Changing the history of anaphylaxis mortality statistics through the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases-11.

We review the history of the classification and coding changes for anaphylaxis and provide current and perspective information in the field. In 2012, an analysis of Brazilian data demonstrated undernotification of anaphylaxis-related deaths because of the difficulties of coding using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. This work triggered strategic international actions supported by the Joint Allergy Academies and the International Classification of Diseases World Health Organization (WHO) leadership to update the classification of allergic disorders for the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11), which resulted in construction of the pioneer "Allergic and hypersensitivity conditions" chapter. The usability of the new framework has been tested by evaluating the same data published in 2012 from the ICD-11 perspective. Coding accuracy was much improved, reaching 95% for definite anaphylaxis. As the results were provided to the WHO Mortality Reference Group, coding rules have been changed, allowing anaphylaxis to be recorded as an underlying cause of death in official mortality statistics. The mandatory use of ICD-11 from January 2022 for documenting cause of death could have 2 immediate consequences: (1) the reported number of anaphylaxis-related deaths might increase because of more appropriate coding and (2) the cross-sectional and longitudinal mortality data generated might ultimately lead to a better understanding of anaphylaxis epidemiology and improved health policies directed at reducing anaphylaxis-related mortality.

Electronic Clinical Decision Support System for allergic rhinitis management: MASK e-CDSS.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) management has changed in recent years following the switch from the concept of disease severity to the concept of disease control, publication of the AR clinical decision support system (CDSS) and development of mobile health (m-health) tools for patients (eg Allergy Diary). The Allergy Diary Companion app for healthcare providers is currently being developed and will be launched in 2018. It incorporates the AR CDSS to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations, linking all key stakeholders in AR management. OBJECTIVE: To produce an electronic version of the AR CDSS (e-CDSS) for incorporation into the Allergy Diary Companion, to describe the app interfaces used to collect information necessary to inform the e-CDSS and to summarize some key features of the Allergy Diary Companion. METHODS: The steps involved in producing the e-CDSS and incorporating it into the Allergy Diary Companion were (a) generation of treatment management scenarios; (b) expert consensus on treatment recommendations; (c) generation of electronic decisional algorithms to describe all AR CDSS scenarios; (d) digitization of these algorithms to form the e-CDSS; and (e) embedding the e-CDSS into the app to permit easy user e-CDSS interfacing. RESULTS: Key experts in the AR field agreed on the AR CDSS approach to AR management and on specific treatment recommendations provided by Allergy Diary Companion. Based on this consensus, decision processes were developed and programmed into the Allergy Diary Companion using Titanium Appcelerator (JavaScript) for IOS tablets. To our knowledge, this is the first time the development of any m-health tool has been described in this transparent and detailed way, providing confidence, not only in the app, but also in the provided management recommendations. CONCLUSION: The Allergy Diary Companion for providers provides guideline and expert-endorsed AR management recommendations. [MASK paper No 32].

rAed a 4: A New 67-kDa Aedes aegypti Mosquito Salivary Allergen for the Diagnosis of Mosquito Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis of mosquito allergy has been hampered by the laborious task of obtaining mosquito salivary allergens. We have previously studied 3 recombinant (r) Aedes aegypti mosquito salivary allergens: rAed a 1, rAed a 2 and rAed a 3. Here, we report the expression, purification, identification and evaluation of rAed a 4, a 67-kDa α-glucosidase. METHODS: rAed a 4 was expressed using a baculovirus/insect cell system, purified by a combination of anion- and cation-exchange chromatography, and identified by immunoblotting. A. aegypti saliva extract was prepared in our laboratory. An indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was developed to measure rAed a 4-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) and IgG antibodies in sera from 13 individuals with a positive mosquito-bite test from a laboratory-reared mosquito. Sera from 18 individuals with a negative bite test served as controls. RESULTS: Purified rAed a 4 bound to the IgE in mosquito-allergic sera, as detected by ELISA and immunoblotting. The binding of rAed a 4 to IgE could be inhibited in a dose-dependent manner by the addition of an A. aegypti extract. Mosquito-allergic individuals had significantly higher mean levels of rAed a 4-specific IgE and IgG than controls. Using the mean of the controls ± 2 SD as a cut-off level, 46% of the 13 allergic individuals had a positive IgE, while none of the controls was positive (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Aed a 4 is a major allergen in mosquito saliva. Its recombinant form has the hydrolase function and can be used for the diagnosis of mosquito allergy.

