources

Background: Anaphylaxis is an acute life-threatening event that requires emergent diagnosis and treatment. However, focus on prevention of anaphylaxis is essential in reducing anaphylaxis recurrences and associated mortality. Objective: This literature review was aimed to be a comprehensive resource for practicing allergists in managing anaphylaxis in the long term. We discussed the role of the allergist in the long-term outpatient management of anaphylaxis through identifying risk factors, allergen avoidance, prevention of recurrences, and patient education. Methods: A medical literature search that focused on several areas of long-term management of anaphylaxis was conducted. Results: Patients evaluated by an allergist are more likely to have their anaphylaxis trigger identified, to have their underlying mast cell disorder diagnosed, and to receive desensitization or allergen immunotherapy. Allergists can prevent fatal anaphylaxis by preventing and treating anaphylaxis in patients with ischemic heart disease and by optimally treating patients with comorbid asthma. Allergists can offer specific prevention strategies for allergenic trigger and cofactor avoidance. Education should be focused on patients with a higher risk for recurrence of anaphylaxis, such as those patients with a history of severe symptoms or anaphylaxis, with a peanut and/or tree nut trigger, or with a history of asthma, or female gender. Patient counseling involves providing individualized action plans at each visit and discussing proper use, storage, and safety of epinephrine autoinjectors. Multiple doses of epinephrine need to be prescribed to those who are at risk for severe food-induced, venom immunotherapy-related, or venom-induced anaphylaxis. Wording on medical identification products should be reviewed by the allergist. Anaphylaxis resources for health-care providers are summarized in the article. Conclusion: Ongoing education, providing personalized anaphylaxis action plans, reducing risk factors, and avoiding triggers are key to anaphylaxis prevention and long-term management.

Diagnostic accuracy of vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in the setting of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis

For persons with immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, skin testing (ST) to the vaccine/excipients (polyethylene glycol[PEG] and polysorbate 80 [PS]) has been recommended, but has unknown accuracy. To assess vaccine/excipient ST accuracy in predicting all-severity immediate allergic reactions upon re-vaccination, systematic review was performed searching Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the WHO global coronavirus database (inception-Oct 4, 2021) for studies addressing immediate (≤4 h post-vaccination) all-severity allergic reactions to 2nd mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions. Cases evaluating delayed reactions, change of vaccine platform, or revaccination without vaccine/excipient ST were excluded. Meta-analysis of diagnostic testing accuracy was performed using Bayesian methods. The GRADE approach evaluated certainty of the evidence, and QUADAS-2 assessed risk of bias. Among 20 studies of mRNA COVID-19 first dose vaccine reactions, 317 individuals underwent 578 ST to any one or combination of vaccine, PEG, or PS, and were re-vaccinated with the same vaccine. Test sensitivity for either mRNA vaccine was 0.2 (95%CrI 0.01-0.52) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.9-1). PEG test sensitivity was 0.02 (95%CrI 0.00-0.07) and specificity 0.99 (95%CrI 0.96-1). PS test sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.0.11) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.91-1). Combined for use of any of the 3 testing agents, sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.08) and specificity was 0.98 (95%CrI 0.95-1.00). Certainty of evidence was moderate. ST has low sensitivity but high specificity in predicting all-severity repeat immediate allergic reactions to the same agent, among persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or excipient ST has limited risk assessment utility.

Management of IgE-mediated food allergy in the 21st century

The 21st century has seen the propulsion of research in the field of food allergy, which has driven real changes in the clinical approach. Allergen immunotherapy has been recommended for the active management of food allergy. Data have shown promising additional methods of treatment, including biologics. Efforts have been devoted to the risk stratification of food allergy and the standardization of the assessment of food-allergic severity. Alternative routes of administration of epinephrine are under investigation to minimize any mechanical issue and the fear of injections. Evidence-based guidelines have been published by the main international societies in the field of anaphylaxis and food allergy management and new updates are in preparation. In the coming years, treatment options that are currently in pre-clinical or early clinical evaluation will hopefully lead to safe and effective disease-modifying therapies for food allergy in clinical practice. The identification of reliable biomarkers and the standardization of definitions and measurement approaches, alongside a shared decision-making with patients and families, will be key for the development of personalized care and to help minimize the substantial burden of food allergy.

