Perspectives and gaps in the management of food allergy and anaphylaxis in the Asia-Pacific Region

Background

Food allergy (FA), which is a condition that has no effective cure and can result in severe life-threatening allergic reactions, remains a global public health concern; however, little is known about how FAs are currently managed in the Asia-Pacific region.

Objective

The main objective of this survey was to evaluate the epidemiology of FA, as well as the availability of resources and practices for management of FA and anaphylaxis by health care providers across Asia.

Methods

From June 2022 to September 2022, a questionnaire-based survey comprising 66 questions was electronically sent to member societies of the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology by using Survey Monkey.

Results

A total of 20 responses were received from 15 member countries and territories. Compared with the pediatric data, there was a lack of prevalence data for FA in adults. Except for Australia and Japan, most regions had between 0.1 and 0.5 allergists per 100,000 population and some had fewer than 0.1 allergists per 100,000 population. The perceived rate of FA in regions with a short supply of allergists was high. Although specific IgE tests and oral food challenges were available in all regions, the median wait time for oral food challenges at government facilities was 37 days (interquartile range = 10.5-60 days). Seven regions still relied on prescriptions of ampules and syringes of injectable adrenaline, and adrenaline autoinjectors were not accessible in 4 regions. Oral immunotherapy as FA treatment was available in half of the surveyed countries and territories.

Conclusions

Our study offers a cross-sectional evaluation of the management practices for FA in each Asia Pacific Association of Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology member country or territory. Urgent actions are required to enhance allergy services, improve the accessibility and affordability of adrenaline autoinjectors, and conduct robust epidemiologic studies.

Risk factors for systemic reactions in typical cold urticaria: Results from the COLD-CE study

BACKGROUND

Cold urticaria (ColdU), that is, the occurrence of wheals or angioedema in response to cold exposure, is classified into typical and atypical forms. The diagnosis of typical ColdU relies on whealing in response to local cold stimulation testing (CST). It can also manifest with cold-induced anaphylaxis (ColdA). We aimed to determine risk factors for ColdA in typical ColdU.

METHODS

An international, cross-sectional study COLD-CE was carried out at 32 urticaria centers of reference and excellence (UCAREs). Detailed history was taken and CST with an ice cube and/or TempTest^® performed. ColdA was defined as an acute cold-induced involvement of the skin and/or visible mucosal tissue and at least one of: cardiovascular manifestations, difficulty breathing, or gastrointestinal symptoms.

RESULTS

Of 551 ColdU patients, 75% (n = 412) had a positive CST and ColdA occurred in 37% (n = 151) of the latter. Cold-induced generalized wheals, angioedema, acral swelling, oropharyngeal/laryngeal symptoms, and itch of earlobes were identified as signs/symptoms of severe disease. ColdA was most commonly provoked by complete cold water immersion and ColdA caused by cold air was more common in countries with a warmer climate. Ten percent (n = 40) of typical ColdU patients had a concomitant chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). They had a lower frequency of ColdA than those without CSU (4% vs. 39%, p = .003). We identified the following risk factors for cardiovascular manifestations: previous systemic reaction to a Hymenoptera sting, angioedema, oropharyngeal/laryngeal symptoms, and itchy earlobes.

CONCLUSION

ColdA is common in typical ColdU. High-risk patients require education about their condition and how to use an adrenaline autoinjector.

[THE STATUS OF ADMISSION TO FACILITIES FOR CHILDREN WITH FOOD ALLERGIES]

BACKGROUND

To clarify the status of admission to facilities for food allergy (FA) children.

METHODS

Guardians of FA children who underwent oral food challenges at Sagamihara National Hospital from September to December 2018 were enrolled. We surveyed the experience of refusal to enter facilities, the reason for refusal and so on using a self-administered questionnaire.

RESULTS

We distributed a questionnaire to 205 guardians, of which 168 responded (response rate 82%). The median age (range) at the time of the survey was 4.5 (0 to 12) years old, 2 (1 to 11) food items had been removed at the time of admission, and 56 (33%) had a history of anaphylaxis before admission. Twenty-nine patients (17%) were prescribed an adrenaline auto injector. Twenty patients (12%) had been denied entry, the median number of refusals (range) was 1.5 (1 to 30). History of anaphylaxis before admission (odds ratio 2.80 [1.08-7.22]) and having 5 or more causative foods (odds ratio 3.44 [1.27-9.32]) were associated with admission refusal. 〔' Factors related to children with FA〕, 〔Factors related to facilities〕, and 〔Factors related to facility staff〕 were extracted as the reasons for refusal.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to the factors related to children with FA, the factors related to facilities and facility staff were related to admission refusal. Therefore, cooperation between medical care, local governments, and facility that comprehensively supports the living environment of children with FA is needed.

