Acute At Home Management of Anaphylaxis During the Covid-19 Pandemic

To the ER? Can Patients Treat Their Anaphylaxis at Home?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss if all patients who use self-injectable epinephrine outside the hospital setting require immediate emergency care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prior to 2023, anaphylaxis management guidance universally recommended that patients who use self-injectable epinephrine outside of the hospital or clinic setting immediately activate emergency medical services and seek further care. Additional food-induced anaphylaxis management recommendations specified that all patients always carry 2 auto-injector devices and give a second dose of epinephrine if there was not immediate response within 5 min of injection. Patients presenting for emergency care after epinephrine are often observed for up to 4-6 h afterwards, even when completely asymptomatic. These management steps have lacked evidence for improving outcomes, and universal implementation of these approaches is not cost-effective as guidance for food allergic patients. Epinephrine pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics suggest that peak physiologic response is more likely to occur closer to 15 min than before 5 min, that few patients require a second dose of epinephrine as most stabilize within 15 min of use, that 60 min of observation after a patient stabilizes after epinephrine use may be adequate as patients infrequently have further sequelae, and that not everyone needs to carry 2 epinephrine auto-injectors on their person at all times. The most recent anaphylaxis practice parameter promotes a contextualized approach to these management questions, outlining the option for watchful waiting to gauge response to epinephrine before seeking emergency care, which has been proven as a more cost-effective management strategy. The recent updated anaphylaxis care guidelines support the evolution of anaphylaxis care, in that universal, immediate activation of emergency services is not required for using self-injectable epinephrine outside the hospital setting.

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.

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.

COVID-19 and Its Impact on Common Diseases in the Allergy Clinics

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious viral disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It has various effects on asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and urticaria and may change the course of the disease depending on the severity of the infection and control status of the disease. Conversely, these diseases may also impact the course of COVID-19. Patients with chronic urticaria and atopic dermatitis may have COVID-19-induced disease exacerbations and biological treatments reduce the risk of exacerbations. Poor asthma control is linked to severe COVID-19 while allergic asthma is associated with lower risk of death and a lower rate of hospitalization due to COVID-19 compared with nonallergic asthma. The use of intranasal corticosteroids is associated with lower rates of hospitalization due to COVID-19 in patients with allergic rhinitis, whereas the effect of inhaled corticosteroids is confounded by asthma severity. These observations reinforce the importance of keeping allergic diseases under control during pandemics. The use of biologicals during COVID-19 is generally regarded as safe, but more evidence is needed. The pandemic substantially changed the management of allergic disorders such as home implementation of various biologicals, allergen immunotherapy, food introduction, and increased use of telemedicine and even home management of anaphylaxis to reduce emergency department burden and reduce risk of infection. Physicians need to be aware of the potential impact of COVID-19 on allergic diseases and educate their patients on the importance of continuing prescribed medications and adhering to their treatment plans to maintain optimal control of their disease.

Allergy and Immunology Physician and Patient (Un)Wellness During COVID-19 and Beyond: Lessons for the Future

The COVID-19 pandemic increased stress and reduced wellness for patients and physicians alike. The uncertainty, frequent changes, fear of illness and death, and supply chain issues taxed an already broken health care system. The pandemic undermined the factors that allow for a healthy workplace: control, predictability, and certainty. During this time, rates of depression, suicidality, and anxiety all increased among physicians and the community at large. These challenges were aggravated by disagreements regarding masking and vaccinations. These factors, as well as the degree to which people felt valued or not also contributed to burnout. Some changes such as the transition to telemedicine, although initially stressful, led to patient satisfaction and allowed clinical care to continue. Other changes, such as trying to homeschool, or watching young children while also trying to work were less desirable. Patients and physicians did their best to combat isolation, fear, anxiety, and the numerous societal changes. Burnout fluctuated throughout the pandemic related to local and systemic factors such as rates of infection, vaccination, supply chain issues, and individual support. The pandemic highlighted problems with our health care system, including structural racism, health care disparities, and how easily the system can be overwhelmed. Physicians may have been thrown into roles they did not feel comfortable filling and may have had insufficient staff to practice in the way they wanted. These factors led to frustration among patients and physicians alike. The National Plan for Health Workforce Well-Being outlines the need for health care reform to allow for effective and safe health care while protecting clinicians from burnout.

