Search

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.

Although there is a general perception that the prevalence of food allergy is increasing, data supporting this are limited. Food is the least common cause of fatal anaphylaxis, and fortunately, it is a very rare event; however, it is also unpredictable. There is widespread consensus that severe reactions cannot be predicted in a clinically meaningful way. Certain food triggers are more frequently associated with fatal anaphylaxis than others. In observational studies, peanut and tree nuts account for at least 30% to 50% of fatalities, with seafood and cow's milk also associated with fatal reactions. Fatal food-induced anaphylaxis is most likely to occur during adolescence and young adulthood, although the reasons for this are unclear. International guidelines agree that intramuscular (IM) epinephrine is the treatment of choice for managing food-triggered anaphylaxis and has a good safety profile when given by the IM route. However, fatalities still occur despite the timely administration of epinephrine. Food-allergic individuals must navigate a world that requires daily vigilance for allergens and preparedness for allergic reactions. Although the actual risk of fatal reactions is minimal, it is not zero, and severe reactions are unpredictable. Clinicians need to help patients better understand the very low but real risk of fatal reaction and enable them to lead as normal a life as possible through appropriate education, safety netting, and risk reduction.

Background/objectives Mastocytosis is a complex disorder presenting with a broad clinical spectrum. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the frequency of systemic symptoms, necessity of the usage of epinephrine autoinjectors (EAI), and factors affecting the use of EAI among pediatric patients with cutaneous mastocytosis (CM). Methods The study population was composed of 53 patients with CM. The clinical data were collected from the medical files. A questionnaire about the patient's anaphylaxis experiences and treatment attitudes toward EAI was performed. Results Thirty-three of 53 patients were male (62.3%), and the median age of the study participants was 80 months. Anaphylaxis was reported in two patients (3.7%). One of the patients had drug-induced anaphylaxis, and the other had venom-induced anaphylaxis. Three patients (5.6%) reported a personal history of EAI use due to systemic symptoms. Patients with higher serum tryptase level and cases of familial mastocytosis had more systemic symptoms (P = .012 and P = .010, respectively). The patient rate of compliance with EAI for prescription filling and carrying the EAI was 88.7% and 79.2% respectively. 41.5% of parents were hesitant to use EAI when necessary, although they were trained for the use of it by medical staff. Conclusions The rate of anaphylaxis in patients with CM in the current study wassignificant and justifies prescribing EAI. Detailed education and counseling on EAI usage are needed to reduce parental hesitancy.

Background Community use of epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis is low. Knowledge of rates of epinephrine use in the pre–hospital setting along with identification of barriers to its use will contribute to the development of policies and guidelines. Objectives A search was conducted on PubMed and Embase in April 2020. Our systematic review focused on 4 domains: (1) epinephrine use in the pre–hospital setting; (2) barriers to epinephrine use in the pre–hospital setting; (3) cost evaluation and cost-effectiveness of epinephrine use; and (4) programs and strategies to improve epinephrine use during anaphylaxis. Methods Two meta-analyses with logit transformation were conducted to: (1) calculate the pooled estimate of the rate of epinephrine use in the pre–hospital setting among cases of anaphylaxis and (2) calculate the pooled estimate of the rate of biphasic reactions among all cases of anaphylaxis. Results Epinephrine use in the pre–hospital setting was significantly higher for children compared with adults (20.98% [95% confidence interval (CI): 16.38%, 26.46%] vs 7.17% [95% CI: 2.71%, 17.63%], respectively, P = .0027). The pooled estimate of biphasic reactions among all anaphylaxis cases was 3.92% (95% CI: 2.88%, 5.32%). Our main findings indicate that pre–hospital use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis remains suboptimal. Major barriers to the use of epinephrine were identified as low prescription rates of epinephrine autoinjectors and lack of stock epinephrine in schools, which was determined to be cost-effective. Finally, in reviewing programs and strategies, numerous studies have engineered effective methods to promote adequate and timely use of epinephrine. Conclusion The main findings of our study demonstrated that across the globe, prompt epinephrine use in cases of anaphylaxis remains suboptimal. For practical recommendations, we would suggest considering stock epinephrine in schools and food courts to increase the use of epinephrine in the community. We recommend use of pamphlets in public areas (ie, malls, food courts, etc.) to assist in recognizing anaphylaxis and after that with prompt epinephrine administration, to avoid the rare risk of fatality in anaphylaxis cases.

