Serologic measurements for peanut allergy: Predicting clinical severity is complex.

Allergist-immunologists use serologic peanut allergy testing to maximize test sensitivity and specificity while minimizing cost and inconvenience. Recent advances toward this goal include a better understanding of specific IgE (sIgE) and component testing, epitope-sIgE assays, and basophil activation testing. Predicting reaction severity with serologic testing is challenged by a range of co-factors that influence reaction severity, such as the amount and form of any allergen consumed and comorbid disease. In 2020, the Allergy Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters recommended Ara h 2-sIgE as the most cost-effective diagnostic test for peanut allergy because of its superior performance, when compared with skin prick testing and serum IgE. Basophil activation testing, a functional test of allergic response not evaluated in the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters guideline, is a promising option for both allergy diagnosis and prognosis. Similarly, epitope-sIgE testing may improve prediction of reaction thresholds, but further validation is needed. Despite advances in food allergy testing, many of these tools remain limited by cost, accessibility, and feasibility. In addition, there is a need for further research on how atopic dermatitis may be modifying serologic food allergy severity assessments. Given these limitations, allergy test selection requires a shared decision-making approach so that a patient's values and preferences regarding financial impact, inconvenience, and psychological effects are considered in the context of clinician expertise on the timing and use of optimized testing.

Atopic dermatitis (eczema) guidelines: 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters GRADE- and Institute of Medicine-based recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Guidance addressing atopic dermatitis (AD) management, last issued in 2012 by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force, requires updating as a result of new treatments and improved guideline and evidence synthesis methodology. OBJECTIVE: To produce evidence-based guidelines that support patients, clinicians, and other decision-makers in the optimal treatment of AD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary guideline panel consisting of patients and caregivers, AD experts (dermatology and allergy/immunology), primary care practitioners (family medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine), and allied health professionals (psychology, pharmacy, nursing) convened, prioritized equity, diversity, and inclusiveness, and implemented management strategies to minimize influence of conflicts of interest. The Evidence in Allergy Group supported guideline development by performing systematic evidence reviews, facilitating guideline processes, and holding focus groups with patient and family partners. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. Evidence-to-decision frameworks, subjected to public comment, translated evidence to recommendations using trustworthy guideline principles. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 25 recommendations to gain and maintain control of AD for patients with mild, moderate, and severe AD. The eAppendix provides practical information and implementation considerations in 1-2 page patient-friendly handouts. CONCLUSION: These evidence-based recommendations address optimal use of (1) topical treatments (barrier moisturization devices, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, PDE4 inhibitors [crisaborole], topical JAK inhibitors, occlusive [wet wrap] therapy, adjunctive antimicrobials, application frequency, maintenance therapy), (2) dilute bleach baths, (3) dietary avoidance/elimination, (4) allergen immunotherapy, and (5) systemic treatments (biologics/monoclonal antibodies, small molecule immunosuppressants [cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, JAK inhibitors], and systemic corticosteroids) and UV phototherapy (light therapy).

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update.

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

Comparison of DripAssist to Traditional Method for Achieving Rate Infusions by U.S. Army Medics.

Literature finds improper intravenous (IV) infusion rates as the most common cause of medication administration errors (MAE). Calculating drip rates and manipulating roller clamps while counting drops within the drip chamber to manage IV infusions - known as the traditional method (TM) - increases the likelihood of IV MAEs compared to electronic infusion pumps. The DripAssist, a novel in-line device, allows users to monitor and adjust infusion rates without calculating rates or counting drops. We conducted a prospective, randomized, crossover study with a convenience sample of U.S. Army medics initiating infusion rates using the DripAssist and the TM. Investigators randomized participants to start with the TM or DripAssist and achieve three specific infusions using an in vitro model. The primary outcome was the time to achieve the desired infusion rate measured in seconds. Secondary outcomes included drip rate accuracy and volume infused over one hour. End user feedback included method confidence on a 100-point Bandura scale and appraisal using a five-point Likert item. Twenty-two medics demonstrated faster time to achieve infusion rates with the DripAssist over TM (median 146.5 seconds vs. 207.5 seconds, p = .003). A sequence effect noted faster time to achieve desired infusion rates with the TM after completing infusions with DripAssist (p = .033). The DripAssist demonstrated significantly improved accuracy for drip rate and volume administered over one hour compared to TM (median rate error: 5% versus 46%, p <.001; median volume percentage error: 26.5% versus 65%, p <.001). The DripAssist had significantly higher user confidence (median 80 vs. 47.5, p <.001) and was perceived as easier to use (median 4 vs. 2, p = <.001) and more likely to be learned, remembered, and performed by a medic (median 5 vs. 3, p <.001). Most participants (90%) preferred the DripAssist for establishing a rate-specific infusion. The DripAssist demonstrated significantly faster time to achieve infusion rates, improved accuracy, and increased user confidence. Sequence effects may confound time data. We recommend further studies of the DripAssist by prehospital medical personnel in more austere environments.

