Implementation of evidence-based medicine in dietetic practice: Current status and hurdles in Italy.

Background: Health professionals, including dietitians, should adapt their clinical daily practice to evidence-based practice (EBP), but this does not happen often in daily practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the current status and barriers to evidence-based practice among dietitians. Methods: This was a mixed-method, cross-sectional, national study (questionnaire and focus group) performed on working and registered dietitians, both self-employed and employed by public hospitals. The main outcomes were EBP knowledge, frequency of use, and proficiency scores. Barriers to EBP implementation were also collected, as well as qualitative information from the focus group. Results: Forty-three dietitians were enrolled from August to November 2021 in Italy. Overall, EBP knowledge was moderate/good. Younger dietitians (< 50 years old) obtained better results than their older colleagues. A similar trend was observed in terms of seniority. There was a discrepancy between EBP knowledge and perception of EBP implementation: the worst scores were obtained by participants who claimed an already complete integration of EBP. The average frequency of EBP use was moderate, with higher scores in dietitians ≥ 50 years old and with seniority ≥ 20 years. EBP proficiency instead was poor. The focus group revealed a lack of time and resistance to change as the main barriers. Conclusion: The importance of EBP is well-acknowledged, but it is not correctly implemented yet, because of identified barriers that need to be fixed. These barriers include a lack of dedicated time, inadequate EBP training, and resistance to change, especially in hierarchical environments.

Nomenclature of allergic diseases and hypersensitivity reactions: Adapted to modern needs: An EAACI position paper.

The exponential growth of precision diagnostic tools, including omic technologies, molecular diagnostics, sophisticated genetic and epigenetic editing, imaging and nano-technologies and patient access to extensive health care, has resulted in vast amounts of unbiased data enabling in-depth disease characterization. New disease endotypes have been identified for various allergic diseases and triggered the gradual transition from a disease description focused on symptoms to identifying biomarkers and intricate pathogenetic and metabolic pathways. Consequently, the current disease taxonomy has to be revised for better categorization. This European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Position Paper responds to this challenge and provides a modern nomenclature for allergic diseases, which respects the earlier classifications back to the early 20th century. Hypersensitivity reactions originally described by Gell and Coombs have been extended into nine different types comprising antibody- (I-III), cell-mediated (IVa-c), tissue-driven mechanisms (V-VI) and direct response to chemicals (VII). Types I-III are linked to classical and newly described clinical conditions. Type IVa-c are specified and detailed according to the current understanding of T1, T2 and T3 responses. Types V-VI involve epithelial barrier defects and metabolic-induced immune dysregulation, while direct cellular and inflammatory responses to chemicals are covered in type VII. It is notable that several combinations of mixed types may appear in the clinical setting. The clinical relevance of the current approach for allergy practice will be conferred in another article that will follow this year, aiming at showing the relevance in clinical practice where various endotypes can overlap and evolve over the lifetime.

Different phenotypes of drug-induced anaphylaxis-Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry.

BACKGROUND: Drugs are a frequent cause of severe anaphylactic reactions. Here, we analyze a large dataset on drug induced anaphylaxis regarding elicitors, risk factors, symptoms, and treatment. METHODS: Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry (2007-2019) with 1815 reported cases of drug-induced anaphylaxis were studied accordingly. RESULTS: Drugs are the third most frequent cause of anaphylaxis reported in the Anaphylaxis Registry. Among the eliciting groups of drugs analgesics and antibiotics were far most often reported. Female and senior patients were more frequently affected, while the number of children with DIA was low. DIA patients had symptoms affecting the skin and mucous membranes (n = 1525, 84.02%), the respiratory (n = 1300, 71.63%), the cardiovascular (n = 1251, 68.93%) and the gastrointestinal system (n = 549, 30.25%). Drugs caused significant more severe reactions, occurred more often in medical facilities and led to increased hospitalization rates in comparison to food and insect venom induced anaphylaxis. Adrenaline was used more often in patients with DIA than in anaphylaxis due to other causes. Patients with skin symptoms received more antihistamines and corticosteroids in the acute treatment, while gastrointestinal symptoms led to less adrenaline use. CONCLUSION: The study contributes to a better understanding of DIA, with a large number of cases from Europe supporting previous data, e.g., analgesics and antibiotics being the most frequent culprits for DIA. Female gender and higher age are relevant risk factors and despite clear recommendations, the emergency treatment of DIA is not administered according to the guidelines.

Allergies and COVID-19 vaccines: An ENDA/EAACI Position paper.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID-19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized. METHOD: Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre-vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, and literature was analysed. RESULTS: No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1-anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2-anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3-recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4-suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5-confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick-to-prick skin test with the left-over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated.

