Search

Concerns for anaphylaxis may hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization efforts. We convened a multidisciplinary group of international experts in anaphylaxis composed of allergy, infectious disease, emergency medicine, and front-line clinicians to systematically develop recommendations regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immediate allergic reactions. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, the World Health Organizstion (WHO) global coronavirus database, and the gray literature (inception, March 19, 2021) were systematically searched. Paired reviewers independently selected studies addressing anaphylaxis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate allergy, and accuracy of allergy testing for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy. Random effects models synthesized the data to inform recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, agreed upon using a modified Delphi panel. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine anaphylaxis is 7.91 cases per million (n = 41,000,000 vaccinations; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.02-15.59; 26 studies, moderate certainty), the incidence of 0.15 cases per million patient-years (95% CI 0.11-0.2), and the sensitivity for PEG skin testing is poor, although specificity is high (15 studies, very low certainty). We recommend vaccination over either no vaccination or performing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient screening allergy testing for individuals without history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient, and a shared decision-making paradigm in consultation with an allergy specialist for individuals with a history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient. We recommend further research to clarify SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/vaccine excipient testing utility in individuals potentially allergic to SARS-CoV2 vaccines or their excipients.

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.

This review highlights research advances and important achievements in food allergy, anaphylaxis, and drug allergy that were published in the Journals of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) in 2017. Food allergy and anaphylaxis research have continued to rapidly accelerate, with increasing numbers of outstanding developments in 2017. We saw new studies on the mechanisms, diagnosis, prevention of food allergy, and novel food allergens. Drug hypersensitivity, as well as hereditary angioedema, has been highlighted in the present review as the focus of recent developments. The EAACI owns three journals: Allergy, Pediatric Allergy and Immunology (PAI), and Clinical and Translational Allergy (CTA). One of the major goals of the EAACI is to support health promotion in which prevention of allergy and asthma plays a critical role and to disseminate the knowledge of allergy to all stakeholders including the EAACI junior members. This paper summarizes the achievements of 2017 in anaphylaxis, and food and drug allergy. ispartof: PEDIATRIC ALLERGY AND IMMUNOLOGY vol:29 issue:8 pages:801-807 ispartof: location:England status: published

This consensus document summarizes the current knowledge on the potential for precision medicine in food allergy, drug allergy, and anaphylaxis under the auspices of the PRACTALL collaboration platform. PRACTALL is a joint effort of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, which aims to synchronize the European and American approaches to allergy care. Precision medicine is an emerging approach for disease treatment based on disease endotypes, which are phenotypic subclasses associated with specific mechanisms underlying the disease. Although significant progress has been made in defining endotypes for asthma, definitions of endotypes for food and drug allergy or for anaphylaxis lag behind. Progress has been made in discovery of biomarkers to guide a precision medicine approach to treatment of food and drug allergy, but further validation and quantification of these biomarkers are needed to allow their translation into practice in the clinical management of allergic disease.

The accurate assessment and communication of the severity of acute allergic reactions is important to patients, clinicians, researchers, the food industry, 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 works across the range of allergenic triggers and addresses 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 is clinically meaningful and is 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. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Background Most published studies on anaphylaxis are retrospective or register based. Data on subsequent diagnostic workup are sparse. We aimed to characterize patients seen with suspected anaphylaxis at the emergency care setting (ECS), after subsequent diagnostic workup at our Allergy Center (AC). Methods Prospective study including patients from the ECS, Odense University Hospital, during May 2013-April 2014. Possible anaphylaxis cases were daily identified based on a broad search profile including history and symptoms in patient records, diagnostic codes and pharmacological treatments. At the AC, all patients were evaluated according to international guidelines. Results Among 226 patients with suspected anaphylaxis, the diagnosis was confirmed in 124 (54.9%) after diagnostic workup; 118 of the 124 fulfilled WAO/EAACI criteria of anaphylaxis at the ECS, while six were found among 46 patients with clinical suspicion but not fulfilling the WAO/EAACI criteria at the ECS. The estimated incidence rate of anaphylaxis was 26 cases per 100 000 person-years and the one-year period prevalence was 0.04%. The most common elicitor was drugs (41.1%) followed by venom (27.4%) and food (20.6%). In 13 patients (10.5%), no elicitor could be identified. Mastocytosis was diagnosed in 7.7% of adult patients and was significantly associated with severe anaphylaxis. Atopic diseases were significantly associated only with food-induced anaphylaxis. Cofactors were present in 58.1% and were significantly associated with severe anaphylaxis. Conclusion A broad search profile in the ECS and subsequent diagnostic workup is important for identification and classification of patients with anaphylaxis. Evaluation of comorbidities and cofactors is important.

