Search

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. © 2021 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Background: Peanut allergy has a rising prevalence in high-income countries, affecting 0.5%–1.4% of children. This study aimed to better understand peanut anaphylaxis in comparison to anaphylaxis to other food triggers in European children and adolescents. Methods: Data was sourced from the European Anaphylaxis Registry via an online questionnaire, after in-depth review of food-induced anaphylaxis cases in a tertiary paediatric allergy centre. Results: 3514 cases of food anaphylaxis were reported between July 2007-March 2018, 56% in patients younger than 18 years. Peanut anaphylaxis was recorded in 459 children and adolescents (85% of all peanut anaphylaxis cases). Previous reactions (42% vs. 38%; p = .001), asthma comorbidity (47% vs. 35%; p < .001), relevant cofactors (29% vs. 22%; p = .004) and biphasic reactions (10% vs. 4%; p = .001) were more commonly reported in peanut anaphylaxis. Most cases were labelled as severe anaphylaxis (Ring&Messmer grade III 65% vs. 56% and grade IV 1.1% vs. 0.9%; p = .001). Self-administration of intramuscular adrenaline was low (17% vs. 15%), professional adrenaline administration was higher in non-peanut food anaphylaxis (34% vs. 26%; p = .003). Hospitalization was higher for peanut anaphylaxis (67% vs. 54%; p = .004). Conclusions: The European Anaphylaxis Registry data confirmed peanut as one of the major causes of severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions in European children, with some characteristic features e.g., presence of asthma comorbidity and increased rate of biphasic reactions. Usage of intramuscular adrenaline as first-line treatment is low and needs to be improved. The Registry, designed as the largest database on anaphylaxis, allows continuous assessment of this condition. © 2021 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Background: Venom-induced anaphylaxis (VIA) is a common, potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity reaction associated with (1) a specific symptom profile, 2) specific cofactors, and 3) specific management. Identifying the differences in phenotypes of anaphylaxis is crucial for future management guidelines and development of a personalized medicine approach. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the phenotype and risk factors of VIA. Methods: Using data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry (12,874 cases), we identified 3,612 patients with VIA and analyzed their cases in comparison with sex- and age-matched anaphylaxis cases triggered by other elicitors (non-VIA cases [n = 3,605]). Results: VIA more frequently involved more than 3 organ systems and was associated with cardiovascular symptoms. The absence of skin symptoms during anaphylaxis was correlated with baseline serum tryptase level and was associated with an increased risk of a severe reaction. Intramuscular or intravenous epinephrine was administered significantly less often in VIA, in particular, in patients without a history of anaphylaxis. A baseline serum tryptase level within the upper normal range (8-11.5 ng/mL) was more frequently associated with severe anaphylaxis. Conclusion: Using a large cohort of VIA cases, we have validated that patients with intermediate baseline serum tryptase levels (8-11 ng/mL) and without skin involvement have a higher risk of severe VIA. Patients receiving β-blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors had a higher risk of developing severe cardiovascular symptoms (including cardiac arrest) in VIA and non-VIA cases. Patients experiencing VIA received epinephrine less frequently than did cases with non-VIA. © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology

Background: Food anaphylaxis is commonly elicited by unintentional ingestion of foods containing the allergen above the tolerance threshold level of the individual. While labeling the 14 main allergens used as ingredients in food products is mandatory in the EU, there is no legal definition of declaring potential contaminants. Precautionary allergen labeling such as “may contain traces of” is often used. However, this is unsatisfactory for consumers as they get no information if the contamination is below their personal threshold. In discussions with the food industry and technologists, it was suggested to use a voluntary declaration indicating that all declared contaminants are below a threshold of 0.5 mg protein per 100 g of food. This concentration is known to be below the threshold of most patients, and it can be technically guaranteed in most food production. However, it was also important to assess that in case of accidental ingestion of contaminants below this threshold by highly allergic patients, no fatal anaphylactic reaction could occur. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to assess whether a fatal reaction to 5mg of protein or less has been reported, assuming that a maximum portion size of 1kg of a processed food exceeds any meal and thus gives a sufficient safety margin. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until 24 January 2021 for provocation studies and case reports in which one of the 14 major food allergens was reported to elicit fatal or life-threatening anaphylactic reactions and assessed if these occurred below the ingestion of 5mg of protein. A Delphi process was performed to obtain an expert consensus on the results. Results: In the 210 studies included, in our search, no reports of fatal anaphylactic reactions reported below 5 mg protein ingested were identified. However, in provocation studies and case reports, severe reactions below 5 mg were reported for the following allergens: eggs, fish, lupin, milk, nuts, peanuts, soy, and sesame seeds. Conclusion: Based on the literature studied for this review, it can be stated that cross-contamination of the 14 major food allergens below 0.5 mg/100 g is likely not to endanger most food allergic patients when a standard portion of food is consumed. We propose to use the statement “this product contains the named allergens in the list of ingredients, it may contain traces of other contaminations (to be named, e.g. nut) at concentrations less than 0.5 mg per 100 g of this product” for a voluntary declaration on processed food packages. This level of avoidance of cross-contaminations can be achieved technically for most processed foods, and the statement would be a clear and helpful message to the consumers. However, it is clearly acknowledged that a voluntary declaration is only a first step to a legally binding solution. For this, further research on threshold levels is encouraged. © 2021 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review used the GRADE approach to compile evidence to inform the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) anaphylaxis guideline. METHODS: We searched five bibliographic databases from 1946 to 20 April 2020 for studies about the diagnosis, management and prevention of anaphylaxis. We included 50 studies with 18 449 participants: 29 randomized controlled trials, seven controlled clinical trials, seven consecutive case series and seven case-control studies. Findings were summarized narratively because studies were too heterogeneous to conduct meta-analysis. RESULTS: It is unclear whether the NIAID/FAAN criteria or Brighton case definition are valid for immediately diagnosing anaphylaxis due to the very low certainty of evidence. There was also insufficient evidence about the impact of most anaphylaxis management and prevention strategies. Adrenaline is regularly used for first-line emergency management of anaphylaxis but little robust research has assessed its effectiveness. Newer models of adrenaline autoinjectors may slightly increase the proportion of people correctly using the devices and reduce time to administration. Face-to-face training for laypeople may slightly improve anaphylaxis knowledge and competence in using autoinjectors. We searched for but found little or no comparative effectiveness evidence about strategies such as fluid replacement, oxygen, glucocorticosteroids, methylxanthines, bronchodilators, management plans, food labels, drug labels and similar. CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening condition but, due to practical and ethical challenges, there is a paucity of robust evidence about how to diagnose and manage it.

Older adults, especially men and/or those with diabetes, hypertension, and/or obesity, are prone to severe COVID-19. In some countries, older adults, particularly those residing in nursing homes, have been prioritized to receive COVID-19 vaccines due to high risk of death. In very rare instances, the COVID-19 vaccines can induce anaphylaxis, and the management of anaphylaxis in older people should be considered carefully. An ARIA-EAACI-EuGMS (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma, European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and European Geriatric Medicine Society) Working Group has proposed some recommendations for older adults receiving the COVID-19 vaccines. Anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines is extremely rare (from 1 per 100,000 to 5 per million injections). Symptoms are similar in younger and older adults but they tend to be more severe in the older patients. Adrenaline is the mainstay treatment and should be readily available. A flowchart is proposed to manage anaphylaxis in the older patients. © 2021 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.