This pilot survey was designed to evaluate the characteristics of anaphylactic events and epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) use in children in U.S. schools. A cross-sectional, web-based, pilot survey of schools participating in the EPIPEN4SCHOOLS® program (Mylan Specialty L.P., Canonsburg, PA) assessed characteristics of anaphylactic events and EAI use during the 2013–2014 academic year. Respondents reported 757 anaphylactic events experienced by students; student grade level was noted for 724 events. Of these events, 32.3% (234/724) were experienced by students in grade school, 18.6% (135/724) by students in middle school, and 49.0% (355/724) by students in high school. Frequency of food-related triggers was consistently high across grade levels. However, many events experienced by students in high school (22.3%, 79/355), middle school (15.0%, 20/135), and grade school (14.1%, 33/234) had an unknown trigger. In 36.0% of schools (2008/5579), only the school nurse and select staff received training to recogni...

Background Fluoride varnish is widely used in dentistry as a caries preventive measure with recommendations for its use even in infants. In addition, nondental providers are also applying varnish on children's teeth in various settings. However, there are questions from these nondental providers as to the safety of fluoride varnish. Methods To evaluate and describe the adverse events (AEs) related to fluoride varnish, the US Food and Drug Administration’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database was used. AEs reported for the dental product code for “varnish, cavity,” “varnish,” and “fluoride” were evaluated. The identified AEs were then reviewed and categorized using appropriate key words for the various signs and symptoms, outcomes, and treatment. Results Over the 10-year period, only 65 AEs were reported for fluoride varnish products. Swelling (33.8%); burning, itching, or soreness (23.1%); and rash (16.9%) were the most common signs and symptoms reported. The most common site reported was the lips (27.7%). The most common outcome was that the patient was taken to the hospital (18.5%) or emergency department (15.4%). No deaths were reported. The patients were treated primarily using diphenhydramine (Benadryl, Johnson & Johnson Consumer) (26.1%), followed by an epinephrine autoinjector (EpiPen, Mylan) and other forms of epinephrine (15.4%), and prednisolone (9.2%). In 16.9% of the cases with AEs there was a history of allergies. The rate of AEs is estimated to be between 0.099 and 0.105 per million for fluoride varnish. A concern is the likelihood of underreporting AEs in the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database. Conclusions Given the widespread use of fluoride varnish in the United States, the number of AEs reported to the US Food and Drug Administration were few. Thus fluoride varnish can be considered a safe dental product. Practical Implications Provides data on the safety of fluoride varnish that can be used by the dental profession to allay concerns by nondental providers and patients on this important caries preventive measure.

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.

Previous guidance on infant anaphylaxis largely relied on data from older children and adults. Infants are a unique subgroup, which presents specific challenges because infants are unable to verbalize symptoms, although the magnitude of underrecognition is not well studied. Data show that strict avoidance of allergens is difficult to achieve in the infant age group and a source of stress and anxiety for their caregivers. Recent studies suggest that infant anaphylaxis is less severe than in older children, which could greatly assist with implementation of food allergy prevention and treatment. New evidence from clinical trials and observational and real-world studies show that infant anaphylaxis is rare on first ingestion of a new food and typically not severe when it occurs, which parents may not be aware of when preparing to introduce peanut or other common food allergens to infants for the purpose of prevention. The better safety and efficacy of oral immunotherapy in infants and preschoolers could help prevent undesired psychosocial consequences of longstanding food allergy such as anxiety, bullying, and poor quality of life. Evidence from recent years on the lower risk of infant anaphylaxis and its severity could move allergy practice toward the confidence that regular, long-term ingestion provides.