Shared decision-making, communicating risk, and food allergy in 2023

Background

Across the practice of allergy and clinical immunology, disruptive innovations have accelerated the adoption of shared decision-making (SDM) to improve the health of patients and populations, particularly with regard to food allergy prevention and management of food allergy and anaphylaxis.

Methods

A narrative review was performed to describe recent innovations in shared decision-making, risk communication, and food allergy.

Results

Several challenges, primarily related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and misinformation campaigns, have catalyzed adaptations to evolve clinical care. Recent pressures have facilitated the rapid adoption of telemedicine. In 2023, many allergist/immunologists routinely incorporate both in-person and virtual visits to contextually deliver value-based care to each patient. SDM may occur in a hybrid model that incorporates both in-person and virtual encounters, with many patients experiencing benefit from a combination approach. This may be facilitated by leveraging previsit web-based SDM tools. Whether in person or by telemedicine, effective risk communication to avoid cognitive overload while appreciating population variation in numeracy is key to competent implementation of SDM. Misinformation continues to disproportionately harm patients who belong to groups that encourage denial of evidence-based medical recommendations and COVID-19 vaccination intent correlating with sociopolitical factors. Still, strategies to address misinformation that leverage empathy, respect, and expertise can help to mitigate these effects. Physician wellness is a key component to realization of the Quadruple Aim of health care, and the use of positive framing and appreciative inquiry can help to optimize outcomes and improve value in health care.

Conclusion

SDM is an important component to consider when incorporating recent innovations in allergy and clinical immunology care, particularly in the setting of contextual and conditional medical recommendations. Effective risk communication is critical to SDM that is truly reflective of patient goals and preferences, and can be facilitated through in-person encounters, telemedicine, and hybrid models. It is important to foster physician wellness as a component of the Quadruple Aim, particularly in the recent pandemic climate of misinformation and denial of evidence-based medicine within large groups of society.

Temporal trends in anaphylaxis ED visits over the last decade and the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on these trends

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is an acute systemic and potentially fatal allergic reaction. We evaluated trends in yearly rates of anaphylaxis in a pediatric Emergency Department (ED) in Montreal, Canada.

METHODS

A prospective and retrospective recruitment process was used to find families of children who had presented with anaphylaxis at the Montreal Children's Hospital between April 2011 and April 2021. Using a uniform recruitment form, data were collected. Anaphylaxis patterns were compared to clinical triggers using descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

Among 830,382 ED visits during the study period, 2726 (26% recruited prospectively) presented with anaphylaxis. The median age was 6 years (IQR: 0.2, 12.00), and 58.7% were males. The relative frequency of anaphylaxis cases doubled between 2011-2015, from 0.22% (95% CI, 0.19, 0.26) to 0.42 March 2020, the total absolute number of anaphylaxis cases and relative frequency declined by 24 cases per month (p < 0.05) and by 0.5% of ED visits (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of anaphylaxis has changed over the years, representing modifications in food introduction strategies or lifestyle changes. The decrease in the frequency of anaphylaxis presenting to the ED during the COVID pandemic may reflect decreased accidental exposures with reduced social gatherings, closed school, and reluctance to present to ED.

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.

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.

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.

Risk factors for reactions and adverse effects during oral immunotherapy

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) involves the potential for a variety of adverse events, which range from serious systemic reactions that require epinephrine to minimal oral reactions that require no treatment. This chapter describes common types of reactions seen in the course of OIT, reviews the frequency of and risk factors for different types of events as reported in recent literature (with a focus on real-world reports from private practice), and discusses treatment strategies for these adverse events. As the availability of OIT expands, it is paramount to ensure that allergists who offer OIT have a robust understanding of these reactions and mechanisms, with the overarching goal being the safety and tolerability of the therapy for the individual patient.

