Victoria Cardona

EAACI food allergy and anaphylaxis guidelines: diagnosis and management of food allergy

Food allergy can result in considerable morbidity, impact negatively on quality of life, and prove costly in terms of medical care. These guidelines have been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunologys (EAACI) Guidelines for Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Group, building on previous EAACI position papers on adverse reaction to foods and three recent systematic reviews on the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of food allergy, and provide evidence‐based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of food allergy. While the primary audience is allergists, this document is relevant for all other healthcare professionals, including primary care physicians, and pediatric and adult specialists, dieticians, pharmacists and paramedics. Our current understanding of the manifestations of food allergy, the role of diagnostic tests, and the effective management of patients of all ages with food allergy is presented. The acute management of non‐life‐threatening reactions is covered in these guidelines, but for guidance on the emergency management of anaphylaxis, readers are referred to the related EAACI Anaphylaxis Guidelines.

Anaphylaxis: guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Anaphylaxis is a clinical emergency, and all healthcare professionals should be familiar with its recognition and acute and ongoing management. These guidelines have been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Taskforce on Anaphylaxis. They aim to provide evidence‐based recommendations for the recognition, risk factor assessment, and the management of patients who are at risk of, are experiencing, or have experienced anaphylaxis. While the primary audience is allergists, these guidelines are also relevant to all other healthcare professionals. The development of these guidelines has been underpinned by two systematic reviews of the literature, both on the epidemiology and on clinical management of anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a potentially life‐threatening condition whose clinical diagnosis is based on recognition of a constellation of presenting features. First‐line treatment for anaphylaxis is intramuscular adrenaline. Useful second‐line interventions may include removing the trigger where possible, calling for help, correct positioning of the patient, high‐flow oxygen, intravenous fluids, inhaled short‐acting bronchodilators, and nebulized adrenaline. Discharge arrangements should involve an assessment of the risk of further reactions, a management plan with an anaphylaxis emergency action plan, and, where appropriate, prescribing an adrenaline auto‐injector. If an adrenaline auto‐injector is prescribed, education on when and how to use the device should be provided. Specialist follow‐up is essential to investigate possible triggers, to perform a comprehensive risk assessment, and to prevent future episodes by developing personalized risk reduction strategies including, where possible, commencing allergen immunotherapy. Training for the patient and all caregivers is essential. There are still many gaps in the evidence base for anaphylaxis.

The epidemiology of food allergy in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Food allergy (FA) is an important atopic disease although its precise burden is unclear. This systematic review aimed to provide recent, up‐to‐date data on the incidence, prevalence, time trends, and risk and prognostic factors for FA in Europe. We searched four electronic databases, covering studies published from 1 January 2000 to 30 September 2012. Two independent reviewers appraised the studies and qualified the risk of bias using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. Seventy‐five eligible articles (comprising 56 primary studies) were included in a narrative synthesis, and 30 studies in a random‐effects meta‐analysis. Most of the studies were graded as at moderate risk of bias. The pooled lifetime and point prevalence of self‐reported FA were 17.3% (95% CI: 17.0–17.6) and 5.9% (95% CI: 5.7–6.1), respectively. The point prevalence of sensitization to ≥1 food as assessed by specific IgE was 10.1% (95% CI: 9.4–10.8) and skin prick test 2.7% (95% CI: 2.4–3.0), food challenge positivity 0.9% (95% CI: 0.8–1.1). While the incidence of FA appeared stable over time, there was some evidence that the prevalence may be increasing. There were no consistent risk or prognostic factors for the development or resolution of FA identified, but sex, age, country of residence, familial atopic history, and the presence of other allergic diseases seem to be important. Food allergy is a significant clinical problem in Europe. The evidence base in this area would benefit from additional studies using standardized, rigorous methodology; data are particularly required from Eastern and Southern Europe.

International consensus on (ICON) anaphylaxis

ICON: Anaphylaxis provides a unique perspective on the principal evidence-based anaphylaxis guidelines developed and published independently from 2010 through 2014 by four allergy/immunology organizations. These guidelines concur with regard to the clinical features that indicate a likely diagnosis of anaphylaxis -- a life-threatening generalized or systemic allergic or hypersensitivity reaction.They also concur about prompt initial treatment with intramuscular injection of epinephrine (adrenaline) in the mid-outer thigh, positioning the patient supine (semi-reclining if dyspneic or vomiting), calling for help, and when indicated, providing supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluid resuscitation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, along with concomitant monitoring of vital signs and oxygenation. Additionally, they concur that H1-antihistamines, H2-antihistamines, and glucocorticoids are not initial medications of choice.For self-management of patients at risk of anaphylaxis in community settings, they recommend carrying epinephrine auto-injectors and personalized emergency action plans, as well as follow-up with a physician (ideally an allergy/immunology specialist) to help prevent anaphylaxis recurrences.ICON: Anaphylaxis describes unmet needs in anaphylaxis, noting that although epinephrine in 1 mg/mL ampules is available worldwide, other essentials, including supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluid resuscitation, and epinephrine auto-injectors are not universally available.ICON: Anaphylaxis proposes a comprehensive international research agenda that calls for additional prospective studies of anaphylaxis epidemiology, patient risk factors and co-factors, triggers, clinical criteria for diagnosis, randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions, and measures to prevent anaphylaxis recurrences. It also calls for facilitation of global collaborations in anaphylaxis research.In addition to confirming the alignment of major anaphylaxis guidelines, ICON: Anaphylaxis adds value by including summary tables and citing 130 key references. It is published as an information resource about anaphylaxis for worldwide use by healthcare professionals, academics, policy-makers, patients, caregivers, and the public.

The epidemiology of anaphylaxis in Europe: a systematic review

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially fatal, multi‐organ system, allergic reaction caused by the release of chemical mediators from mast cells and basophils. Uncertainty exists around epidemiological measures of incidence and prevalence, risk factors, risk of recurrence, and death due to anaphylaxis. This systematic review aimed to (1) understand and describe the epidemiology of anaphylaxis and (2) describe how these characteristics vary by person, place, and time.

Primary prevention of food allergy in children and adults: systematic review.

Food allergies can have serious physical, social, and financial consequences. This systematic review examined ways to prevent the development of food allergy in children and adults.

First European data from the network of severe allergic reactions (NORA)

Occurrence, elicitors and treatment of severe allergic reactions are recognized and reported differently between countries. We aimed to collect standardized data throughout Europe on anaphylaxis referred for diagnosis and counselling.

EAACI: A European Declaration on Immunotherapy. Designing the future of allergen specific immunotherapy

Allergy today is a public health concern of pandemic proportions, affecting more than 150 million people in Europe alone. In view of epidemiological trends, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) predicts that within the next few decades, more than half of the European population may at some point in their lives experience some type of allergy.Not only do allergic patients suffer from a debilitating disease, with the potential for major impact on their quality of life, career progression, personal development and lifestyle choices, but they also constitute a significant burden on health economics and macroeconomics due to the days of lost productivity and underperformance. Given that allergy triggers, including urbanization, industrialization, pollution and climate change, are not expected to change in the foreseeable future, it is imperative that steps are taken to develop, strengthen and optimize preventive and treatment strategies.Allergen specific immunotherapy is the only currently available medical intervention that has the potential to affect the natural course of the disease. Years of basic science research, clinical trials, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses have convincingly shown that allergen specific immunotherapy can achieve substantial results for patients, improving the allergic individuals’ quality of life, reducing the long-term costs and burden of allergies, and changing the course of the disease. Allergen specific immunotherapy not only effectively alleviates allergy symptoms, but it has a long-term effect after conclusion of the treatment and can prevent the progression of allergic diseases.Unfortunately, allergen specific immunotherapy has not yet received adequate attention from European institutions, including research funding bodies, even though this could be a most rewarding field in terms of return on investments, translational value and European integration and, a field in which Europe is recognized as a worldwide leader. Evaluation and surveillance of the full cost of allergic diseases is still lacking and further progress is being stifled by the variety of health systems across Europe. This means that the general population remains unaware of the potential use of allergen specific immunotherapy and its potential benefits.We call upon Europe’s policy-makers to coordinate actions and improve individual and public health in allergy by: Promoting awareness of the effectiveness of allergen specific immunotherapyUpdating national healthcare policies to support allergen specific immunotherapyPrioritising funding for allergen specific immunotherapy researchMonitoring the macroeconomic and health economic parameters of allergyReinforcing allergy teaching in medical disciplines and specialtiesThe effective implementation of the above policies has the potential for a major positive impact on European health and well-being in the next decade.

Management of anaphylaxis: a systematic review

To establish the effectiveness of interventions for the acute and long‐term management of anaphylaxis, seven databases were searched for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi‐randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before–after studies and interrupted time series and – only in relation to adrenaline – case series investigating the effectiveness of interventions in managing anaphylaxis. Fifty‐five studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. We found no robust studies investigating the effectiveness of adrenaline (epinephrine), H1‐antihistamines, systemic glucocorticosteroids or methylxanthines to manage anaphylaxis. There was evidence regarding the optimum route, site and dose of administration of adrenaline from trials studying people with a history of anaphylaxis. This suggested that administration of intramuscular adrenaline into the middle of vastus lateralis muscle is the optimum treatment. Furthermore, fatality register studies have suggested that a failure or delay in administration of adrenaline may increase the risk of death. The main long‐term management interventions studied were anaphylaxis management plans and allergen‐specific immunotherapy. Management plans may reduce the risk of further reactions, but these studies were at high risk of bias. Venom immunotherapy may reduce the incidence of systemic reactions in those with a history of venom‐triggered anaphylaxis.

Usefulness and limitations of sequential serum tryptase for the diagnosis of anaphylaxis in 102 patients.

Background: The diagnosis of anaphylaxis is based on clinical history since no reliable biological marker is currently available to confirm the diagnosis. Objective: It was the aim of this study to determine sequential serum tryptase concentrations during anaphylaxis and to evaluate its potential as a diagnostic marker. Methods: We performed a prospective study including patients with acute anaphylaxis (according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network criteria) attending the emergency department. Demographic characteristics, anaphylactic triggers, specific risk factors, clinical characteristics and management of anaphylaxis were recorded. Serum tryptase was measured at 1–2 h (T1), 4–6 h (T2) and 12–24 h (T3) following onset of the episode and at basal conditions (TB). Results: A total of 102 patients were included (63 females, mean age 47.4 ± 19.1 years). Tryptase concentration at T1 (19.3 ± 15.4 µg/l) was significantly higher than at T2, T3 and TB (all <11.4 µg/l; p < 0.0001). Importantly, tryptase was not raised in 36.3% of cases; furthermore, in 60.6% of these patients, no changes were observed in tryptase levels comparing T1 and TB (ΔT1–TB = 0). Tryptase was more frequently elevated in more severe anaphylaxis (p < 0.0001) and positively correlated with the grades of severity (p < 0.001, r = 0.49). Anaphylaxis was more severe and tryptase concentration higher when the causative agent was a drug compared to food, both at T1 (p = 0.045) and at TB (p = 0.019). Age and coronary risk factors were associated with more severe anaphylaxis (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Tryptase is a biomarker related to the severity of anaphylaxis. However, since its concentration remains unaltered in a considerable number of patients during acute anaphylaxis, there is a need for more reliable diagnostic biological tests.