Development and Evaluation of Modified Criteria for Infant and Toddler Anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical criteria for identifying anaphylaxis do not account for unique aspects of infant anaphylaxis presentation and have not been validated in patients less than two years of age. This may contribute to under recognition and is thus an unmet need. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate age-specific signs and symptoms that more accurately identify anaphylaxis in young children and to develop and compare modified criteria for "likely anaphylaxis" against the widely used 2006 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases / Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network criteria. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 175 clinical encounters presenting with suspected allergic or anaphylactic reactions to a pediatric emergency department. Modified criteria for likely anaphylaxis were developed and evaluated against the NIAID/FAAN criteria. RESULTS: The study population included 33% infants (ages < 12 months), 39% toddlers (ages 12 months to < 36 months), and 29% children (ages ≥ 36 months). The NIAID/FAAN criteria captured 85% of all patient encounters in the study while the modified criteria captured 98% (p < 0.001). Compared to NIAID/FAAN criteria, modified criteria had 22.8% improved performance among infants (p < 0.001) and 10.3% improved performance among toddlers (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: We developed modified anaphylaxis clinical criteria that incorporated symptoms specific to infants and young children. The modified criteria increased identification of anaphylaxis in infants and potentially toddlers. Future research is needed to validate our findings on a larger cohort.

Factors Associated With Epinephrine Use in the Treatment of Anaphylaxis in Infants and Toddlers.

BACKGROUND: Undertreatment of anaphylaxis with epinephrine continues to be an unmet need and is a particular challenge among infants and toddlers. OBJECTIVE: To address this gap by identifying barriers and solutions to appropriate and timely administration of epinephrine. METHODS: We conducted a national online survey among primary caregivers of children who experienced a severe food-induced allergic reaction when younger than 36 months. Outcomes of interest included epinephrine use in community and health care settings to treat probable anaphylaxis. RESULTS: Of 264 probable anaphylaxis cases, 39% of infants (aged <12 months) and 61% of toddlers (aged 12-35 months) received epinephrine at any time during the child's most severe allergic reaction (P = .001). A previous diagnosis of a food allergy was reported in 62% of cases where epinephrine was used compared with 26% of cases where epinephrine was not used (P < .001). In children with a previous diagnosis of a food allergy, epinephrine was used in 89% of those who were prescribed an anaphylaxis action plan compared with 50% of those without a plan (P = .001). The adjusted odds ratio for the association between having an anaphylaxis action plan and epinephrine use in cases of probable anaphylaxis was 5.39 (95% confidence interval, 2.18-13.30). CONCLUSIONS: Epinephrine use at any time (including in health care settings) during probable anaphylaxis is more likely in infants and toddlers with a previously diagnosed food allergy than those without diagnosis. The provision of an anaphylaxis action plan is also associated with increased epinephrine use during probable anaphylaxis in this population.

The Need for Required Stock Epinephrine in All Schools: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee.

Epinephrine is the first line of treatment for anaphylaxis that can occur outside a medical setting in community environments such as schools. Patients with diagnosed IgE-mediated food allergy at risk of anaphylaxis are prescribed self-injectable epinephrine and given an individualized anaphylaxis action plan. As students, such patients/families provide their school with completed medication forms, a copy of their anaphylaxis plan, and additional student-specific epinephrine. However, students approved to self-carry prescribed self-injectable epinephrine may forget to do so or have other reasons for lacking prescribed epinephrine such as familial inability to fill the prescription due to cost or other access barriers. Undiagnosed students lacking prescribed epinephrine may also experience anaphylaxis at school. The presence of non-student-specific school stock epinephrine allows school nurses and other staff the ability to treat anaphylaxis onsite while awaiting Emergency Medical Services. Notably, not all states legally mandate K-12 schools to stock epinephrine. In states with laws only voluntarily allowing schools to stock epinephrine, it provides the ability to opt-out. Herein, we present a comprehensive review of barriers to school stock epinephrine, related improvement strategies, and workgroup recommendations supporting the need for mandated stock epinephrine in all schools in every state. Proposed solutions include ensuring legal immunity from liability for prescribers; advocacy for legislation to stabilize cost of self-injectable epinephrine; educational initiatives to schools promoting merits and safety of epinephrine and related anaphylaxis training; and partnerships between patient advocacy groups, medical and nursing organizations, public health departments and other health professionals to promote laws and district policies addressing need for stock epinephrine and school nurses to train and supervise school staff.

