Search

Rationale: Allostatic load (AL), a novel measure of the physiologically dysregulated response of the body to stress, represents a biomarker of chronic stress exposure. Objectives: To determine whether preadolescent children with high AL are more susceptible to asthma as adolescents. Methods: This was a prospective evaluation of children recruited at 7 to 10 years of age in the nested case-control arm of the Study of Asthma, Genes and Environment and followed until 11 to 14 years of age. AL was measured using eight biomarkers: fasting glucose, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate, cortisol, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and waist-to-hip ratio. AL, created from the sum of biomarkers in a high-risk quartile, was related to prevalence and incidence of asthma using logistic regression. Measurements and Main Results: Among 352 participants followed until 11 to 14 years of age, prevalent asthma was four times more likely in boys with high (>3) versus low (<=2) AL after adjusting for current asthma/atopy, age, ethnicity, parental history of asthma, and overweight status. Similar results were observed in the analysis of new-onset asthma in boys (adjusted odds ratio, 4.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-15.9). In girls, there were no associations between AL and asthma. In the analysis of a subset of biomarkers, combinations of total cholesterol, glucose, and cortisol were associated with similar or greater risk of asthma prevalence or onset in boys. Conclusions: AL and its biomarkers are associated with an increased likelihood of asthma in adolescent boys. The observed association between AL and asthma may be attributable to a combined subset of AL biomarkers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non-immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergies are characterized by delayed gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations that occur after exposure to an inciting food protein; they include food protein-induced allergic proctocolitis (FPIAP), food protein-induced enteropathy (FPE), and food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES). Although the exact mechanisms underlying these disorders are not well understood, non-IgE-mediated food allergies likely represent a spectrum of disease with shared pathophysiological processes. Typically, these non-IgE-mediated food allergies begin in infancy or early childhood, although FPIES can present across the lifespan, with increasing reports in adults in recent years. Diagnosing non-IgE-mediated food allergies can be challenging due to the lack of noninvasive confirmatory tests or biomarkers for most of these disorders and the non-specific nature of GI symptoms. Thus, the diagnosis is usually made clinically, and relies on a constellation of typical symptoms that improve upon removal of the culprit food. The primary approach to management of FPIAP, FPE and FPIES is avoidance of the triggering food, and a multidisciplinary management approach that includes allergy/immunology may be required to avoid unnecessary food restriction and guide food reintroduction. This review outlines the clinical manifestations, epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, management, and prognosis of these non-IgE-mediated food allergies., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: Dr. Victoria E. Cook has participated in advisory boards and has received consulting fees and honoraria from Aralez/Miravo, CSL Behring, and ALK. Dr. Lori A. Connors has participated in advisory boards and has received consulting fees and honoraria from Astra Zeneca, GSK, Novartis and Sanofi. Dr. Timothy K. Vander Leek has participated in advisory boards and has received consulting fees and honoraria from Aralez/Miravo, Bausch Health, Covis Pharma and Pfizer. Dr. Wade Watson is medical advisor to Food Allergy Canada., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially fatal systemic hypersensitivity reaction with varied mechanisms and clinical presentations. Although prompt recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis are imperative, both patients and healthcare professionals often fail to recognize and diagnose its early signs. Clinical manifestations vary widely, however, the most common signs are cutaneous symptoms, including urticaria and angioedema. Immediate intramuscular administration of epinephrine into the anterolateral thigh is first-line therapy, and is always safe even if the diagnosis is uncertain. The mainstays of long-term management include specialist assessment, allergen avoidance measures, and the provision of an epinephrine auto-injector with an individualized anaphylaxis emergency plan. This article provides an overview of the causes, clinical features, diagnosis, and acute as well as long-term management of anaphylaxis., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Ethics approval and consent to participate are not applicable to this review article. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: Dr Elissa M. Abrams is an employee of Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC); views expressed are her own and not those of PHAC. She is Section Head for Anaphylaxis/Food Allergy, and a Member of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (CSACI). Dr. Waleed Alqurashi has received grant funding from the Canadian Institute for Health Research. Dr. David A. Fischer is a previous President of the Canadian Society of Allergy & Clinical Immunology (CSACI). He has received consulting fees and honoraria for continuing education from AstraZeneca, GSK, Bausch Health, Valeo, AbbVie, Takeda, ALK, Pfizer, Aralez, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, Pediapharm and Teva Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Timothy K. Vander Leek has participated in advisory boards and has received consulting fees and honoraria from Aralez/Miravo, Bausch Health, and Covis Pharma. Dr. Anne K. Ellis has participated in advisory boards for ALK-Abello, AstraZeneca, Bausch Health, LEO Pharma, Miravo, Merck, Novartis, has been a speaker for ALK-Abello, AstraZeneca, Bausch, Miravo, Medexus, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, StallergenesGreer and Regeneron. Her institution has received research grants from ALK Abello, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer LLC, Medexus, Novartis, Sanofi and Regeneron. She has also served as an independent consultant to Bayer LLC, Pharming, and Regeneron. About this supplement: This article has been published as part of Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, Volume 20 Supplement 03, 2024: Practical Guide for Allergy and Immunology in Canada 2024. The full contents of the supplement are available at https://aacijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/supplements/volume-20-supplement-3 ., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