An Update in COVID-19 Vaccine Reactions in 2023: Progress and Understanding.

It has been 3 years since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was initially declared, and 2 years have passed since the first COVID-19 vaccines were introduced. Since then, 13.2 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered worldwide, largely with multiple doses of messenger RNA vaccines. Although mild local and systemic adverse effects after COVID-19 vaccination are common, serious adverse effects following immunization are rare, particularly when compared with the large number of vaccine doses administered. Immediate and delayed reactions are relatively common and present similarly to allergic and hypersensitivity reactions. Despite this, reactions generally do not commonly recur, cause sequelae, or contraindicate revaccination. In this Clinical Management Review, we provide an updated perspective of COVID-19 vaccine reactions, their spectrum and epidemiology, and recommended approaches to evaluation and management.

Updated guidance regarding the risk of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and recommended evaluation and management: A GRADE assessment and international consensus approach.

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history.

Updates and Recent Advances on Venom Immunotherapy.

Purpose of Review: Venom immunotherapy has been utilized to treat Hymenoptera venom allergy since the 1920s. Over the last century, significant advances in the fields of immunology and genetics have led to improvements in the practice of venom immunotherapy. This review encompasses recent advances in the use of venom immunotherapy to provide precise, patient-centered care. Recent Findings: Research about the mechanism of action of venom immunotherapy continues to highlight the modification of both the innate and adaptive immune systems. Molecular techniques have allowed for the identification of specific venom allergens to improve the diagnostic accuracy and safety of venom immunotherapy. Research continues to support the safety of accelerated schedules which can impact the cost, adherence, and quality of life for patients receiving this treatment modality. Finally, significant advances have led to the elucidation of risk factors that place patients at risk for reactions during and after venom immunotherapy. Creation of risk profiles for venom-allergic patients can thus inform the process of immunotherapy in order to provide personalized and precise care. Summary: Significant progress in the use of venom immunotherapy makes the practice a dynamic and active field for continued research. Future research needs to build on these recent advances to continue to optimize and enhance this life-saving treatment.

The Value of Current Laboratory Tests in Diagnosing Food, Venom, and Drug Allergies.

An accurate diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergies is necessary to inform risk management for severe allergic reactions including anaphylaxis for food, venom, and drug allergies. The most widely available laboratory test for allergy is serum-specific IgE testing, which is routinely used for food allergy and insect sting allergy. Testing for specific IgE is limited by high sensitivity and low specificity, resulting in concern regarding overdiagnosis. Testing of allergen components has led to improved diagnosis for some food and venom allergens. Additional options for laboratory tests, such as epitope analysis, basophil activation, and mast cell activation, are being investigated for their potential to optimize diagnosis and provide predictors for reaction severity and treatment response. In contrast, laboratory testing for drug allergy is more limited because to date, there are no well-validated commercial assays in the United States. Furthermore, it is important to diagnose delayed reactions to medications, because these also significantly affect decision-making regarding therapeutic options for infectious disorders. Reliable tests for both immediate and delayed drug hypersensitivity are much needed, because drug allergy labels can significantly limit treatment options for patients. Research in this area is emerging.

Venom Anaphylaxis: Decision Points for a More Aggressive Workup.

Diagnostic testing of patients who present for evaluation of insect venom allergy can involve many levels of investigation. A detailed initial history is critical for diagnosis and prognosis. The severity of previous sting reactions and the presence or absence of urticaria or hypotension predict severe future sting reactions and underlying mast cell disorders. Venom skin tests and specific IgE measurement can confirm the diagnosis but have limited positive predictive value for the frequency and severity of future sting reactions. Testing for serum IgE to recombinant venom component allergens can distinguish true allergy from cross-reactivity to honey bee and yellowjacket venoms. Basophil activation tests can improve the detection of venom allergy and predict the severity of reactions and the efficacy of venom immunotherapy but are limited in availability. An elevated basal serum tryptase level is an important marker for severe sting anaphylaxis and underlying mast cell disorders (eg, hereditary α-tryptasemia and clonal mast cell disease). When there is high suspicion (eg, using the Red Espanola de Mastocytosis score), bone marrow biopsy is the definitive tool to characterize mast cell disorders that are associated with the most severe outcomes in patients with insect sting allergy.

Wings and stings: Hymenoptera on vacation.

