Anaphylaxis: Revision of the Brighton collaboration case definition

The Brighton Collaboration (BC) has formulated a number of case definitions which have primarily been applied to adverse events of special interest in the context of vaccine safety surveillance. This is a revision of the 2007 BC case definition for anaphylaxis. Recently, the BC definition has been widely used for evaluating reports of suspected anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccination. This has led to debate about the performance of the BC definition in comparison with those from the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy Anaphylaxis Network (NIAID/FAAN) and the World Allergy Organization (WAO). BC convened an expert working group to revise the case definition based on their usual process of literature review and expert consensus. This manuscript presents the outcome of this process and proposes a revised case definition for anaphylaxis. Major and minor criteria have been re-evaluated with an emphasis on the reporting of observable clinical signs, rather than subjective symptoms, and a clearer approach to the ascertainment of levels of certainty is provided. The BC case definition has also been aligned with other contemporary and international case definitions for anaphylaxis

Outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials for mixed and non‐IgE‐mediated food allergy: Systematic review

Background Mixed and non‐IgE‐mediated food allergy is a subset of immune‐mediated adverse food reactions that can impose a major burden on the quality of life of affected patients and their families. Clinical trials to study these diseases are reliant upon consistent and valid outcome measures that are relevant to both patients and clinicians, but the degree to which such stringent outcome reporting takes place is poorly studied. Objective As part of the Core Outcome Measures for Food Allergy (COMFA) project, we identified outcomes reported in randomized clinical trials (RCT) of treatments for mixed or non‐IgE‐mediated food allergy. Design In this systematic review, we searched the Ovid, MEDLINE and Embase databases for RCTs in children or adults investigating treatments for food protein‐induced enterocolitis syndrome, food protein‐induced allergic proctocolitis, food protein‐induced enteropathy and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders including eosinophilic esophagitis [EoE], eosinophilic gastritis and eosinophilic colitis published until 14 October 2022. Results Twenty‐six eligible studies were identified, with 23 focused on EoE (88%). Most interventions were corticosteroids or monoclonal antibodies. All EoE studies assessed patient‐reported dysphagia, usually using a non‐validated questionnaire. Twenty‐two of 23 EoE studies used peak tissue eosinophil count as the primary outcome, usually using a non‐validated assessment method, and other immunological markers were only exploratory. Thirteen (57%) EoE studies reported endoscopic outcomes of which six used a validated scoring tool recently recommended as a core outcome for EoE trials. Funding source was not obviously associated with likelihood of an RCT reporting mechanistic versus patient‐reported outcomes. Only 3 (12%) RCTs concerned forms of food allergy other than EoE, and they reported on fecal immunological markers and patient‐reported outcomes.ConclusionsOutcomes measured in clinical trials of EoE and non‐IgE‐mediated food allergy are heterogeneous and largely non‐validated. Core outcomes for EoE have been developed and need to be used in future trials. For other forms of mixed or non‐IgE‐mediated food allergies, core outcome development is needed to support the development of effective treatments

No systemic reactions to influenza vaccination in egg-sensitized tertiary-care pediatric patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There are numerous, disparate guidelines for influenza vaccination in egg-allergic patients. We aimed to describe the outcome of selectively applied guidelines, based on risk-stratification, to our high risk, egg-allergic, tertiary-care pediatric population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Egg allergy was confirmed with skin testing. The vaccine administered was an adjuvunated 2009 H1N1 influenza A vaccine with < 0.165 mcg/ml ovalbumin. Patients with mild egg allergy were to receive the vaccination in 1 dose, those with severe egg allergy were to receive 2 split doses, and patients with exquisite egg allergy or significant co-morbidities were to be skin tested with the vaccine (prick full strength, intradermal 1:100 of final concentration without adjuvant) and had 5 step desensitization if the testing was positive, or 1-2 step administration if negative. Patients were observed for 60 minutes after the final dose and anaphylaxis treatment was available. We report the frequency of allergic reactions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Ninety-nine patients were referred and 79 had positive egg testing. Asthma was present in 67% and 30% had prior anaphylaxis to egg. We vaccinated 77 of 79 patients: 71 without performing vaccine skin testing. Two refused vaccination. No patient had a systemic reaction or required treatment. Two patients experienced positive testing to the adjuvanated intradermal vaccine, but were negative without adjuvant.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our results suggest that most egg-allergic tertiary care pediatric patients can be vaccinated with a low ovalbumin content influenza vaccine without prior vaccine testing. Vaccine skin testing, if used at all, can be reserved for special circumstances. The squalene adjuvant may cause an irritant reaction with intradermal testing.</p