Anaphylaxis: Advances in the Past 10 Years

In the past 10 years, anaphylaxis has grown into its own special area of study within Allergy-Immunology, both at the bench and at the bedside. This review focuses on some of the most clinically relevant advances over the past decade. These include simplified and more inclusive diagnostic criteria for adults and children, uniform definition of biphasic anaphylaxis, and improved systems for objective severity grading. Studies reported in the past decade have led to improved understanding of normal and abnormal regulation of mast cell function, translating into better diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to patients with anaphylaxis. Research has provided improved recognition and treatment of mast cell disorders and has identified a new condition, hereditary α-tryptasemia, that may impact anaphylactic syndromes. We have learned to recognize new causes (α-gal), new pathways (Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor-X2), and many risk factors for severe anaphylaxis. The stability of epinephrine in autoinjectors was reported to be very good for several years after the labeled expiry date, and it can tolerate freezing and thawing. Repeated and prolonged exposure to excessive heat leads to degradation of epinephrine activity. New treatments to prevent severe anaphylaxis have been described, using new ways to block the IgE receptor or modulate intracellular signaling pathways.

Immunosuppression in Patients With Primary Immunodeficiency-Walking the Line

Individuals with primary immunodeficiency (PIDD) experience not only infectious complications but also immune dysregulation leading to autoimmunity, inflammation, and lymphoproliferative manifestations. Management of these complications often requires treatment with additional immunosuppressive medications, which pose an additional risk of infectious complications. Immunosuppression in individuals with PIDD therefore requires careful assessment and consideration of risks and benefits. Medications should be closely monitored, and strategies for risk mitigation of adverse events considered, such as exposure reduction, appropriate vaccination, use of antibiotics/antivirals, and optimization of immunoglobulin replacement therapy. In a subset of individuals who are not tolerating immune modulation or experiencing disease progression despite appropriate interventions, hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation is a management option.

An update on anaphylaxis and urticaria

Notable scientific developments have taken place in the field of anaphylaxis and urticaria in recent years; they are highlighted in this review. Case-control studies, genome-wide association studies, and large omics analyses have promoted further insights into not only the underlying genetics but also the biomarkers of both anaphylaxis and urticaria. New evidence regarding IgE-dependent and non-IgE-dependent mechanisms of anaphylaxis and urticaria, including the Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor (MRGPR [formerly MRG]) signaling pathway, has been gained. Putative elicitors of anaphylactic reactions in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management and course of chronic urticaria have been reported. Clinical progress has also been made regarding the severity grading and risk factors of anaphylaxis, as well as the distinction of phenotypes and elicitors of both diseases. Furthermore, novel treatment approaches for anaphylaxis and subtypes of urticaria have been assessed, with different outcome and potential for a better disease control or prevention.

A protocol for developing core outcome sets for laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair

Background

Hiatal hernias negatively damage patients’ health and life quality. Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair is currently the gold standard for the treatment of hiatal hernia (LHHR). Numerous clinical trials on laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair have been done, but the published findings are highly variable due to the lack of unique outcome sets. Basic outcome sets have ever been established over the previous decade for a few procedures, but not for hiatal hernia repair yet. This protocol outlines the procedure to develop a core outcome set for laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair COS-LHHR). COS-LHHR will provide a unique criteria for clinical investigations.

Methods

This study will be conducted in four phases: (1) scoping reviews of existing qualitative studies and outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials to develop a list of potential outcome domains; (2) qualitative interviews with patients to explore the impact of laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair and the outcomes that they care most; (3) a multi-round e-Delphi study to achieve preliminary consensus on the core outcome set; and (4) an evidence-based consensus on a core outcome set will be achieved through a structured group consensus meeting, recommending best assessment outcome sets.

Discussion

The development the COS-LHHR will guide clinical research of laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair with unique outcome assessment. This would improve comparative analyses among studies.

Food allergy, mechanisms, diagnosis and treatment: Innovation through a multi-targeted approach

The incidence of food allergy (FA) has continued to rise over the last several decades, posing significant burdens on health and quality of life. Significant strides into the advancement of FA diagnosis, prevention, and treatment have been made in recent years. In an effort to lower reliance on resource-intensive food challenges, the field has continued work toward the development of highly sensitive and specific assays capable of high-throughput analysis to assist in the diagnosis FA. In looking toward early infancy as a critical period in the development of allergy or acquisition of tolerance, evidence has increasingly suggested that early intervention via the early introduction of food allergens and maintenance of skin barrier function may decrease the risk of FA. As such, large-scale investigations are underway evaluating infant feeding and the impact of emollient and steroid use in infants with dry skin for the prevention of allergy. On the other end of the spectrum, the past few years have been witness to an explosive increase in clinical trials of novel and innovative therapeutic strategies aimed at the treatment of FA in those whom the disease has already manifested. A milestone in the field, 2020 marked the approval of the first drug, oral peanut allergen, for the indication of peanut allergy. With a foundation of promising data supporting the safety and efficacy of single- and multi-allergen oral immunotherapy, current efforts have turned toward the use of probiotics, biologic agents, and modified allergens to optimize and improve upon existing paradigms. Through these advancements, the field hopes to gain footing in the ongoing battle against FA.