[A CASE OF VOCAL CORD DYSFUNCTION, WHO USED ADRENALIN AUTOINJECTOR (EPIPEN®) FREQUENTLY AFTER BEING DIAGNOSED AS ANAPHYLAXIS]

We experienced a case of vocal cord dysfunction (VCD) in a child to whom an adrenaline autoinjector (Epipen^®) had been prescribed and frequently used following a diagnosis of exercise-induced anaphylaxis. An exercise test was performed to investigate her frequent episodes of anaphylaxis-like symptoms. A few minutes after starting the test, signs of dyspnea, such as throat tightness and stridor, appeared, although hypoxia was not present and her respiratory sounds were normal. Medications were not effective for treating her respiratory symptoms. Laryngoscopy performed at the test revealed bizarre vocal cord movement, which was diagnosed as VCD. The symptoms gradually diminished after the initiation of biofeedback therapy, including pursed lips breathing and abdominal breathing. Thereafter, she did not use an adrenaline autoinjector when symptoms appeared; instead, she would perform biofeedback therapy before using the adrenaline autoinjector. Thus, VCD should be included in the differential diagnosis of patients who show anaphylactic symptoms that are resistant to preventive therapy.

Secondary prevention measures in anaphylaxis patients: Data from the anaphylaxis registry

BACKGROUND

Patients with a history of anaphylaxis are at risk of future anaphylactic reactions. Thus, secondary prevention measures are recommended for these patients to prevent or attenuate the next reaction.

METHODS

Data from the Anaphylaxis Registry were analyzed to identify secondary prevention measures offered to patients who experienced anaphylaxis. Our analysis included 7788 cases from 10 European countries and Brazil.

RESULTS

The secondary prevention measures offered varied across the elicitors. A remarkable discrepancy was observed between prevention measures offered in specialized allergy centers (84% of patients were prescribed adrenaline autoinjectors following EAACI guidelines) and outside the centers: Here, EAACI guideline adherence was only 37%. In the multivariate analysis, the elicitor of the reaction, age of the patient, mastocytosis as comorbidity, severity of the reaction, and reimbursement/availability of the autoinjector influence physician's decision to prescribe one.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the low implementation of guidelines concerning secondary prevention measures outside of specialized allergy centers, our findings highlight the importance of these specialized centers and the requirement of better education for primary healthcare and emergency physicians.

Improving adrenaline autoinjector adherence: A psychologically informed training for healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Clinicians draw on instructional approaches when training patients with anaphylaxis to use adrenaline autoinjectors, but patient use is poor. Psychological barriers to these behaviours exist but are not considered routinely when training patients to use autoinjectors. Health Psychology principles suggest exploring these factors with patients could improve their autoinjector use.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of a 90-minute workshop training clinicians in strategies and techniques for exploring and responding to psychological barriers to autoinjector use with patients. Attendees' knowledge, confidence and likelihood of using the strategies were expected to improve.

METHODS

Impact was evaluated using a longitudinal mixed-method design. Twenty-nine clinicians (general and specialist nurses, general practitioners, and pharmacists) supporting patients with anaphylaxis in UK hospitals and general practice attended. Self-rated knowledge, confidence, and likelihood of using the strategies taught were evaluated online 1 week before, 1 to 3, and 6 to 8 weeks after the workshop. Clinicians were invited for telephone interview after attending to explore qualitatively the workshop impact.

RESULTS

χ2 analyses were significant in most cases (P < .05), with sustained (6-8 weeks) improvements in knowledge, confidence, and likelihood of using the strategies taught. Thematic analysis of interview data showed the workshop enhanced attendees' knowledge of the care pathway, understanding of patient's experience of anaphylaxis as psychological not purely physical, and altered their communication with this and other patient groups. However, interviewees perceived lack of time and organisational factors as barriers to using the strategies and techniques taught in clinical contexts.

CONCLUSION

Training clinicians in psychologically informed strategies produce sustained improvements in their confidence and knowledge around patient autoinjector education, and their likelihood of using strategies in clinical practice.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Exploring psychological barriers should be part of training patients with anaphylaxis in autoinjector use.