BACKGROUND Epinephrine is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. Patients at risk should always carry an epinephrine autoinjector (EAI). Several EAI gaps have been identified. We sought to evaluate satisfaction using a medical device (digital technology comprising an EAI smart case connected to a mobile APP) with functions that overcome most of the EAI limitations and to determine whether patient behaviour and anaphylaxis management improve with its use. METHODS This was a randomized, open-label, crossover clinical trial in a tertiary hospital involving patients with history of anaphylaxis carrying an EAI. The study was conducted in two three-month periods, one with and one without the medical device. The primary endpoint was satisfaction with the medical device. Usability, adherence, anxiety and anaphylaxis episodes were evaluated as secondary endpoints. RESULTS A total of 100 patients were included (mean age 38.1 years, 74% female), and 95 completed the trial. The satisfaction visual analogue scale (VAS) after using the medical device was higher than before its use (89.1 [95% CI, 60.2-99.1] vs 56.3 [95% CI, 48.1-81.4]; P

Objective Food allergy encompasses a range of food hypersensitivities. Different clinical phenotypes for food allergy likely exist in much the same way as endotype discovery is now a major research theme in asthma. We discuss the emerging evidence for different reaction phenotypes (ie, symptoms experienced after allergen exposure in food allergic individuals) and their relevance for clinical practice. Data Sources Published and unpublished literature relating to reaction phenotypes in food allergy. Study Selections Authors assessment of the available data. Results Food anaphylaxis may be pathophysiologically different than anaphylaxis caused by nonfood triggers. Currently, there are no robust, clinically useful predictors of severity in food allergy. It is likely that patient-specific reaction phenotypes exist in food allergy, which may affect the risk of severe anaphylaxis. Allergen immunotherapy may modulate these phenotypes. Conclusion Data are emerging to confirm our clinical experience that many food allergic patients experience stereotypical symptoms after allergen exposure, both in the community and at supervised oral food challenge, in a manner that varies among patients. Integrating data sets from different cohorts and applying unbiased machine-based learning analyses may demonstrate specific food allergy endotypes in a similar way to asthma. Whether this results in improvements in patient management (eg, through facilitating risk stratification or affecting the decision to prescribe an epinephrine autoinjector and, perhaps, the number of devices) remains to be determined, but given our current inability to predict which patients are most at risk of severe food allergic reactions, this will clearly be an important area of research in the future.

Epinephrine is life-saving and the only first-line medication in the management of anaphylaxis. At therapeutic doses, it acts rapidly to reverse nearly all symptoms of anaphylaxis, and stabilize mast cells. The standard approved doses administered intramuscularly in the lateral thigh have a long track record for safe and effective use, but more information is needed on epinephrine pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics to ensure that current dosing strategies are optimal. Epinephrine should be administered promptly once anaphylaxis is suspected, to minimize morbidity and mortality. Providers on the front-line for managing patients with life-threatening allergic reactions need clear parameters and tools to guide the appropriate use of epinephrine, which take into account the potential evolution of symptoms and signs over time. All patients at risk for anaphylaxis should carry 2 epinephrine autoinjectors and be taught and able to demonstrate how to use them. Epinephrine autoinjectors need to be affordable, readily available, and easy for patients with allergies to carry and use. Furthermore, these devices should be available to meet the needs of all patients, from small infants through large or obese adults. The ideal means for storing and delivering epinephrine in prehospital and hospital environments warrants further study, to determine how to best balance efficiency, safety, and costs.