Epinephrine doses delivered from auto-injectors stored at excessively high temperatures.

CONTEXT: Prompt injection of epinephrine (adrenaline) from epinephrine auto-injectors (EAIs) is the primary treatment for anaphylaxis in out-of-hospital settings. Storage of EAIs at room temperature (25 °C) is advised; however, storage at excessively high temperatures sometimes occurs. To our knowledge, there are no previous publications on the doses of epinephrine ejected from EAIs after storage at such temperatures. OBJECTIVE: We examined the epinephrine doses delivered from activated EAIs stored constantly or cyclically at 70 °C. METHODS: Twenty-five in-date EAIs were stored constantly or cyclically at 70 °C (excessive heat) or 25 °C (controls) for 5 d or 10 d. EAIs were activated and the epinephrine doses in the ejected solutions were measured using HPLC-UV. The enantiomeric purity of epinephrine was also measured by HPLC-UV. RESULTS: Control EAIs ejected a volume of 0.300 ± 0.006 mL containing 103.7 ± 3.3% of labeled dose (LD). After 5 d or 10 d of constant storage at 70 °C and activation at 70 °C, EAIs ejected a volume of 0.367 ± 0.008 mL containing 96.8 ± 3.8% LD and 0.373 ± 0.007 mL containing 77.7 ± 3.3% LD, respectively. After 5 d of cyclic storage at 70 °C and cooling to 25 °C before activation, EAIs ejected a volume of 0.311 ± 0.008 mL containing 87.2 ± 1.9% LD. Under the experimental conditions of this study, the resultant chromatographic peaks of epinephrine solutions from all EAIs represented only the pure l-enantiomer of epinephrine. CONCLUSION: EAIs should be stored under recommended conditions of the manufacturer. EAIs stored at excessively high temperatures cannot be used to treat humans while still hot, and when cooled, cannot be relied on to deliver the labeled epinephrine dose in anaphylaxis.

Anaphylaxis: Unique aspects of clinical diagnosis and management in infants (birth to age 2 years).

In this rostrum we aim to increase awareness of anaphylaxis in infancy in order to improve clinical diagnosis, management, and prevention of recurrences. Anaphylaxis is increasingly reported in this age group. Foods are the most common triggers. Presentation typically involves the skin (generalized urticaria), the respiratory tract (cough, wheeze, stridor, and dyspnea), and/or the gastrointestinal tract (persistent vomiting). Tryptase levels are seldom increased because of infant anaphylaxis, although baseline tryptase levels can be increased in the first few months of life, reflecting mast cell burden in the developing immune system. The differential diagnosis of infant anaphylaxis includes consideration of age-unique entities, such as food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome with acute presentation. Epinephrine (adrenaline) treatment is underused in health care and community settings. No epinephrine autoinjectors contain an optimal dose for infants weighing 10 kg or less. After treatment of an anaphylactic episode, follow-up with a physician, preferably an allergy/immunology specialist, is important for confirmation of anaphylaxis triggers and prevention of recurrences through avoidance of confirmed specific triggers. Natural desensitization to milk and egg can occur. Future research should include validation of the clinical criteria for anaphylaxis diagnosis in infants, prospective longitudinal monitoring of baseline serum tryptase levels in healthy and atopic infants during the first year of life, studies of infant comorbidities and cofactors that increase the risk of severe anaphylaxis, development of autoinjectors containing a 0.1-mg epinephrine dose suitable for infants, and inclusion of infants in prospective studies of immune modulation to prevent anaphylaxis recurrences.