Living with severe allergy: an Anaphylaxis Campaign national survey of young people

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The transition to adulthood can be particularly challenging for young people with severe allergies, who must learn to balance personal safety with independent living. Information and support for young people and their families are crucial to successfully managing this transition. We sought to: gather insights into the impact of severe allergies on the lives of young people; explore where young people go for information about anaphylaxis and what information they want and need; identify areas where further support is needed.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An online questionnaire survey of young people aged 15–25 years with severe allergies in the United Kingdom (UK) was conducted on behalf of the Anaphylaxis Campaign, the main patient support organisation. Participants were recruited mainly from the Anaphylaxis Campaign membership database and also via allergy clinics and social media. The study was funded by the Anaphylaxis Campaign’s In Memoriam Fund.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 520 young people responded to the survey. The majority had lived with severe allergies since they were young children; 59% reported having attended Accident and Emergency units as a consequence of their allergies. Only 66% of respondents reported always carrying their epinephrine auto-injectors; only 23% had ever used these. Few were currently receiving specialist allergy care; younger respondents were more likely to be under specialist care (34%) than those 18 years and above (23%). Respondents wanted more information about eating out (56%), travelling (54%) and food labelling (43%). Almost a quarter of respondents (23%) reported needing more information on managing their allergies independently without parental help. Managing allergies in the context of social relationships was a concern for 22% of respondents.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This survey has identified the information and support needs and gaps in service provision for young people with severe allergies. Healthcare professionals and patient support organisations, with the support of the food industry, can help to meet these needs.</p

Improvements in quality of life in children following epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for peanut allergy in the PEPITES and PEOPLE studies

Background: Food allergy quality of life (FAQL) is impaired in children with peanut allergy. Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaires (FAQLQs) provide disease-specific insight into the burden of peanut allergy and potential FAQL changes after peanut immunotherapy. Objective: To examine FAQL changes in children after treatment with epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut allergy (250 μg, daily epicutaneous peanut protein; DBV712 250 μg). Methods: FAQL was prospectively measured using the FAQLQ parent proxy form (Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Parent Proxy Form [FAQLQ-PF], for children aged ≤12 years) and child form (Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Child Form [FAQLQ-CF], child rated if aged ≥8 years) during the 12-month double-blind, randomized, controlled Peanut EPIT Efficacy and Safety Study (PEPITES) trial and the initial 12 months of the open-label PEPITES Open Label Extension Study (PEOPLE) follow-up study. Data were analyzed for between-group differences after treatment unblinding. Results: FAQLQs from placebo participants (FAQLQ-PF: 96; FAQLQ-CF: 47) and treatment group participants (FAQLQ-PF: 209; FAQLQ-CF: 105) were analyzed. Twenty-four–month global FAQL scores (FAQLQ-PF/FAQLQ-CF) were significantly improved in the treatment group versus the placebo group (least squares mean, 0.34, P = .008, and 0.46, P = .023, respectively). At 24 months, there was significant FAQLQ-PF score improvement in participants initially randomized to treatment who met the efficacy primary end point (n = 74; least squares mean, 0.55; P < .001) and in participants with any eliciting dose increase (n = 127; least squares mean, 0.66; P < .001). FAQLQ-PF improvements were observed in social dietary limitations (P = .002), food-related anxiety (P = .029), and emotional impact (P = .048) domains. FAQLQ-CF improvements were observed in risk of accidental exposure (P = .002) and allergen avoidance (P = .04) domains. Nearly all outcomes met a nontreatment context minimal clinically important difference previously cited for FAQLQ. Conclusions: Epicutaneous immunotherapy treatment was observed to be associated with significant global and domain-specific FAQL improvement (FAQLQ-PF/FAQLQ-CF), largely driven by increases in eliciting dose, in children with peanut allergy

