Food allergies on a college campus.

There are limited data on food allergies among college students. In this article, we review the most current available studies. These self-reported surveys and qualitative interviews reported overall poor avoidance of known allergens and low rates of carrying self-injectable epinephrine among students with food allergy. College students may exhibit risk-taking food behaviors due to a number of factors, including age-appropriate risk-taking predilection, strong social influences, and lack of experience in self-advocacy. Having to disclose an otherwise invisible condition repeatedly in a new environment may also lead to "disclosure fatigue," creating an additional barrier to self-advocacy. Common themes in the narrative include hypervigilance, stigma management, and concern about others' misunderstanding of food allergy. Although there is a paucity of data in this area, it is likely that having greater support at the institution level, along with support from peers and faculty, may help improve awareness, self-injectable epinephrine carriage, and allergen avoidance. This review also discusses strategies for preparedness at school, including specific steps to maximize safety.

A systematic review and expert Delphi Consensus recommendation on the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab: A position paper of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha subunit, thus blocking the effects of IL-4 and IL-13, and has shown efficacy in treating various conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and others. Because of its immune modulatory effects, clinical trials that studied dupilumab did not allow patients to receive live vaccines during the clinical trials because of an abundance of caution, and thus package inserts recommend that patients who are being treated with dupilumab should avoid live vaccines. Because dupilumab is now approved for use in patients from 6 months of age for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, this reported contraindication is now posing a clinical dilemma for patients and clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of literature on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in patients who are receiving dupilumab and to provide expert guidance on the use of vaccines in patients who are receiving dupilumab. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed, and an expert Delphi Panel was assembled. RESULTS: The available literature on patients who received vaccinations while using dupilumab overall suggests that live vaccines are safe and that the vaccine efficacy, in general, is not affected by dupilumab. The expert Delphi panel agreed that the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab was likely safe and effective. CONCLUSION: Vaccines (including live vaccines) can be administered to patients receiving dupilumab in a shared decision-making capacity.

Immune response evolution in peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut-allergic children.

BACKGROUND: Epicutaneous immunotherapy with investigational Viaskin™ Peanut 250 µg (DBV712) has demonstrated statistically superior desensitization versus placebo in peanut-allergic children in clinical trials. It is unclear whether serologic biomarkers predict response. METHODS: Serum-specific IgG4 and IgE (whole peanut and components) from subjects enrolled in the phase 3 Efficacy and Safety of Viaskin Peanut in Children With IgE-Mediated Peanut Allergy study were examined by exploratory univariate and multivariate analyses to determine trajectories and predictors of treatment response, based upon peanut protein eliciting dose (ED) at Month (M) 12 double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge. RESULTS: Among Viaskin Peanut-treated subjects, peanut sIgG4 significantly increased from baseline through M12 and peanut sIgE peaked at M3 and fell below baseline by M12, with sIgG4 and sIgE peanut components mirroring these trajectories. Placebo subjects had no significant changes. By univariate analysis, M12 peanut sIgG4/sIgE was higher in treatment responders (p < 0.001) and had highest area under the curve (AUC) for predicting ED ≥300 mg and ≥1000 mg (AUC 69.5% and 69.9%, respectively). M12 peanut sIgG4/sIgE >20.1 predicted M12 ED ≥300 mg (80% positive predictive value). The best performing component was Ara h 1 sIgE <15.7 kUA /L (AUC 66.5%). A multivariate model combining Ara h 1 and peanut sIgG4/sIgE had an AUC of 68.2% (ED ≥300 mg) and 67.8% (ED ≥1000 mg). CONCLUSIONS: Peanut sIgG4 rise most clearly differentiated Viaskin Peanut versus placebo subjects. sIgG4/sIgE ratios >20.1 and the combination of Ara h 1 and peanut sIgG4/sIgE had moderate ability to predict treatment response and could potentially be useful for clinical monitoring. Additional data are needed to confirm these relationships.

Steroid-induced secondary immune deficiency.

Despite their widespread clinical use, oral corticosteroids (OCSs) are well known to be associated with a myriad of adverse effects, including immunosuppression. By inhibiting transcription factors and affecting leukocyte function, prolonged OCS use leads to significant CD4 lymphopenia and often a decrease in serum immunoglobulin (Ig)G. Conversely, OCS use has minimal impact on circulating B cell, serum IgM, or serum IgA levels. Although there is a paucity of literature, individuals treated with prolonged OCS seem to typically maintain humoral response to various vaccinations despite hypogammaglobinemia, but this area warrants additional research, especially in the setting of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Individuals treated with prolonged OCS use are most at risk for opportunistic infections, especially those with underlying malignancy and history of bone marrow transplant. Risk mitigation strategies to decrease infectious complication with OCS use include limiting the dose and duration of therapy, appropriately completing a full vaccination series, consideration for passive immunization, and prophylaxis against opportunistic infections.

