Optimization of the allergen classification of the International Classification Of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11).

BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis of triggers or causative allergens is essential for appropriate risk assessment, providing correct advice to patients with allergy and their caregivers and personalized treatment. However, allergens have never been represented in the World Health Organization International Classification of Diseases (ICD). OBJECTIVE: In this article, we present the process of selection of allergens to better fit the ICD, 11th Revision (ICD-11) structure and the outcomes of this process. METHODS: The Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes database, containing 1444 allergens, was used as the basis for the selection process. Two independent experts were responsible for the first selection of the allergens according to specific technical criteria. The second step of the selection process was based on real-life relevance of the allergens according to the frequency of requests regarding each of them. RESULTS: We selected 1109 allergens (76.8%) from all 1444 present in the Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes database, with considerable agreement between experts (Cohen κ = 8.6). After assessment of real-life data, 297 additional relevant allergens worldwide were selected and grouped as plants (36.4%), drugs (32.6%), animal proteins (21%), mold and other microorganisms (1.5%), occupational allergens (0.4%), and miscellaneous allergens (0.5%). CONCLUSION: The stepwise approach allowed us to select the most relevant allergens in practice, which is the first step to building a classification of allergens for the WHO ICD-11. Aligned with the achievement in the construction of the pioneer section addressed to the allergic and hypersensitivity conditions in the ICD-11, the introduction of a classification for allergens can be considered timely and much needed in clinical practice.

United States Pharmacopeia guidance for compounding of allergenic extracts for allergen immunotherapy.

Patient-specific allergen-specific subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has been used as a disease modifying treatment for type 1 IgE mediated allergy to inhalants for > 100 years. Traditionally, the extracts used for a treatment set have been "mixed" under the supervision of allergists in their clinics. Until 2008, there were no specific requirements for mixing procedures. Allergenic extracts are classified as biologics by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are subject to the biologics license application requirements. One of the conditions is that it must be prepared in accordance with U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP) Chapter 797, which was first published in 2008. What allergists have always considered "mixing" of allergen extracts is considered "compounding" by the FDA and other state and federal regulatory agencies. A revision of USP Chapter 797 was proposed after a series of "never events," including deaths, from compounded products. No reports of infections from SCIT have ever been reported. "Allergy" (ACAAI, AAAAI, AAOA, and other stakeholders) worked cooperatively with the USP Compounding Expert Committee to develop Section 21. "Compounding Allergenic Extracts" of what is expected to be accepted as the next version of USP Chapter 797 in mid 2022.

Global implementation of the world health organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11: The allergic and hypersensitivity conditions model.

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) provides a common language for use worldwide as a diagnostic and classification tool for epidemiology, clinical purposes and health management. Since its first edition, the ICD has maintained a framework distributing conditions according to topography, with the result that some complex conditions, such as allergies and hypersensitivity disorders (A/H) including anaphylaxis, have been poorly represented. The change in hierarchy in ICD-11 permitted the construction of the pioneer section addressed to A/H, which may result in more accurate mortality and morbidity statistics, including more accurate accounting for mortality due to anaphylaxis, strengthen classification, terminology and definitions. The ICD-11 was presented and adopted by the 72nd World Health Assembly in May 2019, and the implementation is ongoing worldwide. We here present the outcomes from an online survey undertaken to reach out the allergy community worldwide in order to peer review the terminology, classification and definitions of A/H introduced into ICD-11 and to support their global implementation. Data are presented here for 406 respondents from 74 countries. All of the subsections of the new A/H section of the ICD-11 had been considered with good accuracy by the majority of respondents. We believe that, in addition to help during the implementation phase, all the comments provided will help to improve the A/H classification and to increase awareness by different disciplines of what actions are needed to ensure more accurate epidemiological data and better clinical management of A/H patients.

COVID-19, asthma, and biological therapies: What we need to know.

Managing patients with severe asthma during the coronavirus pandemic and COVID-19 is a challenge. Authorities and physicians are still learning how COVID-19 affects people with underlying diseases, and severe asthma is not an exception. Unless relevant data emerge that change our understanding of the relative safety of medications indicated in patients with asthma during this pandemic, clinicians must follow the recommendations of current evidence-based guidelines for preventing loss of control and exacerbations. Also, with the absence of data that would indicate any potential harm, current advice is to continue the administration of biological therapies during the COVID-19 pandemic in patients with asthma for whom such therapies are clearly indicated and have been effective. For patients with severe asthma infected by SARS-CoV-2, the decision to maintain or postpone biological therapy until the patient recovers should be a case-by-case based decision supported by a multidisciplinary team. A registry of cases of COVID-19 in patients with severe asthma, including those treated with biologics, will help to address a clinical challenge in which we have more questions than answers.

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.

Effect of a mobile health, sensor-driven asthma management platform on asthma control.