Anaphylaxis in America: the prevalence and characteristics of anaphylaxis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Although anaphylaxis is recognized as an important life-threatening condition, data are limited regarding its prevalence and characteristics in the general population. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the lifetime prevalence and overall characteristics of anaphylaxis. METHODS: Two nationwide, cross-sectional random-digit-dial surveys were conducted. The public survey included unselected adults, whereas the patient survey captured information from household members reporting a prior reaction to medications, foods, insect stings, or latex and idiopathic reactions in the previous 10 years. In both surveys standardized questionnaires queried anaphylaxis symptoms, treatments, knowledge, and behaviors. RESULTS: The public survey included 1,000 adults, of whom 7.7% (95% CI, 5.7% to 9.7%) reported a prior anaphylactic reaction. Using increasingly stringent criteria, we estimate that 5.1% (95% CI, 3.4% to 6.8%) and 1.6% (95% CI, 0.8% to 2.4%) had probable and very likely anaphylaxis, respectively. The patient survey included 1,059 respondents, of whom 344 reported a history of anaphylaxis. The most common triggers reported were medications (34%), foods (31%), and insect stings (20%). Forty-two percent sought treatment within 15 minutes of onset, 34% went to the hospital, 27% self-treated with antihistamines, 10% called 911, 11% self-administered epinephrine, and 6.4% received no treatment. Although most respondents with anaphylaxis reported 2 or more prior episodes (19% reporting ≥5 episodes), 52% had never received a self-injectable epinephrine prescription, and 60% did not currently have epinephrine available. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of anaphylaxis in the general population is at least 1.6% and probably higher. Patients do not appear adequately equipped to deal with future episodes, indicating the need for public health initiatives to improve anaphylaxis recognition and treatment.

Sublingual Diffusion of Epinephrine Microcrystals from Rapidly Disintegrating Tablets for the Potential First-Aid Treatment of Anaphylaxis: In Vitro and Ex Vivo Study.

For the first-aid treatment of anaphylaxis, epinephrine (Epi) 0.3 mg intramuscular (IM) injection in the thigh is the drug of choice. Epi auto-injectors are widely recommended for anaphylaxis treatment in community settings but not necessarily carried or used as prescribed when anaphylaxis occurs. We therefore developed rapidly disintegrating sublingual tablets (RDSTs) as an alternative noninvasive dosage form. Our objective in this study was to evaluate the effect of reducing Epi particle size on its in vitro and ex vivo diffusion, with the goal of enhancing Epi sublingual absorption from Epi RDSTs. Epi particle size was reduced by top-bottom technique using a microfluidizer for one pass at 30,000 Psi. The micronized Epi crystals (Epi-MC) were characterized using Zetasizer, Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Epi RDSTs were formulated and manufactured using our previously developed method. In vitro and ex vivo diffusion of Epi 10, 20, and 40 mg RDSTs and Epi-MC 10 and 20 mg RDSTs (n = 4) were evaluated using Franz cells. Epi 10 mg solution was used as a control. Mean (±standard deviation (SD)) Epi particle size was successfully reduced from 131.8 ± 10.5 to 2.5 ± 0.4 µm. Cumulative Epi diffused and influx from 40 mg Epi RDSTs and 20 mg Epi-MC RDSTs were not significantly different from each other in vitro and ex vivo (p > 0.05). Also, Epi permeability from 20 mg Epi-MC RDSTs was significantly higher than from the rest (p < 0.05). Epi-MC RDSTs improved Epi diffusion twofold and might have the potential to reduce the Epi dose needed in RDSTs by 50%.