The Development of Age-Based Food Allergy Educational Handouts for Caregivers and Patients: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy education is an ongoing process that must address unique safety concerns and psychosocial challenges at each developmental stage. Families require reliable information that is targeted to specific developmental stages to support the integration of food allergy management into daily life. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this project was to develop age-specific, evidence-based patient education handouts with practical recommendations for managing and coping with food allergies at different developmental stages. METHODS: Handout content was based on: (1) practice guidelines for food allergy management; (2) literature addressing psychosocial and educational needs of patients with food allergy and their caregivers; and (3) clinical experience of the project team. Fifty-seven caregivers of patients (aged 0-21 years) with food allergy and 2 young adults with food allergy reviewed a draft of the handouts and completed an online survey to assess handout acceptability and usability and identify areas for improvement. Handouts were revised based on participant feedback. RESULTS: The majority of participants (79%) rated the amount of information in the age-specific handouts as "just right," versus "not enough" (9%) or "too much" information (12%). Sixty-three percent reported that they would be "very likely" to use the handouts as a resource and 35% "somewhat likely." Almost all participants (88%-100% by item) agreed that the handouts used elements of plain language writing and clear communication. CONCLUSION: Caregivers rated the age-based food allergy education handouts as understandable and useful. We anticipate that these handouts could be used during health care visits and directly accessed online by families.

Anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities: A consensus report.

BACKGROUND: Despite a better understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of patients with anaphylaxis, there remain knowledge gaps. Enumerating and prioritizing these gaps would allow limited scientific resources to be directed more effectively. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically describe and appraise anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities based on their potential impact and feasibility. METHODS: We convened a 25-member multidisciplinary panel of anaphylaxis experts. Panelists formulated knowledge gaps/research priority statements in an anonymous electronic survey. Four anaphylaxis themed writing groups were formed to refine statements: (1) Population Science, (2) Basic and Translational Sciences, (3) Emergency Department Care/Acute Management, and (4) Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention. Revised statements were incorporated into an anonymous electronic survey, and panelists were asked to rate the impact and feasibility of addressing statements on a continuous 0 to 100 scale. RESULTS: The panel generated 98 statements across the 4 anaphylaxis themes: Population Science (29), Basic and Translational Sciences (27), Emergency Department Care/Acute Management (24), and Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention (18). Median scores for impact and feasibility ranged from 50.0 to 95.0 and from 40.0 to 90.0, respectively. Key statements based on median rating for impact/feasibility included the need to refine anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, identify reliable diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic anaphylaxis bioassays, develop clinical prediction models to standardize postanaphylaxis observation periods and hospitalization criteria, and determine immunotherapy best practices. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and systematically appraised anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities. This study reinforces the need to harmonize scientific pursuits to optimize the outcomes of patients with and at risk of anaphylaxis.

Ara h 2-specific IgE is superior to whole peanut extract-based serology or skin prick test for diagnosis of peanut allergy in infancy.

BACKGROUND: Screening of high-risk infants for peanut allergy (PA) before introduction is now recommended in the United States, but the optimal approach is not clear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the diagnostic test characteristics of peanut skin prick test (SPT), peanut-specific IgE (sIgE), and sIgE to peanut components in a screening population of infants before known peanut exposure. METHODS: Infants aged 4 to 11 months with (1) no history of peanut ingestion, testing, or reaction and (2) (a) moderate-severe eczema, (b) history of food allergy, and/or (c) first-degree relative with a history of PA received peanut SPT, peanut-sIgE and component-IgE testing, and, depending on SPT wheal size, oral food challenge or observed feeding. Receiver-operator characteristic areas under the curve (AUCs) were compared, and diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 321 subjects completed the enrollment visit (median age, 7.2 months; 58% males), and 37 (11%) were found to have PA. Overall, Ara h 2-sIgE at a cutoff point of 0.1 kUa/L discriminated between allergic and nonallergic best (AUC, 0.96; sensitivity, 94%; specificity, 98%), compared with peanut-sIgE at 0.1 kUa/L (AUC, 0.89; sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 78%) or 0.35 kUa/L (AUC, 0.91; sensitivity, 97%; specificity, 86%), or SPT at wheal size 3 mm (AUC, 0.90; sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 88%) or 8 mm (AUC, 0.87; sensitivity, 73%; specificity, 99%). Ara h 1-sIgE and Ara h 3-sIgE did not add to prediction of PA when included in a model with Ara h 2-sIgE, and Ara h 8-sIgE discriminated poorly (AUC, 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of only Ara h 2-sIgE should be considered if screening of high-risk infants is performed before peanut introduction.

Age and eczema severity, but not family history, are major risk factors for peanut allergy in infancy.