Efficacy and safety of an e-consult program for COVID-19 vaccine allergy concerns

Background: Although severe allergic reactions to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are rare, fear of allergic reactions remains a major source of vaccine hesitancy. For concerned patients and providers alike, allergist consultation is recommended for further guidance on the risk of vaccination. The electronic consultation (e-consult) medium has the potential to make this guidance more widely accessible, thereby supporting vaccination efforts. Objective: To determine the safety and efficacy of an e-consult program for COVID-19 vaccine allergy concerns. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of a single-center COVID-19 vaccine allergy e-consult program. Data on demographics, allergy history, and outcomes after recommendations were gathered via review of the electronic medical record (EMR). Patients without EMR data available following the e-consult were called to inquire about vaccination status. Results: Our study included 64 patients, most of whom (51.6% [33/64]) had e-consults placed for second-dose concerns. E-consults were completed within 2 days for all patients. The most common recommendation was that patients receive any COVID-19 vaccination available (62.5%, [40/64]). Forty-one patients (64.1%) were vaccinated after receiving recommendations from an allergist, 11 of whom (26.8%) reported a vaccine reaction. Most of these reactions were nonallergic (9/11 [81.2%]). No anaphylactic events were reported. Conclusion: Results of our study suggest that e-consults were a safe and effective method of providing guidance with regard to COVID-19 vaccine risk in patients with concerns about allergic reactions. The efficiency of this medium, highlighted by the 2-day turnaround time in our study, has the potential to expand access to vaccine risk evaluations by board-certified allergist/immunologists.

Food-Dependent Exercise-Induced Wheals, Angioedema, and Anaphylaxis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Food-dependent exercise-induced wheals, angioedema, and anaphylaxis remain insufficiently characterized.

OBJECTIVE

We systematically reviewed the literature on clinical manifestations, laboratory investigations, culprit foods, triggering exercise, comorbidities, and treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Using predefined search terms and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) recommendations, we searched 3 electronic databases to identify relevant literature published before July 2021.

RESULTS

Of 722 patients (median age 25 years; 55.4% male) from 231 studies (43 cohort studies, 15 cases series, and 173 case reports), 79.6% and 3.7% had anaphylaxis with and without wheals and/or angioedema, respectively. The remaining 16.6% had wheals and/or angioedema without anaphylaxis. The duration from eating to exercising and from exercising to symptom onset ranged from 5 minutes to 6 hours (median 1 hour) and from 5 minutes to 5 hours (median 30 minutes), respectively, and virtually all patients exercised within 4 hours after eating and developed symptoms within 1 hour after exercising. Wheat was the most common culprit food. Running was the most common trigger exercise. Most patients were atopic, and 1 in 3 had a history of urticaria. Aspirin and wheat-based products were the most frequent augmenting factors. On-demand antihistamines, corticosteroids, and epinephrine were commonly used and reported to be effective. Patients who stopped eating culprit foods before exercise no longer developed food-dependent exercise-induced allergic reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Food-dependent exercise-induced allergic reactions are heterogeneous in their clinical manifestations, triggers, and response to treatment. Patients benefit from avoidance of culprit foods before exercise, which highlights the need for allergological diagnostic workup and guidance.

Acute At-Home Management of Anaphylaxis: 911: What Is the Emergency?

The appropriate at-home management of anaphylaxis begins with patient education on recognition and treatment, especially when and how to use epinephrine. Delayed administration of epinephrine as well as having severe symptoms and needing multiple doses of epinephrine to treat symptoms are risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis. The successful implementation of at-home management of anaphylaxis requires appropriate patient selection and an algorithmic approach that recommends activation of emergency medical services (EMS) when the patient does not adequately respond to at-home administration of epinephrine or there are extenuating patient-related circumstances. Fortunately, approximately 98% of anaphylactic episodes respond to 2 or fewer doses of epinephrine, the standard prescription used for epinephrine autoinjectors; fatal anaphylaxis is very rare, as low as 0.002 deaths/million person-years; and biphasic reactions are uncommon (∼5%), and only extremely rarely lethal. Thus, most common concerns leading to recommended EMS activation and emergency department visits after epinephrine administration are generally unsubstantiated. Furthermore, emergency department visits do not always lead to better treatment and drive health care costs higher. Open communications with patients and families regarding risks and benefits of at-home management and observation versus EMS activation and emergency department evaluation after epinephrine administration for anaphylaxis are essential. However, we believe the data indicate that it is time to reconsider the often used and taught approach that recommends EMS activation whenever epinephrine is used.

Platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase is a biomarker of severe anaphylaxis in children

BACKGROUND

There is limited ability to predict the severity of allergic reactions in children. Data derived predominantly from adults have implicated the platelet-activating factor pathway as a potential contributor to severe anaphylaxis. In this study, we sought to prospectively assess involvement of key components of the platelet-activating factor pathway in pediatric patients with anaphylaxis.

METHODS

Forty-six pediatric patients (<18 years) presenting with acute anaphylaxis were assessed. Anaphylaxis severity was graded and serum anaphylaxis markers were measured acutely and in 36 children who returned for follow-up >4 weeks after their acute presentation. These markers were compared with pediatric laboratory reference sera.

RESULTS

Severe anaphylaxis was experienced by 12/46 (26%) and mild-moderate anaphylaxis in 34/46 (74%) children. Platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase (PAF-AH) activity was inversely associated with severe anaphylaxis: 9/12 children with severe anaphylaxis had reduced PAF-AH activity as compared with 14/34 with mild-moderate anaphylaxis (p < .05). Furthermore, 3/3 children who required intensive care had markedly reduced mean PAF-AH (nmol/ml/min) (13.73, 95%CI: 7.42-20.03) versus 20/23 who required ward/emergency department care (17.81, 95%CI: 16.80-18.83; p < .05). In children with anaphylaxis, PAF-AH during acute anaphylaxis was unchanged relative to the child's basal levels (mean, 17.26, 95%CI: 16.10-18.42 vs 17.50, 95%CI: 16.21-18.78, p = .63) and was lower than healthy pediatric controls (mean 19.21; 95%CI:18.21-20.21; p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Decreased serum PAF-AH activity is a biomarker of severe anaphylaxis. Levels of this enzyme do not change from basal levels during acute anaphylaxis. Our results show that PAF-AH is a biomarker of anaphylaxis severity in children. This key regulatory enzyme may modulate susceptibility to severe anaphylaxis.

Updating the CoFAR Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions in Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy is promising as an efficacious treatment for food allergy. Other food allergy treatments are also under development. However, adverse allergic events during treatment, as well as during oral food challenges, are common and reporting is not standardized.

OBJECTIVE

A more nuanced grading scale is needed to create a comprehensive and universal system to categorize adverse events and their severity for food allergy clinical trials.

METHODS

Starting with the 2012 Consortium for Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) Grading Scale and the World Allergy Organization Grading System, we developed the CoFAR Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions, Version 3.0, in collaboration with industry partners with expert opinion.

RESULTS

The revised CoFAR Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions has 5 levels of increasing severity, ranging from generalized urticaria, localized angioedema, rhinitis, and abdominal pain (grade 1) to death (grade 5). Systemic reactions are further categorized within each grade by relevant organ system. Mild, single-system reactions are differentiated from mild, multisystem reactions. Lower respiratory tract symptoms are graded on the basis of response to therapy; those that are refractory to standard treatment (eg, requiring >3 doses of intramuscular epinephrine, continuous intravenous epinephrine infusion, and continuous albuterol nebulization) and respiratory compromise requiring mechanical ventilation are classified as grade 4, life-threatening reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal and consistent use of the revised CoFAR Grading Scale beyond the CoFAR centers would allow for better data aggregation and safety comparisons in clinical trials for food allergy.

Development and validation of the food allergy severity score

BACKGROUND

The heterogeneity and lack of validation of existing severity scores for food allergic reactions limit standardization of case management and research advances. We aimed to develop and validate a severity score for food allergic reactions.

METHODS

Following a multidisciplinary experts consensus, it was decided to develop a food allergy severity score (FASS) with ordinal (oFASS) and numerical (nFASS) formats. oFASS with 3 and 5 grades were generated through expert consensus, and nFASS by mathematical modeling. Evaluation was performed in the EuroPrevall outpatient clinic cohort (8232 food reactions) by logistic regression with request of emergency care and medications used as outcomes. Discrimination, classification, and calibration were calculated. Bootstrapping internal validation was followed by external validation (logistic regression) in 5 cohorts (3622 food reactions). Correlation of nFASS with the severity classification done by expert allergy clinicians by Best-Worst Scaling of 32 food reactions was calculated.

