Implementation of anaphylaxis management guidelines

Anaphylaxis management guidelines recommend the use of intramuscular adrenaline in severe reactions, complemented by antihistamines and corticoids; secondary prevention includes allergen avoidance and provision of self-applicable first aid drugs. Gaps between recommendations and their implementation have been reported, but only in confined settings. Hence, we analysed nation-wide data on the management of anaphylaxis, evaluating the implementation of guidelines. Within the anaphylaxis registry, allergy referral centres across Germany, Austria and Switzerland provided data on severe anaphylaxis cases. Based on patient records, details on reaction circumstances, diagnostic workup and treatment were collected via online questionnaire. Report of anaphylaxis through emergency physicians allowed for validation of registry data. 2114 severe anaphylaxis patients from 58 centres were included. 8% received adrenaline intravenously, 4% intramuscularly; 50% antihistamines, and 51% corticoids. Validation data indicated moderate underreporting of first aid drugs in the Registry. 20% received specific instructions at the time of the reaction; 81% were provided with prophylactic first aid drugs at any time. There is a distinct discrepancy between current anaphylaxis management guidelines and their implementation. To improve patient care, a revised approach for medical education and training on the management of severe anaphylaxis is warranted

Efficacy, safety and quality of life in a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of low-dose peanut oral immunotherapy in children with peanut allergy

BACKGROUND: Only 2 small placebo-controlled trials on peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) have been published. OBJECTIVE: We examined the efficacy, safety, immunologic parameters, quality of life (QOL), and burden of treatment (BOT) of low-dose peanut OIT in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 62 children aged 3 to 17 years with IgE-mediated, challenge-proven peanut allergy were randomized (1:1) to receive peanut OIT with a maintenance dose of 125 to 250 mg peanut protein or placebo. The primary outcome was the proportion of children tolerating 300 mg or more peanut protein at oral food challenge (OFC) after 16 months of OIT. We measured the occurrence of adverse events (AEs), immunologic changes, and QOL before and after OIT and BOT during OIT. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 31 (74.2%) children of the active group tolerated at least 300 mg peanut protein at final OFC compared with 5 of 31 (16.1%) in the placebo group (P < .001). Thirteen of 31 (41.9%) children of the active versus 1 of 31 (3.2%) of the placebo group tolerated the highest dose of 4.5 g peanut protein at final OFC (P < .001). There was no significant difference between the groups in the occurrence of AE-related dropouts or in the number, severity, and treatment of objective AEs. In the peanut-OIT group, we noted a significant reduction in peanut-specific IL-4, IL-5, IL-10, and IL-2 production by PBMCs compared with the placebo group, as well as a significant increase in peanut-specific IgG4 levels and a significant improvement in QOL; 86% of children evaluated the BOT positively. DISCUSSION: Low-dose OIT is a promising, effective, and safe treatment option for peanut-allergic children, leading to improvement in QOL, a low BOT, and immunologic changes showing tolerance development

Implementation of Anaphylaxis Management Guidelines: A Register-Based Study

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis management guidelines recommend the use of intramuscular adrenaline in severe reactions, complemented by antihistamines and corticoids; secondary prevention includes allergen avoidance and provision of self-applicable first aid drugs. Gaps between recommendations and their implementation have been reported, but only in confined settings. Hence, we analysed nation-wide data on the management of anaphylaxis, evaluating the implementation of guidelines. METHODS: Within the anaphylaxis registry, allergy referral centres across Germany, Austria and Switzerland provided data on severe anaphylaxis cases. Based on patient records, details on reaction circumstances, diagnostic workup and treatment were collected via online questionnaire. Report of anaphylaxis through emergency physicians allowed for validation of registry data. RESULTS: 2114 severe anaphylaxis patients from 58 centres were included. 8% received adrenaline intravenously, 4% intramuscularly; 50% antihistamines, and 51% corticoids. Validation data indicated moderate underreporting of first aid drugs in the Registry. 20% received specific instructions at the time of the reaction; 81% were provided with prophylactic first aid drugs at any time. CONCLUSION: There is a distinct discrepancy between current anaphylaxis management guidelines and their implementation. To improve patient care, a revised approach for medical education and training on the management of severe anaphylaxis is warranted

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

White paper on peanut allergy: treatment pathway

Background: Peanuts are a member of the legume family (botanical family Leguminosae) and peanut allergies are the most common cause of food anaphylaxis in many countries. The prevalence of peanut allergy is increasing. Methods: Experts from Germany and Austria performed a standardized literature search and published their consensus recommendations in a White Paper on Peanut Allergy, which this care pathway is based upon, thus, providing a comprehensive diagnosis and treatment algorithm. Results: The most important diagnostic key elements include a detailed clinical medical history, evidence of peanut-specific sensitization by means of skin prick testing and/or in vitro determination of the peanut (extract)-specific IgE and/or the molecular component diagnostics (most important Ara h 2-specific IgE, sometimes also Ara h1-, 3-, 6-, 8- and 9-specific IgE) as well as the gold standard, the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. The diagnostic algorithms were created for the following constellations: Suspected primary peanut allergy with a clear history of systemic immediate-type reaction, suspected primary peanut allergy with questionable symptoms, suspected secondary (possibly pollen-associated) peanut allergy with a history of solely oropharyngeal symptoms and incidental finding of sensitization and no peanut ingestion so far. Conclusions: After established diagnosis the standard of care is counseling to avoid peanut contact and prescription of emergency medications (oral antihistamines, oral steroids, inhaled β2-agonists, injectable intramuscular epinephrine) as needed. Instruction on the use of these emergency medications should be provided. A preparation for oral immunotherapy (OIT) for 4 to 17 years old peanut allergic children/ adolescents has been recently approved by the regulatory authorities. OIT for peanut allergy shows high efficacy and an acceptable safety profile, improves quality of life, and health economic aspects. Thus it offers a therapeutic option for peanut allergic children and adolescents