This position statement addresses the critical concerns and recommended practices surrounding the use of panel food testing for diagnosing food allergies. Food allergies are a significant public health concern, and the misdiagnosis of food allergies remains a prevalent concern, made worse by the ongoing use of panel food testing. The practice of screening patients for multiple food allergens, regardless of clinical relevance, is commonly referred to as "panel food testing." Fundamentally, a panel food test is not simply a single test; a panel food test is a series of several distinct tests for multiple foods, each with its own variable predictive value. These tests have not been adequately validated as screening tests and carry a considerable false positive rate. The resulting false diagnoses lead to unnecessary dietary restrictions, increased healthcare costs, and significant psychosocial distress for patients and their families., Competing Interests: Declarations. Competing interests: DPM has provided consultation and speaker services for Alladapt and is an investigator for DBV and ALK-Abello and serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Food Allergy. MH is an investigator for DBV and ALK-Abello. RLW is an investigator for Cour Pharmaceuticals. HK has provided consultation and speaker services for ALK, AstraZeneca, Bausch Health, CSL Behring, GSK, Miravo, Novartis, Pediapharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, Shire, Takeda, Valeo. EL has provided consultation services for ALK-Abello. COI: employee of Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC); views expressed are my own and not those of PHAC SC and SH reports no conflict of interest. TKVL has served on advisory boards for and received honoraria from ALK-Abelló, Aralez/Miravo, Bausch Health, Covis Pharma and Pfizer. T K Vander Leek serves as immediate past president on the Board of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history., (Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Recent guideline recommendations have shifted from recommending prolonged avoidance of allergenic foods in the first 3 years of life to a primary prevention approach involving the deliberate early introduction to infants at risk of developing food allergy. Despite this, some infants, especially those with severe eczema who are at highest risk for developing peanut allergy, fail to receive the preventative benefits of early peanut introduction due to hesitancy and other factors. Difficulty adhering to regular ingestion after introduction further reduces the effectiveness of primary prevention. As emerging real-world evidence has demonstrated that performing peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) among infants is effective and safe, peanut OIT could be a treatment option for infants with peanut allergy. This review discusses the benefits, risks, and barriers to offering peanut OIT to infants who fail primary prevention strategies. We propose the novel concept that infants with peanut allergy be offered peanut OIT as soon as possible after failed peanut introduction through a shared decision-making process with the family, where there is a preference for active management rather than avoidance., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Infants at high risk for developing a food allergy have either an atopic condition (such as eczema) themselves or an immediate family member with such a condition. Breastfeeding should be promoted and supported regardless of issues pertaining to food allergy prevention, but for infants whose mothers cannot or choose not to breastfeed, using a specific formula (i.e., hydrolyzed formula) is not recommended to prevent food allergies. When cow's milk protein formula has been introduced in an infant's diet, make sure that regular ingestion (as little as 10 mL daily) is maintained to prevent loss of tolerance. For high-risk infants, there is compelling evidence that introducing allergenic foods early-at around 6 months, but not before 4 months of age-can prevent common food allergies, and allergies to peanut and egg in particular. Once an allergenic food has been introduced, regular ingestion (e.g., a few times a week) is important to maintain tolerance. Common allergenic foods can be introduced without pausing for days between new foods, and the risk for a severe reaction at first exposure in infancy is extremely low. Pre-emptive in-office screening before introducing allergenic foods is not recommended. No recommendations can be made at this time about the role of maternal dietary modification during pregnancy or lactation, or about supplementing with vitamin D, omega 3, or pre- or probiotics as means to prevent food allergy., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

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., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the deprioritization of non-emergency services, such as oral food challenges and the initiation of oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food-allergic children. Recent studies have suggested that home-based peanut OIT could be a safe and effective option for low-risk peanut-allergic children. In the period between September 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, nine preschoolers with a history of mild allergic reactions to peanut underwent home-based peanut OIT. Eight of them (88.9%) completed the build-up phase at home in 11-28 weeks, tolerating a daily maintenance dose of 320 mg peanut protein. During the build-up, six patients (75.0%) reported urticaria, three (33.3%) reported gastrointestinal tract symptoms, and one (14.3%) reported oral pruritis. None of the patients developed anaphylaxis, required epinephrine, or