Search

Chemotherapeutic drugs have been widely used in the treatment of cancer disease for about 70 years. The development of new treatments has not hindered their use, and oncologists still prescribe them routinely, alone or in combination with other antineoplastic agents. However, all chemotherapeutic agents can induce hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), with different incidences depending on the culprit drug. These reactions are the third leading cause of fatal drug-induced anaphylaxis in the United States. In Europe, deaths related to chemotherapy have also been reported. In particular, most reactions are caused by platinum compounds, taxanes, epipodophyllotoxins and asparaginase. Despite their prevalence and relevance, the ideal pathways for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of these reactions are still unclear, and practice remains considerably heterogeneous with vast differences from center to center. Thus, the European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology organized a task force to provide data and recommendations regarding the allergological work-up in this field of drug hypersensitivity reactions. This position paper aims to provide consensus on the investigation of HSRs to chemotherapeutic drugs and give practical recommendations for clinicians that treat these patients, such as oncologists, allergologists and internists. Key sections cover risk factors, pathogenesis, symptoms, the role of skin tests, in vitro tests, indications and contraindications of drug provocation tests and desensitization of neoplastic patients with allergic reactions to chemotherapeutic drugs. Statements, recommendations and unmet needs were discussed and proposed at the end of each section.

Oteros, Jose/0000-0002-9369-8633; Fonseca, Joao Almeida/0000-0002-0887-8796; Alvarez-Perea, Alberto/0000-0001-7417-7309; Oteros, Jose/0000-0002-9369-8633; Gevaert, Philippe/0000-0002-1629-8468; Antolin, Dario/0000-0001-5699-4022; Apfelbacher, Christian/0000-0003-3805-8219; Buters, Jeroen/0000-0003-3581-5472; Berger, Uwe E./0000-0002-9265-2131; Blank, Simon/0000-0002-5649-1078; Cardona, Victoria/0000-0003-2197-9767; Dramburg, Stephanie/0000-0002-9303-3260 WOS: 000486665800001 PubMed: 31230373 Mobile health (mHealth) uses mobile communication devices such as smartphones and tablet computers to support and improve health-related services, data and information flow, patient self-management, surveillance, and disease management from the moment of first diagnosis to an optimized treatment. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology created a task force to assess the state of the art and future potential of mHealth in allergology. The task force endorsed the "Be He@lthy, Be Mobile" WHO initiative and debated the quality, usability, efficiency, advantages, limitations, and risks of mobile solutions for allergic diseases. The results are summarized in this position paper, analyzing also the regulatory background with regard to the "General Data Protection Regulation" and Medical Directives of the European Community. The task force assessed the design, user engagement, content, potential of inducing behavioral change, credibility/accountability, and privacy policies of mHealth products. The perspectives of healthcare professionals and allergic patients are discussed, underlining the need of thorough investigation for an effective design of mHealth technologies as auxiliary tools to improve quality of care. Within the context of precision medicine, these could facilitate the change in perspective from clinician- to patient-centered care. The current and future potential of mHealth is then examined for specific areas of allergology, including allergic rhinitis, aerobiology, allergen immunotherapy, asthma, dermatological diseases, food allergies, anaphylaxis, insect venom, and drug allergy. The impact of mobile technologies and associated big data sets are outlined. Facts and recommendations for future mHealth initiatives within EAACI are listed.

Peanuts are Leguminosae, commonly known as the legume or pea family, and peanut allergy is among the most common food allergies and the most common cause of fatal food reactions and anaphylaxis.The prevalence of peanut allergy increased 3.5-fold over the past two decades reaching 1.4–2% in Europe and the United States. The reasons for this increase in prevalence are likely multifaceted. Sensitization via the skin appears to be associated with the development of peanut allergy and atopic eczema in infancy is associated with a high risk of developing peanut allergy.Until recently, the only possible management strategy for peanut allergy was strict allergen avoidance and emergency treatment including adrenaline auto-injector in cases of accidental exposure and reaction.This paper discusses the various factors that impact the risks of peanut allergy and the burden of self-management on peanut-allergic children and their caregivers.

Perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions are rare. Subsequent allergy investigation is complicated by multiple simultaneous drug exposures, the use of drugs with potent effects and the many differential diagnoses to hypersensitivity in the perioperative setting. The approach to the investigation of these complex reactions is not standardized, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that collaboration between experts in the field of allergy/immunology/dermatology and anaesthesiology is needed to provide the best possible care for these patients. The EAACI task force behind this position paper has therefore combined the expertise of allergists, immunologists and anaesthesiologists. The aims of this position paper were to provide recommendations for the investigation of immediate-type perioperative hypersensitivity reactions and to provide practical information that can assist clinicians in planning and carrying out investigations.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine BNT162b2 received approval and within the first few days of public vaccination several severe anaphylaxis cases occurred. An investigation is taking place to understand the cases and their triggers. The vaccine will be administered to a large number of individuals worldwide and concerns raised for severe adverse events might occur. With the current information, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) states its position for the following preliminary recommendations that are to be revised as soon as more data emerges. To minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions in vaccinated individuals, it is urgently required to understand the specific nature of the reported severe allergic reactions, including the background medical history of the individuals affected and the mechanisms involved. To achieve this goal all clinical and laboratory information should be collected and reported. Mild and moderate allergic patients should not be excluded from the vaccine as the exclusion of all these patients from vaccination may have a significant impact on reaching the goal of population immunity. Health care practitioners vaccinating against COVID-19 are required to be sufficiently prepared to recognise and treat anaphylaxis properly with the ability to administer adrenaline. A mandatory observation period after vaccine administration of at least 15 minutes for all individuals should be followed. The current guidelines, which exclude patients with severe allergies from vaccination with BNT162b2, should be re-evaluated after more information and experience with the new vaccine develops.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine BNT162b2 received approval and within the first few days of public vaccination several severe anaphylaxis cases occurred. An investigation is taking place to understand the cases and their triggers. The vaccine will be administered to a large number of individuals worldwide and concerns raised for severe adverse events might occur. With the current information, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) states its position for the following preliminary recommendations that are to be revised as soon as more data emerges. To minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions in vaccinated individuals, it is urgently required to understand the specific nature of the reported severe allergic reactions, including the background medical history of the individuals affected and the mechanisms involved. To achieve this goal all clinical and laboratory information should be collected and reported. Mild and moderate allergic patients should not be excluded from the vaccine as the exclusion of all these patients from vaccination may have a significant impact on reaching the goal of population immunity. Health care practitioners vaccinating against COVID-19 are required to be sufficiently prepared to recognise and treat anaphylaxis properly with the ability to administer adrenaline. A mandatory observation period after vaccine administration of at least 15 minutes for all individuals should be followed. The current data has not shown any higher risk for patients suffering from allergic rhinitis or asthma and this message should be clearly stated by physicians to give our patients trust. The benefit of the vaccination clearly outweighs the risk of severe COVID-19 development including the more than 30% of the population suffering from allergic diseases.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) constitute a major and common public health problem, particularly in children. One of the most severe manifestations of DHR is anaphylaxis, which might be associated with a life-threatening risk. During those past decades, anaphylaxis has received particularly a lot of attention and international consensus guidelines have been recently published. Whilst drug-induced anaphylaxis is more commonly reported in adulthood, less is known about the role of drugs in pediatric anaphylaxis. Betalactam antibiotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are the most commonly involved drugs, probably related to high prescription rates. Diagnosis relies on the recognition of symptoms pattern and is based on complete allergic workup, particularly including skin tests and/or specific IgE. However, the real diagnostic value of those tests to diagnose immediate reactions in children remains not well defined for a significant number of the drugs. Generally, a drug provocation test is discussed to confirm or exclude an immediate-onset drug-induced hypersensitivity. Although avoidance of the incriminated drug (and related drug) is the rule, rapid desensitization is useful in selected subgroups of patients. There is a need for large, multicentric studies, to evaluate the real diagnostic value of the currently available skin tests. Moreover there is also a need to develop new diagnostic tests in the future to improve the management of these children.

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.

The strongest and best-documented risk factor for drug hypersensitivity (DH) is the history of a previous reaction. Accidental exposures to drugs may lead to severe or even fatal reactions in sensitized patients. Preventable prescription errors are common. They are often due to inadequate medical history or poor risk assessment of recurrence of drug reaction. Proper documentation is essential information for the doctor to make sound therapeutic decision. The European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology have formed a task force and developed a drug allergy passport as well as general guidelines of drug allergy documentation. A drug allergy passport, a drug allergy alert card, a certificate, and a discharge letter after medical evaluation are adequate means to document DH in a patient. They are to be handed to the patient who is advised to carry the documentation at all times especially when away from home. A drug allergy passport should at least contain information on the culprit drug(s) including international nonproprietary name, clinical manifestations including severity, diagnostic measures, potential cross-reactivity, alternative drugs to prescribe, and where more detailed information can be obtained from the issuer. It should be given to patients only after full allergy workup. In the future, electronic prescription systems with alert functions will become more common and should include the same information as in paper-based documentation.

