European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA): Characteristics of patients patch tested and diagnosed with irritant contact dermatitis

Background Irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) is caused by the acute locally toxic effect of a strong irritant, or the cumulative exposure to various weaker physical and/or chemical irritants. Objectives To describe the characteristics of patients with ICD in the population patch tested in the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA; ) database. Methods Data collected by the ESSCA in consecutively patch-tested patients from January 2009 to December 2018 were analyzed. Results Of the 68 072 patients, 8702 were diagnosed with ICD (without concomitant allergic contact dermatitis [ACD]). Hand and face were the most reported anatomical sites, and 45.7% of the ICD was occupational ICD (OICD). The highest proportions of OICD were found in metal turners, bakers, pastry cooks, and confectionery makers. Among patients diagnosed with ICD, 45% were found sensitized with no relevance for the current disease. Conclusions The hands were mainly involved in OICD also in the subgroup of patients with contact dermatitis, in whom relevant contact sensitization had been ruled out, emphasizing the need for limiting irritant exposures. However, in difficult-to-treat contact dermatitis, unrecognized contact allergy, or unrecognized clinical relevance of identified allergies owing to incomplete or wrong product ingredient information must always be considered

Factors increasing the risk for a severe reaction in anaphylaxis: An analysis of data from The European Anaphylaxis Registry

BACKGROUND Preventive measures to decrease the frequency and intensity of anaphylactic events are essential to provide optimal care for allergic patients. Aggravating factors may trigger or increase the severity of anaphylaxis and therefore need to be recognized and avoided. OBJECTIVE To identify and prioritize factors associated with an increased risk of developing severe anaphylaxis. METHODS Data from the Anaphylaxis Registry (122 centers in 11 European countries) were used in logistic regression models considering existing severity grading systems, elicitors, and symptoms to identify the relative risk of factors on the severity of anaphylaxis. RESULTS We identified higher age and concomitant mastocytosis (OR: 3.1, CI: 2.6-3.7) as the most important predictors for an increased risk of severe anaphylaxis. Vigorous physical exercise (OR: 1.5, CI: 1.3-1.7), male sex (OR: 1.2, CI: 1.1-1.3), and psychological burden (OR: 1.4, CI: 1.2-1.6) were more often associated with severe reactions. Additionally, intake of beta-blockers (OR: 1.9, CI: 1.5-2.2) and ACE-I (OR: 1.28, CI: 1.05, 1.51) in temporal proximity to allergen exposition was identified as an important factor in logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSION Our data suggest it may be possible to identify patients who require intensified preventive measures due to their relatively higher risk for severe anaphylaxis by considering endogenous and exogenous factors

Drug-induced anaphylaxis—elicitors, mechanisms and diagnosis

Drugs are one of the major causes of anaphylaxis. For example 2346 cases of drug-induced anaphylaxis were reported to the anaphylaxis register as of March 2019. The most common triggers of drug-induced anaphylaxis were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; n = 902) and antibiotics (n = 721). Drug-induced anaphylaxis can be caused by IgE-dependent (e.g., penicillins) and IgE-independent mechanisms. Recently MRG-PX2 has been identified as a receptor for non-IgE-dependent mechanisms. Drug-induced anaphylaxis results more frequently in lethal reactions and is more commonly associated with cardiovascular symptoms. Also therapy refractory anaphylaxis is more frequently triggered by drugs. For the diagnosis of drug-induced anaphylaxis current national and international guidelines should be followed including provocation tests to avoid future reactions

Factors increasing the risk for a severe reaction in anaphylaxis: An analysis of data from The European Anaphylaxis Registry

Background: Preventive measures to decrease the frequency and intensity of anaphylactic events are essential to provide optimal care for allergic patients. Aggravating factors may trigger or increase the severity of anaphylaxis and therefore need to be recognized and avoided. Objective: To identify and prioritize factors associated with an increased risk of developing severe anaphylaxis. Methods: Data from the Anaphylaxis Registry (122 centers in 11 European countries) were used in logistic regression models considering existing severity grading systems, elicitors, and symptoms to identify the relative risk of factors on the severity of anaphylaxis. Results: We identified higher age and concomitant mastocytosis (OR: 3.1, CI: 2.6-3.7) as the most important predictors for an increased risk of severe anaphylaxis. Vigorous physical exercise (OR: 1.5, CI: 1.3-1.7), male sex (OR: 1.2, CI: 1.1-1.3), and psychological burden (OR: 1.4, CI: 1.2-1.6) were more often associated with severe reactions. Additionally, intake of beta-blockers (OR: 1.9, CI: 1.5-2.2) and ACE-I (OR: 1.28, CI: 1.05, 1.51) in temporal proximity to allergen exposition was identified as an important factor in logistic regression analysis. Conclusion: Our data suggest it may be possible to identify patients who require intensified preventive measures due to their relatively higher risk for severe anaphylaxis by considering endogenous and exogenous factors. © 2018 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd

Risk Factors and Characteristics of Biphasic Anaphylaxis

Background: Anaphylaxis is an immediate hypersensitivity reaction. However, a biphasic course with the second onset of symptoms can occur hours after the initial phase. Little is known about the causes of biphasic anaphylaxis making the identification of patients at risk difficult. Objective: To identify factors predisposing for biphasic anaphylaxis for the better understanding of these reactions. Methods: Data from the Anaphylaxis Registry (from 11 countries) including 8736 patients with monophasic and 435 biphasic anaphylaxis were analyzed. Results: The rate of biphasic reactions in this large cohort was 4.7%. The identified risk factors were reaction severity (grade III/IV vs grade II: odds ratio [OR] = 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-1.62); multiorgan involvement; skin, gastrointestinal, severe respiratory, and cardiac symptoms; anaphylaxis caused by peanut/tree nut (OR = 1.78; 95% CI: 1.38-2.23) or an unknown elicitor (OR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.41-2.72); exercise as a cofactor (OR = 1.44; 95% CI: 1.17-1.78); chronic urticaria as a comorbidity (OR = 2.12; 95% CI: 1.19-3.78); a prolonged interval between the contact with the elicitor and start of primary symptoms (OR for >30 vs <30 min: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.08-1.76); and antihistamine treatment (OR = 1.52; 95% CI: 1.14-2.02). Conclusion: A biphasic course of anaphylaxis occurs more frequently in severely affected patients with multiorgan involvement. However, we identified multiple additional predictors, suggesting that the pathogenesis of biphasic reactions is more complex than being a rebound of a severe primary reaction. © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunolog

Wheat Anaphylaxis in Adults Differs from Reactions to Other Types of Food

Background: Wheat is one of the most commonly consumed foods and a known elicitor of anaphylaxis in children and adults. Reactions in adults are often cofactor dependent and characterized by a prolonged time between food intake and the onset of symptoms making the diagnosis of wheat anaphylaxis challenging. Objective: To characterize a cohort of patients with the history of wheat anaphylaxis to better understand this atypical phenotype of anaphylaxis. Methods: Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry from 2007 to 2019 (n = 10,636) including 250 patients (213 adults and 37 children) with a history of anaphylaxis caused by wheat were analyzed. Results: Wheat was the most common food elicitor of anaphylaxis in adults in the registry in Central Europe. Reactions to wheat in adults were frequently associated with exercise as a cofactor (82.8%) and partially delayed (57.5%). Only 36.9% of patients had atopic comorbidities, which was uncommonly low for adult patients allergic to other kinds of foods (63.2%). Anaphylaxis to wheat presented frequently with cardiovascular symptoms (86.7%) including severe symptoms such as loss of consciousness (41%) and less often with respiratory symptoms (53.6%). The reactions to wheat were more severe than reactions to other foods (odds ratio [OR] = 4.33), venom (OR = 1.58), or drugs (OR = 2.11). Conclusions: Wheat is a relevant elicitor of anaphylaxis in adults in Central Europe. Wheat anaphylaxis is highly dependent on the presence of cofactors and less frequently associated with atopic diseases compared with other food allergies. More data on mechanisms of wheat-induced anaphylaxis are required to develop preventive measures for this potentially life-threatening disease

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. © 2019 The Authors. Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

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

European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA): Characteristics of patients patch tested and diagnosed with irritant contact dermatitis

Background: Irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) is caused by the acute locally toxic effect of a strong irritant, or the cumulative exposure to various weaker physical and/or chemical irritants. Objectives: To describe the characteristics of patients with ICD in the population patch tested in the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA; www.essca-dc.org) database. Methods: Data collected by the ESSCA in consecutively patch tested patients from January 2009 to December 2018 were analyzed. Results: Of the 68 072 patients, 8702 were diagnosed with ICD (without concomitant allergic contact dermatitis [ACD]). Hand and face were the most reported anatomical sites, and 45.7% of the ICD was occupational ICD (OICD). The highest proportions of OICD were found in metal turners, bakers, pastry cooks, and confectionery makers. Among patients diagnosed with ICD, 45% were found sensitized with no relevance for the current disease. Conclusions: The hands were mainly involved in OICD also in the subgroup of patients with contact dermatitis, in whom relevant contact sensitization had been ruled out, emphasizing the need for limiting irritant exposures. However, in difficult-to-treat contact dermatitis, unrecognized contact allergy, or unrecognized clinical relevance of identified allergies owing to incomplete or wrong product ingredient information must always be considered