Diagnosing, managing and preventing anaphylaxis: Systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review used the GRADE approach to compile evidence to inform the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) anaphylaxis guideline. METHODS: We searched five bibliographic databases from 1946 to 20 April 2020 for studies about the diagnosis, management and prevention of anaphylaxis. We included 50 studies with 18 449 participants: 29 randomized controlled trials, seven controlled clinical trials, seven consecutive case series and seven case-control studies. Findings were summarized narratively because studies were too heterogeneous to conduct meta-analysis. RESULTS: It is unclear whether the NIAID/FAAN criteria or Brighton case definition are valid for immediately diagnosing anaphylaxis due to the very low certainty of evidence. There was also insufficient evidence about the impact of most anaphylaxis management and prevention strategies. Adrenaline is regularly used for first-line emergency management of anaphylaxis but little robust research has assessed its effectiveness. Newer models of adrenaline autoinjectors may slightly increase the proportion of people correctly using the devices and reduce time to administration. Face-to-face training for laypeople may slightly improve anaphylaxis knowledge and competence in using autoinjectors. We searched for but found little or no comparative effectiveness evidence about strategies such as fluid replacement, oxygen, glucocorticosteroids, methylxanthines, bronchodilators, management plans, food labels, drug labels and similar. CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening condition but, due to practical and ethical challenges, there is a paucity of robust evidence about how to diagnose and manage it.

Safety and Adherence to Venom Immunotherapy During COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: According to expert consensus, the time interval between Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT) injections can be extended up to 12 weeks, without significant impact on efficacy and safety. However, the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic caused longer delays, and no recommendations are available to manage this huge extension. OBJECTIVES: To provide advice on how to resume VIT safely after a long delay from the last injection considering the potential risk factors for side effects, without starting again with the induction phase. METHODS: All the patients who delayed VIT because of the pandemic were consecutively enrolled in this single-center study. The time extension was decided according to their risk profile (eg, long prepandemic time interval, severe pre-VIT reaction, older age, multitreatments), and correlation analyses were performed to find potential risk factors of side effects. RESULTS: The mean delay from the pre- (7 weeks) to the postpandemic VIT interval (15.5 weeks) was 8.5 weeks. The total amount of the prepandemic VIT maintenance dose was safely administered in 1 day in 78% of patients, whereas only 3, of 87, experienced side effects, and their potential risk factors were identified in bee venom allergy and recent VIT initiation. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, long VIT delays may be safe and well tolerated, but more caution should be paid in resuming VIT in patients with long prepandemic maintenance interval, severe pre-VIT reaction, recent VIT initiation, older age, multidrug treatments, and bee venom allergy. This is useful in any case of long, unplanned, and unavoidable VIT delay.

Erratum to: Allergen immunotherapy for insect venom allergy: protocol for a systematic review.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13601-016-0095-x.].

Allergen immunotherapy for insect venom allergy: protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for the Management of Insect Venom Allergy. We seek to critically assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of insect venom allergy. METHODS: We will undertake a systematic review, which will involve searching international biomedical databases for published, in progress and unpublished evidence. Studies will be independently screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data will be descriptively and, if possible and appropriate, quantitatively synthesised. DISCUSSION: The findings from this review will be used to inform the development of recomendations for EAACI's Guidelines on AIT.

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.

Honeybee venom immunotherapy: certainties and pitfalls.

The honeybee is an interesting insect because of the fundamental agricultural role it plays, together with the composition of its venom, which presents new diagnostic and immunotherapeutic challenges. This article examines various aspects of honeybee venom allergy from epidemiology to diagnosis and treatment, with special emphasis on venom immunotherapy (VIT). Honeybee venom allergy represents a risk factor for severe systemic reaction in challenged allergic patients, for the diminished effectiveness of VIT, for more frequent side effects during VIT and relapse after cessation of treatment. Some strategies are available for reducing the risk of honeybee VIT-induced side effects; however, there is considerable room for further improvement in these all-important areas. At the same time, sensitized and allergic beekeepers represent unique populations for epidemiological, venom allergy immunopathogenesis and VIT mechanism studies.