Background\ud \ud 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.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud 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.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud 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.\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud 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.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used in the pediatric population as antipyretics/analgesics and anti-inflammatory medications. Hypersensitivity (HS) reactions to NSAID in this age group, while similar to adults, have unique diagnostic and management issues. Although slowly accumulating, published data in this age group are still relatively rare and lacking a unifying consensus. This work is a summary of current knowledge and consensus recommendations utilizing both published data and expert opinion from the European Network of Drug Allergy (ENDA) and the Drug Hypersensitivity interest group in the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI). This position paper summarizes diagnostic and management guidelines for children and adolescents with NSAIDs hypersensitivity.

Immunization is highly effective in preventing infectious diseases and therefore an indispensable public health measure. Allergic patients deserve access to the same publicly recommended immunizations as nonallergic patients unless risks associated with vaccination outweigh the gains. Whereas the number of reported possible allergic reactions to vaccines is high, confirmed vaccine-triggered allergic reactions are rare. Anaphylaxis following vaccination is rare, affecting less than 1/100,000, but can occur in any patient. Some patient groups, notably those with a previous allergic reaction to a vaccine or its components, are at heightened risk of allergic reaction and require special precautions. Allergic reactions, however, may occur in patients without known risk factors and cannot be predicted by currently available tools. Unwarranted fear and uncertainty can result in incomplete vaccination coverage for children and adults with or without allergy. In addition to concerns about an allergic reaction to the vaccine itself, there is fear that routine childhood immunization may promote the development of allergic sensitization and disease. Thus, although there is no evidence that routine childhood immunization increases the risk of allergy development, such risks need to be discussed. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Introduction: Ants, bees and wasps are insects in Order Hymenoptera. Victims of Hymenoptera sting can present with nuisance pain to more severe form of anaphylaxis [1]. Ropalidia marginata (Kaladuruwa) is the most common social wasp of Peninsula of India [2]. Traditional medication is a common practice in rural Sri Lanka for insect sting. Nest of the Ropalidia marginata is crushed and mixed with water to make a paste which is applied on the painful area over the stinging site of paper wasp as a common traditional treatment.Although there are many cases of allergic reactions after wasp sting, the individual species of Ropalidia marginata causing severe anaphylaxis is not reported. We report a school boy presented with severe anaphylaxis after this paper wasp sting in Deniyaya, Sri Lanka.

The purpose of this editorial is to highlight the recent ratification as WAO Position Papers of 2 important documents published in the World Allergy Organization Journal (WAO Journal). The "World Allergy Organization (WAO) Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Rationale against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines," ratified as a WAO Position Paper by the WAO House of Delegates, March 21, 2011, involves a significant pediatric food allergy problem and provides invaluable guidelines for the clinician. This impressive collection of information on this worldwide problem will help in the management of cow's milk allergy, which has profound implications for growth and development and the health of children worldwide. Under the able leadership of Professor Alessandro Fiocchi (Italy), the Chair of the WAO Special Committee on Food Allergy, an international group has put together a scholarly and well-appointed review of all the issues related to cow's milk allergy (CMA), ranging from methodology and epidemiology through a variety of other aspects of the clinical syndrome. DRACMA provides the guidelines for diagnosing CMA, and the proper natural history treatment alternatives ranging from avoidance through identification of milk derived from a variety of other sources, including unusual sources, which can be used for dietary supplementation. DRACMA employed evidence-based methodology utilizing the criteria of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) in its analysis of the literature. "World Allergy Organization Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Anaphylaxis," the WAO Position Paper ratified on February 18, 2011, is a thorough, extensive work completed by worldwide anaphylaxis and allergy experts of the WAO Special Committee on Anaphylaxis led by Chair, Professor F. Estelle Simons. In addition to clearly defining, in a concise manner, the syndrome, its severity, and the possibility for treatment, the document has also provided a very clear and detailed management plan for acute anaphylaxis in both high- and low-resource areas. This is an important stride forward and the WAO Journal as always looks to better care for allergy sufferers at risk for anaphylaxis and for significant morbidity and mortality. This position paper is an excellent resource to help those circumstances. The Position Paper series within the WAO Journal is intended to address the needs of the profession worldwide. Along with the 2 most recent documents, and another on the state of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), the series also includes a treatise on defining an allergist, basic qualities of an allergist, training required for allergists, and educational requirements--all to impart allergy education to students, residents, and practitioners. The WAO and the WAO Journal will continue to invest in the development and identification of guidelines for treating important, clinically relevant syndromes associated with allergic disease such as cow's milk allergy or anaphylaxis. The recently ratified position papers and other WAO documents published in WAO Journal can be accessed in the following linked list of titles: • World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines • World Allergy Organization Guidelines for the Assessment and Management of Anaphylaxis • Sub-Lingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2009 • Recommendations for Competency in Allergy Training for Undergraduates Qualifying as Medical Practitioners: A Position Paper of the World Allergy Organization • Requirements for Physician Competencies in Allergy: Key Clinical Competencies Appropriate for the Care of Patients With Allergic or Immunologic Diseases: A Position Statement of the World Allergy Organization • What Is an Allergist?: Reconciled Document Incorporating Member Society Comments, September 3, 2007