H2-antihistamines for the treatment of anaphylaxis with and without shock: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is a serious allergic or hypersensitivity reaction, which is rapid in onset and sometimes can prove fatal. Although H2-antihistamines are often administered for emergency treatment in anaphylaxis, there is uncertainty about their effectiveness in this disease. OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits and harms of H2-antihistamines in the treatment of anaphylaxis. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing H2-antihistamines with placebo or no intervention in patients with anaphylaxis. RESULTS: The authors failed to identify any eligible studies for inclusion in this systematic review. CONCLUSION: When H2-antihistamines are recommended for anaphylaxis treatment, the status of the evidence base supporting their use should be described. Well-designed randomized controlled trials investigating the role of H2-antihistamines in anaphylaxis treatment are urgently needed.

World Allergy Organization Anaphylaxis Guidelines: 2013 update of the evidence base.

The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis are a widely disseminated and used resource for information about anaphylaxis. They focus on patients at risk, triggers, clinical diagnosis, treatment in health care settings, self-treatment in the community, and prevention of recurrences. Their unique strengths include a global perspective informed by prior research on the global availability of essentials for anaphylaxis assessment and management and a global agenda for anaphylaxis research. Additionally, detailed colored illustrations are linked to key concepts in the text [Simons et al.: J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011;127:593.e1-e22]. The recommendations in the original WAO Anaphylaxis Guidelines for management of anaphylaxis in health care settings and community settings were based on evidence published in peer-reviewed, indexed medical journals to the end of 2010. These recommendations remain unchanged and clinically relevant. An update of the evidence base was published in 2012 [Simons et al.: Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2012;12:389-399]. In 2012 and early 2013, major advances were reported in the following areas: further characterization of patient phenotypes; development of in vitro tests (for some allergens) that help distinguish clinical risk of anaphylaxis from asymptomatic sensitization; epinephrine (adrenaline) research, including studies of a new epinephrine auto-injector for use in community settings, and randomized controlled trials of immunotherapy to prevent food-induced anaphylaxis. Despite these advances, the need for additional prospective studies, including randomized controlled trials of interventions in anaphylaxis is increasingly apparent. This 2013 Update highlights publications from 2012 and 2013 that further contribute to the evidence base for the recommendations made in the original WAO Anaphylaxis Guidelines. Ideally, it should be used in conjunction with these Guidelines and with the 2012 Guidelines Update.

Anaphylaxis during pregnancy.

Anaphylaxis during pregnancy, labor, and delivery can be catastrophic for the mother and, especially, the infant. Symptoms and signs can include intense vulvar and vaginal itching, low back pain, uterine cramps, fetal distress, and preterm labor. During the first 3 trimesters, etiologies are similar to those in nonpregnant women. During labor and delivery, common etiologies are ß-lactam antibiotics, natural rubber latex, and other agents used in medical and perioperative settings. Important caveats in management include injecting epinephrine (adrenaline) promptly, providing high-flow supplemental oxygen, positioning the mother on her left side to improve venous return to the heart, maintaining a minimum maternal systolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg to ensure adequate placental perfusion, and continuous electronic monitoring. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cesarean delivery should be performed when indicated. In all women of child-bearing age, allergy/immunology specialists can help to prevent anaphylaxis in pregnancy through prepregnancy risk assessment and risk reduction strategies, such as confirming the etiology of systemic allergic reactions, providing written instructions for allergen avoidance, and initiating relevant immune modulation. In pregnant women the benefits versus risks of skin tests, challenge tests, desensitization, and initiation of immunotherapy with allergens should be carefully weighed; if possible, these procedures should be deferred until after parturition. Prospective interdisciplinary studies of anaphylaxis during pregnancy are needed.

Key findings and clinical implications from The Epidemiology and Natural History of Asthma: Outcomes and Treatment Regimens (TENOR) study.

