ABSTRACT
This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.
Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , Insect Bites and Stings , Mastocytosis , Adult , Humans , Child , Adolescent , Anaphylaxis/diagnosis , Anaphylaxis/drug therapy , Anaphylaxis/prevention & control , Insect Bites and Stings/drug therapy , Epinephrine/therapeutic use , Mastocytosis/diagnosis , AllergensABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current literature of the psychological impacts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on people with allergic diseases and to identify gaps in need of future research. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Embase Classics + Embase from 1947 to present (October 18, 2021) were searched using a search strategy that included the following keywords: allergic diseases, covid*, and psychological disorders. STUDY SELECTIONS: Primary manuscripts and abstracts using online and telephone surveys, mixed-method studies capturing patient and caregiver experiences, case studies, and published guidelines from allergic disease-specific expert groups were included. RESULTS: People with asthma and other chronic respiratory conditions are at higher risk of negative psychological outcomes, and risk factors include asthma severity, female sex, and previous history of anxiety and depression, likely owing to the perceived risk of severe disease from COVID-19. One study identified that people with allergic rhinitis had significantly high anxiety and depression scores compared with healthy controls (both, P < .001). The psychological impacts of food allergy during COVID-19 were most strongly felt by parents and caregivers. Similarly, parents of children with asthma experienced substantial psychological burden. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 had a considerable psychological impact on patients with asthma. Limited data have been published on the mental health impacts of COVID-19 on patients with allergic rhinitis and food allergy. As COVID-19 research continues to evolve and the literature captures later stages of the pandemic, it is important that physicians be aware of the potential coincidence of mental illness and chronic allergic diseases and refer these patients, and their caregivers, to appropriate resources while also continuing to manage their allergic disease(s).
Subject(s)
Asthma , COVID-19 , Food Hypersensitivity , Rhinitis, Allergic , Asthma/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Female , Food Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , Rhinitis, Allergic/epidemiologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To present a comprehensive, clinically focused scoping review of therapeutic agents and practices comprising the future of allergic rhinitis (AR) management. DATA SOURCES: A review of the published literature was performed using the PubMed database, published abstracts, and virtual presentations from scientific meetings and posted results on ClinicalTrials.gov. STUDY SELECTIONS: Primary manuscripts with trial results, case reports, case series, and clinical trial data from ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and articles highlighting expert perspectives on management of AR were selected. RESULTS: Telemedicine, social media, and mHealth facilitate integrated care for AR management. Pharmacotherapy remains the standard of care for AR management; however, treatment combinations are recommended. Intralymphatic immunotherapy and peptide immunotherapy are the most promising new allergen immunotherapy options. Studies of targeted biologics for AR are ongoing. Probiotics may be beneficial for AR management, particularly Bifidobacterium spp, and as an add-on to allergen immunotherapy. CONCLUSION: AR is a chronic and often comorbid condition that requires integrated care for optimal management. New formulations and combinations of existing AR therapies are the most promising and merit future research.