Mastocytosis is a clonal disorder characterized by the proliferation and accumulation of mast cells (MC) in different tissues, with a preferential localization in skin and bone marrow (BM). The excess of MC in mastocytosis as well as the increased releasability of MC may lead to a higher frequency and severity of immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Mastocytosis in adults is associated with a history of anaphylaxis in 22-49%. Fatal anaphylaxis has been described particularly following hymenoptera stings, but also occasionally after the intake of drugs such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids and drugs in the perioperative setting. However, data on the frequency of drug hypersensitivity in mastocytosis and vice versa are scarce and evidence for an association appears to be limited. Nevertheless, clonal MC disorders should be ruled out in cases of severe anaphylaxis: basal serum tryptase determination, physical examination for cutaneous mastocytosis lesions, and clinical characteristics of anaphylactic reaction might be useful for differential diagnosis. In this position paper, the ENDA group performed a literature search on immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions in clonal MC disorders using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, reviewed and evaluated the literature in five languages using the GRADE system for quality of evidence and strength of recommendation.

Introduction: Anaphylaxis is a serious, life-threatening systemic allergic reaction that may occur in individuals not previously diagnosed with an allergy. Emergency first-line treatment of choice for acute anaphylaxis is intramuscular administration of epinephrine via an auto-injector. In the school setting, students with known allergies typically keep or carry an epinephrine auto-injector (EAI). For students who do not have a known allergy or for those whose personal EAIs are unavailable, an anaphylactic event could have serious adverse outcomes if an EAI is not available via an undesignated stock supply in the school. Methods: We searched the published literature from 2000 through 2018 in CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PubMed using the following search terms: anaphylaxis, school setting, epinephrine auto-injector, and food allergies. Throughout this article, undesignated stock EAIs, stock EAIs, EAI stock, and open-order EAIs are used interchangeably. Conclusion: Anaphylaxis is increasing worldwide as the incidence of food allergies increases. Although stock EAIs for students in schools can have important benefits, the availability of EAIs in the school setting is limited. Barriers to undesignated stock EAIs include the lengthy administrative process for developing school policies and protocols; gaps in nurses’ self-perceived knowledge versus objective knowledge on the topic of anaphylaxis; limited resources in many school districts; and complex role demands, lack of confidence in trained staff, or insufficient school nurse staffing. It is important that epinephrine be readily available in schools. Barriers to facilitating stock EAIs include those that can be addressed directly by nurses and those that may require policy changes. Nurses, particularly those working in school settings or pediatrics, could take the lead in discussions about the benefits of stock EAIs in schools, advocating for policy changes as warranted. Fully informed nurses can be better prepared to serve as advocates in ensuring that EAIs are available in school settings.