Background Food allergy is a potentially life-threatening disease, affecting up to 10% of the pediatric population. Objective The aim of our study was to assess the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of food-allergic patients compared with the general population and patients with other chronic diseases with dietary or allergic burden, in a cross-sectional study. Methods We recruited patients aged 8-17 years diagnosed with food allergy and matched healthy controls recruited in schools. We also included patients with asthma, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, diabetes, obesity, and eating disorders. We used the CHQ-CF87 questionnaire for generic HRQL assessment. Food allergy HRQL was also assessed using specific questionnaires: Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire (FAQLQ) and Food Allergy Independent Measure (FAIM). Results One hundred and thirty-five food-allergic children, 255 children with chronic diseases, and 463 healthy controls were included in the analyses. Food-allergic patients had a better HRQL than healthy controls in the Behavior (BE), Bodily Pain (BP), Family Activities (FA), and Mental Health (MH) domains and a worse HRQL in the General Health Perception (GH) domain (p = .048). Food-allergic patients exhibited a better HRQL than patients affected by other chronic diseases, notably diabetes. Although an epinephrine autoinjector had been prescribed to 87.4% of the food-allergic children, only 54.2% of them carried it at all times. Conclusion Food-allergic patients display overall good HRQL compared with the general population and those with other diseases with daily symptoms and treatments, in line with recent improvements in food allergy management.

The key to managing anaphylaxis is early epinephrine administration. This can improve outcomes and prevent progression to severe and fatal anaphylaxis. Delayed or lack of administration of epinephrine is associated with fatal reactions. Positioning in a recumbent supine position, airway management, and intravenous fluids are essential in its management. Antihistamines and glucocorticosteroids should not be prescribed in place of epinephrine. β-adrenergic agonists by inhalation are indicated for bronchospasm associated with anaphylaxis despite optimal epinephrine treatment. Long-term management of anaphylaxis includes the identification and avoidance of triggers; identification of cofactors, such as mast cell disorders; patient, parent, and caregiver education, and interventions to reduce allergen sensitivity, such as the use of venom immunotherapy for Hymenoptera hypersensitivity. Long-term management is covered in other articles. Consultation with an allergist/immunologist is recommended when necessary.

Limited real-world data exist regarding patient carrying compliance and confidence in using different types of epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs).To perform a Real-world Assessment of Patients' Carrying Time and Confidence with Epinephrine Autoinjector Devices (RACE survey).This was a noninterventional survey of patients (≥7 years) who filled 1 or more prescription for Auvi-Q or EpiPen between January 2013 and January 2014. Outcomes included proportion of patients carrying their EAI all the time in the last 7 days (primary), EAI use confidence (secondary), and EAI training experience (secondary). Multivariate regression analyses controlled for significant differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between EAI groups.The survey included 2,000 participants (Auvi-Q, N = 1,000 [children, n = 597; adults, n = 403]; EpiPen, N = 1,000 [children, n = 105; adults, n = 895]). After adjusting for confounding factors, we found that Auvi-Q respondents were more likely to carry their device all the time in the last 7 days versus EpiPen respondents (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.49-2.45; P.001); similar trends were observed in adults and children (P.001 both). Adults in the Auvi-Q group were more likely to feel "very confident" about correctly using their EAI (aOR, 2.02) and someone else correctly using their EAI (aOR, 2.25) versus the EpiPen group (P.001 both). Compared with EpiPen respondents, Auvi-Q respondents were more likely to feel that EAI instructions were "very clear" (aOR, 3.10) and more likely to find the prescription pack trainer helpful (aOR, 2.29; P.01 both).This study suggests significant real-world differences in patients' carrying time, confidence in use, and training experiences between Auvi-Q and EpiPen users.