attended emergency services related to OIT. One or two virtual follow-up visits were completed per patient during the build-up phase. Our case series shows that home-based OIT could be offered to the low-risk preschoolers during the COVID-19 pandemic when non-emergency services are limited and could be considered beyond the pandemic, especially for the families living in the rural or remote areas that may otherwise be unable to access OIT., Competing Interests: EC has received research support from DBV Technologies; has been a member of advisory boards for Pfizer, Pediapharm, Leo Pharma, Kaleo, DBV, AllerGenis, Sanofi Genzyme, Bausch Health, and Avir Pharma; is a member of the healthcare advisory board for Food Allergy Canada; and was co-lead of the CSACI oral immunotherapy guidelines. VC has been a member of advisory boards for Sanofi Genzyme, Bausch Health, and ALK and has received honoraria from Aralez Pharmaceuticals and CSL Behring. TV has served on advisory boards and received honoraria from Aralez, Bausch Health, and Pfizer. RM is the advisory board member of ALK and Sanofi and has received speaker honoraria from Novartis, Pediapharm, and Astrazeneca. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Chua, Chan, Soller, Cook, Vander Leek and Mak.)

Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) represents our greatest hope to combat the devastating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Amid ongoing global vaccination efforts, rare cases of severe allergic reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have received significant attention. Although the exact nature of these reactions may be heterogeneous, various approaches exist to engage with patients, communities, public health departments, primary care providers, and other clinicians in a multidisciplinary approach to advance population health. Whereas it is optimal for patients to receive COVID-19 vaccination as outlined in emergency use authorizations, second-dose deferral of mRNA vaccines may be a consideration within a shared decision-making paradigm of care in select circumstances characterized by high durable first-vaccine-dose protection and significant elevations of vaccine anaphylaxis risk. Still, the durability of protection afforded by a single dose of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is uncertain, and alternative approaches to complete vaccination, including precautionary use of a COVID-19 viral vector vaccine, also remain patient-preference-sensitive options. There is an urgent need to define correlates of COVID-19 immunity and the level of longer-term protection afforded by COVID-19 vaccination., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Limited data on clinical implementation of oral immunotherapy (OIT) have been reported with incomplete evaluation of barriers., Objective: To survey Canadian allergists on their current practice of OIT and barriers to implementation and expansion of OIT., Methods: A survey investigating current practice and logistical and clinical barriers to offering or expanding OIT was distributed to all Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology allergists., Results: Of 90 responding allergists, 52.2% reported offering OIT, most commonly to peanut. Food sublingual immunotherapy was offered by 7% of allergists. Having received training for OIT was associated with currently performing OIT (P = .008); 44.7% of allergists offering OIT had received training on OIT, and 81.4% not offering OIT had no training. A total of 87% of allergists performing OIT reported lack of efficacy data and lack of support staff and clinic space, and concerns about increased oral challenges (84%) were "moderately" to "extremely" important barriers to expanding OIT. For clinicians not offering OIT, concerns about safety (95%), after-hours support (95%), efficacy (93%), medicolegal risk (93%), and long-term practice implications (93%) were prioritized as significant barriers. Qualitative assessment suggested concerns about the practical challenges associated with OIT, the need for increased safety and efficacy data, and a desire for OIT guidelines and training., Conclusion: The implementation of OIT faces many barriers, both clinical and logistical. Increasing high-quality safety and efficacy data may support those hesitant to offer OIT, and improving funding may address the practical infrastructure challenges. In addition, training will help expand access for allergists interested in performing OIT., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Safe and effective vaccines provide the first hope for mitigating the devastating health and economic impacts resulting from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and related public health orders. Recent case reports of reactions to COVID-19 vaccines have raised questions about their safety for use in individuals with allergies and those who are immunocompromised. In this document, we aim to address these concerns and provide guidance for allergists/immunologists., Methods: Scoping review of the literature regarding COVID-19 vaccination, adverse or allergic reactions, and immunocompromise from PubMed over the term of December 2020 to present date. We filtered our search with the terms "human" and "English" and limited the search to the relevant subject age range with the term "adult." Reports resulting from these searches and relevant references cited in those reports were reviewed and cited on the basis of their relevance., Results: Assessment by an allergist is warranted in any individual with a suspected allergy to a COVID-19 vaccine or any of its components. Assessment by an allergist is NOT required for individuals with a history of unrelated allergies, including to allergies to foods, drugs, insect venom or environmental allergens. COVID-19 vaccines should be offered to immunocompromised patients if the benefit is deemed to outweigh any potential risks of vaccination., Interpretation: This review provides the first Canadian guidance regarding assessment of an adolescent and adult with a suspected allergy to one of the COVID-19 vaccines currently available, or any of their known allergenic components, and for patients who are immunocompromised who require vaccination for COVID-19. As information is updated this guidance will be updated accordingly.