SLIT ( sublingual immunotherapy ) induces allergen-specific immune tolerance by sublingual administration of a gradually increasing dose of an allergen. The mechanism of SLIT is comparable to those during SCIT (subcutaneous immunotherapy), with the exception of local oral dendritic cells, pre-programmed to elicit tolerance. In the SLIT dose, to achieve the same efficacy as in SCIT, it should be 50–100 times higher with better safety profile. The highest quality evidence supporting the efficacy of SLIT lasting 1 – 3 years has been provided by the large scale double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) trials for grass pollen extracts, both in children and adults with allergic rhinitis. Current indications for SLIT are allergic rhinitis (and conjunctivitis) in both children and adults sensitized to pollen allergens (trees, grass, Parietaria ), house dust mites ( Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, Dermatophagoides farinae ), cat fur, as well as mild to moderate controlled atopic asthma in children sensitized to house dust mites. There are positive findings for both asthma and new sensitization prevention. Severe adverse events, including anaphylaxis, are very rare, and no fatalities have been reported. Local adverse reactions develop in up to 70 – 80% of patients. Risk factors for SLIT adverse events have not been clearly identified. Risk factors of non-adherence to treatment might be dependent on the patient, disease treatment, physician-patient relationship, and variables in the health care system organization.

G on treatment of allergic rhinitis and strategies to manage anaphylaxis were among several key practice parameters released in 2015. In addition, a few key papers commented on the cross-reactivity and tolerability of cephalosporins in patients who have experienced hypersensitivity reactions to these agents in the past, and on the use of live attenuated in uenza vaccine (LAIV) in those with an egg allergy. These key papers are reviewed here; for additional information, clinicians are encouraged to access the full citations.

The three currently available paper radioallergosorbent tests ('suxamethonium', alcuronium and thiopentone) were evaluated. 'Suxamethonium' radioallergosorbent test (which employs choline conjugated to paper discs) proved to be reliable in the detection of allergy to neuromuscular blockers, which were confirmed as the most common cause of anaphylactic reaction during general anaesthesia. Thiopentone radioallergosorbent test may also be useful, and is recommended in conjunction with 'suxamethonium' radioallergosorbent test in the preliminary investigation of reactions. Patients with positive 'suxamethonium' radioallergosorbent test usually require further testing, including alcuronium radioallergosorbent test, skin testing with a wide range of drug concentrations or leucocyte histamine release test.

BackgroundThe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has evolved as a pandemic infectious disease transmitted by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐)2. Allergists and other health care providers (HCPs) in the field of allergies and associated airway diseases are in the front line, taking care of patients potentially infected with SARS‐CoV‐2. Hence, strategies and practices to minimize risks of infection for both HCPs and treated patients have to be developed and followed by allergy clinics.MethodThe scientific information on COVID‐19 was analyzed by a literature search in Medline, Pubmed, national and international guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Cochrane Library and the Internet.ResultsBased on diagnostic and treatment standards developed by EAACI, on international information regarding COVID‐19, on guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organizations as well as on previous experience, a panel of experts including clinicians, psychologists, IT experts and basic scientists along with EAACI and the “Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)” inititiative have developed recommendations for the optimal management of allergy clinics during the current COVID‐19 pandemic. These recommendations are grouped into nine sections on different relevant aspects for the care of patients with allergies.ConclusionsThis international Position Paper provides recommendations on operational plans and procedures to maintain high standards in the daily clinical care of allergic patients whilst ensuring necessary safety in the current COVID‐19 pandemic.

