Prevention and management of allergic reactions to food in child care centers and schools: Practice guidelines.

Food allergy management in child care centers and schools is a controversial topic, for which evidence-based guidance is needed. Following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, we conducted systematic literature reviews of the anticipated health effects of selected interventions for managing food allergy in child care centers and schools; we compiled data about the costs, feasibility, acceptability, and effects on health equity of the selected interventions; and we developed the following conditional recommendations: we suggest that child care centers and schools implement allergy training and action plans; we suggest that they use epinephrine (adrenaline) to treat suspected anaphylaxis; we suggest that they stock unassigned epinephrine autoinjectors, instead of requiring students to supply their own personal autoinjectors to be stored on site for designated at-school use; and we suggest that they do not implement site-wide food prohibitions (eg, "nut-free" schools) or allergen-restricted zones (eg, "milk-free" tables), except in the special circumstances identified in this document. The recommendations are labeled "conditional" due to the low quality of available evidence. More research is needed to determine with greater certainty which interventions are likely to be the most beneficial. Policymakers might need to adapt the recommendations to fit local circumstances.

Penicillin Skin Testing, Challenge, and Desensitization in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to evaluate available evidence of the safety of penicillin skin testing (PST), challenge, and desensitization in pregnancy, with efforts to improve perinatal care for patients with a penicillin allergy history and mitigate the negative sequelae of unverified penicillin allergy labels. METHODS: A systematic review of studies was conducted using Cochrane Library, Medline, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. Included were peer-reviewed studies without date restrictions, published in English or French, relating to PST, challenge, or desensitization in pregnancy. Editorials, opinion pieces, and letters were excluded. Review authors independently screened citations and full-text articles, extracted data, and conducted quality assessment. Given the heterogeneity of study designs, a narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: The search identified 1195 references, of which 18 studies met inclusion criteria. In total there were 231 patients with varying histories of penicillin allergy, the majority requiring treatment for syphilis or group B streptococcal (GBS) disease during pregnancy. Of the 203 participants who underwent PST, 83.7% had negative test results. Allergy-related reactions were rare in PST (1.5%) and challenge (0%), and although these reactions were more common in desensitization (19.7%), most were benign. Among the 231 cases, only one adverse pregnancy outcome was reported (0.4%). CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates that the known prevalence of true penicillin allergy extends to pregnant women. PST and desensitization can be safely applied during pregnancy and are tools that should be used more frequently. Further data on the safety of challenge during pregnancy are recommended.

Focused allergic rhinitis practice parameter for Canada.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent disease in Canada that affects both children and adults. Several guidelines for the management of AR have been published by professional allergy societies worldwide. However, there are regional differences in the clinical management of AR, and regulatory approval of some AR pharmacotherapies varies among countries. Thus, six research questions specific to the treatment of AR in Canada were identified for this focused practice parameter. Reviews of the literature published since 2016 were conducted to obtain evidence-based support for the responses of the Work Group to each research question. In response to research question 1 "In patients with symptoms indicative of AR, is serum-specific IgE sufficient to identify candidates for immunotherapy or is a skin prick test mandatory?" the Work Group concluded that either sIgE testing or skin prick test are acceptable for diagnosing AR and guiding immunotherapy. In response to research question 2 "When taking into account the preferences of the patient and the prescriber (stakeholder engagement) should second-generation oral antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) be first line?" the Work Group concluded that existing guidelines generally agree on the use of INCS as a first-line therapy used for AR, however, patient and provider preferences and considerations can easily shift the first choice to a second-generation OAH. In response to research question 3 "Is a combination intranasal antihistamine (INAH)/INCS formulation superior to INCS plus OAH? Do they become equivalent after prolonged use?" the Work Group concluded that that the combination INAH/INCS is superior to an INCS plus OAH. However, there was insufficient evidence to answer the second question. In response to research question 4 "Do leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) have a greater benefit than OAH in AR for some symptoms to justify a therapeutic trial in those who cannot tolerate INCS?" the Work Group concluded that LTRAs have inferior, or at best equivalent, daytime or overall symptom control compared with OAH, but LTRAs may improve nighttime symptom control and provide benefits in patients with AR and concomitant asthma. In response to research question 5 "Should sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets be considered first-line immunotherapeutic options over subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) based on the evidence of efficacy?" the Work Group concluded that the choice of SLIT or SCIT cannot be made on efficacy alone, and differences in other factors outweigh any differences in efficacy. In response to research question 6 "Based on efficacy data, should ALL patients seen by an allergist be offered SLIT or SCIT as a treatment option?" the Work Group concluded that the efficacy data suggests that SLIT or SCIT should be used broadly in patients with AR, but other clinical concerns also need to be taken into consideration.

Non-IgE-mediated food hypersensitivity.

Non-immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food hypersensitivity includes a spectrum of disorders that predominantly affect the gastrointestinal tract. This review will focus on the following more common non-IgE-mediated food hypersensitivity syndromes: food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES), allergic proctocolitis (AP), food protein-induced enteropathy (FPE) and celiac disease. FPIES, AP and FPE typically present in infancy and are most commonly triggered by cow's milk protein or soy. The usual presenting features are profuse emesis and dehydration in FPIES; blood-streaked and mucousy stools in AP; and protracted diarrhea with malabsorption in FPE. Since there are no confirmatory noninvasive diagnostic tests for most of these disorders, the diagnosis is based on a convincing history and resolution of symptoms with food avoidance. The mainstay of management for FPIES, AP and FPE is avoidance of the suspected inciting food, with periodic oral food challenges to assess for resolution, which generally occurs in the first few years of life. Celiac disease is an immune-mediated injury caused by the ingestion of gluten that leads to villous atrophy in the small intestine in genetically susceptible individuals. Serologic tests and small intestinal biopsy are required to confirm the diagnosis of celiac disease, and management requires life-long adherence to a strict gluten-free diet.

High rate of house dust mite sensitization in a shrimp allergic southern Ontario population.

BACKGROUND: Shrimp and house dust mite (HDM) allergies are common in Canadians. Often, both of these allergies occur in the same patient. This may be due to homology of tropomyosin or other potentially shared proteins. The aim of our study was to assess the frequency of house dust mite sensitization in a shrimp allergic Canadian population. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective chart review of shrimp allergic patients at an outpatient allergy clinic in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada. Our primary endpoint was to assess for presence of HDM sensitization in this population. Patients were categorized into approximate quartiles. We assessed the severity of the shrimp reactions, correlated shrimp skin test size to HDM skin test size, and measured the proportion of patients with atopic symptoms. RESULTS: We identified 95 shrimp allergic patients who were tested for house dust mite. 86 (90.5%) of these patients had a positive skin test to HDM. Patients with a shrimp skin test ≥5 mm were 5.31 times (95% CI, 1.55-18.14; p = 0.008) more likely to exhibit a dust mite skin test ≥5 mm than patients with a shrimp skin test <5 mm. The odds of a patient with a shrimp skin test between 10 and 18 mm having a larger HDM skin test were 3.93 times (95% CI 1.03-14.98, p = 0.045) the odds for a patient with a shrimp skin test size between 3 and 4 mm. We did not find a correlation between shrimp skin test size and shrimp reaction symptom grade (p = 0.301). CONCLUSION: In our Canadian patients, we found a large majority of shrimp allergic patients to be sensitized to HDM. We found that patients with a large skin test to shrimp were more likely to have a large skin test to HDM compared to those patients with a small skin test to shrimp. We did not find a correlation between shrimp skin test size and shrimp reaction symptom severity. Most of these patients had symptoms of rhinitis and/or asthma that may have been caused by house dust mite allergy.

Epinephrine Autoinjectors: New Data, New Problems.

Epinephrine is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. Despite this, there have been identified gaps in the management of anaphylaxis including infrequent or delayed use of epinephrine for acute allergic reactions, as well as inadequate epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) training, and prescription rates of these devices for patients at risk. This paper reviews new data, and new problems in recently published literature on EAIs. A database search was conducted for publications between January 2015 and February 2017 using keywords related to EAIs including their functionality and features, carriage, prescription rates, barriers, and side effects. Eligibility criteria included patients at risk for anaphylaxis, caregivers, and health care professionals. Experimental studies and observational studies were included. Of 1,737 potentially relevant articles, 19 were used for analysis. These articles addressed specific aspects of an EAI, including (1) information on features and functionality; (2) prescriptions; (3) training on their use; and (4) carriage and use at the time of reaction by patients, schools, camps, emergency departments, and paramedics. Our review highlights that existing gaps in anaphylaxis management remain unaddressed. Patient needs are largely unmet, and very few studies are being designed to clarify and instill best practice, and to determine how to increase adherence to existing anaphylaxis guidelines through integrated knowledge translation strategies.

A retrospective comparison of false negative skin test rates in penicillin allergy, using pencilloyl-poly-lysine and minor determinants or Penicillin G, followed by open challenge.

BACKGROUND: A history of penicillin allergy in patients is common, but only 10-15 % are truly allergic. While the gold standard for diagnosing penicillin allergy is challenge, it is not recommended that this be done without first carrying out diagnostic skin testing. This is carried out with the major determinant benzylpenicilloyl (PPL) and the minor determinant mixture (MDM), consisting of penilloate, penicilloate and Penicillin G. However, since availability of the MDM is limited, Penicillin G alone has been used. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was carried out on patients tested for penicillin allergy in the Clinical Immunology and Allergy Clinic at the Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Canada between 2005 and 2013. A total of 521 patients charts were reviewed, of whom 240 had skin testing, ImmunoCap(®) for IgE to Penicillin G and V and had oral challenges with penicillin, amoxicillin or cloxacillin. RESULTS: 17/240 (7.5 %) were skin test positive, 8 to PPL, 4 to MDM and 5 to Penicillin G. One was also positive on ImmunoCap(®) testing. Three patients had negative skin tests but weakly positive ImmunoCap(®). 222 patients with negative skin tests and serological tests were challenged. Of these, 12 patients reacted to challenge. Three of the challenges were equivocal. Of the nine patients with definite positive challenges, three were tested with Penicillin G and six with MDM. Therefore the false negative rates for testing were 2.3 % with PPL and Penicillin G and 6.97 % for PPL and MDM. The difference was not significant (p = 0.0856). CONCLUSIONS: In this group of patients with a history of penicillin allergy tested with the major determinant of benzyl penicillin and either MDM or Penicillin G, there was no difference in the rate of false negative testing, based on oral penicillin challenges. Therefore, Penicillin G can be safely used as an alternative to MDM in diagnosing penicillin allergy.