Traveling to different regions, one might encounter a species to which they have a known allergy, or other related and unrelated species. A first-time systemic reaction can occur while on vacation, even in those with previous asymptomatic stings. Three main groups of Hymenoptera are responsible for most sting reactions. Honey bee species are virtually identical around the world. Among social wasps (family Vespidae), the yellowjacket (genus Vespula and Dolichovespula) and hornet (genus Vespa) venoms have almost complete cross-reactivity, whereas paper wasp (genus Polistes) venoms show only partial cross-reactivity with other vespid venoms. Venom immunotherapy (VIT) confers 80% to 95% protection against related insects, though isolated species of paper wasps and yellowjackets exist in every country that may be distinct from the ones at home. Those allergic to imported fire ants (genus Solenopsis) in the United States should not react to other ant species around the world. Stinging ants belong to several unrelated subfamilies in different geographic regions, which do not have cross-reactive venom. The chances of encountering specific species of Hymenoptera at a traveler's destination vary by location, planned activities, and season. In this article, we discuss special considerations for traveling, including distribution of stinging insects around the world, risk factors for more severe reactions, ways to prepare for a trip, and when allergist examination or treatment may be helpful before travel.

Diagnostic accuracy of vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in the setting of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

For persons with immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, skin testing (ST) to the vaccine/excipients (polyethylene glycol[PEG] and polysorbate 80 [PS]) has been recommended, but has unknown accuracy. To assess vaccine/excipient ST accuracy in predicting all-severity immediate allergic reactions upon re-vaccination, systematic review was performed searching Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the WHO global coronavirus database (inception-Oct 4, 2021) for studies addressing immediate (≤4 h post-vaccination) all-severity allergic reactions to 2nd mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions. Cases evaluating delayed reactions, change of vaccine platform, or revaccination without vaccine/excipient ST were excluded. Meta-analysis of diagnostic testing accuracy was performed using Bayesian methods. The GRADE approach evaluated certainty of the evidence, and QUADAS-2 assessed risk of bias. Among 20 studies of mRNA COVID-19 first dose vaccine reactions, 317 individuals underwent 578 ST to any one or combination of vaccine, PEG, or PS, and were re-vaccinated with the same vaccine. Test sensitivity for either mRNA vaccine was 0.2 (95%CrI 0.01-0.52) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.9-1). PEG test sensitivity was 0.02 (95%CrI 0.00-0.07) and specificity 0.99 (95%CrI 0.96-1). PS test sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.0.11) and specificity 0.97 (95%CrI 0.91-1). Combined for use of any of the 3 testing agents, sensitivity was 0.03 (95%CrI 0.00-0.08) and specificity was 0.98 (95%CrI 0.95-1.00). Certainty of evidence was moderate. ST has low sensitivity but high specificity in predicting all-severity repeat immediate allergic reactions to the same agent, among persons with 1st dose immediate allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or excipient ST has limited risk assessment utility.

The Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters GRADE guidelines for the medical management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

These evidence-based guidelines support patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders in decisions about the use of intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), biologics, and aspirin therapy after desensitization (ATAD) for the management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). It is important to note that the current evidence on surgery for CRSwNP was not assessed for this guideline nor were management options other than INCS, biologics, and ATAD. The Allergy-Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of multiple stakeholders and to minimize potential biases. Systematic reviews for each management option informed the guideline. The guideline panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to inform and develop recommendations. The guideline panel reached consensus on the following statements: (1) In people with CRSwNP, the guideline panel suggests INCS rather than no INCS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). (2) In people with CRSwNP, the guideline panel suggests biologics rather than no biologics (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence). (3) In people with aspirin (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug)-exacerbated respiratory disease, the guideline panel suggests ATAD rather than no ATAD (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence). The conditions for each recommendation are discussed in the guideline.

Anaphylaxis: Advances in the Past 10 Years.

In the past 10 years, anaphylaxis has grown into its own special area of study within Allergy-Immunology, both at the bench and at the bedside. This review focuses on some of the most clinically relevant advances over the past decade. These include simplified and more inclusive diagnostic criteria for adults and children, uniform definition of biphasic anaphylaxis, and improved systems for objective severity grading. Studies reported in the past decade have led to improved understanding of normal and abnormal regulation of mast cell function, translating into better diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to patients with anaphylaxis. Research has provided improved recognition and treatment of mast cell disorders and has identified a new condition, hereditary α-tryptasemia, that may impact anaphylactic syndromes. We have learned to recognize new causes (α-gal), new pathways (Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor-X2), and many risk factors for severe anaphylaxis. The stability of epinephrine in autoinjectors was reported to be very good for several years after the labeled expiry date, and it can tolerate freezing and thawing. Repeated and prolonged exposure to excessive heat leads to degradation of epinephrine activity. New treatments to prevent severe anaphylaxis have been described, using new ways to block the IgE receptor or modulate intracellular signaling pathways.