Safely Reducing Hospitalizations for Anaphylaxis in Children Through an Evidence-Based Guideline

BACKGROUND

Emergency department visits for anaphylaxis have increased considerably over the past few decades, especially among children. Despite this, anaphylaxis management remains highly variable and contributes to significant health care spending. On the basis of emerging evidence, in this quality improvement project we aimed to safely decrease hospitalization rates, increase the use of cetirizine, and decrease use of corticosteroids for children with anaphylaxis by December 31, 2019.

METHODS

A multipronged intervention strategy including a revised evidence-based guideline was implemented at a tertiary children's teaching hospital by using the Model for Improvement. Statistical process control was used to evaluate for changes in key measures. Length of stay and unplanned return visits within 72 hours were monitored as process and balancing measures, respectively. As a national comparison, hospitalization rates were compared with other hospitals' data from the Pediatric Health Information System.

RESULTS

Hospitalizations decreased significantly from 28.5% to 11.2% from preimplementation to implementation, and the balancing measure of 72-hour revisits was stable. The proportion of patients receiving cetirizine increased significantly from 4.2% to 59.7% and use of corticosteroids decreased significantly from 72.6% to 32.4% in patients without asthma. The proportion of patients meeting length of stay criteria increased from 53.3% to 59.9%. Hospitalization rates decreased nationally over time.

CONCLUSIONS

We reduced hospitalizations for anaphylaxis by 17.3% without concomitant increases in revisits, demonstrating that unnecessary hospitalizations can be safely avoided. The use of a local evidence-based guideline paired with close outcome monitoring and sustained messaging and feedback to clinicians can effectively improve anaphylaxis management.

The 2020 update on anaphylaxis in paediatric population

The objective of the review is to present recent updates on anaphylaxis in paediatric population worldwide. The article summarizes the results of epidemiological studies, diagnostic methods and treatments. We present a new WAO definition of anaphylaxis (2019), which broader criteria excluding dermal symptoms should facilitate faster life-saving adrenaline use. Adrenaline remains the best treatment to manage severe symptoms and to prevent biphasic reactions. There is ongoing effort to increase adrenaline use, such as modified autoinjectors, individual training, and diversified dosing. There are five independent risk factors of lethal anaphylaxis in children, including history of asthma, almost immediate onset of symptoms, unwell appearance, tachycardia and hypotension. We also report improvements in diagnostics, like component-resolved diagnostics, and novel therapies stimulating immunotolerance. We signal the development of ICD-11 with updated coding of anaphylaxis, which corresponds better to clinical observations.

Management of Anaphylaxis in Infants and Toddlers

Anaphylaxis is a systemic allergic reaction that can be caused by food, drugs, insect bites, or unknown triggers in infants and toddlers. Anaphylaxis rates are increasing. Infants and toddlers may have increased exposure to known and unknown allergens, decreased ability to describe their symptoms, and an expanded differential diagnosis for consideration on presentation. The most common symptoms in these age groups are cutaneous and gastrointestinal. Age-specific language may be helpful for caregivers to identify and describe the symptoms of anaphylaxis in infants and toddlers. Long-term management of anaphylaxis includes allergy evaluation to guide avoidance and assess prognosis and education on allergic reaction management; this incorporates the prescription of epinephrine autoinjector and provision of an allergy emergency plan.

Anaphylaxis and digital medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Digital medicine (mHealth) aims to help patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) improve and facilitate the provision of patient care. It encompasses equipment/connected medical devices, mHealth services and mHealth apps (apps). An updated review on digital health in anaphylaxis is proposed.

