Search

Anaphylaxis is a growing paediatric clinical emergency that is difficult to diagnose because a consensus definition was lacking until recently. Many European countries have no specific guidelines for anaphylaxis. This position paper prepared by the EAACI Taskforce on Anaphylaxis in Children aims to provide practical guidelines for managing anaphylaxis in childhood based on the limited evidence available. Intramuscular adrenaline is the acknowledged first-line therapy for anaphylaxis, in hospital and in the community, and should be given as soon as the condition is recognized. Additional therapies such as volume support, nebulized bronchodilators, antihistamines or corticosteroids are supplementary to adrenaline. There are no absolute contraindications to administering adrenaline in children. Allergy assessment is mandatory in all children with a history of anaphylaxis because it is essential to identify and avoid the allergen to prevent its recurrence. A tailored anaphylaxis management plan is needed, based on an individual risk assessment, which is influenced by the child’s previous allergic reactions, other medical conditions and social circumstances. Collaborative partnerships should be established, involving school staff, healthcare professionals and patients’ organizations. Absolute indications for prescribing self-injectable adrenaline are prior cardiorespiratory reactions, exercise-induced anaphylaxis, idiopathic anaphylaxis and persistent asthma with food allergy. Relative indications include peanut or tree nut allergy, reactions to small quantities of a given food, food allergy in teenagers and living far away from a medical facility. The creation of national and European databases is expected to generate better-quality data and help develop a stepwise approach for a better management of paediatric anaphylaxis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The accurate assessment and communication of the severity of acute allergic reactions are important to patients, clinicians, researchers, the food industry, and public health and regulatory authorities. Severity has different meanings to different stakeholders with patients and clinicians rating the significance of particular symptoms very differently. Many severity scoring systems have been generated, most focusing on the severity of reactions following exposure to a limited group of allergens. They are heterogeneous in format, none has used an accepted developmental approach, and none has been validated. Their wide range of outcome formats has led to difficulties with interpretation and application. Therefore, there is a persisting need for an appropriately developed and validated severity scoring system for allergic reactions that work across the range of allergenic triggers and address the needs of different stakeholder groups. We propose a novel approach to develop and then validate a harmonized scoring system for acute allergic reactions, based on a data‐driven method that is informed by clinical and patient experience and other stakeholders’ perspectives. We envisage two formats: (i) a numerical score giving a continuum from mild to severe reactions that are clinically meaningful and are useful for allergy healthcare professionals and researchers, and (ii) a three‐grade‐based ordinal format that is simple enough to be used and understood by other professionals and patients. Testing of reliability and validity of the new approach in a range of settings and populations will allow eventual implementation of a standardized scoring system in clinical studies and routine practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background A major drawback of oral immunotherapy for food allergy is the possibility of severe side-effects. We assessed both safety and efficacy of a low allergenic hydrolysed egg (HydE) preparation used in a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized study in egg allergic children. Methods In a pilot multicentre study, 29 egg allergic patients (aged 1-5.5 years) were administered daily for 6 months 9 g HydE or placebo in a blinded, randomized manner. Safety was verified by oral food challenge to assess tolerance towards HydE at the start and efficacy by an open oral food challenge ( OFC, primary outcome) at the end. Additionally, changes in basophil activation and specific IgE and IgG4 were assessed. Results All egg allergic patients randomized to HydE ( n = 15) tolerated the full dose at day 1 and received the maintenance dose from the start at home. No statistically significant difference was observed on the final OFC (36% and 21% had a negative OFC in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively). Specific IgG4 levels increased, while both CD203c+ and CD63+ basophils decreased significantly more over time in the treatment than in the placebo group. Conclusions HydE can be regarded as a safe, low allergenic product to use in children allergic to egg. Although not significant, HydE given for 6 months increased numerically the proportion of patients becoming tolerant to egg. HydE induced a modulation of the immune response towards better tolerance. A longer treatment period and/or a higher dose may improve the clinical outcome and should be evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is the result of a consensus on the mechanisms of exercise-induced anaphylaxis (EIAn), an unpredictable and potentially fatal syndrome. A multidisciplinary panel of experts including exercise physiologists, allergists, lung physicians, paediatricians and a biostatistician reached the given consensus. Exercise-induced anaphylaxis (EIAn) describes a rare and potentially fatal syndrome in which anaphylaxis occurs in conjunction with exercise. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying EIAn have not yet been elucidated although a number of hypotheses have been proposed. This review evaluates the validity of each of the popular theories in relation to exercise physiology and immunology. On the basis of this evidence, it is concluded that proposed mechanisms lack validity, and it is recommended that a global research network is developed with a common approach to the diagnosis and treatment of EIAn in order to gain sufficient power for scientific evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening condition that is increasing in prevalence in the developed world. There is universal expert agreement that rapid intramuscular injection of adrenaline is life-saving and constitutes the first-line treatment of anaphylaxis. The unpredictable nature of anaphylaxis and its rapid progression makes necessary the availability of a portable emergency treatment suitable for self-administration. Thus, anaphylaxis treatment guidelines recommend that at-risk patients are provided with adrenaline auto-injectors ( AAIs). Despite these clear recommendations, current emergency treatment of anaphylaxis continues to be inadequate in many cases. The aim of this review is to highlight the barriers that exist to the use and availability of AAIs and that prevent proper management of anaphylaxis. In addition, we review the characteristics of all AAIs that are presently available in Europe and the USA and discuss the need for regulatory requirements to establish the performance characteristics of these devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]