Background: We previously described safety of preschool peanut oral immunotherapy (P-OIT) in a real-world setting; 0.4% of patients experienced a severe reaction, and 4.1% received epinephrine, during build-up., Objective: To determine the effectiveness of preschool P-OIT after 1 year of maintenance., Methods: Preschoolers (9-70 months) with at least 1 objective reaction to peanut (during baseline oral food challenge (OFC) or P-OIT build-up) received a follow-up OFC to cumulative 4000 mg protein after 1 year on 300 mg peanut daily maintenance. Effectiveness of desensitization was defined as proportion of patients with a negative follow-up OFC. Symptoms and treatment at follow-up OFC were recorded., Results: Of the 117 patients who successfully completed 1 year of P-OIT and subsequently underwent a cumulative 4000-mg follow-up OFC, 92 (78.6%) had a negative OFC and 115 (98.3%) tolerated a cumulative dose of greater than or equal to 1000 mg. For the 25 (21.4%) who reacted, their threshold increased by 3376 mg (95% CI, 2884-3868) from baseline to follow-up; 17 (14.5%) patients experienced grade 1 reactions, 7 (6.00%) grade 2, and 1 (0.85%) grade 3. Two patients (1.71%) received epinephrine associated with P-OIT, and 1 (0.85%) went to the emergency department., Conclusions: Our data demonstrate that real-world preschool P-OIT is effective after 1 year of maintenance for those who received a follow-up OFC. For those who reacted, their threshold increased sufficiently to protect against accidental exposures. P-OIT should be considered for preschoolers as an alternative to current recommendations to avoid peanut., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In early 2020, the first US and Canadian cases of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were detected. In the ensuing months, there has been rapid spread of the infection. In March 2020, in response to the virus, state/provincial and local governments instituted shelter-in-place orders, and nonessential ambulatory care was significantly curtailed, including allergy/immunology services. With rates of new infections and fatalities potentially reaching a plateau and/or declining, restrictions on provision of routine ambulatory care are lifting, and there is a need to help guide the allergy/immunology clinician on how to reinitiate services. Given the fact that coronavirus disease 2019 will circulate within our communities for months or longer, we present a flexible, algorithmic best-practices planning approach on how to prioritize services, in 4 stratified phases of reopening according to community risk level, as well as highlight key considerations for how to safely do so. The decisions on what services to offer and how fast to proceed are left to the discretion of the individual clinician and practice, operating in accordance with state and local ordinances with respect to the level of nonessential ambulatory care that can be provided. Clear communication with staff and patients before and after all changes should be incorporated into this new paradigm on continual change, given the movement may be forward and even backward through the phases because this is an evolving situation., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In the event of a global infectious pandemic, drastic measures may be needed that limit or require adjustment of ambulatory allergy services. However, no rationale for how to prioritize service shut down and patient care exists. A consensus-based ad-hoc expert panel of allergy/immunology specialists from the United States and Canada developed a service and patient prioritization schematic to temporarily triage allergy/immunology services. Recommendations and feedback were developed iteratively, using an adapted modified Delphi methodology to achieve consensus. During the ongoing pandemic while social distancing is being encouraged, most allergy/immunology care could be postponed/delayed or handled through virtual care. With the exception of many patients with primary immunodeficiency, patients on venom immunotherapy, and patients with asthma of a certain severity, there is limited need for face-to-face visits under such conditions. These suggestions are intended to help provide a logical approach to quickly adjust service to mitigate risk to both medical staff and patients. Importantly, individual community circumstances may be unique and require contextual consideration. The decision to enact any of these measures rests with the judgment of each clinician and individual health care system. Pandemics are unanticipated, and enforced social distancing/quarantining is highly unusual. This expert panel consensus document offers a prioritization rational to help guide decision making when such situations arise and an allergist/immunologist is forced to reduce services or makes the decision on his or her own to do so., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an emerging approach to the treatment of patients with IgE-mediated food allergy and is in the process of transitioning to clinical practice., Objective: To develop patient-oriented clinical practice guidelines on oral immunotherapy based on evidence and ethical imperatives for the provision of safe and efficient food allergy management., Materials and Methods: Recommendations were developed using a reflective patient-centered multicriteria approach including 22 criteria organized in five dimensions (clinical, populational, economic, organizational and sociopolitical). Data was obtained from: (1) a review of scientific and ethic literature; (2) consultations of allergists, other healthcare professionals (pediatricians, family physicians, nurses, registered