RECENT FINDINGS

In anaphylaxis, mHealth is used in electronic health records and registries.It will greatly benefit from the new International Classification of Diseases-11 rules and artificial intelligence. Telehealth has been revolutionised by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and lessons learnt should be extended to shared decision making in anaphylaxis. Very few nonvalidated apps exist and there is an urgent need to develop and validate such tools.

SUMMARY

Although digital health appears to be of great importance in anaphylaxis, it is still insufficiently used.

Allergie aux venins d’hyménoptères : conduite à tenir en cas de pénurie d’extraits de venins ou de crise sanitaire (pandémie Covid-19). Recommandations du Groupe de Travail Insectes Piqueurs (GTIP)

Les tensions récurrentes sur la disponibilité des extraits de venins ainsi que la pandémie COVID-19 ont amené le Groupe de Travail Insectes Piqueurs de la SFA/Anaforcal à établir des recommandations sur l’immunothérapie allergénique (ITA) aux venins d’hyménoptères en accord avec les recommandations internationales, pour pouvoir proposer et maintenir l’ITA aux patients avec risque vital. Les modalités du diagnostic d’allergie aux venins d’hyménoptères, les indications d’ITA et de sa durée, la fréquence des rappels, le choix des doses, l’interchangeabilité des extraits de venins et le suivi des patients en ITA ont été adaptées à ce temps de crise, permettant aux allergologues de soigner au mieux leurs patients avec un minimum de risque et de contrainte. Ces recommandations sont temporaires et seront à revoir après retour à une situation normale.

The Revenge of Unintended Consequences of Anaphylaxis-Risk Overdiagnosis: How Far We Have Come and How Far We Have to Go

Overdiagnosis of anaphylaxis risk is an underappreciated aspect of anaphylaxis prevention. Whereas the benefits of anaphylaxis-risk prevention are well known, potential harms resulting from preemptive approaches to mitigate anaphylaxis-risk are not insignificant. Still, great progress has been made in recent years to avoid the unintended consequences of anaphylaxis-risk overdiagnosis. Reflection on recent advances in the use of diagnostic testing, as well as the application of diagnostic labels, provides an important perspective to understand how far the specialty of allergy and immunology has come in improving the lives of patients and families. Examples of recent paradigm shifts in anaphylaxis-risk management include approaches to peanut allergy prevention without screening, deferral of corticosteroids to prevent biphasic anaphylaxis reactions, reevaluation of reflex use of emergency medical services for resolved community anaphylaxis, and an approach to penicillin allergy delabeling with direct oral challenge. Routine medical practices to decrease anaphylaxis risk can have lifelong impacts for patients-beyond just preventing anaphylaxis. As our understanding of these trade-offs evolves, it becomes necessary to weigh both the benefits and the harms of past management approaches. Because medicine remains a science of uncertainty and an art of probability, a critical approach to risk mitigation remains necessary to find the often-elusive balance in anaphylaxis prevention.

Emerging developments in the forefront of peanut oral immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, progress continued in the field of peanut oral immunotherapy over the past 12 to 18 months. Of importance, the first oral immunotherapy product for the treatment of peanut allergy was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in January 2020.

RECENT FINDINGS

Suggested modifications to the practice of oral immunotherapy, some of which may have lasting impacts, were circulated as a result of the pandemic. New advances in pathophysiology, sustained unresponsiveness, quality of life, safety, and cost effectiveness were also published.

SUMMARY

During 2020, COVID-19 influenced the daily practice of allergy and immunology, with peanut oral immunotherapy being no exception. However, clinicians now have a FDA-approved treatment option for peanut allergy in children, a welcome development for a difficult disease. Future research is needed to clarify several knowledge deficits surrounding the best use of peanut OIT.

Home epinephrine-treated reactions in food allergy oral immunotherapy: Lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown

Background

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is effective in desensitizing patients with food allergy but adverse reactions limit its use.

Objective

To study the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown in Israel between March 15, 2020, and April 30, 2020, on the incidence of home epinephrine-treated reactions.

