Improving Severity Scoring of Food-Induced Allergic Reactions: A Global "Best-Worst Scaling" Exercise

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.

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.

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.

Refractory Anaphylaxis: A New Entity for Severe Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis reactions lie on a spectrum of severity, ranging from relatively mild lower respiratory involvement (depending on the definition of anaphylaxis used) to more severe reactions that are refractory to initial treatment with epinephrine and may rarely cause death. A variety of grading scales exist to characterize severe reactions, but there is a lack of consensus about the optimal approach to define severity. More recently, a new entity called refractory anaphylaxis (RA) has emerged in the literature, characterized by the persistence of anaphylaxis despite initial epinephrine treatment. However, slightly different definitions have been proposed to date. In this Rostrum, we review these definitions as well as data relating to epidemiology, elicitors, risk factors, and management of RA. We propose a need to align the different definitions for RA, to improve epidemiological surveillance, advance our understanding of the pathophysiology of RA, and optimize management strategies to reduce morbidity and mortality.

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.

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.

Peanut Can Be Used as a Reference Allergen for Hazard Characterization in Food Allergen Risk Management: A Rapid Evidence Assessment and Meta-Analysis

Regional and national legislation mandates the disclosure of “priority” allergens when present as an ingredient in foods, but this does not extend to the unintended presence of allergens due to shared production facilities. This has resulted in a proliferation of precautionary allergen (“may contain”) labels (PAL) that are frequently ignored by food-allergic consumers. Attempts have been made to improve allergen risk management to better inform the use of PAL, but a lack of consensus has led to variety of regulatory approaches and nonuniformity in the use of PAL by food businesses. One potential solution would be to establish internationally agreed “reference doses,” below which no PAL would be needed. However, if reference doses are to be used to inform the need for PAL, then it is essential to characterize the hazard associated with these low-level exposures. For peanut, there are now published data relating to over 3000 double-blind, placebo-controlled challenges in allergic individuals, but a similar level of evidence is lacking for other priority allergens. We present the results of a rapid evidence assessment and meta-analysis for the risk of anaphylaxis to a low-level allergen exposure for priority allergens. On the basis of this analysis, we propose that peanut can and should be considered an exemplar allergen for the hazard characterization at a low-level allergen exposure.