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.

Epicutaneous immunotherapy with Viaskin™ Peanut in toddlers: a plain language summary

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?

This is a summary of an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine about the EPITOPE clinical study, which tested a skin patch called ViaskinTM Peanut 250 μg (micrograms) as a treatment option for peanut allergy in children aged 1 through 3 years. The patch is a form of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT), which is a new approach to allergen immunotherapy that delivers a small amount of peanut protein to the immune system through the skin. Viaskin Peanut is an investigational therapy, meaning it has not yet been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that has been studied before in young children aged 4 through 11 years. In those studies, the children who received the patch were desensitized and were less likely to experience anaphylaxis when they ate peanut at the end of the study. The EPITOPE study included children aged 1 through 3 years with peanut allergy and looked at how well the peanut patch worked and how safe it was compared to a patch with no medicine (placebo, no medicine) after 12 months.

WHAT WERE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?

The study showed that the peanut patch was better in desensitizing children to peanuts than the placebo patch. Most of the children in the study who received the peanut patch for 12 months (the treatment group) were able to eat and tolerate more peanut at the end of the study than those who received only the placebo patch (the control group). This demonstrates that the children in the treatment group were less likely to have an allergic reaction if they ate peanut by accident at the end of the study. The children in the treatment group also had less severe symptoms when they were given peanut during the oral food challenges at the end of the study. Most children in both groups experienced side effects. Mild to moderate local skin reactions where the patch was applied were most common. These side effects happened less often and were less serious over the 12-month treatment period.

WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?

Overall, these results show the peanut patch may be a possible treatment option to help desensitize young children with peanut allergy to peanut.

The Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters GRADE guidelines for the medical management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis

These evidence-based guidelines support patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders in decisions about the use of intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), biologics, and aspirin therapy after desensitization (ATAD) for the management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). It is important to note that the current evidence on surgery for CRSwNP was not assessed for this guideline nor were management options other than INCS, biologics, and ATAD. The Allergy-Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of multiple stakeholders and to minimize potential biases. Systematic reviews for each management option informed the guideline. The guideline panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to inform and develop recommendations. The guideline panel reached consensus on the following statements: (1) In people with CRSwNP, the guideline panel suggests INCS rather than no INCS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). (2) In people with CRSwNP, the guideline panel suggests biologics rather than no biologics (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence). (3) In people with aspirin (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug)-exacerbated respiratory disease, the guideline panel suggests ATAD rather than no ATAD (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence). The conditions for each recommendation are discussed in the guideline.

Is This Medication Safe for My Child? How to Discuss Safety of Commonly Used Medications With Parents

All drugs have potential side effects, but thoughtful use can maximize benefits while minimizing risks. Children should not be considered just small adults regarding drug safety because their growth and development are discordant with their ability to sense and self-report drug side effects. Detecting side effects requires vigilance and education from prescribers to parents, who are tasked with monitoring their child over time. A drug's safety profile is published in the package label after pivotal trials are conducted in relatively small and sometimes narrow segments of the population during the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval process. Drug safety profiles can change as data from postmarketing reports and long-term monitoring during phase IV trials emerge. As such, prescribers are obligated to maintain current understanding of any changes to drug labels. Discussing potential side effects, monitoring, and when to report concerns can be a time-consuming process during patient encounters. This review offers current information regarding potential side effects of some of the most commonly used medications for allergic conditions, asthma, and atopic dermatitis. This information and discussion will hopefully assist clinicians in their conversations with parents, including advice surrounding prescribing medication to minimize adverse effects, parental monitoring, and documentation.

Topical corticosteroids for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: GRADE systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is associated with a significant disease burden. The optimal use of and administration route for intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) when managing CRSwNP are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We systematically synthesized the evidence addressing INCS for CRSwNP.

METHODS

We searched studies archived in Medline, Embase, and Central from database inception until September 1, 2021, for randomized controlled trials comparing INCS using any delivery method to placebo or other INCS administration types. Paired reviewers screened records, abstracted data, and rated risk of bias (CLARITY revision of Cochrane Risk of Bias version 1 tool) independently and in duplicate. We synthesized the evidence for each outcome using random effects network meta-analyses. We critically appraised the evidence following the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

We analyzed 61 randomized controlled trials (7176 participants, 8 interventions). Sinusitis-related quality of life might improve with INCS rinse (mean difference [MD] -6.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] -11.94 to -1.71) and exhalation delivery system (EDS) (MD -7.86, 95% CI -14.64 to -1.08) compared to placebo (both low certainty evidence). Nasal obstruction symptoms are likely improved when receiving INCS via stent/dressing (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.08), spray (MD -0.51, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.41), and EDS (MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.18) (all moderate to high certainty) compared to placebo. We found no important differences in adverse effects among interventions (moderate certainty for INCS spray, very low to low certainty for others).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple delivery forms of INCS are viable therapeutic options for CRSwNP, resulting in improvement of patient-important outcomes. INCS via stent, spray, and EDS appear to be beneficial across the widest range of considered outcomes.