Methods

All patients who were in the up-dosing phase of OIT for greater than or equal to 1 month during the lockdown, or a respective period in years 2015 to 2019, were studied. The incidence of home-epinephrine treated reactions during the 2020 lockdown was compared with that in the respective period in 2015 to 2019 and to periods before and after the lockdown.

Results

A total of 1163 OIT treatments were analyzed. Two epinephrine injections occurred during 2020 (0.7%) compared with 29 injections (3.28%) during 2015 to 2019 (P = .03). Patients treated in 2020 were older (8.1 vs 7 years, P < .01) and had a significantly lower single highest tolerated dose (12 vs 20 mg protein, P < .01). The rate of milk-OIT was lower (P = .01), but the total number of milk treatments was higher (99 vs 71 to 82) in 2020 compared with 2015 to 2019. On multivariate analysis, treatments during the 2020 lockdown were performed in older patients (P = .001), primarily for nonmilk (P = .03), began with a lower single highest tolerated dose (P = .006), and were associated with significantly less home epinephrine-treated reactions (P = .05) compared with those in 2015 to 2019. Patients treated in 2020 experienced more epinephrine-treated reactions in adjacent periods before (n = 8) and after (n = 6) the lockdown.

Conclusion

The lower rate of home epinephrine-treated reactions during the coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown in Israel suggests that potentially avoidable triggers contribute significantly to the rate of adverse reactions during OIT.

A severity grading system of food-induced acute allergic reactions to avoid the delay of epinephrine administration

BACKGROUND

Substantial discrepancies among anaphylaxis severity scores may delay epinephrine administration.

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to develop a transparent severity grading system of food-induced acute allergic reactions with a decision model for epinephrine use.

METHODS

The natural course of 315 acute food-induced allergic reactions in children hospitalized at the Allergology department between May 2016 and July 2019 owing to follow-up treatment and allergy diagnostics was evaluated. The severity of episodes was classified according to the 5 most accepted grading systems. The interrater reliability of classification between anaphylaxis severity scores was assessed. All symptoms were grouped into a heat map according to their real-life incidence and clinical relevance. Based on the heat map analysis, a severity grading system of food-induced acute allergic reactions in children with the epinephrine administration decision model was created.

RESULTS

Data from 259 food-induced anaphylaxis episodes in 157 children were included in the analysis. Comparing the grading systems, we observed a 24.7% to 70.2% disagreement between severity scores. The heat map illustrated a strong association between 29 symptoms and their categorization. A new severity grading system was developed and a 2-stage decision model was proposed: "epinephrine yes" (any rapidly progressing symptoms, even mild ones or from 1 organ system; any symptoms from more than 1 organ system; or every grade of anaphylaxis), and "epinephrine available and prepared to use" (nonprogressing mild systemic allergic reaction from 1 system area only; no anaphylaxis).

CONCLUSION

A new severity grading system of food-induced acute allergic reactions in children could serve as a clinical tool for health care professionals to avoid epinephrine administration delay.

Paediatric allergy practice in the era of coronavirus disease 2019

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the practice of paediatric allergy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Given significant overlap in symptoms, care must be taken to differentiate routine allergic conditions from COVID-19 infection but it appears that most allergic diseases are not risk factors for a severe COVID-19 course. The full impact of restricted allergy/immunology ambulatory services will take months to years to fully understand. One benefit of having to adapt practice style is greater awareness and acceptance of shared decision-making and recognition of preference-sensitive care options in food allergy, in particular for approaches towards allergy prevention, treatment, and anaphylaxis care. Social distancing and masks have helped reduce spread of common respiratory viruses, which may be helping to lower the incidence of viral-associated wheezing episodes, enhancing evidence of the effects of preventing exposure of young children to respiratory viruses on asthma pathogenesis, as well as on allergic rhinitis. There has been a revolution in the rise of telemedicine to increase access to high-quality allergy/immunology specialty care.

