Serological profiling reveals hsa-miR-451a as a possible biomarker of anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND. There is a need to support the diagnosis of anaphylaxis by objective markers. miRNAs are promising noncoding RNA species that may serve as serological biomarkers, but their use in diagnosing anaphylaxis has not been systematically studied to our knowledge. We aimed to comprehensively investigate serum biomarker profiles (proteins, lipids, and miRNAs) to support the diagnosis of anaphylaxis. METHODS. Adult patients admitted to the emergency room with a diagnosis of anaphylaxis (<3 hours) were included. Blood samples were taken upon emergency room arrival and 1 month later. RESULTS. Next-generation sequencing of 18 samples (6 patients with anaphylaxis in both acute and nonacute condition, for 12 total samples, and 6 healthy controls) identified hsa-miR-451a to be elevated during anaphylaxis, which was verified by quantitative real-time PCR in the remaining cohort. The random forest classifier enabled us to classify anaphylaxis with high accuracy using a composite model. We identified tryptase, 9 alpha,11 beta-PGF2, apolipoprotein A1, and hsa-miR-451a as serological biomarkers of anaphylaxis. These predictors qualified as serological biomarkers individually but performed better in combination. CONCLUSION. Unexpectedly, hsa-miR-451a was identified as the most relevant biomarker in our data set. We were also able to distinguish between patients with a history of anaphylaxis and healthy individuals with higher accuracy than any other available model. Future studies will need to verify miRNA biomarker utility in real-life clinical settings

Refractory anaphylaxis: Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry

Refractory anaphylaxis (unresponsive to treatment with at least two doses of minimum 300 μg adrenaline) is a rare and often fatal hypersensitivity reaction. Comprehensive data on its definition, prevalence, and risk factors are missing. Using the data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry (11,596 cases in total) we identified refractory anaphylaxis cases (n = 42) and analyzed these in comparison to a control group of severe anaphylaxis cases (n = 4,820). The data show that drugs more frequently elicited refractory anaphylaxis (50% of cases, p < 0.0001) compared to other severe anaphylaxis cases (19.7%). Cases elicited by insects (n = 8) were more often due to bees than wasps in refractory cases (62.5 vs. 19.4%, p = 0.009). The refractory cases occurred mostly in a perioperative setting (45.2 vs. 9.05, p < 0.0001). Intramuscular adrenaline (as a first line therapy) was administered in 16.7% of refractory cases, whereas in 83.3% of cases it was applied intravenously (significantly more often than in severe anaphylaxis cases: 12.3%, p < 0.0001). Second line treatment options (e.g., vasopression with dopamine, methylene blue, glucagon) were not used at all for the treatment of refractory cases. The mortality rate in refractory anaphylaxis was significantly higher (26.2%) than in severe cases (0.353%, p < 0.0001). Refractory anaphylaxis is associated with drug-induced anaphylaxis in particular if allergens are given intravenously. Although physicians frequently use adrenaline in cases of perioperative anaphylaxis, not all patients are responding to treatment. Whether a delay in recognition of anaphylaxis is responsible for the refractory case or whether these cases are due to an overflow with mast cell activating substances—requires further studies. Reasons for the low use of second-line medication (i.e., methylene blue or dopamine) in refractory cases are unknown, but their use might improve the outcome of severe refractory anaphylaxis cases

Anaphylaxis in Elderly Patients—Data From the European Anaphylaxis Registry

Background: Elicitors and symptoms of anaphylaxis are age dependent. However, little is known about typical features of anaphylaxis in patients aged 65 years or more.Methods: The data from the Network for Online Registration of Anaphylaxis (NORA) considering patients aged ≥65 (elderly) in comparison to data from adults (18–64 years) regarding elicitors, symptoms, comorbidities, and treatment measures were analyzed.Results: We identified 1,123 elderly anaphylactic patients. Insect venoms were the most frequent elicitor in this group (p &lt; 0.001), followed by drugs like analgesics and antibiotics. Food allergens elicited less frequently anaphylaxis (p &lt; 0.001). Skin symptoms occurred less frequently in elderly patients (77%, p &lt; 0.001). The clinical symptoms were more severe in the elderly (51% experiencing grade III/IV reactions), in particular when skin symptoms (p &lt; 0.001) were absent. Most strikingly, a loss of consciousness (33%, p &lt; 0.001) and preexisting cardiovascular comorbidity (59%, p &lt; 0.001) were more prevalent in the elderly. Finally, adrenaline was used in 30% of the elderly (vs. 26% in the comparator group, p &lt; 0.001) and hospitalization was more often required (60 vs. 50%, p &lt; 0.001).Discussion and Conclusion: Anaphylaxis in the elderly is often caused by insect venoms and drugs. These patients suffer more often from cardiovascular symptoms, receive more frequently adrenaline and require more often hospitalization. The data indicate that anaphylaxis in the elderly tends to be more frequently life threatening and patients require intensified medical intervention. The data support the need to recognize anaphylaxis in this patient group, which is prone to be at a higher risk for a fatal outcome