Awareness about food allergy and food-induced anaphylaxis (FIA) has increased dramatically over the past decade. It remains unclear, however, whether concordance with guidelines for FIA management has improved over time.Our objective was to describe changes in emergency department (ED) concordance with guidelines for FIA management.We analyzed data from 2 multicenter retrospective studies of patients with food-related acute allergic reactions seen in 1 of 17 EDs during 2 time periods: 1999 to 2001 and 2013 to 2015. Visits were identified similarly across years-for example, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes 693.1, 995.60, 995.61-995.69, 995.0, and 995.3. Anaphylaxis was defined as an acute allergic reaction with involvement of 2+ organ systems or hypotension. We compared concordance between time periods for 4 guideline recommendations: (1) treatment with epinephrine, (2) discharge prescription for an epinephrine autoinjector (EAI), (3) referral to an allergist/immunologist, and (4) instructions to avoid offending allergen.We compared 290 patients with FIA during 1999 to 2001 and 459 during 2013 to 2015. Any treatment with epinephrine (pre-ED or in the ED) for patients with FIA increased over time (38% vs 56%; P.001). Prescriptions for EAI at discharge (24% vs 54%; P.001) and documentation for referral to an allergist/immunologist (14% vs 24%; P = .001) approximately doubled, whereas instructions to avoid the offending allergen did not change significantly (37% vs 43%; P = .08). Receipt of 3+ guideline recommendations remained low but almost quadrupled over the study interval (6% vs 23%; P.001).Over the nearly 15-year study interval, we observed clinically and statistically significant increases in ED concordance with epinephrine-related guidelines for FIA. Management gaps remain and interventions to standardize care still appear warranted.

Anaphylaxis is significantly underdiagnosed, and the medical community's knowledge about it is precarious. The aim of this study is to characterize the patient population and the Emergency Department approach of anaphylaxis.Retrospective study of adult patients attending the Emergency Department of a tertiary care Portuguese hospital, over a year, with anaphylaxis. Data were obtained from each patient's clinical records and anonymized. A questionnaire evaluating knowledge about the notification of anaphylaxis was applied to Emergency Department physicians.The study included 69 patients. Cutaneous (97%) and respiratory features (80%) were most prevalent; 22% of patients presented with shock or related symptoms. There were no reported biphasic reactions or deaths. The likely allergen was identified in 73%, most commonly food; 12% of reactions were related to a previously known allergen. Epinephrine was administered to 15%. Referral to an Immunoallergologist was done in 36% of patients, and 10% received or already possessed an epinephrine autoinjector. Among six parameters recommended for auditing clinical practice, 70% of cases fulfilled less than half. Only 13% of physicians knew it was mandatory to register all cases in the Portuguese Catalogue of Allergies and Other Adverse Reactions, and only 4% knew how to do it; regarding notification to the National Authority of Medicines and Health Products results were slightly better.Many patients with anaphylaxis present to the Emergency Department every year, and their clinical approach is not in agreement with national guidelines.An educational program to increase medical awareness of the national guidelines and mandatory notification of all anaphylactic reactions should be implemented.Introdução: A anafilaxia é significativamente subdiagnosticada e o conhecimento médico acerca da mesma é precário. Pretende-se caracterizar a população de doentes e a abordagem clínica da anafilaxia no Serviço de Urgência. Material e Métodos: Estudo retrospetivo da população adulta que recorreu ao Serviço de Urgência de um hospital terciário português durante um ano, com anafilaxia. Os dados foram obtidos dos registos clínicos de cada paciente e anonimizados. Um questionário para avaliar conhecimentos sobre notificação de reações anafiláticas foi aplicado aos médicos do Serviço de Urgência. Resultados: O estudo incluiu 69 doentes. Os sintomas cutâneos (97%) e respiratórios (80%) foram os mais prevalentes; 22% apresentaram-se com choque ou sintomas associados. Não se registaram reações bifásicas ou óbitos. O alergénio provável foi identificado em 73%; maioritariamente foram alimentos; 12% das reações foram com um alergénio previamente conhecido. Adrenalina foi administrada em 15%; 36% foram encaminhados para Imunoalergologia; 10% receberam ou já possuíam adrenalina autoinjetável. Em 70% dos casos, menos de metade dos seis parâmetros das Normas de Orientação Clínica foram cumpridos. Apenas 13% dos médicos sabia que era obrigatório registar todos os casos no Catálogo Português de Alergias e Outras Reações Adversas e apenas 4% sabiam como fazê-lo; relativamente à notificação das reações a fármacos à Autoridade Nacional do Medicamento e Produtos de Saúde, I.P., obtiveram-se resultados ligeiramente melhores. Discussão: Muitos doentes recorrem ao Serviço de Urgência com reações anafiláticas e a sua abordagem não está em concordância com as normas de orientação clínica nacionais. Conclusão: É necessário implementar ações de formação relativamente à abordagem clínica e notificação da anafilaxia.

