Penicillin allergy de-labeling: Adaptation of risk stratification tool for patients and families.

Penicillin allergy is reported in 10% of the population; however, over 90% of patients are deemed non-allergic upon allergist assessment. The goal of this quality improvement project is to validate a patient-driven assessment tool to safely identify patients at low risk of penicillin allergy and de-label them. Pediatric patients and pregnant women referred to the institution's allergy clinics for penicillin allergy assessment were invited to use the patient tool to complete a self-assessment, resulting in the assignment of a risk category. The risk stratification determined using the patient tool was compared against the allergist's assessment. The patient tool demonstrated agreement with the allergist assessment in 57/84 (67.9%, 95% CI [56.7%,77.4%]) assessments, intra-class correlation (ICC) = 0.618, p < 0.001. In 22/84 (26.2%) assessments, the patient tool determined a higher risk category, primarily due to differences in patients' perceived timing and description of symptoms. Only 5/84 (6.0%) patients were placed in a lower risk category by the patient tool compared to the allergist assessment. The patient tool demonstrates good validity in determining penicillin allergy risk, offering potential as a method of empowering patients to advocate in their care. Iterative changes to the patient tool will be applied to increase agreement.

Safety and Effectiveness of Bypassing Oral Immunotherapy Buildup With an Initial Phase of Sublingual Immunotherapy for Higher-Risk Food Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Because of its favorable safety, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for food allergy has been proposed as an alternative treatment for those in whom oral immunotherapy (OIT) is of higher risk-older children, adolescents, adults, and those with a history of severe reactions. Although safe, SLIT has been shown to be less effective than OIT. OBJECTIVE: To describe the safety of multifood SLIT in pediatric patients aged 4 to 18 years and the effectiveness of bypassing OIT buildup with an initial phase of SLIT. METHODS: Patients aged 4 to 18 years were offered (multi)food SLIT. Patients built up to 2 mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of 3 to 5 visits under nurse supervision. After 1 to 2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC) (cumulative dose, 300 mg protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup. RESULTS: Between summer 2020 and winter 2023, 188 patients were enrolled in SLIT (median age, 11 years). Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department, but none experienced grade 4 (severe) reaction. A subset of 20 patients had 50 low-dose OFCs to 300 mg protein and 35 (70%) OFCs were successful, thereby bypassing OIT buildup. CONCLUSIONS: In combination with very favorable safety of SLIT, with no life-threatening reactions and few reactions requiring epinephrine, we propose that an initial phase of SLIT to bypass supervised OIT buildup be considered for children in whom OIT is considered to be of higher risk.

Bypassing the build-up phase for oral immunotherapy in shrimp-allergic children.

Background: Oral immunotherapy is an effective treatment for food allergies; however, its use in clinical practice is limited by resources and lack of standardized protocols for foods other than peanut. Previous studies have suggested that shrimp has a higher threshold for reaction than other allergenic foods, suggesting it may be safe to directly administer maintenance doses of immunotherapy. Methods: Children aged 3-17 years who had 1) skin prick test ≥3 mm and/or specific IgE level ≥0.35 kU/L and convincing objective IgE-mediated reaction to shrimp, or 2) no ingestion history and specific IgE level ≥5 kU/L, underwent a low-dose oral food challenge to 300 mg shrimp protein, with the goal of continuing daily ingestion of the 300 mg maintenance dose as oral immunotherapy. Results: Between January 2020 and April 2023, 17 children completed the low-dose oral food challenge. Nine (53%) tolerated this amount with no reaction, and 8 (47%) had a mild reaction (isolated oral pruritis or redness on chin). Sixteen (94%) continued maintenance low-dose oral immunotherapy eating 300 mg shrimp protein daily. None of the patients developed anaphylaxis related to the immunotherapy. Conclusion: Our case series suggests that some shrimp allergic patients being considered for oral immunotherapy should be offered a low-dose oral food challenge, to potentially bypass the build-up phase of immunotherapy.

A practical focus on oral immunotherapy to tree nuts.

Tree nut (TN) allergy is common, with a global prevalence of up to 4.9%. TN allergy is persistent in most patients, and accidental reactions are common. There is considerable clinical cross-reactivity between cashew and pistachio, and between walnut and pecan. A diagnosis of TN allergy is based on a history of clinical reaction on ingestion, along with confirmed sensitization through either skin-prick or serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) testing. Component testing and food challenges may be required in patients with birch pollinosis to distinguish between IgE-mediated allergy to a heat-stable protein and pollen food allergy syndrome. There is available evidence that TN oral immunotherapy (OIT) is reasonably safe and effective. There are numerous nonpharmaceutical food products to facilitate TN-OIT dosing. TN OIT should be offered as a treatment option for patients with TN allergy.