SUMMARY

Although the field has adapted to remain operational in the face of a significant challenge, it is important to apply lessons learned to evolve patient care and optimize treatment in the aftermath of the pandemic.

Management of Anaphylaxis During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

Purpose of Review

Management of anaphylaxis during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic should consider local infection rates so as to not burden local ED at times of pandemic, while also protecting patients from infection risks and progression of anaphylaxis. In this review, we identify a treatment strategy for anaphylaxis that balances the risks versus benefits of ED versus home management in this unprecedented time.

Recent Findings

Physicians and patients have had to adapt new approaches to medical care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic due to restricted access to health care facilities. Telemedicine has substituted in-person visits, and such a drastic change in the patient care paradigm presents a need to revise the acute management of anaphylaxis.

Summary

Physicians should utilize telemedicine during this time to engage in shared decision-making with patients and their families to devise an anaphylaxis plan of management that emphasizes home care when symptoms are mild with an exception for ED care if a patient has had severe, near-fatal anaphylaxis episodes in the past. Previous anaphylaxis recommendations should remain in place despite the pandemic, including prompt use of epinephrine when needed, avoidance of known allergens, training of patients and their caregivers, and carrying of epinephrine autoinjector devices at all times to remain prepared in the event of an anaphylaxis episode.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40521-021-00284-0.

What the COVID-19 Pandemic Can Teach Us About Resource Stewardship and Quality in Health Care

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has forever changed how we view health care service delivery. Although there are undoubtedly some unintended consequences that will result from current health care service reallocation, it provides a unique opportunity to consider how to deliver quality care currently, and after the pandemic. In the context of lessons learned, moving forward some of what was previously routine could remain reserved for more exceptional circumstances. To determine what is "routine," what is "essential," and what is "exceptional," it is necessary to view medical decisions within the paradigm of high-quality care. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement definition of the dimensions of quality is based on whether the care is safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable. This type of stewardship has been applied to many interventions already deemed unnecessary by organizations such as the Choosing Wisely initiative, but the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic provides a lens from which to consider other aspects of care. The following will provide examples from Allergy/Immunology that outline how we can reconsider what quality means in the post-coronavirus disease health care system.

Integrating oral immunotherapy into clinical practice

In 2020, the first food allergy treatment, an oral immunotherapy (OIT) product for peanut allergy, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and a peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy patch was under review. As food allergy therapies become available and widespread, allergy offices will need to adjust practices to be able to offer their patients these new treatments. OIT is an intensive therapy that requires commitment from patients and their families, and open communication with the practice is paramount. OIT may not be the right therapy for every patient, and although identifying good candidates is still an area rich for research opportunity, experience from cohorts and clinical trials provides some insight. It is important to understand the scope of practice for each member of the OIT team based on state regulations for a particular location. Staffing and space will likely dictate how many patients at an individual office could be on active OIT at one time. Emergency medications, supplies, and protocols must be in place. Screening, scheduling, visit procedures, monitoring, home dosing, dose modifications, safety precautions, adverse reactions, and maintenance will be addressed in this article. Finally, adjunct therapies under investigation will be reviewed.

Parent perspectives on food allergy management and safety during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

U.S. national emergency was declared in mid-March 2020 due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Subsequently, a period of stay-at-home orders, regulatory changes, evolving medical recommendations, and food supply chain disruptions occurred. There is little published research on how such changes affected food allergy management for children with this diagnosis.

Objective

The study goal was to identify parent perspectives with regard to if and/or how pandemic-related regulatory changes and evolving medical recommendations have affected food allergy management.

Methods

A survey was distributed to parents of children with food allergy. An electronic Internet forms survey link was available for completion during July 2020. Data were presented as descriptive statistics, cleaned, and coded into a spreadsheet before analysis. Frequencies and percentage were calculated to describe participants' characteristics and responses.