Tackling medical misinformation in allergy and immunology practice

SummaryWhen Dictionary.com named "misinformation" the word of the year, it stated that "The rampant spread of misinformation poses new challenges for navigating life … ". That was in 2018, two years before the global COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally changed the manner in which misinformation inhibited public health efforts unlike any other time in human history. Our patients are continually seeking information pertaining to their health. When we see them for new patient consultations or follow up visits, their understanding and approach to their medical issues is shaped by the information they find online. Unfortunately, deciphering misinformation from credible information is becoming more challenging. To help patients to the best of our ability, healthcare professionals need to not only understand how misinformation impacts medical decision making but also need to proactively combat this during clinical encounters.

Social media and its impact on health care

OBJECTIVE

Social media has fundamentally changed how the world shares and receives information. This review offers a perspective for the practicing clinician regarding how patients are being influenced by their online interactions and considerations for proactively discussing medical decision making with patients.

DATA SOURCES

Literature search of PubMed database and online published market research data surrounding social media use.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Peer-reviewed studies, Pew research data, and editorials in the English language were selected and reviewed.

RESULTS

There has been a substantial increase in the breadth and depth of literature surrounding the use of social media by patients and medical professionals. Increased focus on how it contributes to medical decision making and patient-clinician interactions has occurred in recent years. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has highlighted the various sources of misinformation and disinformation and how they impact care on many levels. Best practices have been established to assist medical professionals in developing an online presence to combat misinformation or address individual patients.

CONCLUSION

There is growing understanding and recognition of the myriad of ways in which social media is impacting health care. Health care professionals from all backgrounds need to increase their understanding of these complex interactions to best assist patients with their medical decision making.

Fatal Anaphylaxis: Epidemiology and Risk Factors

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide clinicians with an understanding of risk factors associated with fatal anaphylaxis, and to promote individualized management plans with patients based upon key aspects of their clinical history.

RECENT FINDINGS

While anaphylaxis can affect a significant percentage of the general population, death from anaphylaxis remains a rare outcome. The presence of asthma and peanut or tree nut allergy is associated with higher risk for severe or fatal anaphylaxis from foods. Specific triggers (medications, venom), underlying comorbid conditions, age, and use of some medications can also impact risk and warrant different counseling and management strategies. Anaphylaxis is a rapidly progressive systemic reaction with multiple different causes and encompasses a wide degree of severity in clinical presentation and risk for future episodes. Individualized management, discussion of risk, and shared decision making should occur with each patient and in consideration of their personal risk factors.

An Approach to the Office-Based Practice of Food Oral Immunotherapy

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) provides an active treatment option for patients with food allergies. OIT may improve quality of life and raise the threshold at which a patient with food allergy may react to an allergen, but it is a rigorous therapy that requires a high degree of commitment by the clinician, patients, and families. Recent guidelines from the Canadian Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology have provided a framework for the ethical, evidence-based, and patient-oriented clinical practice of OIT, and the European Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology guidelines have also recommended that OIT can be used as a potential treatment. The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of an OIT pharmaceutical has accelerated the adoption of OIT. This review provides a summary of the recent Canadian Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines and a consensus of practical experience of clinicians across the United States and Canada related to patient selection, office and staff preparation, the general OIT process, OIT-related reaction management, and treatment outcomes.

Managing Food Allergy in Schools During the COVID-19 Pandemic

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and massive disruptions to daily life in the spring of 2020, in May 2020, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released guidance recommendations for schools regarding how to have students attend while adhering to principles of how to reduce the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. As part of physical distancing measures, the CDC is recommending that schools who traditionally have had students eat in a cafeteria or common large space instead have children eat their lunch or other meals in the classroom at already physically distanced desks. This has sparked concern for the safety of food-allergic children attending school, and some question of how the new CDC recommendations can coexist with recommendations in the 2013 CDC Voluntary Guidelines on Managing Food Allergy in Schools as well as accommodations that students may be afforded through disability law that may have previously prohibited eating in the classroom. This expert consensus explores the issues related to evidence-based management of food allergy at school, the issues of managing the health of children attending school that are acutely posed by the constraints of an infectious pandemic, and how to harmonize these needs so that all children can attend school with minimal risk from both an infectious and allergic standpoint.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Making the GRADE in anaphylaxis management: Toward recommendations integrating values, preferences, context, and shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

To review GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methods and discuss the clinical application of conditional recommendations in clinical guidelines, specifically in the context of anaphylaxis.