Submitted by (omml@ubi.pt) on 2021-07-05T10:47:24Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2021_Bousquet J_A_COVID anaphylaxis.pdf: 12561118 bytes, checksum: 2f801ee76ad2cb3cbdaa02ffabea8e09 (MD5) Approved for entry into archive by Pessoa (pfep@ubi.pt) on 2021-07-05T10:49:11Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2021_Bousquet J_A_COVID anaphylaxis.pdf: 12561118 bytes, checksum: 2f801ee76ad2cb3cbdaa02ffabea8e09 (MD5) Rejected by Pessoa (pfep@ubi.pt), reason: Rever os nomes dos autores. Depois da correção é só voltar a submeter. on 2021-07-05T10:54:19Z (GMT) Submitted by (omml@ubi.pt) on 2021-07-05T11:52:24Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2021_Bousquet J_A_COVID anaphylaxis.pdf: 12561118 bytes, checksum: 2f801ee76ad2cb3cbdaa02ffabea8e09 (MD5) Approved for entry into archive by Pessoa (pfep@ubi.pt) on 2021-07-05T13:34:51Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2021_Bousquet J_A_COVID anaphylaxis.pdf: 12561118 bytes, checksum: 2f801ee76ad2cb3cbdaa02ffabea8e09 (MD5) Approved for entry into archive by Pessoa (pfep@ubi.pt) on 2021-07-05T13:35:49Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2021_Bousquet J_A_COVID anaphylaxis.pdf: 12561118 bytes, checksum: 2f801ee76ad2cb3cbdaa02ffabea8e09 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2021-07-05T13:35:49Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2021_Bousquet J_A_COVID anaphylaxis.pdf: 12561118 bytes, checksum: 2f801ee76ad2cb3cbdaa02ffabea8e09 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2021-04-02 info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The first approved COVID‐19 vaccines include Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162B2, Moderna mRNA‐1273 and AstraZeneca recombinant adenoviral ChAdOx1‐S. Soon after approval, severe allergic reactions to the mRNA‐based vaccines that resolved after treatment were reported. Regulatory agencies from the European Union, Unites States and the United Kingdom agree that vaccinations are contraindicated only when there is an allergy to one of the vaccine components or if there was a severe allergic reaction to the first dose. This position paper of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) agrees with these recommendations and clarifies that there is no contraindication to administer these vaccines to allergic patients who do not have a history of an allergic reaction to any of the vaccine components. Importantly, as is the case for any medication, anaphylaxis may occur after vaccination in the absence of a history of allergic disease. Therefore, we provide a simplified algorithm of prevention, diagnosis and treatment of severe allergic reactions and a list of recommended medications and equipment for vaccine centres. We also describe potentially allergenic/immunogenic components of the approved vaccines and propose a workup to identify the responsible allergen. Close collaboration between academia, regulatory agencies and vaccine producers will facilitate approaches for patients at risks, such as incremental dosing of the second injection or desensitisation. Finally, we identify unmet research needs and propose a concerted international roadmap towards precision diagnosis and management to minimise the risk of allergic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccines and to facilitate their broader and safer use.

Forensic diagnosis of anaphylactic shock is a challenging task in forensic practice due to the lack of characteristic morphological changes. Postmortem analysis of serum IgE can provide helpful information for determining anaphylaxis. However, postmortem serum always suffers from hemolysis. To investigate the interference of hemolysis on postmortem analysis of total IgE by electrochemiluminescent immunoassay (ECLIA) and verify the suitability of the commercially available ECLIA kit for postmortem hemolyzed blood with the dilution-correction method, different levels of hemolyzed serum were prepared to evaluate the interference of hemolysis. A linear regression analysis was then performed on the concentration of total IgE in the completely hemolyzed blood and the corresponding serum. Our results indicated that hemolysis negatively interfered with the total IgE analysis by ECLIA and the interference (|Bias%|) increased with increasing levels of hemolysis. After controlling for |Bias%| by dilution, the test concentration of total IgE in the completely hemolyzed blood was still significantly lower than that in the serum (P

Introduction It is known that the administration of the drug during the oral aspirin challenge (OAC) can cause hypersensitivity symptoms not only from the respiratory system or skin, but also from the cardiovascular system. Aim To assess the occurrence and nature of cardiovascular adverse events during the OAC in patients suspected of hypersensitivity to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Material and methods The study included 52 patients with symptoms of hypersensitivity to aspirin (ASA) or other NSAIDs in the form of skin reactions or respiratory response in anamnesis. Patients were treated with OAC and simultaneously were subject to monitoring of clinical manifestations of hypersensitivity to ASA/NSAIDs, ventilation disorders and cardiovascular functions. Results The most common reaction of the cardiovascular system during OAC was tachycardia or supraventricular and ventricular extrasystoles, regardless of the day of the study and the result of OAC. Supraventricular and ventricular tachycardia was recorded incidentally. Atrial or ventricular fibrillation or flutter was not observed. There was no evidence of any ischemic heart disease. In 2 patients, hypotension was registered, but only 1 of them required typical treatment of anaphylaxis. Conclusions No clinically significant cardiac arrhythmias were recorded during OAC. The changes observed in the records of blood pressure and ECG monitoring show that OAC performed in accordance with the current guidelines does not pose a high risk to the patient’s health and life as a result of cardiovascular reactions.