Patients with severe or difficult-to-treat asthma are an understudied population but account for considerable asthma morbidity, mortality, and costs. The Epidemiology and Natural History of Asthma: Outcomes and Treatment Regimens (TENOR) study was a large, 3-year, multicenter, observational cohort study of 4756 patients (n=3489 adults ≥ 18 years of age, n=497 adolescents 13-17 years of age, and n=770 children 6-12 years of age) with severe or difficult-to-treat asthma. TENOR's primary objective was to characterize the natural history of disease in this cohort. Data assessed semiannually and annually included demographics, medical history, comorbidities, asthma control, asthma-related health care use, medication use, lung function, IgE levels, self-reported asthma triggers, and asthma-related quality of life. We highlight the key findings and clinical implications from more than 25 peer-reviewed TENOR publications. Regardless of age, patients with severe or difficult-to-treat asthma demonstrated high rates of health care use and substantial asthma burden despite receiving multiple long-term controller medications. Recent exacerbation history was the strongest predictor of future asthma exacerbations. Uncontrolled asthma, as defined by the 2007 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines' impairment domain, was highly prevalent and predictive of future asthma exacerbations; this assessment can be used to identify high-risk patients. IgE and allergen sensitization played a role in the majority of severe or difficult-to-treat asthmatic patients.

Timing the transfer of responsibilities for anaphylaxis recognition and use of an epinephrine auto-injector from adults to children and teenagers: pediatric allergists' perspective.

BACKGROUND: The optimal time for transferring responsibilities for anaphylaxis recognition and epinephrine auto-injector use from adults to children and teenagers has not yet been defined. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether pediatric allergists have age-specific goals for beginning to transfer responsibilities for anaphylaxis recognition and epinephrine auto-injector use from parents and caregivers to children and teenagers at risk of anaphylaxis in the community. METHODS: Members of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Allergy and Immunology (AAP-SOAI) were surveyed about when they typically begin to transfer these responsibilities from adults to children and teenagers. RESULTS: Eighty-eight allergists responded to the survey, 97.7% of whom provided service to children and teenagers with food allergies. Few allergists expected to begin transferring responsibilities for anaphylaxis recognition and epinephrine auto-injector use to children younger than 9 to 11 years. By the time their patients reached age 12 to 14 years, however, most allergists expected them to be able to describe some anaphylaxis symptoms (95.4%), demonstrate how to use an epinephrine auto-injector trainer (93.1%), begin carrying self-injectable epinephrine (88.2%), recognize the need for epinephrine (88.1%), learn to self-inject epinephrine (84.5%), and be able to self-inject epinephrine (78.6%) (cumulative data). The allergists rated the following as "very important" readiness factors for beginning to transfer responsibilities: medical history, developmental level, and ability to demonstrate auto-injector technique. CONCLUSION: Most pediatric allergists expected that by age 12 to 14 years, their patients should begin to share responsibilities with adults for anaphylaxis recognition and epinephrine auto-injector use; however, they individualized the timing based on assessment of patient readiness factors.

Evaluation of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines impairment domain for classifying asthma control and predicting asthma exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of asthma control may help predict future asthma exacerbations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate asthma guidelines impairment domain components as predictors of exacerbations in severe/difficult-to-treat asthma. METHODS: Children (aged 6-11 years; n = 289) and adolescents/adults (aged ≥ 12 years; n = 2,094) with complete baseline and 12-month data from The Epidemiology and Natural History of Asthma Outcomes and Treatment Regimens study were included. Asthma was categorized as very poorly controlled, not well-controlled, and well-controlled using impairment domain components. Effects of omitting each component on very poorly controlled and not well controlled groups were examined. Multivariable logistic regression determined the relationship of components in predicting asthma exacerbations. RESULTS: Omission of individual impairment domain components led to misclassification of asthma control in 11% to 39% of patients. A baseline exacerbation was the strongest independent predictor of exacerbation at month 12 in children (odds ratio = 2.94; P < .001) and adolescents/adults (odds ratio = 2.93; P < .001). In children, very poorly controlled asthma-based short-acting ß2-agonist use was associated with a 2-fold higher exacerbation risk (odds ratio = 2.03; P = .011). In adolescents/adults, not well controlled or very poorly controlled asthma based on short-acting ß2-agonist use (odds ratio = 1.49), lung function (odds ratio = 1.66), and the Asthma Therapy Assessment Questionnaire (odds ratio = 1.94) were also independent predictors of exacerbations (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the combined use of individual components of the impairment domain increases the sensitivity of identifying patients at high risk for future asthma exacerbations, specific components may be more important than others in severe/difficult-to-treat asthma. Prior exacerbations, short-acting ß2-agonist use, lung function, and (in adolescents/adults) the Asthma Therapy Assessment Questionnaire were independent predictors of exacerbations.