White paper peanut-allergy - part 2: Diagnosis of peanut allergy with special emphasis on molecular component diagnostics

Blum LA, Ahrens B, Klimek L, et al. White Paper Erdnussallergie - Teil 2: Diagnostik der Erdnussallergie unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der molekularen Komponentendiagnostik. Allergo Journal . 2021;30(8):32-44.Hintergrund: Die Erdnussallergie ist eine IgE-vermittelte Immunreaktion, welche sich meist im Kindesalter manifestiert und zu leichten Hautreaktionen bis hin zur Anaphylaxie führen kann. Da die Lebensqualität durch die Diagnose einer Erdnussallergie bei Betroffenen stark reduziert ist, sollte immer eine akkurate Diagnosestellung erfolgen. Methoden: Es wurde eine selektive Literaturrecherche in Pubmed durchgeführt und in einem Konsens wurden diagnostische Algorithmen angefertigt. Ergebnisse: Die wichtigsten diagnostischen Schlüsselelemente beinhalten eine detaillierte klinische Anamnese, den Nachweis einer erdnussspezifischen Sensibilisierung mittels Haut-Pricktestung und/oder In-vitro-Bestimmung des Erdnuss(extrakt)-spezifischen IgE und/oder der molekularen Komponentendiagnostik sowie des Goldstandards, der doppelblinden, placebokontrollierten Nahrungsmittelprovokation. Über diese Elemente, inklusive der publizierten Cut-off-Werte, wurden diagnostische Algorithmen erstellt für folgende Konstellationen: 1) Verdacht auf primäre Erdnussallergie mit eindeutiger systemischer Soforttypreaktion in der Anamnese, 2) Verdacht auf primäre Erdnussallergie mit fraglichen Symptomen, 3) Verdacht auf eine pollenassoziierte Erdnussallergie mit rein oropharyngealen Symptomen in der Anamnese oder 4) Zufallsbefund bei Sensibilisierungstestung und keine Erdnussingestion bislang. Schlussfolgerung: Die wichtigsten diagnostischen Maßnahmen bei der Ermittlung der Diagnose einer Erdnussallergie sind die klinische Anamnese und der Sensibilisierungsnachweis auch über die komponentenbasierte Diagnostik. Bei unklaren Ergebnissen sollte allerdings immer der Goldstandard - die orale Provokationstestung - herangezogen werden

S3 guideline Atopic dermatitis: Part 2 - Systemic treatment.

The present S3 guideline was created based on the European English-language S3 guideline, with special consideration given to the medical conditions in the German-speaking region, and with additions from the previous German-language version, in accordance with the criteria of the AWMF. This second part of the guideline addresses the systemic therapy of atopic dermatitis (AD). It covers topics such as the indication for systemic therapy in children, adolescents, and adult patients with AD. Furthermore, it addresses all medications approved for AD, such as the biologics dupilumab and tralokinumab, the Janus kinase inhibitors abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib, as well as conventional immunosuppressive therapies with systemic glucocorticosteroids and ciclosporin. Additionally, it discusses systemic off-label therapies. The first part of the guideline, published separately, includes the definition and diagnostic aspects of AD, describes topical therapy, non-drug therapy approaches, and addresses aspects related to special patient groups

S3 Guideline Atopic dermatitis: Part 1 - General aspects, topical and non-drug therapies, special patient groups.

This S3 guideline was created based on the European S3 guideline, with special consideration of the medical conditions in the German-speaking region and incorporating additions from the previous German-language version. The interdisciplinary guideline commission consisted of representatives from the German Dermatological Society, the Professional Association of German Dermatologists, the Austrian Society of Dermatology and Venereology, the Swiss Society of Dermatology and Venereology, the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology, the German Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, the Professional Association of Pediatricians and Adolescent Medicine, the Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine, the German Society for Pediatric Rehabilitation and Prevention, the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy, the German Network for Health Services Research, the German Eczema Association and the German Allergy and Asthma Association. This first part of the guideline focuses on the definition and diagnostic aspects of atopic dermatitis (AD), addressing topical therapy as well as non-pharmacological treatment approaches such as UV therapy, psychoeducational therapy, dietary interventions for AD, allergen immunotherapy for AD, and complementary medicine. This part of the guideline also covers specific aspects of AD in children and adolescents, during pregnancy and lactation, and in the context of family planning. Additionally, it addresses occupational aspects of AD and highlights the perspective of the patients. The second part of the guideline, published separately, addresses the systemic therapy of AD