Allergist-Reported Trends in the Practice of Food Allergen Oral Immunotherapy

Food allergen oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an experimental, immune-modifying therapy that may induce clinical desensitization in some patients. OIT is still in early phase clinical research, but some provider may offer OIT as a clinical service. To understand the current practices of allergists performing OIT an on-line survey was emailed to members of the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology. Among 442 respondents, 61 (13.8%) reported participating in OIT, including 28 in non-academic settings. Informed consent for OIT was obtained by 91.3%, IRB approval by 47.7% and Investigational New Drug (IND) approval by 38.1%. Compared to non-academic participants, more academic participants used peanut OIT, obtained IRB and IND (p <0.0001 respectively), and challenged patients prior to entry (p=0.008). More non-academic providers billed the patient or insurance for reimbursement (p<0.0001). Low reported regard for the importance for FDA approval or a standardized product (increased odds), and high regard for better safety data (decreased odds) were associated with considering to offer OIT as a service. Significant differences exist in OIT occurring in academic vs. non-academic settings. Further assessment is needed regarding the different motivations and practice styles among providers offering OIT, and those considering doing so

A survey study of index food‐related allergic reactions and anaphylaxis management

Background:  Initial food‐allergic reactions are often poorly recognized and under‐treated. Methods:  Parents of food‐allergic children were invited to complete an online questionnaire, designed with Kids with Food Allergies Foundation , about their children’s first food‐allergic reactions resulting in urgent medical evaluation. Results:  Among 1361 reactions, 76% (95% CI 74–79%) were highly likely to represent anaphylaxis based on NIAID/FAAN criteria. Only 34% (95% CI 31–37%) of these were administered epinephrine. In 56% of these, epinephrine was administered by emergency departments; 20% by parents; 9% by paramedics; 8% by primary care physicians; and 6% by urgent care centers. In 26% of these, epinephrine was given within 15 min of the onset of symptoms; 54% within 30 min; 82% within 1 h; and 93% within 2 h. Factors associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving epinephrine for anaphylaxis included age <12 months, milk and egg triggers, and symptoms of abdominal pain and/or diarrhea. Epinephrine was more likely to be given to asthmatic children and children with peanut or tree nut ingestion prior to event. Post‐treatment, 42% of reactions likely to represent anaphylaxis were referred to allergists, 34% prescribed and/or given epinephrine auto‐injectors, 17% trained to use epinephrine auto‐injectors, and 19% given emergency action plans. Of patients treated with epinephrine, only half (47%) were prescribed epinephrine auto‐injectors. Conclusions:  Only one‐third of initial food‐allergic reactions with symptoms of anaphylaxis were recognized and treated with epinephrine. Fewer than half of patients were referred to allergists. There is still a need to increase education and awareness about food‐induced anaphylaxis.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/93515/1/pai1315.pd

Addendum Guidelines for the Prevention of Peanut Allergy in the United States: Report of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseasesâ Sponsored Expert Panel

BackgroundFood allergy is an important public health problem because it affects children and adults, can be severe and even lifeâ threatening, and may be increasing in prevalence. Beginning in 2008, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, working with other organizations and advocacy groups, led the development of the first clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy. A recent landmark clinical trial and other emerging data suggest that peanut allergy can be prevented through introduction of peanutâ containing foods beginning in infancy.ObjectivesPrompted by these findings, along with 25 professional organizations, federal agencies, and patient advocacy groups, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases facilitated development of addendum guidelines to specifically address the prevention of peanut allergy.ResultsThe addendum provides three separate guidelines for infants at various risk levels for the development of peanut allergy and is intended for use by a wide variety of health care providers. Topics addressed include the definition of risk categories, appropriate use of testing (specific IgE measurement, skin prick tests, and oral food challenges), and the timing and approaches for introduction of peanutâ containing foods in the health care provider’s office or at home. The addendum guidelines provide the background, rationale, and strength of evidence for each recommendation.ConclusionsGuidelines have been developed for early introduction of peanutâ containing foods into the diets of infants at various risk levels for peanut allergy.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135514/1/pde13093_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135514/2/pde13093.pd