A 3-year-old boy presented to the emergency department with acute left knee pain and inability to bear weight with his left leg. He had a peanut allergy, for which he had been prescribed an epinephrine autoinjector. Five days before presentation, he had taken his autoinjector from his mother’s

Background Regulatory bodies recommend that all patients at risk of anaphylaxis be prescribed 2 epinephrine autoinjectors, which they should carry at all times. This is in contrast to some guidelines. The proportion of anaphylaxis reactions that are treated with multiple doses of epinephrine has not been systematically evaluated. Objective Our aim was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies reporting epinephrine treatment for anaphylaxis in which data relating to the number of doses administered were available. Methods We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant studies reporting at least 10 anaphylaxis events (due to food or venom) from 1946 until January 2020. Data were extracted in duplicate for the meta-analysis, and the risk of bias was assessed. The study was registered under the PROSPERO identifier CRD42017069109. Results A total of 86 studies (36,557 anaphylaxis events) met the inclusion criteria (20 of the studies [23%] were prospective studies; 64 [74%] reported reactions in the community, and 22 [26%] included food challenge data). Risk of bias was assessed as low in 50 studies. Overall, 7.7% of anaphylaxis events from any cause (95% CI = 6.4-9.1) were treated with multiple doses of epinephrine. When only epinephrine-treated reactions for which subsequent doses were administered by a health care professional were considered, 11.1% of food-induced reactions (95% CI = 9.4-13.2) and 17.1% of venom-induced reactions (95% CI = 11.3-25.0) were treated with more than 1 epinephrine dose. Heterogeneity was moderate to high in the meta-analyses, but at sensitivity analysis this estimate was not affected by study design or anaphylaxis definition. Conclusion Around 1 in 10 anaphylaxis reactions are treated with more than 1 dose of epinephrine.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy (FA) affects >25 million US adults, resulting in substantial health care utilization. Data suggest that patients with FA suffer impairments in FA-related quality of life (FAQoL); however, little is known regarding psychosocial impacts of FA among US adults. OBJECTIVE: To characterize FAQoL among a large, nationally representative adult sample, and its determinants, including sociodemographic characteristics, severity, comorbid conditions, allergic symptoms, number and type of allergens, and health care utilization. METHODS: A survey was administered between October 2015 and September 2016 to a nationally representative sample of US households. Survey constructs included the Food Allergy Independent Measure (FAIM), which was developed to quantify adverse impacts of living with FA on patient quality of life. FAIM responses were analyzed from adults reporting current FA (N = 6207). Linear regression models examined associations with sociodemographic and FA characteristics. RESULTS: The overall estimated mean FAIM score was 2.87 (95% confidence interval: 2.83-2.90). FAIM scores (range = 1-7) in adjusted models were invariant by race/ethnicity, private/public insurance status, and census division. Significant differences (P < .05) by lower household income, lower age, and greater education emerged, resulting in higher FAIM scores indicating FAQoL impairment. Among major food allergens, wheat, soy, and milk allergies were each associated with the greatest increases in adjusted FAIM scores. Reporting a current epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) prescription, severe allergic reaction history, history of EAI use, FA-related emergency department visits, or more FAs were also associated with significantly higher FAIM scores. CONCLUSION: The population-level psychosocial burden of adults with FA is substantial, broadly distributed, and differs by demographic and allergic disease characteristics.