Outcomes of oral food challenges in a real-world setting, with predictors of outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Oral food challenge (OFC) remains the reference standard for food allergy (FA) diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: This study reports a single-center observational experience with all OFCs conducted over 3 years. METHODS: All OFCs performed at an outpatient office were tracked. The OFCs were conducted without strict prespecified inclusion or exclusion criteria. Demographic information along with results of diagnostic testing and results of the OFCs were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 1132 OFCs were performed, with a median age of 4 years (interquartile range = 2.0-10.0). Of the 1132 OFCs, 862 (76.1%) tolerated the food, whereas 232 (20.5%) experienced a reaction, and 38 (3.4%) did not complete the OFC because of food refusal. The highest percentage of tolerated food was shellfish (91.1%), with the lowest percentage of tolerated food being baked egg (66.1%). There were 66 (5.8%) OFCs that were deemed to be high risk, of which 35 (53.0%) tolerated the food. More than 50% of reactions occurred on the first or second dose, with the most common clinical symptom being urticaria or angioedema, with 29.2% of reactions treated with epinephrine. There were several factors that predicted tolerating an OFC, including the food challenge, the reason for food avoidance, older age at the time of OFC and less reactive skin prick testing, and lower food-specific immunoglobulin E levels. CONCLUSION: Certain factors can predict tolerating an OFC, and even those considered to be high risk can be safely completed in an outpatient setting, with most tolerating the food, and most reactions not requiring treatment with epinephrine.

Real-World Experience of Tixagevimab and Cilgavimab (Evusheld) in Rheumatologic Patients on Rituximab.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Although vaccination is the primary strategy against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), rheumatologic patients on B-cell depleting agent rituximab may have a suboptimal response. Tixagevimab and cilgavimab (Evusheld) could be administered under Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization as pre-exposure prophylaxis. METHODS: A cohort study of rheumatologic patients on rituximab therapy who received Evusheld was followed longitudinally. Adverse events were monitored. RESULTS: Forty-three patients received Evusheld, with diagnoses including rheumatoid arthritis, ANCA vasculitis, immune-mediated myositis, Sjögren disease, and systemic lupus erythematosus. Average time to follow-up was 100 ± 33 days. One patient experienced symptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by home antigen test twice. A total of 97.8% of patients during follow-up did not contract acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. At the same time, 32,074 new local cases were reported with a local cumulative SARS-CoV-2 incidence rate of 4.32%. Adverse events included myalgia, flu-like symptoms, fevers, injection site pain, or headache. No serious adverse events, anaphylaxis, or cardiac events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Evusheld demonstrated effectiveness in preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in a real-world cohort of rheumatologic patients on rituximab therapy. Administration of Evusheld may be considered as part of a multilayered approach to risk mitigation in this high-risk population as pre-exposure prophylaxis.

Use of biologics for the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma: the age of personalized medicine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There are multiple FDA-approved biologics to treat poorly controlled moderate-to-severe asthma. Given the heterogeneity of asthma and the lack of head-to-head data between biologics, selecting the best biologic for a patient can be difficult. This review summarizes the key literature to date, in hopes of facilitating an evidence-based approach to selecting the most appropriate biologic for patients with asthma. RECENT FINDINGS: In addition to unique mechanisms of action, there is increasing literature on predictors of response to each biologic, such as sensitizations to aeroallergens, peripheral eosinophil count, total serum IgE, and exhaled nitric oxide. Biologics available for asthma are also being increasingly studied in comorbid conditions with asthma, and this may facilitate selecting the most appropriate biologic for a patient. In the absence of head-to-head studies, there is literature of switching between biologics whenever necessary. SUMMARY: The authors outline an approach to selecting a biologic based on various considerations, and hope this suggested approach facilitates selecting the biologic most suitable for each individual with poorly controlled moderate-to-severe asthma.