Adrenaline auto-injectors for the treatment of anaphylaxis with and without cardiovascular collapse in the community.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is a serious hypersensitivity reaction that is rapid in onset and may cause death. Adrenaline (epinephrine) auto-injectors are recommended as the initial, potentially life-saving treatment of choice for anaphylaxis in the community, but they are not universally available and have limitations in their use. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of adrenaline (epinephrine) auto-injectors in relieving respiratory, cardiovascular, and other symptoms during episodes of anaphylaxis that occur in the community. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid SP) (1950 to January 2012), EMBASE (Ovid SP) (1980 to January 2012 ), CINAHL (EBSCO host) (1982 to January 2012 ), AMED (EBSCO host) (1985 to January 2012 ), LILACS, (BIREME) (1980 to January 2012 ), ISI Web of Science (1950 to January 2012 ). We adapted our search terms for other databases. We also searched websites listing on-going trials: the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio, and the meta Register of Controlled Trials; and contacted pharmaceutical companies who manufacture adrenaline auto-injectors in an attempt to locate unpublished material. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing auto-injector administration of adrenaline with any control including no intervention, placebo, or other adrenergic agonists were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: None of the 1328 studies that were identified satisfied the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on this review, we cannot make any new recommendations on the effectiveness of adrenaline auto-injectors for the treatment of anaphylaxis. Although randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of high methodological quality are necessary to define the true extent of benefits from the administration of adrenaline in anaphylaxis via an auto-injector, such trials are unlikely to be performed in individuals experiencing anaphylaxis because of ethical concerns associated with randomization to placebo. There is, however, a need to consider trials in which, for example, auto-injectors of different doses of adrenaline and differing devices are compared in order to provide greater clarity on the dose and device of choice. Such trials would be practically challenging to conduct. In the absence of appropriate trials, we recommend that adrenaline administration by auto-injector should still be regarded as the most effective first-line treatment for the management of anaphylaxis in the community. In countries where auto-injectors are not commonly used, it may be possible to conduct trials to compare administration of adrenaline via auto-injector with adrenaline administered by syringe and ampoule, or comparing the effectiveness of two different types of auto-injector.

Glucocorticoids for the treatment of anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is a serious hypersensitivity reaction that is rapid in onset and may result in death. Anaphylaxis guidelines recommend glucocorticoids for the treatment of people experiencing anaphylaxis. OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the benefits and harms of glucocorticoid treatment during episodes of anaphylaxis. SEARCH METHODS: In our previous version we searched the literature until September 2009. In this version we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1956 to September 2011), EMBASE (Ovid) (1982 to September 2011), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (to September 2011). We also searched the UK National Research Register and websites listing ongoing trials, and contacted international experts in anaphylaxis in an attempt to locate unpublished material. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing glucocorticoids with any control (either placebo, adrenaline (epinephrine), an antihistamine, or any combination of these). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: We found no studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are, based on this review, unable to make any recommendations for the use of glucocorticoids in the treatment of anaphylaxis.