Results

Of 377 responses, 359 met inclusion criteria. Concerns about COVID-19 exposure were expressed in 65.7% about accessing an emergency department and 73.6% had school reentry concerns; 66% had not discussed recommended anaphylaxis management algorithm changes with a provider; 85.8% had not discussed the temporary U.S. Food and Drug Administration food labeling policy with a provider. Most (62%) reported shortages of preferred safe food brands. 62% spent more time cooking safe foods from scratch. With regard to the recommendation by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for classroom dining, 57.7% planned to request modifications. With regard to the CDC's recommendation to use inhalers versus nebulizers, 37.7% had not discussed the topic with a provider. Ninety-two written comments were analyzed and grouped into seven themes.

Conclusion

New pandemic-related regulations, food supply chain disruptions, and evolving medical recommendations resulted in intensified burdens for respondents, including the increased time needed to complete food allergy management and school reentry concerns. Study results can inform clinical team members (e.g., physicians, nurses, dieticians) of effects that pandemic-related changes may have on this patient population, with subsequent consideration of patient-specific screening, education, and shared decision-making with regard to risk mitigation needs.

COVID-19 and allergy: How to take care of allergic patients during a pandemic?

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), also known as COVID-19, is a new strain of coronavirus that has not been previously identified in humans. SARS-CoV-2 is recognized as a highly contagious respiratory virus with severe morbidity and mortality, especially in vulnerable populations. Being a novel disease, everyone is susceptible, there are no vaccine and no treatment. To contain the spread of the disease, health authorities throughout the world have restricted the social interactions of individuals in various degrees. Allergists, like other physicians, are faced with the challenge of providing care for their patients, while protecting themselves and patients from getting infected, with strategies that are in continuous evolution as states work through the different stages of social distance. Allergist provides care for patients with the most common non-communicable disease in the world: asthma, allergic rhinitis, food allergy, venom allergy, drug allergy atopic dermatitis, and urticarial syndromes. Some of these diseases are not only considered risk factors for severe reactions but also have symptoms such as cough and sneezing that are in differential diagnosis with COVID-19. As we move forward, allergy symptoms may prevent patients from working, go to school, or access medical services that increasingly are allowing only asymptomatic individuals. In this review, we will outline how to take care safety of different allergic patients during the pandemic.

Novel Approaches to Food Allergy Management During COVID-19 Inspire Long-Term Change

The SARS-CoV2 pandemic has prompted a re-evaluation of our current practice of medicine. The seemingly abrupt worldwide spread of this disease resulted in immediate changes and a reduction in many allergy-focussed services and procedures. The reality of the long-term circulation of this virus in our communities requires us to evolve as a specialty. In this article, we outline current and future challenges in the management of food allergy in light of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We focus on infant food allergy prevention, management of anaphylaxis, accurate diagnosis with oral food challenges, and active management of food allergy with oral immunotherapy. This article identifies the challenges of conflicting guidelines, shortcomings of acute management approaches, and inherent system deficiencies. We offer perspectives and strategies that can be implemented now, including an evaluation of virtual care and telemedicine for the management of food allergy. The use of a shared decision-making model results in novel approaches that can benefit our patients and our specialty for years to come. COVID-19 has forced us to re-evaluate our current way of thinking about food allergy management to better treat our patients.

Factors contributing to underuse of epinephrine autoinjectors in pediatric patients with food allergy

BACKGROUND

Epinephrine autoinjectors (EAs) are the standard of care for severe food allergic reactions, although they are frequently underused or misused.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the factors associated with underuse of EA by caregivers of pediatric patients with food allergy.

METHODS

A survey was administered to 200 caregivers of pediatric patients with food allergies to assess most severe lifetime allergic reaction, EA education, and use and factors associated with incorrect use or underutilization.

RESULTS

A total of 164 surveys were completed; of which 118 (72%) of lifetime most severe reactions warranted EA use, but the EA was used in only 45 (38.1%). Reasons caregivers indicated for not administering the EA included the following: reactions did not seem severe enough; it was the patient's first allergic reaction; use of other medication; and fear of using EA.