Safety and Tolerability of Subcutaneous IgPro20 at High Infusion Parameters in Patients with Primary Immunodeficiency: Findings from the Pump-Assisted Administration Cohorts of the HILO Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and tolerability of subcutaneous IgPro20 (Hizentra®, CSL Behring, King of Prussia, PA, USA) administered at high infusion parameters (> 25 mL and > 25 mL/h per injection site) in patients with primary immunodeficiency. METHODS: The Hizentra® Label Optimization (HILO) study was an open-label, parallel-arm, non-randomized study (NCT03033745) of IgPro20 using a forced upward titration design for infusion parameters. Patients experienced with pump-assisted IgPro20 infusions received weekly IgPro20 infusions at a stable dose in the Pump-Assisted Volume Cohort (N = 15; 25-50 mL per injection site) and in the Pump-Assisted Flow Rate Cohort (N = 18; 25-100 mL/h per injection site). Responder rates (percentage of patients who successfully completed ≥ 75% of planned infusions), safety outcomes, and serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) trough levels were evaluated. RESULTS: Responder rates were 86.7% (13/15, 25 mL) and 73.3% (11/15, 40 and 50 mL) in the Volume Cohort, and 77.8% (14/18, 25 and 50 mL/h), 66.7% (12/18, 75 mL/h), and 61.1% (11/18, 100 mL/h) in the Flow Rate Cohort. Infusion compliance was ≥ 90% in all patients in the Volume Cohort and in 83.3% of patients in the Flow Rate Cohort. The number of injection sites (Volume Cohort) and the infusion duration (Flow Rate Cohort) decreased with increasing infusion parameters. The rate of treatment-emergent adverse events per infusion was low (0.138 [Volume Cohort] and 0.216 [Flow Rate Cohort]). Serum IgG levels remained stable during the study. CONCLUSION: Pump-assisted IgPro20 infusions are feasible at 50 mL and 100 mL/h per injection site in treatment-experienced patients, which may result in fewer injection sites and shorter infusion times. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03033745 ; registered January 27, 2017.

Real-world tree nut consumption in peanut-allergic individuals.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with peanut allergy often avoid tree nuts, yet true rates of tree nut allergy in peanut-allergic individuals are as low as 7%. OBJECTIVE: To examine tree nut sensitization patterns in peanut-allergic individuals, patient and family choice regarding tree nut consumption, and factors that influence consumption of tree nuts. METHODS: All patients presenting for peanut allergy evaluation to an outpatient allergy office were included during a 4-month period. In addition to demographic information, sensitization to tree nuts and tree nut consumption were collected. Logistic regression was performed to generate odds ratios with 95% CIs in univariate and multivariate analyses for variables that predict tree nut consumption. RESULTS: A total of 258 individuals with peanut allergy were enrolled. Ninety-five (36.8%) consumed all tree nuts ad libitum, 63 (24.4%) consumed some but not all tree nuts, and 100 (38.8%) consumed no tree nuts. Of the 100 electively avoiding all tree nuts, the most commonly reported reason was fear of cross-contact (50%). Although there was no difference between rates of sensitization between individual tree nuts (P = .056), cashew and pistachio had higher serum specific IgE levels compared with other tree nuts (P < .001). The tree nut most commonly consumed by peanut-allergic individuals was almond (P < .001). Consumption of foods with precautionary labeling was the strongest predictor of tree nut consumption in peanut allergic individuals (P < .001) CONCLUSION: Our data highlight the potential for safe introduction of tree nuts in peanut-allergic individuals and indicate that peanut-allergic individuals who consume foods with precautionary labeling are most likely to consume tree nuts.

Efficacy of epinephrine and diphenhydramine rinses in decreasing local reactions to subcutaneous aeroallergen immunotherapy.

Background: Although local reactions (LR) to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) occur in 26-86% of patients, there are no well-studied strategies to manage LRs. Objective: To complete a prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial that compared pre-rinsing SCIT syringes with diphenhydramine, epinephrine, or placebo in patients who were receiving aeroallergen SCIT and experiencing LRs despite pretreatment with an antihistamine. Methods: Patients ages ≥5 years who were receiving aeroallergen SCIT per a conventional dosing schedule and who were experiencing LRs despite premedicating with an oral antihistamine were randomized to diphenhydramine, epinephrine, or placebo rinse, and were followed up for three subsequent visits. At each visit, the patients were asked (yes or no) if LRs improved. Results: A total of 490 patients were enrolled in the study. Seventy-four of the 490 patients (15.1%) experienced an LR despite pretreatment with an oral antihistamine and were randomized into an intervention group. At visit 1, an epinephrine rinse was strongly associated with decreasing LR compared with both diphenhydramine rinse and placebo (p < 0.001). There was no difference among the intervention groups at visits 2 and 3. In patients who reported a consistent outcome at all three visits, the epinephrine rinse was significantly associated with a decrease in LR compared with both diphenhydramine rinse and placebo rinse (p = 0.05). Conclusion: In patients who received aeroallergen SCIT per a conventional dosing schedule, an epinephrine rinse significantly decreased LR at the first visit, and also within a population that reported a consistent outcome at all three study visits. In patients already premedicating with an oral antihistamine, adding an epinephrine rinse is a safe and effective strategy to decrease LRs to aeroallergen SCIT.

AAAAI Mast Cell Disorders Committee Work Group Report: Mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS) diagnosis and management.