DATA SOURCES

Articles that described GRADE, evidence synthesis, evidence to recommendation frameworks, and shared decision making were used to discuss conditional recommendations of the 2020 Anaphylaxis GRADE guideline.

STUDY SELECTIONS

A narrative review detailing concepts of GRADE and approaches to translate conditional recommendations to individualized and contextualized patient care.

RESULTS

GRADE methods encourage a nuanced relationship between certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. Strength of recommendation must incorporate key factors, including the balance between benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource allocation (costs), with equity, feasibility, and acceptability also often included as considerations. GRADE guidelines provide recommendations that are characterized by directionality (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional). A conditional recommendation is tailored to context and primarily applied through a lens of patient preferences related to the likelihood of outcomes of importance and a shared decision-making approach. Although the 2020 Anaphylaxis GRADE guideline better informs the practice of anaphylaxis prevention through (1) identification and mitigation of risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis and (2) evaluation of the use of glucocorticoid and/or antihistamine pretreatment, all GRADE recommendations, although directional, are conditional and as such should not be universally applied to every circumstance.

CONCLUSION

Clinical guidelines provide an important opportunity to critically appraise evidence and translate evidence to practice. Patients, practitioners, and policy makers should appreciate the strength of recommendation and certainty of evidence and understand how this affects guideline applicability and implementation.

How Dr Google Is Impacting Parental Medical Decision Making

The Internet has forever changed the manner in which we communicate with one another and gather information. Patients and the general public are using online search engines to look for information pertaining to their own health as well as the health of friends and relatives. Unfortunately, the information they encounter is often incorrect and potentially harmful. Many of the sites offering misinformation directly profit by selling nonvalidated tests or treatment options. More than ever, it is important for medical professionals to be aware of the misinformation their patients are encountering online and develop conversations to address this during individual encounters.

Anaphylaxis-a 2020 practice parameter update, systematic review, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potential life-threatening systemic allergic reaction that may have a wide range of clinical manifestations. Severe anaphylaxis and/or the need for repeated doses of epinephrine to treat anaphylaxis are risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis. Antihistamines and/or glucocorticoids are not reliable interventions to prevent biphasic anaphylaxis, although evidence supports a role for antihistamine and/or glucocorticoid premedication in specific chemotherapy protocols and rush aeroallergen immunotherapy. Evidence is lacking to support the role of antihistamines and/or glucocorticoid routine premedication in patients receiving low- or iso-osmolar contrast material to prevent recurrent radiocontrast media anaphylaxis. Epinephrine is the first-line pharmacotherapy for uniphasic and/or biphasic anaphylaxis. After diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis, all patients should be kept under observation until symptoms have fully resolved. All patients with anaphylaxis should receive education on anaphylaxis and risk of recurrence, trigger avoidance, self-injectable epinephrine education, referral to an allergist, and be educated about thresholds for further care.

Update on Early Introduction of Peanut to Prevent Allergy Development: Challenges with Implementation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes the evidence leading towards the development of new guidelines that recommend early introduction of peanut to prevent the development of peanut allergy. It also reviews the current understanding of challenges faced with implementation of these recommendations on a widespread basis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prior recommendations to avoid feeding allergenic foods to infants have been updated and reversed. This paradigm shift in advice has created an opportunity on a population level to try and halt the recent increase in prevalence of peanut allergy. However, challenges with implementation of these new guidelines exist in many areas. While evidence supports the early introduction of peanut to prevent allergy development, the application and challenges faced with these recommendations are not fully understood. Persistent efforts from pediatricians and allergists, as well as acceptance from parents, will be necessary in order to make a significant impact on the prevalence of peanut allergy.

Using podcasts to deliver pediatric educational content: Development and reach of PediaCast CME

Objective

Pediatricians have used podcasts to communicate with the public since 2006 and medical students since 2008. Previous work has established quality criteria for medical education podcasts and examined the benefit of offering continuing medical education (CME) credit for online activities. This is the first descriptive study to outline the development and reach of a pediatric podcast that targets post-graduate healthcare providers, enhances communication by incorporating quality criteria, and offers free accredited CME to listeners.

Methods

We produced 26 podcast episodes from March 2015 to May 2017. Episodes incorporated quality criteria for medical education podcasts and offered free CME credit. They were published on a website, available for listening on multiple digital platforms and promoted through several social media channels. Data were analyzed for frequency of downloads and geographic location of listeners.