Anaphylaxis is a serious systemic allergic reaction with rapid onset and potentially life-threatening. We report in detail a case of severe nocturnal anaphylaxis due to pigeon tick bite showing the diagnostic value of the extract and the recombinant allergen in the diagnostic procedures (basophil activation test, IgE immunoblot, and experimental ImmunoCAP). Apart from the presented case, we describe that during the last 10 years, we have collected 28 cases of allergy to Argas reflexus from several European countries. We suspect that this allergy is underdiagnosed because of the lack of diagnostic reagents. Because of the growing number of pigeons in Middle and Southern Europe cities, some cases of idiopathic anaphylaxis could potentially be caused by A. reflexus in those countries. The identification of pigeon ticks as a trigger of anaphylaxis would greatly improve medical care and advice for these patients as the parasite can be exterminated by eradication measures to avoid further incidents.

Background: Amoxicillin (AX) is the ß-lactam most often involved in IgE-mediated reactions. Diagnosis is based mainly on skin testing, although sensitivity is not optimal. We produced a new AX derivative, amoxicilloyl-poly-L-lysine (APL), and analyzed its recognition of IgE using the passive histamine release test (pHRT). Methods: The study population comprised patients (n=19) with confirmed AX allergy and specific IgE to AX and controls (n=10) with good tolerance to AX. pHRT was performed using “IgE-stripped” blood from a single donor that was sensitized in vitro by patient sera and incubated with AX or APL. Histamine release was determined and expressed as nanograms of histamine released per milliliter of blood. Results: The clinical symptoms were anaphylaxis (n=9), urticaria (n=7), erythema (n=2), and nondefined immediate reactions (n=1). The median (IQR) time interval between reaction and study was 90 (60-240) days and between drug intake and development of symptoms 24 (10-60) minutes. The median sIgE level was 3.37 (0.95-5.89) kU A/L. The sensitivity of pHRT to APL was 79% and the specificity 100%, which were higher than data obtained with pHRT to AX (63% sensitivity and 90% specificity). There was a positive correlation between maximal histamine release levels obtained with AX and APL (r=0.63). Conclusions: In patients with immediate hypersensitivity reactions to AX, APL showed higher sensitivity and specificity than the culprit drug, AX, when tested in vitro by pHRT. This indicates that APL can improve the in vitro diagnostic accuracy of allergic reactions to AX. Further assessment of skin testing is necessary.

Availability of “exotic” foods is steadily increasing. In this report, we describe the first case of anaphylaxis to crocodile meat. The patient was a 13-year-old boy with severe immunoglobulin E–mediated allergy to chicken meat. When tasting crocodile meat for the first time, he developed an anaphylactic reaction. Cross-reactivity between chicken and crocodile meat was suspected to have triggered this reaction. Basophil activation and immunoglobulin E testing confirmed the boy’s allergic reaction to crocodile meat proteins. Molecular analysis identified a crocodile α-parvalbumin, with extensive sequence homology to chicken α-parvalbumin, as the main cross-reactive allergen. We conclude that crocodile meat can be a potent food allergen and patients with allergy to chicken meat should be advised to avoid intake of meat from crocodile species. Both foods and people travel around the world and accessibility to exotic foods is steadily growing. As a result, novel allergic cross-reactivities are likely to become a challenge in the management of food allergy and, as our report illustrates, cross-reactivity has to be considered even between foods that might not intuitively be perceived as related.

Anaphylaxis due to Hymenoptera stings is one of the most severe consequences of IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions. Although allergic reactions to Hymenoptera stings are often considered as a general model for the underlying principles of allergic disease, diagnostic tests are still hampered by a lack of specificity and venom immunotherapy by severe side effects and incomplete protection. In recent years, the knowledge about the molecular composition of Hymenoptera venoms has significantly increased and more and more recombinant venom allergens with advanced characteristics have become available for diagnostic measurement of specific IgE in venom-allergic patients. These recombinant venom allergens offer several promising possibilities for an improved diagnostic algorithm. Reviewed here are the current status, recent developments, and future perspectives of molecular diagnostics of venom allergy. Already to date, it is foreseeable that component-resolution already has now or will in the future have the potential to discriminate between clinically significant and irrelevant sensitization, to increase the specificity and sensitivity of diagnostics, to monitor immunotherapeutic intervention, and to contribute to the understanding of the immunological mechanisms elicited by insect venoms.