Phenotype and risk factors of venom-induced anaphylaxis: A case-control study of the European Anaphylaxis Registry

Background: Venom-induced anaphylaxis (VIA) is a common, potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity reaction associated with (1) a specific symptom profile, 2) specific cofactors, and 3) specific management. Identifying the differences in phenotypes of anaphylaxis is crucial for future management guidelines and development of a personalized medicine approach. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the phenotype and risk factors of VIA. Methods: Using data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry (12,874 cases), we identified 3,612 patients with VIA and analyzed their cases in comparison with sex- and age-matched anaphylaxis cases triggered by other elicitors (non-VIA cases [n = 3,605]). Results: VIA more frequently involved more than 3 organ systems and was associated with cardiovascular symptoms. The absence of skin symptoms during anaphylaxis was correlated with baseline serum tryptase level and was associated with an increased risk of a severe reaction. Intramuscular or intravenous epinephrine was administered significantly less often in VIA, in particular, in patients without a history of anaphylaxis. A baseline serum tryptase level within the upper normal range (8-11.5 ng/mL) was more frequently associated with severe anaphylaxis. Conclusion: Using a large cohort of VIA cases, we have validated that patients with intermediate baseline serum tryptase levels (8-11 ng/mL) and without skin involvement have a higher risk of severe VIA. Patients receiving β-blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors had a higher risk of developing severe cardiovascular symptoms (including cardiac arrest) in VIA and non-VIA cases. Patients experiencing VIA received epinephrine less frequently than did cases with non-VIA

Secondary prevention measures in anaphylaxis patients: Data from the anaphylaxis registry

Background: Patients with a history of anaphylaxis are at risk of future anaphylactic reactions. Thus, secondary prevention measures are recommended for these patients to prevent or attenuate the next reaction. Methods: Data from the Anaphylaxis Registry were analyzed to identify secondary prevention measures offered to patients who experienced anaphylaxis. Our analysis included 7788 cases from 10 European countries and Brazil. Results:The secondary prevention measures offered varied across the elicitors. A remarkable discrepancy was observed between prevention measures offered in specialized allergy centers (84% of patients were prescribed adrenaline autoinjectors following EAACI guidelines) and outside the centers: Here, EAACI guideline adherence was only 37%. In the multivariate analysis, the elicitor of the reaction, age of the patient, mastocytosis as comorbidity, severity of the reaction, and reimbursement/availability of the autoinjector influence physician's decision to prescribe one. Conclusions: Based on the low implementation of guidelines concerning secondary prevention measures outside of specialized allergy centers, our findings highlight the importance of these specialized centers and the requirement of better education for primary healthcare and emergency physicians

Peanut‐induced anaphylaxis in children and adolescents: Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry

Background Peanut allergy has a rising prevalence in high-income countries, affecting 0.5%-1.4% of children. This study aimed to better understand peanut anaphylaxis in comparison to anaphylaxis to other food triggers in European children and adolescents. Methods Data was sourced from the European Anaphylaxis Registry via an online questionnaire, after in-depth review of food-induced anaphylaxis cases in a tertiary paediatric allergy centre. Results 3514 cases of food anaphylaxis were reported between July 2007 - March 2018, 56% in patients younger than 18 years. Peanut anaphylaxis was recorded in 459 children and adolescents (85% of all peanut anaphylaxis cases). Previous reactions (42% vs. 38%; p = .001), asthma comorbidity (47% vs. 35%; p < .001), relevant cofactors (29% vs. 22%; p = .004) and biphasic reactions (10% vs. 4%; p = .001) were more commonly reported in peanut anaphylaxis. Most cases were labelled as severe anaphylaxis (Ring&Messmer grade III 65% vs. 56% and grade IV 1.1% vs. 0.9%; p = .001). Self-administration of intramuscular adrenaline was low (17% vs. 15%), professional adrenaline administration was higher in non-peanut food anaphylaxis (34% vs. 26%; p = .003). Hospitalization was higher for peanut anaphylaxis (67% vs. 54%; p = .004). Conclusions The European Anaphylaxis Registry data confirmed peanut as one of the major causes of severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions in European children, with some characteristic features e.g., presence of asthma comorbidity and increased rate of biphasic reactions. Usage of intramuscular adrenaline as first-line treatment is low and needs to be improved. The Registry, designed as the largest database on anaphylaxis, allows continuous assessment of this condition