WAO consensus on DEfinition of Food Allergy SEverity (DEFASE).

BACKGROUND: While several scoring systems for the severity of anaphylactic reactions have been developed, there is a lack of consensus on definition and categorisation of severity of food allergy disease as a whole. AIM: To develop an international consensus on the severity of food allergy (DEfinition of Food Allergy Severity, DEFASE) scoring system, to be used globally. METHODS PHASE 1: We conducted a mixed-method systematic review (SR) of 11 databases for published and unpublished literature on severity of food allergy management and set up a panel of international experts. PHASE 2: Based on our findings in Phase 1, we drafted statements for a two-round modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) survey. A purposefully selected multidisciplinary international expert panel on food allergy (n = 60) was identified and sent a structured questionnaire, including a set of statements on different domains of food allergy severity related to symptoms, health-related quality of life, and economic impact. Participants were asked to score their agreement on each statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Median scores and percentage agreements were calculated. Consensus was defined a priori as being achieved if 70% or more of panel members rated a statement as "strongly agree" to "agree" after the second round. Based on feedback, 2 additional online voting rounds were conducted. RESULTS: We received responses from 92% of Delphi panel members in round 1 and 85% in round 2. Consensus was achieved on the overall score and in all of the 5 specific key domains as essential components of the DEFASE score. CONCLUSIONS: The DEFASE score is the first comprehensive grading of food allergy severity that considers not only the severity of a single reaction, but the whole disease spectrum. An international consensus has been achieved regarding a scoring system for food allergy disease. It offers an evaluation grid, which may help to rate the severity of food allergy. Phase 3 will involve validating the scoring system in research settings, and implementing it in clinical practice

WAO consensus on definition of food allergy severity (DEFASE)

Background: While several scoring systems for the severity of anaphylactic reactions have been developed, there is a lack of consensus on definition and categorisation of severity of food allergy disease as a whole. Aim: To develop an international consensus on the severity of food allergy (DEfinition of Food Allergy Severity, DEFASE) scoring system, to be used globally. Methods phase 1: We conducted a mixed-method systematic review (SR) of 11 databases for published and unpublished literature on severity of food allergy management and set up a panel of international experts. Phase 2: Based on our findings in Phase 1, we drafted statements for a two-round modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) survey. A purposefully selected multidisciplinary international expert panel on food allergy (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;60) was identified and sent a structured questionnaire, including a set of statements on different domains of food allergy severity related to symptoms, health-related quality of life, and economic impact. Participants were asked to score their agreement on each statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Median scores and percentage agreements were calculated. Consensus was defined a priori as being achieved if 70% or more of panel members rated a statement as "strongly agree" to "agree" after the second round. Based on feedback, 2 additional online voting rounds were conducted. Results: We received responses from 92% of Delphi panel members in round 1 and 85% in round 2. Consensus was achieved on the overall score and in all of the 5 specific key domains as essential components of the DEFASE score. Conclusions: The DEFASE score is the first comprehensive grading of food allergy severity that considers not only the severity of a single reaction, but the whole disease spectrum. An international consensus has been achieved regarding a scoring system for food allergy disease. It offers an evaluation grid, which may help to rate the severity of food allergy. Phase 3 will involve validating the scoring system in research settings, and implementing it in clinical practice