CONCLUSION

Multiple factors contribute to underuse of EA in the treatment of severe allergic reactions. Results from this study highlight the need for continuous EA education in caregivers of and pediatric patients with food allergies, using a multipronged approach targeting clear symptom recognition and alleviation of fear of EA use.

Telemedicine Pays: Billing and Coding Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Telemedicine is a rapidly growing healthcare sector that can improve access to care for underserved populations and offer flexibility and convenience to patients and clinicians alike. However, uncertainty about insurance coverage and reimbursement policies for telemedicine has historically been a major barrier to adoption, especially among physicians in private practice (the majority of practicing allergists).

RECENT FINDINGS

The COVID-19 public health emergency has highlighted the importance of telehealth as a safe and effective healthcare delivery model, with governments and payers rapidly expanding coverage and payment in an effort to ensure public access to healthcare in the midst of an infectious pandemic. This comprehensive review of updated telemedicine coverage and payment policies will include a tabular guide on how to appropriately bill and optimize reimbursement for telemedicine services. This review of current trends in telemedicine coverage, billing, and reimbursement will outline the historical and current state of telemedicine payment policies in the USA, with special focus on recent policy changes implemented in light of COVID-19. The authors will also explore the potential future landscape of telehealth coverage and reimbursement beyond the resolution of the public health emergency.

Allergy clinics in times of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: an integrated model

BACKGROUND

Almost the entire World is experiencing the Coronavirus-Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, responsible, at the end of May 2020, of more than five million people infected worldwide and about 350,000 deaths. In this context, a deep reorganization of allergy clinics, in order to ensure proper diagnosis and care despite of social distancing measures expose, is needed.

MAIN TEXT

The reorganization of allergy clinics should include programmed checks for severe and poorly controlled patients, application of digital medicine service for mild-to-moderate disease in well-controlled ones, postponement of non urgent diagnostic work-ups and domiciliation of therapies, whenever possible. As far as therapies, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) should not be stopped and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) fits perfectly for this purpose, since a drug home-delivery service can be activated for the entire pandemic duration. Moreover, biologic agents for severe asthma, chronic spontaneous urticaria and atopic dermatitis should be particularly encouraged to achieve best control possible of severe disease in times of COVID-19 and, whenever possible, home-delivery and self-administration should be the preferred choice.

CONCLUSION

During COVID-19 pandemic, allergists have the responsibility of balancing individual patients' needs with public health issues, and innovative tools, such as telemedicine and digital medicine services, can be helpful to reduce the risk of viral spreading while delivering up-to-date personalized care.

Shared decision-making in the care of a patient with food allergy

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making is a patient-centered approach that involves a mutual discussion about management or treatment options, which account for the patient's underlying values and preferences for therapy. Little is known about the role of shared decision-making in the care of patients with food allergy.

DATA SOURCES

A narrative review of the shared decision-making and food allergy outcomes literature in the past 20 years was performed.

RESULTS

In shared decision-making, care must be taken to help clarify the patient's values regarding their care options, but not instill the clinician's values or preferences into that choice. It is essential to understand the mutual roles of the clinician in the process of providing evidence-based options for care, advocating for treatments that are aligned with their goals and preferences, and allowing patients to make fully informed decisions within this paradigm. Decision support tools such as decision aids can assist patients in the values clarification process, particularly in which preference-sensitive care exists, in which options hold significant tradeoffs and varying outcomes, and the decision is reflective of personal values and preferences. There are multiple potential preference-sensitive care scenarios in food allergy in which shared decision-making could be optimized, including the development of decision aids. These areas include early allergenic solid introduction, preemptive epinephrine use in which there is allergen exposure but no symptoms, automatic activation of EMS after using epinephrine, and choices of food allergy treatment. Only one decision aid in food allergy exists.

CONCLUSION

Shared decision-making is an approach that could greatly enhance food allergy care and improve patient-reported outcomes.