dieticians, psychologists, peer supporters), patients and caregivers; and patient associations through structured consultative panels, interviews and on-line questionnaire; and (3) organizational and economic data from the milieu of care. All data was synthesized by criteria in a multicriteria deliberative guide that served as a platform for structured discussion and development of recommendations for each dimension, based on evidence, ethical imperatives and other considerations., Results: The deliberative grid included 162 articles from the literature and media reviews and data from consultations involving 85 individuals. Thirty-eight (38) recommendations were made for the practice of oral immunotherapy for the treatment of IgE mediated food allergy, based on evidence and a diversity of ethical imperatives. All recommendations were aimed at fostering a context conducive to achieving objectives identified by patients and caregivers with food allergy. Notably, specific recommendations were developed to promote a culture of shared responsibility between patients and healthcare system, equity in access, patient empowerment, shared decision making and personalization of OIT protocols to reflect patients' needs. It also provides recommendations to optimize organization of care to generate capacity to meet demand according to patient choice, e.g. OIT or avoidance. These recommendations were made acknowledging the necessity of ensuring sustainability of the clinical offer in light of various economic considerations., Conclusions: This innovative CPG methodology was guided by patients' perspectives, clinical evidence as well as ethical and other rationales. This allowed for the creation of a broad set of recommendations that chart optimal clinical practice and define the conditions required to bring about changes to food allergy care that will be sustainable, equitable and conducive to the well-being of all patients in need., Competing Interests: Competing interestsDirect competing interests related to the topic of the guidelines P. Bégin and J. Upton are non-remunerated investigators on an investigator-instigated trial sponsored by the Canadian Institutes of Health on the use of omalizumab in oral immunotherapy (in-kind contribution of investigative drug product by Novartis worth > $100,000 CAD). They were excluded from the room for the discussion and deliberations on recommendations related to the use of omalizumab in oral immunotherapy. M. Ben-Shoshan was a principal investigator on a trial on the use of pharmaceutical peanut flour preparations in OIT sponsored by Aimmune Therapeutics (> $100,000 CAD in grant support). J. Upton was a non-remunerated sub-investigator on clinical trial sponsored by Aimmune Therapeutics on the use of pharmaceutical peanut flour preparations in OIT. They were excluded from the room for the discussion and deliberations on recommendations related to the use of pharmaceutical food products in OIT. Direct competing interests unrelated to the topic of the guidelines P. Begin reports speaker and/or advisor fees from Food Allergy Canada, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, ALK and Aralez Pharmaceuticals, as well as research grant support from Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Fonds de Recherche en Santé du Québec, Canadian Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Foundation, DBV technologies, CHU Ste-Justine Foundation, Regeneron and Sanofi outside the submitted work. M. Ben-Shoshan reports advisor fees from Food Allergy Canada, as well as research grant support from Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Fonds de recherché en Santé du Québec and Canadian Foundation of Allergy and Clinical Immunology outside the submitted work. S. B. Cameron reports an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer outside the submitted work. S. Carr reports speaker and/or advisor fees from Aralez, Pfizer, Nutricia, Meda (Mylan), Sanofi, GSK, ALK, and Pediapharm. E. S. Chan reports speaker and/or advisor fees from Pfizer, Kaleo, Food Allergy Canada, Pediapharm, Leo and DBV technologies as well as research grant support from DBV Technologies outside the submitted work. D. Fischer reports speaker and/or advisor fees from ALK, AstraZeneca, Aralez, Bausch Health, Merck, Mylan, Pfizer, Novartis, Pediapharm, Sanofi and Teva outside the submitted work. A. Haynes reports advisor fees from Sanofi outside the submitted work. S. Kapur reports speaker and/or advisor fees from Pediapharm and has been a member of advisory boards for, Bausch, Kaleo, Mylan, Novartis, Pediapharm, Pfizer, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. He also holds shares in ABK Biomedical, who are not involved in the field of allergy. H. Kim reports speaker and/or advisor fees for ALK-Abelló, Aralez, Astra Zeneca, CSL Behring, Shire, Novartis, Pediapharm, Stallergenes, Kaleo, Sanofi, Pfizer, and Mylan outside the submitted work. M. N. Primeau reports speaker and/or advisor fees from ALK, Allergie Québec, Aralez, Bausch Health, Food Allergy Canada, Mead Johnson, Mylan, Novartis, Nutricia, Pediapharm and Pfizer outside the submitted work. J. Upton reports advisor fees from Food Allergy Canada, ALK-Abelló, Kaleo, as well as research grant support from Toronto SickKids Foundation, DBV technologies and Regeneron outside the submitted work. T. K. Vander Leek reports speaker and/or advisor fees from Pediapharm, Pfizer and Aralez outside the submitted work. Other authors and members of the deliberative committee declared no financial conflicts of interest. Indirect competing interests related to the topic of the guidelines E. M. Abrams is a pediatric allergist