Results

The cumulative total of episode downloads was 91,159 with listeners representing 50 U.S. states and 108 countries. Podcast listenership grew over time. Individual episodes had their largest number of downloads immediately following release, but continued recruiting new listeners longitudinally, suggesting use of the archive as an “on-demand” source of educational content.

Conclusions

Pediatric podcasts that incorporate quality criteria and offer free CME credit can be used to deliver educational content to a large global audience of post-graduate healthcare providers. Since podcast communication is rapidly growing, future work should focus on identifying the professional roles of listeners; exploring listener perceptions of quality, value and satisfaction; and examining podcast impact on knowledge transfer, clinical practice, public policy and health outcomes.

Impact Of "eHealth" in Allergic Diseases and Allergic Patients

The emergence of new technology enables allergists and patients to compile data and receive feedback regarding key symptoms, risk behavior, and/or management. The term "eHealth" refers to a diverse group of tools that use computerized technologies to improve both the efficacy and the efficiency of the health care industry. eHealth comprises a variety of technologies, as follows: mobile devices (mHealth) in medical care, including electronic diaries, wearable sensors, and adherence monitoring; health informatics (eg, electronic health records, computerized physician order entry, clinical decision support); telemedicine, which is the use of information and communication technologies for the management of diseases and medical education; social media platforms, and the analysis of information acquired through these platforms using "big data" technologies. In this review, we summarize the latest findings on the use of eHealth technology and the relevance of eHealth to allergic conditions.

Underuse of epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis: missed opportunities

Epinephrine is the only effective treatment for anaphylaxis but studies routinely show underutilization. This is especially troubling given the fact that fatal anaphylaxis has been associated with delayed administration of epinephrine. Many potential barriers exist to the proper use of epinephrine during an anaphylactic reaction. This article will explore both patient-and physician-related factors, as well as misconceptions that all contribute to the underuse of epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis.

Real-world evaluation of a mobile health application in children with asthma

BACKGROUND

Mobile health applications for asthma are increasingly being developed. However, there are no published randomized controlled trials evaluating efficacy in decreasing exacerbations.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of a mobile asthma application for asthma-related urgent health care usage.

METHODS

We conducted a 6-month prospective randomized controlled trial for patients (6 months-21 years old) with persistent asthma presenting with an asthma exacerbation to the emergency department of a pediatric academic medical center. Participants were randomized to AsthmaCare (application providing medication and trigger reminders and treatment plan) or the control (online asthma information). Primary outcome measures were comparison of emergency department and urgent care visits and hospitalizations 6 months before and after randomization.

RESULTS

AsthmaCare participants (n = 98) were slightly older (7.84 vs 6.24 years; P = .02) than controls (n = 95) but similar for sex (55% vs 62% boys), race (83% vs 77% African American), and insurer (89% vs 98% Medicaid). The 2 groups were similar in having more than 2 comorbidities (34% vs 32%) and receiving National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute step 3 treatment or higher (69% vs 57%). There was no significant decrease in emergency department or urgent care visits or hospitalizations between the intervention and control groups. AsthmaCare participants were more likely to report improvement in asthma management 6 months after study enrollment (79% vs 64%; P = .06).

CONCLUSION

This randomized controlled trial did not demonstrate a significant decrease in asthma-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations among children who used a mobile health application.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier NCT02333630.

Home supply of emergency oral steroids and reduction in asthma healthcare utilization

OBJECTIVE

To determine if children with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma have decreased healthcare utilization after receiving a prescription and instructions to use an at home emergency supply of oral steroids during asthma exacerbations.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental design study with a historical control from retrospective chart review was performed for patients aged 2-18 years seen in a tertiary care pediatric pulmonary clinic for moderate to severe persistent asthma. Baseline utilization of the emergency department, inpatient hospital, and pediatric intensive care unit for asthma exacerbations was collected from 24 months prior to initial prescription for at home steroids and compared with 12 months post-intervention using Poisson Regression. A subgroup analysis was performed for ages 6-18 evaluating school age children alone.

RESULTS

Patients (N = 132) were averaged 10 years ± 3.9 years of age and 57% of patients were male. Emergency Department visit rates significantly declined in the 12 months after receiving a prescription and instructions for home emergency steroid supply compared with the 12 months prior to this intervention (0.39 visits/patient/year vs 0.67, P < 0.01). There was a trend for a decline in inpatient (0.27 visits/patient/year vs 0.11, P = 0.09) and pediatric intensive care unit stay rates (0.11 visits/patient/year vs 0.05, P = 0.06). A subgroup analysis of ages 6-18 found similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporation of home emergency oral steroids into the home management plan of children with moderate-to-severe asthma can reduce asthma related Emergency Department visits.