Peanut‐induced anaphylaxis in children and adolescents: Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry

Background Peanut allergy has a rising prevalence in high-income countries, affecting 0.5%–1.4% of children. This study aimed to better understand peanut anaphylaxis in comparison to anaphylaxis to other food triggers in European children and adolescents. Methods Data was sourced from the European Anaphylaxis Registry via an online questionnaire, after in-depth review of food-induced anaphylaxis cases in a tertiary paediatric allergy centre. Results 3514 cases of food anaphylaxis were reported between July 2007 - March 2018, 56% in patients younger than 18 years. Peanut anaphylaxis was recorded in 459 children and adolescents (85% of all peanut anaphylaxis cases). Previous reactions (42% vs. 38%; p = .001), asthma comorbidity (47% vs. 35%; p < .001), relevant cofactors (29% vs. 22%; p = .004) and biphasic reactions (10% vs. 4%; p = .001) were more commonly reported in peanut anaphylaxis. Most cases were labelled as severe anaphylaxis (Ring&Messmer grade III 65% vs. 56% and grade IV 1.1% vs. 0.9%; p = .001). Self-administration of intramuscular adrenaline was low (17% vs. 15%), professional adrenaline administration was higher in non-peanut food anaphylaxis (34% vs. 26%; p = .003). Hospitalization was higher for peanut anaphylaxis (67% vs. 54%; p = .004). Conclusions The European Anaphylaxis Registry data confirmed peanut as one of the major causes of severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions in European children, with some characteristic features e.g., presence of asthma comorbidity and increased rate of biphasic reactions. Usage of intramuscular adrenaline as first-line treatment is low and needs to be improved. The Registry, designed as the largest database on anaphylaxis, allows continuous assessment of this condition

Development and validation of the Food Allergy Severity Score

Background The heterogeneity and lack of validation of existing severity scores for food allergic reactions limit standardization of case management and research advances. We aimed to develop and validate a severity score for food allergic reactions. Methods Following a multidisciplinary experts consensus, it was decided to develop a food allergy severity score (FASS) with ordinal (oFASS) and numerical (nFASS) formats. oFASS with 3 and 5 grades were generated through expert consensus, and nFASS by mathematical modeling. Evaluation was performed in the EuroPrevall outpatient clinic cohort (8232 food reactions) by logistic regression with request of emergency care and medications used as outcomes. Discrimination, classification, and calibration were calculated. Bootstrapping internal validation was followed by external validation (logistic regression) in 5 cohorts (3622 food reactions). Correlation of nFASS with the severity classification done by expert allergy clinicians by Best-Worst Scaling of 32 food reactions was calculated. Results oFASS and nFASS map consistently, with nFASS having greater granularity. With the outcomes emergency care, adrenaline and critical medical treatment, oFASS and nFASS had a good discrimination (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [ROC-AUC]>0.80), classification (sensitivity 0.87–0.92, specificity 0.73–0.78), and calibration. Bootstrapping over ROC-AUC showed negligible biases (1.0 × 10−6–1.23 × 10−3). In external validation, nFASS performed best with higher ROC-AUC. nFASS was strongly correlated (R 0.89) to best-worst scoring of 334 expert clinicians. Conclusion FASS is a validated and reliable method to measure severity of food allergic reactions. The ordinal and numerical versions that map onto each other are suitable for use by different stakeholders in different settings

Statement by the Food Allergy Working Group of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI)

Background: Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) may cause difficult-to-treat symptoms of the airways, skin, or gastrointestinal tract in hypersensitive patients. Due to the chemical relationship between salicylic acid and ASA, a role of a low-salicylate diet has been discussed. Methods: This review evaluates whether low salicylate diets are meaningful from an allergological or nutritional–physiological perspective. Results: The body’s arachidonic acid metabolism plays a crucial role in the pathogenesis of ASA intolerance. Despite their chemical affinity, ASA and salicylic acid affect the arachidonic pathway differently. The intake of salicylic acid with food is low compared to therapeutic doses of ASA. There is increasing evidence that protective effects of a high fruit and vegetables diet is related in part to the intake of salicylates. In salicylatelow diets, fruit and vegetables are reduced, harboring the risk of an insufficient diet and malnutrition. Conclusion: Dietary therapy in ASA-intolerant patients is not recommended