Addendum guidelines for the prevention of peanut allergy in the United States

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135363/1/pde13092.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135363/2/pde13092_am.pd

International consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food protein–induced enterocolitis syndrome: Executive summary—Workgroup Report of the Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee, American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology

Food protein-induced enterocolitis (FPIES) is a non-IgE cell- mediated food allergy that can be severe and lead to shock. Despite the potential seriousness of reactions, awareness of FPIES is low; high-quality studies providing insight into the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management are lacking; and clinical outcomes are poorly established. This consensus document is the result of work done by an international workgroup convened through the Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and the International FPIES Association advocacy group. These are the first international evidence-based guidelines to improve the diagnosis and management of patients with FPIES. Research on prevalence, pathophysiology, diagnostic markers, and future treatments is necessary to improve the care of patients with FPIES. These guidelines will be updated periodically as more evidence becomes available

Updated Guidance Regarding The Risk ofAllergic Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccines and Recommended Evaluation and Management: A GRADE Assessment, and International Consensus Approach

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 \u3e 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

Core Outcome Set for IgE ‐mediated food allergy clinical trials and observational studies of interventions: International Delphi consensus study ‘ COMFA ’

Background: IgE‐mediated food allergy (FA) is a global health concern with substantial individual and societal implications. While diverse intervention strategies have been researched, inconsistencies in reported outcomes limit evaluations of FA treatments. To streamline evaluations and promote consistent reporting, the Core Outcome Measures for Food Allergy (COMFA) initiative aimed to establish a Core Outcome Set (COS) for FA clinical trials and observational studies of interventions. Methods: The project involved a review of published clinical trials, trial protocols and qualitative literature. Outcomes found as a result of review were categorized and classified, informing a two‐round online‐modified Delphi process followed by hybrid consensus meeting to finalize the COS. Results: The literature review, taxonomy mapping and iterative discussions with diverse COMFA group yielded an initial list of 39 outcomes. The iterative online and in‐person meetings reduced the list to 13 outcomes for voting in the formal Delphi process. One more outcome was added based on participant suggestions after the first Delphi round. A total of 778 participants from 52 countries participated, with 442 participating in both Delphi rounds. No outcome met a priori criteria for inclusion, and one was excluded as a result of the Delphi. Thirteen outcomes were brought to the hybrid consensus meeting as a result of Delphi and two outcomes, ‘allergic symptoms’ and ‘quality of life’ achieved consensus for inclusion as ‘core’ outcomes. Conclusion: In addition to the mandatory reporting of adverse events for FA clinical trials or observational studies of interventions, allergic symptoms and quality of life should be measured as core outcomes. Future work by COMFA will define how best to measure these core outcomes

Managing Cross-Reactivity in Those with Peanut Allergy

Peanut is an allergenic legume that can cross-react with other plant-based foods, notably other legumes and tree nuts. Peanut-allergic individuals can be both cosensitized and coallergic to such items, requiring foresight when eliciting a clinical history of a reaction, in the diagnostic evaluation of such allergies, and in the counseling of patients as to food avoidances after a diagnosis is made. Legume allergens belong to the Fabaceae family and encompass the cupin, prolamin, PR-10, and lipid transfer protein families, which mediate cross-sensitization including that between peanut and tree nut. Among legumes, the most common patterns of clinical cross-reactivity are between peanut and lupine, peanut and soy, as well as chickpea and lentil, though this is highly dependent on geography and prevalence of these foods in the diet. Issues of cross-sensitization may exist between peanut and certain tree nuts, as well as among tree nuts though such patterns do not always result in clinically relevant allergy. Molecular diagnostic testing may be a future tool to help parse out the aforementioned patterns, but oral food challenges are still the gold standard for accurate diagnosis. Although potential desensitization treatments have emerged for peanut allergy, these have not been developed for other legumes and most tree nuts, and desensitization to peanut has not proven to have an effect on legume cross-sensitization