Anafilaxi; COVID-19; Polietilenglicol Anafilaxia; COVID-19; Polietilenglicol Anaphylaxis; COVID-19; Polyethylene glycol Vaccines against COVID-19 (and its emerging variants) are an essential global intervention to control the current pandemic situation. Vaccines often cause adverse events; however, the vast majority of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) are a consequence of the vaccine stimulating a protective immune response, and not allergic in etiology. Anaphylaxis as an AEFI is uncommon, occurring at a rate of less than 1 per million doses for most vaccines. However, within the first days of initiating mass vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2, there were reports of anaphylaxis from the United Kingdom and United States. More recent data imply an incidence of anaphylaxis closer to 1:200,000 doses with respect to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. In this position paper, we discuss the background to reactions to the current COVID-19 vaccines and relevant steps to mitigate against the risk of anaphylaxis as an AEFI. We propose a global surveillance strategy led by allergists in order to understand the potential risk and generate data to inform evidence-based guidance, and thus provide reassurance to public health bodies and members of the public.

Summary Background Parents of school-age children with food allergies and potential anaphylactic reactions want their children to have an unburdened and risk-free everyday school life. Thus, particularly in the case of peanut allergy, demands for peanut-free schools are put forward. Results and discussion The position paper of the food allergy working group of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie) highlights why the concept of peanut-free schools does not protect peanut allergic children, but rather bears potential disadvantages and risks for all those involved. The focus on peanut as a potential trigger of anaphylactic reactions ignores other relevant triggers. Conclusion In order to address the fears and concerns of patients, parents, and school staff, it is mandatory to develop various coping strategies. These should enable and ensure the safety and participation of food-allergic pupils in classes and other school activities. Therefore, it is important to implement adequate measures for allergen avoidance and emergency treatment for students with confirmed food allergies.

Clinical symptoms of food allergy may affect not only the digestive tract, but also the respiratory system, skin, or cardiovascular system. They may manifest themselves as gastrointestinal problems, asthma attacks, hives, or anaphylactic shock. Allergic reactions of the gastrointestinal tract may be IgE-independent (oral anaphylaxis syndrome, acute gastrointestinal reactions), mixed (eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders), or IgE-independent (food-induced enterocolitis, proctitis, or enteropathy). The most serious conditions in which allergic background plays or can play an important role are: oral anaphylaxis syndrome, aphthous stomatitis, reflux disease, acute and chronic allergic reactions of gastric mucosa, irritable bowel syndrome, and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders.

Introduction Onion (Allium cepa) handling can induce contact dermatitis, rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma. However, only sporadic reports exist on allergic reactions to onion consumption. Aim We describe herein a case of a 35-year-old man who had an episode of anaphylaxis following cooked onion ingestion. We evaluated onion-specific IgE, the possible cross-reactivity between onion and peach and lymphocyte proliferation in response to onion. Material and methods Specific IgE was evaluated using two techniques: skin test and ImmunoCAP technology. Cross-reactivity between onion and peach was evaluated by IgE-ELISA inhibition test. As for lymphocyte proliferation, blood mononuclear cells were stained with CFSE dye and cultured with an in-house onion extract. Proliferation and phenotype was assessed by flow-cytometry. Results The skin test and ImmunoCAP confirmed the IgE-dependent response towards onion. The incubation of the patient serum with increasing concentrations of the peach extract reduced only scarcely (~30%) onion-specific IgE. Interestingly, B cells but not T cells showed proliferation in response to onion extract. Conclusions In conclusion, our report shows that cooked onion can induce severe allergic reactions, suggesting the presence of thermostable components. Moreover, we applied for the first time a B-cell-based approach to the diagnosis of food allergy. This latter approach might also be applied to other allergic conditions.

Introduction Hymenoptera venom allergy (HVA) in some patients occurs with general symptoms involving respiratory and cardiovascular system with anaphylactic shock with constitutes a significant threat to life. Aim Assessment of the prevalence of HVA in our own material. Material and methods There were 498 patients after a general reaction to wasp and/or bee venom. The survey included questions: the type of stinging insect, body parts stung by insects, profession, frequency of stings by wasps and bees depending on professional activity, places of stings, clinical symptoms using the scale according to Muller, and the treatment following the sting. Among 498 patients, there were 281 women and 217 men. Results Wasp stings were more frequent and affected 382 (77%) persons, while bee stings affected 116 (23%) persons. Limbs constituted the most common area of the body stung by both wasps and bees. The sting was more frequent in rural areas and during summer rest. A severe systemic reaction (class III and IV according to Muller) occurred more often in people stung by bees. The most common medications included intravenous glucocorticosteroids, calcium preparations and antihistamines. Intramuscular Adrenaline injection was used in 48% of patients, while only 15% received its prescription as an emergency medication. Bee stings were the most common cause of severe systemic symptoms. Conclusions The treatment after the sting in a significant percentage of episodes still deviates from the recommendations of the guidelines, especially in the field of adrenaline recommendations for patients in case of a resting by an insect.