Allergen-specific oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy is one of the most common forms of food allergy encountered in clinical practice.  In most cases, it does not spontaneously resolve; furthermore, it is frequently implicated in acute life-threatening reactions. The current management of peanut allergy centres on meticulous avoidance of peanuts and peanut-containing foods. Allergen-specific oral immunotherapy (OIT) for peanut allergy aims to induce desensitisation and then tolerance to peanut, and has the potential to revolutionise the management of peanut allergy. However, at present there is still considerable uncertainty about the effectiveness and safety of this approach. OBJECTIVES: To establish the effectiveness and safety of OIT in people with IgE-mediated peanut allergy who develop symptoms after peanut ingestion. SEARCH METHODS: We searched in the following databases: AMED, BIOSIS, CAB, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Global Health, Google Scholar, IndMed, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, MEDLINE, PakMediNet and TRIP. We also searched registers of on-going and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was January 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs or controlled clinical trials involving children or adults with clinical features indicative of IgE-mediated peanut allergy treated with allergen-specific OIT, compared with control group receiving either placebo or no treatment, were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently checked and reviewed titles and abstracts of identified studies and assessed risk of bias. The full text of potentially relevant trials was assessed. Data extraction was independently performed by two reviewers with disagreements resolved through discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We found one small RCT, judged to be at low risk of bias, that enrolled 28 children aged 1 to 16 years with evidence of sensitisation to peanut and a clinical history of reaction to peanut within 60 minutes of exposure. The study did not include children who had moderate to severe asthma or who had a history of severe peanut anaphylaxis. Randomisation was in a 2:1 ratio resulting in 19 children being randomised to the intervention arm and nine to the placebo arm. Intervention arm children received OIT with peanut flour and control arm participants received placebo comprising of oat flour. The primary outcome was assessed using a double-blind, placebo controlled oral food challenge (OFC) at approximately one year. No data were available on longer term outcomes beyond the OFC conducted at the end of the study.Because of adverse events, three patients withdrew from the intervention arm before the completion of the study. Therefore, only 16 participants received the full course of peanut OIT, whereas all nine patients receiving placebo completed the trial. The per-protocol analysis found a significant increase in the threshold dose of peanut allergen required to trigger a reaction in those in the intervention arm with all 16 participants able to ingest the maximum cumulative dose of 5000 mg of peanut protein (which the authors equate as being equivalent to approximately 20 peanuts) without developing symptoms, whereas in the placebo group they were able to ingest a median cumulative dose of 280 mg (range: 0 to 1900 mg, P < 0.001) before experiencing symptoms.  Per-protocol analyses also demonstrated that peanut OIT resulted in reductions in skin prick test size (P < 0.001), interleukin-5 (P = 0.01), interleukin-13 (P = 0.02) and an increase in peanut-specific immunoglobulin G(4) (IgG(4)) (P < 0.01).Children in the intervention arm experienced more adverse events during treatment than those in the placebo arm. In the initial day escalation phase, nine (47%) of the 19 participants initially enrolled in the OIT arm experienced clinically-relevant adverse events which required treatment with H(1)-antihistamines, two of which required additional treatment with epinephrine (adrenaline). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The one small RCT we found showed that allergen-specific peanut OIT can result in desensitisation in children, and that this is associated with evidence of underlying immune-modulation. However, this treatment approach was associated with a substantial risk of adverse events, although the majority of these were mild.  In view of the risk of adverse events and the lack of evidence of long-term benefits, allergen-specific peanut OIT cannot currently be recommended as a treatment for the management of patients with IgE-mediated peanut allergy.  Larger RCTs are needed to investigate the acceptability, long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of safer treatment regimens, particularly in relation to the induction of clinical and immunological tolerance.

Histamine and H1-antihistamines: celebrating a century of progress.