Background:There are known racial and socioeconomic disparities in the use of epinephrine autoinjectors (EAI) for anaphylaxis.Objective:To measure the rates of EAI prescription filling and identify patient demographic factors associated with filling rates among patients discharged from the pediatric emergency department.Methods:This was a retrospective observational cohort study of all patients discharged from a pediatric emergency department who received an outpatient prescription for an EAI between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2019. The rates of prescription filling were calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify sociodemographic factors associated with prescription filling.Results:Of 717 patients included in the analysis, 54.8% (95% confidence interval {CI}, 51.1%‐58.5%) filled their prescription. There were no significant associations between EAI fill rates and patient age or sex. In bivariable analysis, non-Hispanic white patients were more likely to fill EAI prescriptions compared with non-Hispanic Black patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.89 [95% CI, 1.11‐3.20]), and patients with in-state Medicaid were significantly less likely to fill EAI prescriptions compared with those patients with private insurance (OR 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48‐0.98]). However, after multivariable adjustment, there was no significant difference in filling by age, insurance status, or race or ethnicity.Conclusions:Only approximately half the patients had their EAI prescriptions filled after discharge. Filling rates did not vary by sociodemographic characteristics.

Background Data are sparse regarding the clinical characteristics and management of fruit-induced anaphylaxis. Objective To assess clinical characteristics and management of patients with fruit-induced anaphylaxis and determine factors associated with severe reactions and epinephrine use. Methods Over 9 years, children and adults presenting with anaphylaxis to seven emergency departments in four Canadian provinces and patients requiring emergency medical services in Outaouais, Quebec were recruited as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry. A standardized form documenting symptoms, triggers, and management was collected. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with severe reactions and epinephrine treatment in the pre-hospital setting. Results We recruited 250 patients with fruit-induced anaphylaxis, median age 10.2 years (interquartile range, 3.6-23.4 years); 48.8% were male. The most common fruit triggers were kiwi (15.6%), banana (10.8%), and mango (9.2%). Twenty-three patients reported having eczema (9.3%). Epinephrine use was low in both the pre-hospital setting and the emergency department (28.4% and 40.8%, respectively). Severe reactions to fruit were more likely to occur in spring and among those with eczema (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.23; and 1.17, 95% CI, 1.03-1.34, respectively). Patients with moderate and severe reactions (aOR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.43) and those with a known food allergy (aOR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.24-1.54) were more likely to be treated with epinephrine in the pre-hospital setting. Conclusions Severe anaphylaxis to fruit is more frequent in spring. Cross-reactivity to pollens is a potential explanation that should be evaluated further.

Background There is limited research demonstrating the real-world economic burden of peanut allergy (PA) in the United States. The Peanut Allergy Burden Study (PABS) is a cross-sectional quantitative survey designed to determine the real-world experience of patients and caregivers with PA. The objective of the study was to understand the real-world utilization of PA-related healthcare resources and the impact of PA on productivity. Methods Participants completed an online survey to examine the real-world 12-month and lifetime healthcare utilization and past week productivity impact of PA in children (as reported by caregiver proxy), adolescents with PA, adults with PA, and caregivers of children with PA. Results Healthcare resource use over the past 12 months was frequent for adults (n = 153), adolescents (n = 102), and children (as reported by caregivers) (n = 382) with PA. Patients and caregivers reported the following rates of PA-related utilization in the past 12 months: at least 3 regular allergist appointments (28.8%–39.3%), unscheduled allergist appointments (15.6%–18.3%), general practitioner appointments (16.7%–24.2%), over-the-counter (OTC) medication usage (28.5%–35.7%), and epinephrine autoinjector usage (17.7%–26.2%). Additionally, over half of patients and caregivers reported ≥1 PA-related emergency department (ED)/urgent care visit (57.5%–59.9%), overnight hospital admission (36.3%–47.4%), IV epinephrine use (37.2%–52.3%), or intubation (26.2%–39.8%) over the past 12 months for PA. Healthcare resource use was high among all groups. Regarding productivity, PA significantly impacted household work, schoolwork, and employed work for patients and caregivers. PA-related reactions also impacted school attendance of children with PA. Conclusion Many healthcare resources were utilized by patients with PA and there was a loss of productivity associated with PA for patients and caregivers. New treatments to prevent or lower the risk of PA reactions could potentially help reduce healthcare resource utilization and PA-related productivity loss among patients and their families, particularly for patients for whom avoidance as a treatment strategy has not been reliable.