Severe adverse events (AEs) following post-exposure rabies vaccination had been occasionally described in previous studies. Once AEs occurred, immediate medical treatment and appropriate change of vaccine and vaccination schedule were of significance. It was also important and challengeable to determine the relationship among adverse reactions, vaccines residues and laboratory tests for patients, to choose a proper vaccine in resumed vaccination, to avoid the reoccurrence of AEs and to ensure adequate immune response. Here, we present steps about how to cope with AEs by giving an example with a two-year-old girl who was identified as category II exposure to rabies, suffered from anaphylaxis after first dose administration with human diploid rabies vaccine (HDCV) so vaccination was temporarily suspended. Dexamethasone was prescribed to her in anti-allergy therapy. Allergy tests indicated that the patient was not sensitive to allergens and heterologous proteins. Vaccine test report showed that residual kanamycin existed in that batch of vaccines. This reminded us to provide her antibiotic skin sensitivity test which found she was allergic to kanamycin. Thus, we could conclude it was the cause of AEs. Then, 0.5 mL lyophilized Purified Vero Cell Rabies Vaccine (PVRV) without any residues was enrolled in the resumed vaccination. To ensure successful immunization, immunogenicity test was also provided which showed adequate immune response (RVNA ≥ 0.5 IU/mL) starting from day14. Besides, no further AEs occurred afterward. This study emphasized the importance of in-depth survey, analysis and implied the necessity to scientifically and properly choose the optimal vaccine for patients and appropriately provide treatments if AEs occurred.

Introduction The number of anaphylaxis diagnoses in children is rising, being still based on the clinical picture. Aim To determine whether triggers of anaphylaxis influence its clinical characteristics in children and adolescents. Material and methods The study group included 114 children (5 months-17 years, mean age: 8.0 ±4.8 years), (66%: boys) with the episode of anaphylaxis up to 1 year back. Medical data were entered to the NORA Registry by means of a validated structured on-line questionnaire. Results Three most frequent triggers of anaphylaxis were: insect venom (47.4%), food (35.1%), drugs (5.3%), with a predominance of food (egg white, cow's milk, nuts and peanuts) in the 0-6 years age group, while insect venom (bee predominance) in the 7-17 years age group (p = 0.016). Clinical manifestations differed between food vs. venom allergic reactions and presented as gastro-intestinal (GI) (61.4%) (p = 0.004), respiratory (RS) (93.9%) (p = 0.036), and cardiovascular (CVS) (74.6%) (p = 0.022) symptoms. Among objective symptoms, vomiting was the most common symptom in the 0-2 years age group (47.1%) (p = 0.006), while hypotension in those aged 7-12 years (40%) (p = 0.010). Severity of symptoms evaluated as Mueller's grade (IV - 74.5%) and as Ring and Messmer's grade (III - 65.8%), depended on the trigger (p = 0.028, p = 0.029, respectively). Life-threatening symptoms occurred in 26 children (fall of the blood pressure - 22%, loss of consciousness - 4.4%). Conclusions The clinical manifestation of anaphylaxis in children is both trigger and age dependent, irrespective of the gender. A typical patient with food anaphylaxis was younger, presenting predominantly GI symptoms, while a typical patient with venom anaphylaxis was older, with mostly cardiovascular symptoms.

Allergy 76(4), 1010-1023 (2021). doi:10.1111/all.14645, Published by Wiley, Oxford

International audience; Anaphylaxis is the most severe clinical presentation of acute systemic allergic reactions. The occurrence of anaphylaxis has increased in recent years, and subsequently, there is a need to continue disseminating knowledge on the diagnosis and management, so every healthcare professional is prepared to deal with such emergencies. The rationale of this updated position document is the need to keep guidance aligned with the current state of the art of knowledge in anaphylaxis management. The World Allergy Organization (WAO) anaphylaxis guidelines were published in 2011, and the current guidance adopts their major indications, incorporating some novel changes. Intramuscular epinephrine (adrenaline) continues to be the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. Nevertheless, its use remains suboptimal. After an anaphylaxis occurrence, patients should be referred to a specialist to assess the potential cause and to be educated on prevention of recurrences and self-management. The limited availability of epinephrine auto-injectors remains a major problem in many countries, as well as their affordability for some patients.