Our current recommendations for diagnosing and treating primary mast cell (MC) activation syndrome make use of the latest studies and consensus guidelines for clinically recognizing systemic anaphylaxis in real time, regardless of whether allergen-triggered or other pathways are involved; our current understanding of the biomarkers secreted by activated MCs that best discriminate this disorder from other conditions; and the therapeutic drugs that might selectively affect those mediators or MCs themselves. Finding familial or somatic mutations of genes that cause MCs to be hyperactivatable would extend our diagnostic tools and potentially indicate new therapeutic interventions, targeting either the mutated gene product or the associated molecular pathway. In conclusion, we trust that the clinical, laboratory, and therapeutic criteria for primary MC activation syndromes described herein will provide clinicians with practical criteria of sufficient sensitivity and specificity to diagnose most cases without overdiagnosing the disorder in patients who likely have other conditions.

Systemic reactions to subcutaneous immunotherapy: Effects of dosing and aeroallergen content.

BACKGROUND: Systemic reactions are a known risk of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for aeroallergens. OBJECTIVE: To identify the dose of SCIT that results in the most systemic reactions to SCIT (SCITSRs) and other risk factors for SCITSRs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all SCIT encounters from 2013 to 2017 at a multisite allergy/immunology practice. SCITSRs were identified from the electronic health record through immunotherapy encounters in which epinephrine was administered. Collected data included patient demographics, the dose of immunotherapy at the time of the SCITSR, the presence or absence of asthma, and aeroallergen content. The control group was generated randomly from the same cohort during the same period. RESULTS: There were 86,949 SCIT visits, with 81 SCITSRs (0.9 per 1000 injections). A total of 77.8% of reactions occurred at a dose of 1:1 0.1 mL and above. The presence of cat (81.5% vs 63.0%, P = .01), dog (67.9% vs 37.0%, P < .001), and grass extracts (85.2% vs 67.5%, P = .01) were associated with SCITSRs. Asthma was not significantly associated with SCITSRs. The presence of dust mites, trees, weeds, and molds was not associated with SCITSRs. There were no months or seasons where SCITSRs were more likely to occur. Individuals who experienced SCITSRs had a mean (SD) higher number of included aeroallergenic groups compared with controls (5.86 [1.88] vs 5.00 [1.92], P < .001). CONCLUSION: Risk factors for SCITSRs in a multisite allergy/immunology practice included administration of the highest immunotherapy doses; inclusion of cat, dog, and grass extracts; and the number of aeroallergenic groups included in the extract. This information helps further characterize risk for patients receiving SCIT.

School nurse perspectives on school policies for food allergy and anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Although school health care professionals are integral to the management of students with food allergy, their views on school food allergy policies have not yet been reported. OBJECTIVE: To characterize food allergy policies currently being used in schools and their utility and potential barriers to implementation from the perspective of school health care professionals. METHODS: An electronic survey was disseminated to school nurses at the 2016 National Association of School Nurses meeting and through the Allergy and Asthma Network listserv. Frequencies were calculated to describe participant characteristics and responses. Unadjusted associations were examined using χ2 tests; adjusted associations were examined using multiple logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 242 completed surveys were included in the analysis. Thirty-two percent of nurses reported an allergic reaction in their school in the past year. Most schools used a variety of policies, including anaphylaxis training for staff (96.7%), stock epinephrine availability (81.7%), designated lunch areas (62.2%), and food guidelines for classrooms (61.8%). Barriers to implementation included financial, time, and attitudinal considerations. Schools with pre-K or kindergarten students had higher odds of having designated lunch areas (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-4.1; P < .05). The odds of having emergency epinephrine available were higher in schools with a full-time nurse (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.3; P < .05) and in schools reporting at least 1 severe reaction in the past year (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.2-8.5; P < .05). CONCLUSION: With one-third of school nurses reporting an allergic reaction in the past year, schools use many strategies to minimize allergen exposures and increase anaphylaxis preparedness. Most school nurses favor these policies and acknowledge barriers to implementation.

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions: Presentation, Risk Factors, and Management.

PURPOSE OF STUDY: Immune-mediated adverse drug reactions occur commonly in clinical practice and include mild, self-limited cutaneous eruptions, IgE-mediated hypersensitivity, and severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions (SCAR). SCARs represent an uncommon but potentially life-threatening form of delayed T cell-mediated reaction. The spectrum of illness ranges from acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP) to drug reaction with eosinophilia with systemic symptoms (DRESS), to the most severe form of illness, Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). RECENT FINDINGS: There is emerging literature on the efficacy of cyclosporine in decreasing mortality in SJS/TEN. The purpose of our review is to discuss the typical presentations of these conditions, with a special focus on identifying the culprit medication. We review risk factors for developing SCAR, including HLA alleles strongly associated with drug hypersensitivity. We conclude by discussing current strategies for the management of these conditions.