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.

Background and objectives: The epidemiology of food allergy (FA) and food-dependent anaphylaxis remains unknown in Colombia. Our aim was to estimate by parent-report the prevalence of FA and food-dependent anaphylaxis in a Colombian population of schoolchildren. Materials and methods: A printed questionnaire was sent to parents of schoolchildren aged 5–12 years old from Medellín, Colombia in order to collect FA-related data. Results: Nine hundred and sixty-nine (969) parents returned the questionnaire with valid responses (response rate, 52.5%). The estimated prevalence rates (95% CI) were: adverse food reactions 12.79% (10.76–15.07), “perceived FA, ever” 10.93% (9.08–13.08), “physician-diagnosed FA, ever” 4.33% (3.14–5.81), “immediate-type FA, ever” 6.81% (5.30–8.58), “immediate-type FA, current” 3.30% (2.26–4.63), and food-dependent anaphylaxis 1.85% (1.10–2.92). The most frequently reported food allergens were milk (1.44%), fruits (0.41%), meat (0.41%), and peanut (0.3%). Sixty-one percent of “food-dependent anaphylaxis” cases sought medical attention, but only eleven percent of the cases reported the prescription of an epinephrine autoinjector. Conclusions: FA and food-dependent anaphylaxis are not uncommon among schoolchildren from Colombia. The prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors should be encouraged among health personnel for the optimal management of suspected cases of food-dependent anaphylaxis.

Infant anaphylaxis has been increasing in incidence; however, significant gaps in the literature remain. The aim of this article is to review the most recent literature pertaining to infant anaphylaxis and discuss recent findings related to epidemiology, diagnosis, management, and prevention. There is no accurate report of the incidence and prevalence of anaphylaxis in infancy. Food is the most common trigger for infant anaphylaxis reported. The diagnosis of anaphylaxis in infants is often missed, and, even when the diagnosis is made, epinephrine continues to be under-utilized. An epinephrine autoinjector with a shorter needle and lower dose is now available for infants. Concise criteria specifically focusing on infant anaphylaxis is needed to streamline its diagnosis and management. Diagnosis is underrecognized in infants leading to improper treatment. When the diagnosis is made, epinephrine continues to be under-utilized and under-prescribed in infants.

BackgroundFor a century, epinephrine has been the drug of choice for acute treatment of systemic allergic reactions/anaphylaxis. For 40 years, autoinjectors have been used for the treatment of anaphylaxis. Over the last 20 years, intramuscular epinephrine injected into the thigh has been recommended for optimal effect.ObjectiveTo review the literature on pharmacokinetics of epinephrine autoinjectors.ResultsSix studies assessing epinephrine autoinjector pharmacokinetics were identified. The studies, all on healthy volunteers, were completed by Simons, Edwards, Duvauchelle, Worm and Turner over the span of 2 decades. Simons et al. published two small studies that suggested that intramuscular injection was superior to subcutaneous injection. These findings were partially supported by Duvauchelle. Duvauchelle showed a proportional increase in Cmaxand AUC0-20when increasing the dose from 0.3 to 0.5 mg epinephrine intramuscularly. Turner confirmed these findings. Simons, Edwards and Duvauchelle documented the impact of epinephrine on heart rate and blood pressure. Turner confirmed a dose-dependent increase in heart rate, cardiac output and stroke volume. Based on limited data, confirmed intramuscular injections appeared to lead to faster Cmax. Two discernable Cmax’swere identified in most of the studies. We identified similarities and discrepancies in a number of variables in the aforementioned studies.ConclusionsIntramuscular injection with higher doses of epinephrine appears to lead to a higher Cmax. There is a dose dependent increase in plasma concentration and AUC0-20. Most investigators found two Cmax’swith Tmax5–10 min and 30–50 min, respectively. There is a need for conclusive trials to evaluate the differences between intramuscular and subcutaneous injections with the epinephrine delivery site confirmed with ultrasound.