In this review we celebrate a century of progress since the initial description of the physiologic and pathologic roles of histamine and 70 years of progress since the introduction of H(1)-antihistamines for clinical use. We discuss histamine and clinically relevant information about the molecular mechanisms of action of H(1)-antihistamines as inverse agonists (not antagonists or blockers) with immunoregulatory effects. Unlike first (old)-generation H(1)-antihistamines introduced from 1942 to the mid-1980s, most of the second (new)-generation H(1)-antihistamines introduced subsequently have been investigated extensively with regard to clinical pharmacology, efficacy, and safety; moreover, they are relatively free from adverse effects and not causally linked with fatalities after overdose. Important advances include improved nasal and ophthalmic H(1)-antihistamines with rapid onset of action (in minutes) for allergic rhinitis and allergic conjunctivitis treatment, respectively, and effective and safe use of high (up to 4-fold) doses of oral second-generation H(1)-antihistamines for chronic urticaria treatment. New H(1)-antihistamines introduced for clinical use include oral formulations (bilastine and rupatadine), and ophthalmic formulations (alcaftadine and bepotastine). Clinical studies of H(3)-antihistamines with enhanced decongestant effects have been conducted in patients with allergic rhinitis. Additional novel compounds being studied include H(4)-antihistamines with anti-inflammatory effects in allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and other diseases. Antihistamines have a storied past and a promising future.

Platelet-activating factor, PAF acetylhydrolase, and severe anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Platelet-activating factor (PAF) is an important mediator of anaphylaxis in animals, and interventions that block PAF prevent fatal anaphylaxis. The roles of PAF and PAF acetylhydrolase, the enzyme that inactivates PAF, in anaphylaxis in humans have not been reported. METHODS: We measured serum PAF levels and PAF acetylhydrolase activity in 41 patients with anaphylaxis and in 23 control patients. Serum PAF acetylhydrolase activity was also measured in 9 patients with peanut allergy who had fatal anaphylaxis and compared with that in 26 nonallergic pediatric control patients, 49 nonallergic adult control patients, 63 children with mild peanut allergy, 24 patients with nonfatal anaphylaxis, 10 children who died of nonanaphylactic causes, 15 children with life-threatening asthma, and 19 children with non-life-threatening asthma. RESULTS: Mean (+/-SD) serum PAF levels were significantly higher in patients with anaphylaxis (805+/-595 pg per milliliter) than in patients in the control groups (127+/-104 pg per milliliter, P<0.001 after log transformation) and were correlated with the severity of anaphylaxis. The proportion of subjects with elevated PAF levels increased from 4% in the control groups to 20% in the group with grade 1 anaphylaxis, 71% in the group with grade 2 anaphylaxis, and 100% in the group with grade 3 anaphylaxis (P<0.001). There was an inverse correlation between PAF levels and PAF acetylhydrolase activity (P<0.001). The proportion of patients with low PAF acetylhydrolase values increased with the severity of anaphylaxis (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Serum PAF acetylhydrolase activity was significantly lower in patients with fatal peanut anaphylaxis than in control patients (P values <0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Serum PAF levels were directly correlated and serum PAF acetylhydrolase activity was inversely correlated with the severity of anaphylaxis. PAF acetylhydrolase activity was significantly lower in patients with fatal anaphylactic reactions to peanuts than in patients in any of the control groups. Failure of PAF acetylhydrolase to inactivate PAF may contribute to the severity of anaphylaxis.

Anaphylaxis pathogenesis and treatment.

Anaphylaxis is a serious allergic reaction that is rapid in onset and sometimes leads to death. Understanding mechanisms, triggers, and patient-specific risk factors for severe or fatal anaphylaxis is critically important. Diagnosis of anaphylaxis is currently based on established clinical criteria. Epinephrine (adrenaline) is the first-line medication for anaphylaxis treatment and delay in injecting it contributes to biphasic reactions, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, and fatality. Here, we focus on four important areas of translational research in anaphylaxis: studies of potential new biomarkers to support the clinical diagnosis of anaphylaxis, laboratory tests to distinguish allergen sensitization from clinical risk of anaphylaxis, the primary role of epinephrine (adrenaline) in anaphylaxis treatment, and strengthening the overall evidence base for anaphylaxis treatment.