currently offering OIT in clinic. She has contributed to a national cohort study published on the topic. She is on the national advisory board of Food Allergy Canada. P. Begin is an adult-trained allergist currently offering OIT in the academic setting. He pursues clinical research projects on OIT. He is the director of a pilot public OIT program funded through philanthropy and government support. He collaborates with a parent committee doing fundraising for a public-funded OIT program in the province of Quebec. He is a clinician-scientist with a research program including clinical trials, epidemiologic and health technology assessment studies on food allergy and OIT. He has published original research as well as editorials and review articles on the topic of OIT. He is a member of the advisory board for Food Allergy Canada. He has given public and scientific lectures on the topic of OIT. M. Ben-Shoshan is a pediatric allergist currently not offering OIT outside research. He is a clinician-scientist with a research program including clinical trials OIT. He has previously published on the topic of OIT. He is on the national advisory board of Food Allergy Canada. A. Boisvert is a peer-supporter at byebyeallergies.ca and Food Allergy Canada. M. J. Cadieux, is a peer-supporter at Déjouer-les-allergies. S. B. Cameron is a pediatric allergist currently offering OIT in clinic. He has contributed to a national cohort study and a review published and has given scientific lectures on the topic. S. Carr is a pediatric allergist currently offering OIT in clinic. He has contributed to a national cohort study and a review published and has given scientific lectures on the topic. E. S. Chan is a pediatric allergist currently offering OIT in the academic setting. He collaborates with a parent committee doing fundraising for a public-funded OIT program in Vancouver. He as contributed to a national cohort study published on the topic. He is a member of the advisory board for Food Allergy Canada, is an eosinophilic esophagitis guideline member for the Joint Task Force/American Gastroenterological Association, and was an expert panel and coordinating committee member of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases–sponsored Guidelines for Peanut Allergy Prevention. D. Fischer is an adult-trained allergist currently not offering OIT in clinic. He has given scientific lectures on the topic. B. Francoeur is a family physician from a region without allergist with a practice focus on allergy. He currently follows patients on OIT but does not initiate treatment himself. H. Kim is an adult-trained allergist currently offering OIT in clinic. He has published an editorial on the topic of OIT. He is the president of Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. A. Haynes is a pediatric allergist currently not offering OIT in clinic. S. Kapur is a pediatric allergist currently offering OIT in clinic. He has previously contributed to a national cohort study published on the topic. G. Parizeault is a pediatrician with a practice focus on allergy in a region without allergist. He is currently offering OIT in clinic. S. Pernice, is a registered dietician practicing in an academic allergy clinic offering OIT. M.N. Primeau is a pediatric allergist currently not offering OIT in clinic. J. Upton is an adult-trained allergists currently not offering OIT outside research. She is a clinician with a research program including clinical trials OIT. She is on the national advisory board of Food Allergy Canada. She has given public and scientific lectures on the topic of OIT. C. Vaillancourt is a family physician with a practice focus on allergy in a region without allergist. He is currently offering OIT in clinic. T. K. Vander Leek is a pediatric allergists currently offering OIT in clinic. He has previously contributed to a national cohort study published on the topic. Other authors and members of the deliberative committee declared no indirect conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Background: In 2017, a clinical trial of 37 subjects demonstrated that preschool peanut oral immunotherapy (P-OIT) was safe, with predominantly mild symptoms reported and only 1 moderate reaction requiring epinephrine., Objectives: We sought to examine whether these findings would be applicable in a real-world setting., Methods: As part of a Canada-wide quality improvement project, community and academic allergists administered P-OIT to preschool-age children who had (1) skin prick test wheal diameter greater than or equal to 3 mm or specific IgE level greater than or equal to 0.35 kU/L and history of reaction and/or positive baseline oral food challenge, or (2) no ingestion history and specific IgE level greater than or equal to 5 kU/L. Over 16 to 22 weeks, patients had biweekly clinic visits for updosing, and consumed the dose daily at home between visits. Target maintenance dose was 300 mg peanut protein. Symptoms were classified using a modified World Allergy Organization Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Reaction Grading System (1 mildest, 5 fatal)., Results: Of 270 patients who started P-OIT in the period 2017 to 2018, 243 reached maintenance, and 27 dropped out (10.0%); 67.8% of patients experienced reactions during buildup: 36.3% grade 1, 31.1% grade 2, and 0.40% grade 4. Eleven patients (4.10%) received epinephrine (10 patients received 1 dose, 1 patient received epinephrine on 2 separate days), representing 2.23% of reactions (12 of 538) and 0.029% of doses (12 of 41,020)., Conclusions: We are the first group to describe preschool P-OIT in a real-world multicenter setting. The treatment appears to be safe for the vast majority of patients because symptoms were generally mild and very few reactions received epinephrine; however, life-threatening reactions in a minority of patients (0.4%) can still occur., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially fatal systemic allergic reaction with varied mechanisms and clinical presentations. Although prompt recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis are imperative, both patients and healthcare professionals often fail to recognize and diagnose early signs and symptoms of the condition. Clinical manifestations vary widely; however, the most common signs are cutaneous symptoms, including urticaria, angioedema, erythema and pruritus. Immediate intramuscular administration of epinephrine into the anterolateral thigh is first-line therapy, even if the diagnosis is uncertain. The mainstays of long-term management include specialist assessment, avoidance measures, and the provision of an epinephrine auto-injector and an individualized anaphylaxis action plan. This article provides an overview of the causes, clinical features, diagnosis and acute and long-term management of this serious allergic reaction.

The Addendum Guidelines for the Prevention of Peanut Allergy in the United States - Report of the NIAID - Sponsored Expert Panel were developed to build on previous food allergy guidelines after several key studies demonstrated the benefit of early introduction of allergenic foods. These landmark studies including the Learning Early about Peanut (LEAP), LEAP-On and Enquiring about Tolerance trials created a paradigm shift in food allergy prevention. The "take home" messages of this guideline include that peanut should be introduced early in the first year of life, and for the majority of infants, peanut can be introduced at home. The only group of infants for which medical assessment is recommended is those with severe eczema, egg allergy or both. Here we summarize the Guideline recommendations, endorsed by the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and highlight important aspects relevant to Canadian practitioners.

Allergic conditions in children are a prevalent health concern in Canada. The burden of disease and the societal costs of proper diagnosis and management are considerable, making the primary prevention of allergic conditions a desirable health care objective. This position statement reviews current evidence on dietary exposures and allergy prevention in infants at high risk of developing allergic conditions. It revisits previous dietary recommendations for pregnancy, breastfeeding and formula-feeding, and provides an approach for introducing solid foods to high-risk infants. While there is no evidence that delaying the introduction of any specific food beyond six months of age helps to prevent allergy, the protective effect of early introduction of potentially allergenic foods (at four to six months) remains under investigation. Recent research appears to suggest that regularly ingesting a new, potentially allergenic food may be as important as when that food is first introduced. This article has already been published (Paediatr Child Health. 2013 Dec;18(10):545-54), and is being re-published with permission from the original publisher, the Canadian Paediatric Society.

Background: Studies suggest knowledge gaps about epinephrine use and vaccination of persons with egg allergy., Objective: We compared the perception of Canadian allergists and nonallergists on issues related to epinephrine use and vaccination of persons with egg allergy., Methods: Canadian allergists, pediatricians, general practitioners/family physicians and emergency room physicians were recruited through medical associations and surveyed on these issues. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify determinants of specific responses., Results: One-hundred fourteen allergists and 613 nonallergists participated. For most issues with accepted best practices, allergists were more likely to adhere to recommendations. Allergists versus nonallergists were more likely to recommend intramuscular epinephrine for anaphylaxis (odds ratio [OR] = 3.8; 95% CI, 1.43-10.11). Older physicians (OR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99), Canadian-Paediatric-Surveillance-Program participants (OR = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.96), family physicians (OR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16-0.96), and general practitioners (OR = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04-0.52) were less likely to recommend intramuscular use. However, in severe anaphylaxis, >25% of both groups would not give epinephrine for patients presenting with breathing difficulties or hypotension. Use of epinephrine for severe anaphylaxis was less likely in older physicians (OR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99), female physicians (OR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.89), and those practicing in Ontario (OR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.86), Manitoba (OR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.90), or Nova-Scotia (OR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.78). Allergists (OR = 6.22; 95% CI, 3.60-10.72) and physicians treating mainly children (OR = 3.41; 95% CI, 1.87-6.25), or practicing in Quebec (OR = 1.68; 95% CI, 1.12-2.55) were more likely to recommend measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in a community facility., Conclusion: Knowledge gaps about mode and indications for epinephrine administration and vaccination policies need to be addressed in future education programs to ensure prompt epinephrine use