Subject(s)
Allergens/administration & dosage , Anti-Allergic Agents/therapeutic use , Desensitization, Immunologic/methods , Probiotics/therapeutic use , Rhinitis, Allergic/therapy , Bifidobacterium/immunology , Disease Management , Fluticasone/therapeutic use , Humans , Injections, Intralymphatic , Phthalazines/therapeutic use , Rhinitis, Allergic/immunologyABSTRACT
Introduction: Idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA) is a diagnosis of exclusion and is based on the inability to identify a causal relationship between a trigger and an anaphylactic event, despite a detailed patient history and careful diagnostic assessment. The prevalence of IA among the subset of people who experienced anaphylaxis is challenging to estimate and varies widely, from 10 to 60%; most commonly noted is â¼20% in the adult anaphylactic population. Comorbid atopic conditions, such as food allergy, allergic rhinitis, and asthma, are present in up to 48% of patients with IA. Improved diagnostic technologies and an increased understanding of conditions that manifest with symptoms associated with anaphylaxis have improved the ability to determine a more accurate diagnosis for patients who may have been initially diagnosed with IA. Methods: Literature search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar and Embase. Results: Galactose-α-1,3-galactose (α-gal) allergy, mast cell disorders, and hereditary a-tryptasemia are a few differential diagnoses that should be considered in patients with IA. Unlike food allergy, when anaphylaxis occurs within minutes to 2 hours after allergen consumption, α-gal allergy is a 3-6-hour delayed immunoglobulin E-mediated anaphylactic reaction to a carbohydrate epitope found in red meat (e.g., beef, lamb, pork). The more recently described hereditary α-tryptasemia is an inherited autosomal dominant genetic trait caused by increased germline copies of tryptase human gene alpha-beta 1 (TPSAB1), which encodes α tryptase and is associated with elevated baseline serum tryptase. Acute management of IA consists of carrying an epinephrine autoinjector to be administered immediately at the first signs of anaphylaxis. Long-term management for IA with antihistamines and other agents aims to potentially reduce the frequency and severity of the anaphylactic reactions, although the evidence is limited. Biologics are potentially steroid-sparing for patients with IA; however, more research on IA therapies is needed. Conclusion: The lack of diagnostic criteria, finite treatment options, and intricacies of making a differential diagnosis make IA challenging for patients and clinicians to manage.
Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis , Food Hypersensitivity , Mast Cell Activation Syndrome , Allergens , Anaphylaxis/diagnosis , Anaphylaxis/epidemiology , Anaphylaxis/etiology , Animals , Cattle , Food Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Food Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Food Hypersensitivity/therapy , Galactose , Humans , Immunoglobulin E , Sheep , TryptasesABSTRACT
The novel coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely impacted the training of health care professional students because of concerns of potential asymptomatic transmission to colleagues and vulnerable patients. From May 27th, 2020, to June 23rd 2021; at a time when B.1.1.7 (alpha) and B.1.617.2 (delta) were the dominant circulating variants, PCR testing was conducted on 1,237 nasopharyngeal swabs collected from 454 asymptomatic health care professional students as they returned to their studies from across Canada to Kingston, ON, a low prevalence area during that period for COVID-19. Despite 46.7% of COVID-19 infections occurring in the 18-29 age group in Kingston, severe-acute-respiratory coronavirus-2 was not detected in any of the samples suggesting that negligible asymptomatic infection occurred in this group and that PCR testing in this setting may not be warranted as a screening tool.
ABSTRACT
The prevalence of cat allergen-induced AR is increasing worldwide, prompting its study using controlled methodology. Three general categories of allergen exposure models currently exist for the study of cat allergen-induced AR: natural exposure cat rooms, allergen exposure chambers (AEC), and nasal allergen challenges (NAC). We evaluated existing literature surrounding the use of these models to study cat allergen induced AR using online research databases, including OVID Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. We report that natural exposure cat rooms have been important in establishing the foundation for our understanding of cat allergen-induced AR. Major limitations, including variable allergen ranges and differing study designs highlight the need for a more standardized protocol. In comparison, AECs are an exceptional model to mimic real-world allergen exposure and study long-term implications of AR with large sample sizes. Existing AECs are limited by heterogeneous facility designs, differing methods of cat allergen distribution, and issues surrounding cost and accessibility. Conversely, NACs allow for smaller participant cohorts for easier biological sampling and are ideal for phase I, phase 2 or proof-of-concept studies. NACs generally have a standardized protocol and are less expensive compared to AECs. Nevertheless, NACs solely capture acute allergen exposure and have the further limitation of using allergen extracts rather than natural allergen. As the use of combined controlled methodologies is sparse, we recommend concurrent use of AECs and NACs to study short- and long-term effects of AR, thereby providing a more holistic representation of cat allergen-induced AR.