2012 Update: World Allergy Organization Guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis published in early 2011 provide a global perspective on patient risk factors, triggers, clinical diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of anaphylaxis. In this 2012 Update, subsequently published, clinically relevant research in these areas is reviewed. RECENT FINDINGS: Patient risk factors and co-factors that amplify anaphylaxis have been documented in prospective studies. The global perspective on the triggers of anaphylaxis has expanded. The clinical criteria for the diagnosis of anaphylaxis that are promulgated in the Guidelines have been validated. Some aspects of anaphylaxis treatment have been prospectively studied. Novel investigations of self-injectable epinephrine for treatment of anaphylaxis recurrences in the community have been performed. Progress has been made with regard to measurement of specific IgE to allergen components (component-resolved testing) that might help to distinguish clinical risk of future anaphylactic episodes to an allergen from asymptomatic sensitization to the allergen. New strategies for immune modulation to prevent food-induced anaphylaxis and new insights into subcutaneous immunotherapy to prevent venom-induced anaphylaxis have been described. SUMMARY: Research highlighted in this Update strengthens the evidence-based recommendations for assessment, management, and prevention of anaphylaxis made in the WAO Anaphylaxis Guidelines.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy provides immediate, long-term and preventive clinical effects in children and adults: the effects of immunotherapy can be categorised by level of benefit -the centenary of allergen specific subcutaneous immunotherapy.

Allergen Specific Immunotherapy (SIT) for respiratory allergic diseases is able to significantly improve symptoms as well as reduce the need for symptomatic medication, but SIT also has the capacity for long-term clinical effects and plays a protective role against the development of further allergies and symptoms. The treatment acts on basic immunological mechanisms, and has the potential to change the pathological allergic immune response. In this paper we discuss some of the most important achievements in the documentation of the benefits of immunotherapy, over the last 2 decades, which have marked a period of extensive research on the clinical effects and immunological background of the mechanisms involved. The outcome of immunotherapy is described as different levels of benefit from early reduction in symptoms over progressive clinical effects during treatment to long-term effects after discontinuation of the treatment and prevention of asthma. The efficacy of SIT increases the longer it is continued and immunological changes lead to potential long-term benefits. SIT alone and not the symptomatic treatment nor other avoidance measures has so far been documented as the therapy with long-term or preventive potential. The allergic condition is driven by a subset of T-helper lymphocytes (Th2), which are characterised by the production of cytokines like IL-4, and IL-5. Immunological changes following SIT lead to potential curative effects. One mechanism whereby immunotherapy suppresses the allergic response is through increased production of IgG4 antibodies. Induction of specific IgG4 is able to influence the allergic response in different ways and is related to immunological effector mechanisms, also responsible for the reduced late phase hyperreactivity and ongoing allergic inflammation. SIT is the only treatment which interferes with the basic pathophysiological mechanisms of the allergic disease, thereby creating the potential for changes in the long-term prognosis of respiratory allergy. SIT should not only be recognised as first-line therapeutic treatment for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis but also as secondary preventive treatment for respiratory allergic diseases.

Honeybee venom immunotherapy: a comparative study using purified and nonpurified aqueous extracts in patients with normal Basal serum tryptase concentrations.

In this study, we compared a purified aqueous extract and the corresponding nonpurified aqueous preparation under the same build-up protocol in bee venom allergic patients with a normal baseline mast cell tryptase concentration. Eighty patients with a history of a systemic reaction were enrolled for immunotherapy using a 5-day rush protocol. Patients treated with the purified extract and those treated with the non purified aqueous extract who developed a systemic reaction underwent maintenance therapy with the purified aluminium hydroxide adsorbed preparations. Patients treated with the nonpurified aqueous extract who did not experience a systemic reaction during the rush phase underwent the maintenance phase with that extract. Systemic reactions during the build-up phase occurred significantly more often in patients treated with nonpurified aqueous extract than in those treated with the corresponding purified aqueous preparations. During the one-year maintenance phase, no systemic reactions occurred in either of the groups. Neither age nor baseline mast cell tryptase concentration presented a significant correlation with the occurrence of a systemic reaction during the treatment, while the type of extract did. In conclusion, nonpurified aqueous extracts induced more frequent systemic reactions than the purified aqueous preparations, during the same rush protocol. The efficacy seemed to be comparable.

World allergy organization guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis.

The illustrated World Allergy Organization (WAO) Anaphylaxis Guidelines were created in response to absence of global guidelines for anaphylaxis. Uniquely, before they were developed, lack of worldwide availability of essentials for the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis was documented. They incorporate contributions from more than 100 allergy/immunology specialists on 6 continents. Recommendations are based on the best evidence available, supported by references published to the end of December 2010. The Guidelines review patient risk factors for severe or fatal anaphylaxis, co-factors that amplify anaphylaxis, and anaphylaxis in vulnerable patients, including pregnant women, infants, the elderly, and those with cardiovascular disease. They focus on the supreme importance of making a prompt clinical diagnosis and on the basic initial treatment that is urgently needed and should be possible even in a low resource environment. This involves having a written emergency protocol and rehearsing it regularly; then, as soon as anaphylaxis is diagnosed, promptly and simultaneously calling for help, injecting epinephrine (adrenaline) intramuscularly, and placing the patient on the back or in a position of comfort with the lower extremities elevated. When indicated, additional critically important steps include administering supplemental oxygen and maintaining the airway, establishing intravenous access and giving fluid resuscitation, and initiating cardiopulmonary resuscitation with continuous chest compressions. Vital signs and cardiorespiratory status should be monitored frequently and regularly (preferably, continuously). The Guidelines briefly review management of anaphylaxis refractory to basic initial treatment. They also emphasize preparation of the patient for self-treatment of anaphylaxis recurrences in the community, confirmation of anaphylaxis triggers, and prevention of recurrences through trigger avoidance and immunomodulation. Novel strategies for dissemination and implementation are summarized. A global agenda for anaphylaxis research is proposed.

Purified vs. nonpurified venom immunotherapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although highly effective, venom immunotherapy (VIT) may be responsible for local and systemic allergic reactions. There is a good theoretical basis for believing that purified aqueous and purified aluminium hydroxide adsorbed (so-called depot) extracts, commercially available in Europe, have the potential to reduce the incidence of VIT's side effects. The aim of this article is to review the literature on safety and effectiveness of purified preparations as well as compare them with nonpurified extracts. RECENT FINDINGS: Old and new noncomparative studies reveal good tolerance of purified aqueous and purified depot extracts. In comparative trials purified extracts appear to be better tolerated than nonpurified extracts, whereas depot extracts seem to be safer than the corresponding purified aqueous preparation, especially in the prevention of severe large local reactions. The efficacy of purified aqueous and depot extracts is supported by studies using both sting challenge and in-field stings and is comparable to that of nonpurified preparations. SUMMARY: The theoretical basis of the safer profile of purified extracts is supported by a number of clinical studies, making the use of purified depot preparations preferable for conventional treatment also by specialists with less experience in managing VIT. In specialized centres purified aqueous extracts may be preferred for faster build-up protocols. However, further prospective controlled studies are needed in order to evaluate the ability of purified extracts to reduce the frequency of severe systemic reactions over the corresponding nonpurified preparation.

The VISYT trial: Venom Immunotherapy Safety and Tolerability with purified vs nonpurified extracts.

BACKGROUND: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is a highly effective treatment but can induce systemic adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and tolerability of VIT with purified and nonpurified extracts for treating yellow jacket and honeybee allergy. METHODS: Ninety-four patients (mean age, 46 years) with a history of insect venom allergy were randomly allocated to undergo purified extract VIT (group A [44 patients]) or nonpurified extract VIT (group B [50 patients]). Fifty-six patients were allergic to yellow jacket venom (group A: 25; group B: 31) and 38 to honeybee (19 per group). The induction phase was performed using a 2- or 7-day ultrarush scheme. The maintenance phase lasted 11 weeks. Local and systemic reactions were recorded after each injection. RESULTS: A total of 1,401 VIT injections were performed. Six systemic reactions were observed in 4 patients (honeybee-allergic patients only) (4% of patients; 0.4% of injections): 1 patient in group A (2%) and in 3 in group B (6%) (P = .57). Local extensive reactions were recorded after 5 injections in 4 patients (9%) in group A (2 yellow jacket- and 2 honeybee-allergic patients) and after 17 injections in 12 patients (24%) in group B (8 yellow jacket- and 4 honeybee-allergic patients) (P = .02). Total reactions (systemic and large local) numbered 6 in group A (0.9% of injections; 11% of patients) and 20 in group B (2.7% of injections; 30% of patients) (P = .001). CONCLUSION: In patients with honeybee or yellow jacket venom allergy, VIT with purified extracts has a significantly lower propensity toward severe local reactions compared with VIT with nonpurified extracts.

Epidemiology of Hymenoptera allergy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Epidemiology and especially the natural history of Hymenoptera allergy form the background that is essential to improving the clinical management of insect venom allergic patients. This review focuses on the emergence of recent data which could help provide further enlightenment in this field. RECENT FINDINGS: The latest data on the extent of the disease, the risk factors for sensitization and for local, systemic and fatal reactions after a hymenoptera sting are reviewed. The emerging problems concerning asymptomatic sensitization, the meaning of constitutively elevated tryptase serum levels and the persisting widespread poor awareness of available therapies in Hymenoptera allergic patients are particularly emphasized. SUMMARY: The assessment of the risk for systemic reaction in skin-positive subjects with a negative case history, and the suggestion of the baseline serum tryptase level as a risk factor for reaction severity after a sting, are the most important clinical implications of the latest studies. The genetic and environmental factors involved in the persistence of venom specific immunoglobulin E after a sting and the factors which orient towards a systemic or a large local reaction after apparently the same sting remain open questions.