RESULTS

oFASS and nFASS map consistently, with nFASS having greater granularity. With the outcomes emergency care, adrenaline and critical medical treatment, oFASS and nFASS had a good discrimination (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [ROC-AUC]>0.80), classification (sensitivity 0.87-0.92, specificity 0.73-0.78), and calibration. Bootstrapping over ROC-AUC showed negligible biases (1.0 × 10^-6 -1.23 × 10^-3 ). In external validation, nFASS performed best with higher ROC-AUC. nFASS was strongly correlated (R 0.89) to best-worst scoring of 334 expert clinicians.

CONCLUSION

FASS is a validated and reliable method to measure severity of food allergic reactions. The ordinal and numerical versions that map onto each other are suitable for use by different stakeholders in different settings.

Anaphylaxis in Chinese Children with Pollen Sensitization: Triggers, Clinical Presentation, and Acute Management

Purpose

Pollen sensitization is increasing in children. However, there is little evidence regarding the characteristics of anaphylaxis in individuals with pollen sensitization.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of patients with anaphylaxis combined with pollen sensitization who attended an allergy department in a tertiary children’s hospital from 2014 to 2021.

Results

A total of 157 anaphylaxis events in 108 patients were analyzed; the mean age at the reaction was 5.8 ± 4.17 years. A total of 99.1% (107/108) of the patients came from northern China. The most common sensitizing pollen was mugwort (93.5%,101/108), followed by ragweed (68.5%, 74/108) and birch (40.7%, 44/108). A total of 76.9% (83/108) of the patients showed polysensitization to pollen. Allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis was the most common comorbidity (87.0%, 94/108). Children with severe anaphylaxis were more likely to have a history of recurrent urticaria (16.1% vs 3.9%, p = 0.028). The most frequently implicated foods were fruits/vegetables (22.3%, 35/157), followed by wheat (8.9%, 14/157) and milk (8.3%, 13/157), and the most common fruit allergen was peach (n = 7). Of 14% (22/157) exercise-induced reactions, 63.6% (14/22) occurred in pollen season. Skin symptoms were the most frequent (86.0%, 135/157) symptoms, followed by respiratory (73.9%, 116/157) and gastrointestinal (21%, 33/157) symptoms. Regarding acute management, only 7.4% of the patients were treated with epinephrine.

Conclusion

Our findings revealed the characteristics of anaphylaxis in children with pollen sensitization. Fruits/vegetables accounted for a substantial percentage of anaphylaxis triggers. The suboptimal use of epinephrine highlights the need for educational programs promoting the use of epinephrine.

Pathophysiological, Cellular, and Molecular Events of the Vascular System in Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is a systemic hypersensitivity reaction that can be life threatening. Mechanistically, it results from the immune activation and release of a variety of mediators that give rise to the signs and symptoms of this pathological event. For years, most of the research in anaphylaxis has focused on the contribution of the immune component. However, approaches that shed light on the participation of other cellular and molecular agents are necessary. Among them, the vascular niche receives the various signals (e.g., histamine) that elicit the range of anaphylactic events. Cardiovascular manifestations such as increased vascular permeability, vasodilation, hypotension, vasoconstriction, and cardiac alterations are crucial in the pathophysiology of anaphylaxis and are highly involved to the development of the most severe cases. Specifically, the endothelium, vascular smooth muscle cells, and their molecular signaling outcomes play an essential role downstream of the immune reaction. Therefore, in this review, we synthesized the vascular changes observed during anaphylaxis as well as its cellular and molecular components. As the risk of anaphylaxis exists both in clinical procedures and in routine life, increasing our knowledge of the vascular physiology and their molecular mechanism will enable us to improve the clinical management and how to treat or prevent anaphylaxis.

Key Message

Anaphylaxis, the most severe allergic reaction, involves a variety of immune and non-immune molecular signals that give rise to its pathophysiological manifestations. Importantly, the vascular system is engaged in processes relevant to anaphylactic events such as increased vascular permeability, vasodilation, hypotension, vasoconstriction, and decreased cardiac output. The novelty of this review focuses on the fact that new studies will greatly improve the understanding of anaphylaxis when viewed from a vascular molecular angle and specifically from the endothelium. This knowledge will improve therapeutic options to treat or prevent anaphylaxis.