and to avoid unnecessary restriction of vaccines., (Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background:   School personnel in contact with students with life-threatening allergies often lack necessary supports, creating a potentially dangerous situation. Sabrina's Law, the first legislation in the world designed to protect such children, requires all Ontario public schools to have a plan to protect children at risk. Although it has captured international attention, the differences a legislative approach makes have not been identified. Our study compared the approaches to anaphylaxis prevention and management in schools with and without legislation., Methods:   Legislated (Ontario) and nonlegislated (Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Quebec) environments were compared. School board anaphylaxis policies were assessed for consistency with Canadian anaphylaxis guidelines. Parents of at-risk children and school personnel were surveyed to determine their perspectives on school practices. School personnel's EpiPen5 technique was assessed., Results:   Consistency of school board policies with anaphylaxis guidelines was significantly better in a legislated environment (P=0.009). Parents in a legislated environment reported more comprehensive anaphylaxis emergency forms (P<0.001), while school personnel in nonlegislated environments reported more comprehensive forms (P=0.004). Despite school personnel in both environments receiving EpiPen5 training (>80%), suboptimal technique was commonly observed. However, school personnel in the legislated environment had better technique (P<0.001)., Conclusion:   Our results suggest that school boards in legislated environments have made greater efforts to support students at risk for anaphylaxis compared to nonlegislated environments. However, significant gaps exist in both environments, especially with respect to EpiPen5 administration, content, and distribution of anaphylaxis emergency forms, and awareness of school procedures by school personnel and parents., (© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)

Background: Anaphylaxis is often managed inadequately. We used findings from a systematic review of gaps in anaphylaxis management to develop evidence-based recommendations for gaps rated as clinically important by a panel of Canadian allergy experts., Methods: The nominal group technique (NGT) consensus methodology was used to develop evidence-based recommendations for the management of anaphylaxis in primary care. Physician-specific gaps from our systematic review were prioritized by consensus meeting participants in two rounds, which involved the rating, discussion, and re-rating of gaps. Using current anaphylaxis guidelines, recommendations were then developed for each category of gaps that were identified by the panel as clinically important., Results: Thirty unique physician gaps from the systematic review were categorized according to gaps of knowledge and anaphylaxis practice behaviors. The panel rated diagnosis of anaphylaxis, and when and how to use epinephrine auto-injectors as clinically important knowledge gaps; and rated infrequent or delayed epinephrine administration, low rate of auto-injector prescription, and infrequent or no referrals to allergy specialists after a reaction as important practice behavior gaps. Evidence from four guidelines was used to support the consensus recommendation statements for three resulting categories of gap themes: anaphylaxis management, epinephrine use, and follow-up care., Conclusion: We used an NGT consensus methodology to develop an educational resource for primary care physicians and allergists to better understand how to manage patients with anaphylaxis. Next steps include testing our findings against observed data in primary care settings and to develop other strategies or tools to overcome gaps in anaphylaxis management.

Objectives: To observe the nature and frequency of adverse reactions caused by accidental peanut exposure in young children with clinical peanut hypersensitivity and to determine the value of serum peanut-specific IgE levels during follow-up., Study Design: Eighty-three children with clinical peanut hypersensitivity diagnosed before their fourth birthdays were contacted yearly to track adverse peanut reactions. Serum peanut-specific IgE levels were determined in 51 of 83 subjects., Results: Fifty-eight percent (31/53) of subjects followed up for 5 years experienced adverse reactions from accidental peanut exposure. Regardless of the nature of their initial reaction, the majority with subsequent reactions (52%, 31/60) experienced potentially life-threatening symptoms. The group with isolated skin symptoms (11/51, 22%) had lower serum peanut-specific IgE levels than the group with respiratory and/or gastrointestinal symptoms (40/51, 78%) (median: 1.25 kU(A)/L vs 11. 65 kU(A)/L, P =.004, Wilcoxon rank sums test). Despite this, there was no threshold level below which only skin symptoms appeared to occur. Four selected subjects had negative double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge responses to peanuts during follow-up., Conclusions: The majority of children with clinical peanut hypersensitivity followed up for 5 years will have adverse reactions from accidental peanut exposure. Symptoms experienced during subsequent adverse peanut reactions may not be consistent with symptoms reported during initial reactions. Therefore proper education regarding peanut avoidance and treatment of adverse reactions is necessary in all cases of clinical peanut hypersensitivity. Young children who are allergic to peanuts can lose clinical hypersensitivity.