BACKGROUND: Oral wheat plus cofactors challenge tests in patients with wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (WDEIA) produce unreliable results. OBJECTIVE: We sought to confirm WDEIA diagnosis by using oral gluten flour plus cofactors challenge, to determine the amount of gluten required to elicit symptoms, and to correlate these results with plasma gliadin levels, gastrointestinal permeability, and allergologic parameters. METHODS: Sixteen of 34 patients with a history of WDEIA and ω5-gliadin IgE underwent prospective oral challenge tests with gluten with or without cofactors until objective symptoms developed. Gluten reaction threshold levels, plasma gliadin concentrations, gastrointestinal permeability, sensitivities and specificities for skin prick tests, and specific IgE levels were ascertained in patients and 38 control subjects. RESULTS: In 16 of 16 patients (8 female and 8 male patients; age, 23-76 years), WDEIA was confirmed by challenges with gluten alone (n = 4) or gluten plus cofactors (n = 12), including 4 patients with previous negative wheat challenge results. Higher gluten doses or acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) plus alcohol instead of physical exercise were cofactors in 2 retested patients. The cofactors ASA plus alcohol and exercise increased plasma gliadin levels (P < .03). Positive challenge results developed after a variable period of time at peak or when the plateau plasma gliadin level was attained. Positive plasma gliadin threshold levels differed by greater than 100-fold and ranged from 15 to 2111 pg/mL (median, 628 pg/mL). The clinical history, IgE gliadin level, and baseline gastrointestinal level were not predictive of the outcomes of the challenge tests. The challenge-confirmed sensitivity and specificity of gluten skin prick tests was 100% and 96%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Oral challenge with gluten alone or along with ASA and alcohol is a sensitive and specific test for the diagnosis of WDEIA. Exercise is not an essential trigger for the onset of symptoms in patients with WDEIA.

In 2 clinical studies in 40 conscious human volunteers and 164 orthopedic patients histamine-release responses were diagnosed, defined and classified. Polygeline (Haemaccel) in its now outdated formulation [40] was chosen as a clinical histamine releaser. The main interest was not concentrated on the extreme, the “classical” anaphylactic response, but on theaverage histamine-release response found in clinical experiments with so many drugs in the last 10 years. In human volunteers 600 ng/kg histamine was i. v. injected. Indicants for a systemic anaphylactoid reaction with the highest incidence ratio were tachycardia, plasma histamine levels >1 ng/ml, “metallic taste”, flush, congestion of head, “wet eyes” and tears, hypertension and headache. Following polygeline none of these subjects developed a life-threatening reaction, but 12 showed a systemic response, 11 a cutaneous reaction and 17 were non-responders. Indicants for a systemic anaphylactoid reaction with the highest incidence ratio were plasma histamine levels >1 ng/ml, tachycardia, wheals, sensation of heat, narrowness of throat, hypertension, headache and wet eyes or tears. In a prolective, cohort study in the orthopedic patients 3 subjects with life-threatening reactions, 27 with systemic response, 96 with cutaneous reaction and 38 non-responders were included. Indicants with the highest incidence ratio were tachycardia, plasma histamine levels >1 ng/ml, erythema and wheals, cough, flush, stuffy nose and facial oedema. With this trial the indicants for diagnosing a systemic histamine release response in volunteers were validated in patients to a large extent. Thus the average histamine-release response was defined by clinical signs such as tachycardia and mild hypertension, scattered hives such as spots of erythema and wheals, respiratory symptoms in the laryngeal and nasal region, such as cough, narrowness in the throat, stuffy nose and sneezingand by pathological plasma histamine levels (>1 ng/ml). In addition histamine-release responses were differentiated as cutaneous responses, systemic responses and life-threatening responses by clinical and operational criteria and by plasma histamine levels. Using clinical trials and medical decision making procedures the incidence of systemic histamine-release responses in patients higher by two orders of magnitude than in other studies reported hitherto.