BACKGROUND: Whether to screen high-risk groups before early peanut introduction is controversial. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the risk of peanut allergy (PA) before peanut introduction for infants with (1) moderate-severe eczema, (2) another food allergy (FA), and/or (3) a first-degree relative with peanut allergy (FH). METHODS: Infants aged 4 to 11 months with no history of peanut ingestion, testing, or reaction and at least 1 of the above risk factors received peanut skin prick test and, depending on skin prick test wheal size, oral food challenge or observed feeding. RESULTS: A total of 321 subjects completed the enrollment visit (median age, 7.2 months; 58% males); 78 had eczema only, 11 FA only, 107 FH only, and 125 had multiple risk factors. Overall, 18% of 195 with eczema, 19% of 59 with FA, and 4% of 201 with FH had PA. Only 1% of 115 with FH and no eczema had PA. Among those with eczema, older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% CI, 1.04-1.68 per month), higher SCORing Atopic Dermatitis score (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.34 per 5 points), black (OR, 5.79; 95% CI, 1.92-17.4 compared with white), or Asian race (OR, 6.98; 95% CI, 1.92-25.44) and suspected or diagnosed other FA (OR, 3.98; 95% CI, 1.62-9.80) were associated with PA. CONCLUSIONS: PA is common in infants with moderate-severe eczema, whereas FH without eczema is not a major risk factor, suggesting screening only in those with significant eczema. Even within the first year of life, introduction at later ages is associated with a higher risk of PA among those with eczema, supporting introduction of peanut as early as possible.

Severity grading system for acute allergic reactions: A multidisciplinary Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: There is no widely adopted severity grading system for acute allergic reactions, including anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions, thus limiting the ability to optimize and standardize management practices and advance research. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a severity grading system for acute allergic reactions for use in clinical care and research. METHODS: From May to September 2020, we convened a 21-member multidisciplinary panel of allergy and emergency care experts; 9 members formed a writing group to critically appraise and assess the strengths and limitations of prior severity grading systems and develop the structure and content for an optimal severity grading system. The entire study panel then revised the grading system and sought consensus by utilizing Delphi methodology. RESULTS: The writing group recommended that an optimal grading system encompass the severity of acute allergic reactions on a continuum from mild allergic reactions to anaphylactic shock. Additionally, the severity grading system must be able to discriminate between clinically important differences in reaction severity to be relevant in research while also being intuitive and straightforward to apply in clinical care. Consensus was reached for all elements of the proposed severity grading system. CONCLUSION: We developed a consensus severity grading system for acute allergic reactions, including anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions. Successful international validation, refinement, dissemination, and application of the grading system will improve communication among providers and patients about the severity of allergic reactions and will help advance future research.

Caregiver-Reported Presentation of Severe Food-Induced Allergic Reactions in Infants and Toddlers.

BACKGROUND: Recognizing anaphylaxis in infants and toddlers can be challenging for health care providers and caregivers, and current diagnostic criteria and anaphylaxis action plans do not specifically address this younger population. OBJECTIVE: To describe symptoms and signs observed by primary caregivers of infants and toddlers during severe food-induced allergic reactions. METHODS: We conducted a national online survey among primary caregivers of children who experienced a severe food-induced allergic reaction when less than 36 months of age. Respondents who were present during the child's most severe reaction were asked to report symptoms and signs observed. The survey asked about infant- and toddler-specific symptoms and signs in lay language for caregivers. Data were compared with patient-reported data from past studies to identify distinct patterns among the younger population. RESULTS: The survey was completed for 374 children (193 infants, 181 toddlers). The most common symptoms and signs reported were skin reactions (90%), facial and extremity swelling (59%), gastrointestinal issues (51%), and coughing/wheezing (45%). Infants (aged <12 months) more frequently experienced skin reactions, skin mottling, and ear pulling/scratching or putting fingers in ears, as compared with toddlers (aged 12-35 months). Toddlers experienced throat itching and coughing/wheezing more frequently than infants. CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis presentation demonstrates similarities and differences in infants and toddlers. Modifying the terminology used in the current criteria allowed for reporting of symptoms and signs of anaphylaxis that are more common in infants and toddlers. Diagnostic criteria, clinical guidelines, and anaphylaxis action plans may be enhanced to address this young, often nonverbal, population.

Pediatrician perspectives on symptom presentation and treatment of acute allergic reactions.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis remains difficult to diagnose and epinephrine underused. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the thoughts of pediatricians regarding when acute allergic reactions constitute anaphylaxis and when epinephrine should be given by conducting an anonymous online survey. METHODS: The survey consisted of 8 case-based scenarios of allergic reactions with the following 2 questions on each case: (1) does this case represent anaphylaxis? and (2) if this patient immediately presented to you, would you treat the patient with epinephrine during the reaction? RESULTS: A total of 1001 responses were analyzed. When assessing all cases combined, there was discordance in whether a case represented anaphylaxis and administration of epinephrine was warranted in 8% of the cases. An average of 5% of all the respondents suggested that the case represented anaphylaxis but would not warrant epinephrine, whereas an average of 3% suggested that the case did not represent anaphylaxis but that epinephrine was warranted. CONCLUSION: The results of this survey reveal that there is discordance among pediatricians on when an allergic reaction is considered anaphylaxis and when epinephrine is warranted. These data highlight the need for continued improvement of the definition of anaphylaxis and continued need for education regarding the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis.