EAACI guidelines: Anaphylaxis (2021 update).

Anaphylaxis is a clinical emergency which all healthcare professionals need to be able to recognize and manage. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Anaphylaxis multidisciplinary Task Force has updated the 2014 guideline. The guideline was developed using the AGREE II framework and the GRADE approach. The evidence was systematically reviewed and recommendations were created by weighing up benefits and harms. The guideline was peer-reviewed by external experts and reviewed in a public consultation. The use of clinical criteria to identify anaphylaxis is suggested with blood sampling for the later measurement of tryptase. The prompt use of intramuscular adrenaline as first-line management is recommended with the availability of adrenaline autoinjectors to patients in the community. Pharmacokinetic data should be provided for adrenaline autoinjector devices. Structured, comprehensive training for people at risk of anaphylaxis is recommended. Simulation training and visual prompts for healthcare professionals are suggested to improve the management of anaphylaxis. It is suggested that school policies reflect anaphylaxis guidelines. The evidence for the management of anaphylaxis remains mostly at a very low level. There is an urgent need to prioritize clinical trials with the potential to improve the management of patients at risk of anaphylaxis.

Identifying key priorities for research to protect the consumer with food hypersensitivity: A UK Food Standards Agency Priority Setting Exercise.

INTRODUCTION: Food hypersensitivity (FHS), including food allergy, coeliac disease and food intolerance, is a major public health issue. The Food Standards Agency (FSA), an independent UK Government department working to protect public health and consumers' wider interests in food, sought to identify research priorities in the area of FHS. METHODS: A priority setting exercise was undertaken, using a methodology adapted from the James Lind Alliance-the first such exercise with respect to food hypersensitivity. A UK-wide public consultation was held to identify unanswered research questions. After excluding diagnostics, desensitization treatment and other questions which were out of scope for FSA or where FSA was already commissioning research, 15 indicative questions were identified and prioritized by a range of stakeholders, representing food businesses, patient groups, health care and academia, local authorities and the FSA. RESULTS: 295 responses were received during the public consultation, which were categorized into 70 sub-questions and used to define 15 key evidence uncertainties ('indicative questions') for prioritization. Using the JLA prioritization framework, this resulted in 10 priority uncertainties in evidence, from which 16 research questions were developed. These could be summarized under the following 5 themes: communication of allergens both within the food supply chain and then to the end consumer (ensuring trust in allergen communication); the impact of socio-economic factors on consumers with FHS; drivers of severe reactions; mechanism(s) underlying loss of tolerance in FHS; and the risks posed by novel allergens/processing. DISCUSSION: In this first research prioritization exercise for food allergy and FHS, key priorities identified to protect the food-allergic public were strategies to help allergic consumers to make confident food choices, prevention of FHS and increasing understanding of socio-economic impacts. Diagnosis and treatment of FHS was not considered in this prioritization.

Diagnosing, managing and preventing anaphylaxis: Systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review used the GRADE approach to compile evidence to inform the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) anaphylaxis guideline. METHODS: We searched five bibliographic databases from 1946 to 20 April 2020 for studies about the diagnosis, management and prevention of anaphylaxis. We included 50 studies with 18 449 participants: 29 randomized controlled trials, seven controlled clinical trials, seven consecutive case series and seven case-control studies. Findings were summarized narratively because studies were too heterogeneous to conduct meta-analysis. RESULTS: It is unclear whether the NIAID/FAAN criteria or Brighton case definition are valid for immediately diagnosing anaphylaxis due to the very low certainty of evidence. There was also insufficient evidence about the impact of most anaphylaxis management and prevention strategies. Adrenaline is regularly used for first-line emergency management of anaphylaxis but little robust research has assessed its effectiveness. Newer models of adrenaline autoinjectors may slightly increase the proportion of people correctly using the devices and reduce time to administration. Face-to-face training for laypeople may slightly improve anaphylaxis knowledge and competence in using autoinjectors. We searched for but found little or no comparative effectiveness evidence about strategies such as fluid replacement, oxygen, glucocorticosteroids, methylxanthines, bronchodilators, management plans, food labels, drug labels and similar. CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening condition but, due to practical and ethical challenges, there is a paucity of robust evidence about how to diagnose and manage it.

APPEAL-2: A pan-European qualitative study to explore the burden of peanut-allergic children, teenagers and their caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Allergy to Peanuts ImPacting Emotions And Life (APPEAL-1) was a recent European multi-country questionnaire survey that highlighted the negative impacts of peanut allergy (PA) on quality of life. A follow-on qualitative study, APPEAL-2, further assessed the burden of PA and associated coping strategies through semi-structured interviews. OBJECTIVE: To gain qualitative insight on the strategies used to cope with and manage PA and the impact of these strategies on the quality of life of children, teenagers and caregivers. METHODS: This cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in eight European countries: the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Denmark and the Netherlands. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with children (aged 8-12 years) and teenagers (aged 13-17 years) with self-/proxy-reported moderate or severe PA and with parents/caregivers of children or teenagers (aged 4-17 years) with moderate or severe PA. Data were analysed using thematic analysis; data saturation was assessed. Two conceptual models were developed to illustrate the impacts of PA and coping strategies used to manage them for (a) individuals with PA and (b) parents/caregivers of children with PA. RESULTS: 107 participants were interviewed: 24 children, 39 teenagers and 44 caregivers. The conceptual models illustrated themes related to coping and control, driven by the fear of PA reactions, and the associated emotional, social, relationship and work impacts. Factors moderating these impacts included social attitudes and support, child-caregiver relationship and coping strategies used. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The APPEAL-2 results substantiate the findings of APPEAL-1; the results also suggest that the severity of experience with PA may not correlate with perception of its overall burden and show variable impacts by country.

APPEAL-1: A pan-European survey of patient/caregiver perceptions of peanut allergy management.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy (PA) is associated with marked quality-of-life (QoL) impairment. However, data are lacking on the experience and impact of living with PA from the perspectives of persons with PA (PwPA) and their caregivers. Allergy to Peanuts imPacting Emotions And Life study 1 (APPEAL-1) was a pan-European survey investigating these perspectives. This first of two articles reports clinical characteristics of PwPA and PA management practices. METHODS: APPEAL-1 was a quantitative, online survey conducted in eight European countries, developed by eight representatives of patient advocacy groups and five healthcare professionals and researchers. Eligible participants included adults with PA and parents/caregivers of PwPA who responded by self-report and provided proxy-report for the PwPA under their care. Data were summarized using nonweighted descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1846 completed/analysed questionnaires, 528 were from adults with PA (self-report); 437 by proxy for children with PA (34 aged 0-3 years, 287 aged 4-12 years, 116 aged 13-17 years) and 881 from parents/caregivers (self-report). Of PwPA (N = 965), 95% reported diagnosis by healthcare professionals, mostly by clinical history and peanut-specific allergy testing. Rates of allergic rhinitis, asthma and other food allergies in PwPA were 50%, 42% and 79%, respectively. Only 31% of PwPA received HCP advice/support following their worst allergic reaction, and 28% had not been prescribed an adrenaline auto-injector. Results were similar by country but varied by age group. CONCLUSIONS: The APPEAL-1 findings contribute to greater understanding of PA impact on PwPA, caregivers and family members and the need for improved PA management across Europe.

APPEAL-1: A multiple-country European survey assessing the psychosocial impact of peanut allergy.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy (PA) is a common, potentially life-threatening and typically lifelong condition with a significant burden of illness. However, information is lacking on how persons with PA (PwPA) and their caregivers perceive the psychosocial impact of living with PA. The Allergy to Peanuts imPacting Emotions And Life 1 (APPEAL-1) survey, conducted across Europe, investigated the experience and impact of living with PA. Here, we report data evaluating the psychosocial impact of PA on PwPA and their caregivers. METHODS: Allergy to Peanuts imPacting Emotions And Life study 1 was an online survey conducted in eight European countries. Representatives of eight patient advocacy groups and five healthcare-research specialists developed the survey. Eligible respondent groups included the following: adults diagnosed with PA (self-report); parent/nonparent caregivers (proxy-report for a child with PA); and parent/nonparent caregivers (self-report of PA impact on themselves). RESULTS: Of 1846 total study respondents, 419 were adults with PA (self-report); 546 were parents/caregivers (proxy-report); and 881 were parents/caregivers (self-report). Most respondents reported lifestyle restrictions regarding food (84%-93%) and additional domains including parties and socializing, holiday activities and destinations, and taking public transport (53%-89%). Approximately 40% rated themselves as "very" frustrated and "very" stressed. Two-thirds (65%) felt socially isolated; 43% were bullied. Less than half felt confident in knowing when to use an adrenaline autoinjector. Several intercountry differences were observed such as high levels of uncertainty and stress in respondents from Ireland, highest rates of anxiety in respondents from Germany, and social exclusion and isolation most common in respondents from France. CONCLUSIONS: Peanut allergy imposes an adverse psychosocial impact on patients and caregivers, leading to frustration, stress and isolation. Attention to the impact of PA is needed in research and clinical practice to improve PA healthcare and public education programmes.

Understanding how consumers with food allergies make decisions based on precautionary labelling.

BACKGROUND: Understanding consumer perceptions is crucial if effective food safety policy and risk communication are to be developed and implemented. We sought to understand how those living with food allergy assess risk with precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) and their preference in how risks are communicated within a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) framework. METHODS: The Integrated Approaches to Food Allergen and Allergy Risk Management (iFAAM) labelling online survey was developed for adults and parents of children with food allergy and distributed across Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain and UK via patient support groups. RESULTS: There were 1560 complete responses. 'This product is not suitable for' was selected as first choice for PAL by 46% overall and 'May contain' was selected as the first choice by 44%. Seventy-three percent reported that it would improve their trust in a product if a QRA process had been used to make a decision about whether to include 'may contain'. Overall, 66% reported that a 'statement + symbol' on the label indicating a QRA, would help them to understand the risk assessment process that had been used by the food manufacturer. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers want to know what process has actually taken place for the placing of a PAL and/or risk assessment statement on a particular food product. Our findings provide a basis for the development of more informative communication around food allergen risk and safety and support evidence-based policy-making in the context of the legislative requirements of the European Union's Food Information for Consumers Regulation.

Evidence-based approaches to the application of precautionary allergen labelling: Report from two iFAAM workshops.

Food allergy is a major public health concern with avoidance of the trigger food(s) being central to management by the patient. Food information legislation mandates the declaration of allergenic ingredients; however, the labelling of the unintentional presence of allergens is less defined. Precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) was introduced by the food industry to help manage and communicate the risk of reaction from the unintended presence of allergens in foods. In its current form, PAL is counterproductive for consumers with food allergies as there is no standardized approach to applying PAL. Foods with a PAL often do not contain the identified food allergen while some products without a PAL contain quantities of common food allergens that are capable of inducing an allergic reaction. Integrated Approaches to Food Allergen and Allergy Risk Management (iFAAM) was an EU-funded project that aimed to improve the management of food allergens by the food industry for the benefit of people with food allergies. Within iFAAM, a clinically validated tiered risk assessment approach for food allergens was developed. Two cross-stakeholder iFAAM workshops were held on 13-14 December 2016 and 19-20 April 2018. One of the objectives of these workshops was to develop a proposal to make PAL effective for consumers. This paper describes the outcomes from these workshops. This provides the basis for the development of more informative and transparent labelling that will ultimately improve management and well-being in consumers with food allergy.

Can dietary strategies in early life prevent childhood food allergy? A report from two iFAAM workshops.

Food allergy affects a small but significant number of children and adults. Food allergy is responsible for considerable morbidity and is the commonest cause of anaphylaxis in children. One of the aims of the European Union-funded "Integrated Approaches to Food Allergen and Allergy Risk Management" (iFAAM) project was to improve our understanding of the best way to prevent the development of food allergy. Groups within the project worked on integrating the current prevention evidence base as well as generating new data to move our understanding forward. This paper from the iFAAM project is a unique addition to the literature on this topic as it not only outlines the recently published randomized controlled trials (as have previous reviews) but also summarizes two iFAAM-associated project workshops. These workshops focused on how we may be able to use dietary strategies in early life to prevent the development of food allergy and summarized the range of opinions amongst experts in this controversial area.

Allergy to Peanuts imPacting Emotions And Life (APPEAL): The impact of peanut allergy on children, teenagers, adults and caregivers in the UK and Ireland.

The Allergy to Peanuts imPacting Emotions And Life study (APPEAL) explored the psychosocial burden of living with self-reported peanut allergy experienced by children, teenagers, adults and caregivers in the UK and Ireland. A two-stage (quantitative survey and qualitative interview [APPEAL-1]), cross-sectional study of the psychosocial burden of peanut allergy (APPEAL-2) was conducted. Quantitative data were evaluated using descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analysed using MAXQDA software. A conceptual model specific to UK and Ireland was developed using the concepts identified during the analysis. A total of 284 adults in the UK and Ireland completed the APPEAL-1 survey and 42 individuals participated in APPEAL-2. Respondents reported that peanut allergy restricts their choices in various situations, especially with regard to choosing food when eating out (87% moderately or severely restricted), choosing where to eat (82%), special occasions (76%) and when buying food from a shop (71%). Fifty-two percent of survey participants and 40% of interview participants reported being bullied because of PA. Psychological impact of peanut allergy included feeling at least moderate levels of frustration (70%), uncertainty (79%), and stress (71%). The qualitative analysis identified three different types of coping strategies (daily monitoring or vigilance, communication and planning) and four main areas of individuals' lives that are impacted by peanut allergy (social activities, relationships, emotions and work [adults and caregivers only]). The extent of the impact reported varied substantially between participants, with some reporting many negative consequences of living with peanut allergy and others feeling it has minimal impact on their health-related quality of life. This large survey and interview study highlight the psychosocial burden of peanut allergy for adults, teenagers, children and caregivers in the UK and Ireland. The analysis demonstrates the wide variation in level of impact of peanut allergy and the unmet need for those individuals who experience a substantial burden from living with peanut allergy.

Anaphylaxis in the community: a questionnaire survey of members of the UK Anaphylaxis Campaign.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the circumstances, features and management of anaphylaxis in children and adults. DESIGN: Self-completed questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: The age of participants ranged from 0 to 72 years. SETTING: We analysed data from self-completed questionnaires collected over a 12-year period, i.e. 2001-2013, available to people by phone and, since 2012, for online completion through the Anaphylaxis Campaign. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We analysed data from self-completed questionnaires collected over a 12- year period, i.e. 2001-2013, available to people by phone and, since 2012, for online completion through the Anaphylaxis Campaign. RESULTS: In total, 356 questionnaires were submitted, of which 54 did not meet the criteria for anaphylaxis. The remaining 302 anaphylactic reactions originated from 243 individuals; 193 (64%) of these reactions were in children. Approximately half of all reactions occurred at home (n = 148; 49%); 61% (n = 193) of reactions occurred in those reporting a history of asthma, and many (n = 76; 41%) of these individuals had asthma that they classified as being severe. In 57% (n = 173) cases, the respondent reacted to a known allergen. Self-injectable adrenaline (epinephrine) was available in 79% of the cases, and it was only used in 38% of episodes. The usage of self-injected adrenaline was lower in children (30%) than in adults (54%), even though 82% of children had adrenaline available at the time of the reaction compared to 74% of adults. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the majority of anaphylaxis reactions are triggered by exposure to known food allergens and that approximately half of these reactions occur at home. Access to self-injectable adrenaline was sub-optimal and when available it was only used in a minority of cases. Avoiding triggers, access to self-injectable adrenaline and its prompt use in the context of reactions need to be reinforced.

Living with severe allergy: an Anaphylaxis Campaign national survey of young people.

BACKGROUND: The transition to adulthood can be particularly challenging for young people with severe allergies, who must learn to balance personal safety with independent living. Information and support for young people and their families are crucial to successfully managing this transition. We sought to: gather insights into the impact of severe allergies on the lives of young people; explore where young people go for information about anaphylaxis and what information they want and need; identify areas where further support is needed. METHODS: An online questionnaire survey of young people aged 15-25 years with severe allergies in the United Kingdom (UK) was conducted on behalf of the Anaphylaxis Campaign, the main patient support organisation. Participants were recruited mainly from the Anaphylaxis Campaign membership database and also via allergy clinics and social media. The study was funded by the Anaphylaxis Campaign's In Memoriam Fund. RESULTS: A total of 520 young people responded to the survey. The majority had lived with severe allergies since they were young children; 59% reported having attended Accident and Emergency units as a consequence of their allergies. Only 66% of respondents reported always carrying their epinephrine auto-injectors; only 23% had ever used these. Few were currently receiving specialist allergy care; younger respondents were more likely to be under specialist care (34%) than those 18 years and above (23%). Respondents wanted more information about eating out (56%), travelling (54%) and food labelling (43%). Almost a quarter of respondents (23%) reported needing more information on managing their allergies independently without parental help. Managing allergies in the context of social relationships was a concern for 22% of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: This survey has identified the information and support needs and gaps in service provision for young people with severe allergies. Healthcare professionals and patient support organisations, with the support of the food industry, can help to meet these needs.