BACKGROUND: Asthma inflicts a significant health and economic burden in the United States. Self-management approaches to monitoring and treatment can be burdensome for patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a digital health management program on asthma outcomes. METHODS: Residents of Louisville, Kentucky, with asthma were enrolled in a single-arm pilot study. Participants received electronic inhaler sensors that tracked the time, frequency, and location of short-acting ß-agonist (SABA) use. After a 30-day baseline period during which reference medication use was recorded by the sensors, participants received access to a digital health intervention designed to enhance self-management. Changes in outcomes, including mean daily SABA use, symptom-free days, and asthma control status, were compared among the initial 30-day baseline period and all subsequent months of the intervention using mixed-model logistic regressions and χ2 tests. RESULTS: The mean number of SABA events per participant per day was 0.44 during the control period and 0.27 after the first month of the intervention, a 39% reduction. The percentage of symptom-free days was 77% during the baseline period and 86% after the first month, a 12% improvement. Improvement was observed throughout the study; each intervention month demonstrated significantly lower SABA use and higher symptom-free days than the baseline month (P < .001). Sixty-nine percent had well-controlled asthma during the baseline period, 67% during the first month of the intervention. Each intervention month demonstrated significantly higher percentages than the baseline month (P < .001), except for month 1 (P = .80). CONCLUSION: A digital health asthma management intervention demonstrated significant reductions in SABA use, increased number of symptom-free days, and improvements in asthma control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02162576.

Feasibility of Deploying Inhaler Sensors to Identify the Impacts of Environmental Triggers and Built Environment Factors on Asthma Short-Acting Bronchodilator Use.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological asthma research has relied upon self-reported symptoms or healthcare utilization data, and used the residential address as the primary location for exposure. These data sources can be temporally limited, spatially aggregated, subjective, and burdensome for the patient to collect. OBJECTIVES: First, we aimed to test the feasibility of collecting rescue inhaler use data in space-time using electronic sensors. Second, we aimed to evaluate whether these data have the potential to identify environmental triggers and built environment factors associated with rescue inhaler use and to determine whether these findings would be consistent with the existing literature. METHODS: We utilized zero-truncated negative binomial models to identify triggers associated with inhaler use, and implemented three sensitivity analyses to validate our findings. RESULTS: Electronic sensors fitted on metered dose inhalers tracked 5,660 rescue inhaler use events in space and time for 140 participants from 13 June 2012 to 28 February 2014. We found that the inhaler sensors were feasible in passively collecting objective rescue inhaler use data. We identified several environmental triggers with a positive and significant association with inhaler use, including: AQI, PM10, weed pollen, and mold. Conversely, the spatial distribution of tree cover demonstrated a negative and significant association with inhaler use. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing a sensor to capture the signal of rescue inhaler use in space-time offered a passive and objective signal of asthma activity. This approach enabled detailed analyses to identify environmental triggers and built environment factors that are associated with asthma symptoms beyond the residential address. The application of these new technologies has the potential to improve our surveillance and understanding of asthma. Citation: Su JG, Barrett MA, Henderson K, Humblet O, Smith T, Sublett JW, Nesbitt L, Hogg C, Van Sickle D, Sublett JL. 2017. Feasibility of deploying inhaler sensors to identify the impacts of environmental triggers and built environment factors on asthma short-acting bronchodilator use. Environ Health Perspect 125:254-261; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP266.

Comparison of systemic reactions in rush, cluster, and standard-build aeroallergen immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Given the choice of standard, cluster, and rush build-up for aeroallergen immunotherapy, standard-build immunotherapy has generally been preferred because of a perceived high rate of systemic reactions (SRs) associated with cluster and rush immunotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the incidence of SRs during standard, cluster, and rush build-up immunotherapy in an allergy practice during a 5-year period. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted among patients receiving standard-build, 8- to 10-step cluster, or 2-day rush immunotherapy from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014, at Family Allergy & Asthma clinics in Louisville, Kentucky. Investigators excluded reactions that occurred during skin prick testing, venom immunotherapy, and not-true SRs, and identified the build-up method, age, sex, date of reaction, vial concentration, and presence of asthma. Per-shot and per-patient incidence of SRs was computed from these data. RESULTS: During our review period, 2,549,643 injections were administered to 11,982 patients. Per-shot incidence of SR was 0.01%, 0.06%, and 0.33% for standard, cluster, and rush immunotherapy, respectively; per-patient incidence of SR was 2.84%, 2.52%, and 11.86% for standard, cluster, and rush immunotherapy, respectively. A total of 42% of SRs were grade 1, 43% were grade 2, 12% were grade 3, and 3% were grade 4. No fatalities were reported. A total of 70% of total SRs, 75% of cluster SR, and 55% of rush SR occurred in females, with an emergent peak in SR from May to October. CONCLUSION: Compared with previously published rates, we observed a decrease in the incidence of SR for standard, cluster, and rush immunotherapy, with peak seasonality from May to October and a female predominance.

Revisiting Desensitization and Allergen Immunotherapy Concepts for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11.

Allergy and hypersensitivity intervention management procedures, such as desensitization and/or tolerance induction and immunotherapy, have not been pondered up to now in the content of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) context because the focus has been on prioritizing the condition implementations. Tremendous efforts have been devoted to implementing allergic and hypersensitivity conditions in the forthcoming ICD-11. However, we consider that it is crucial now to have nomenclature and classification universally accepted for these procedures to be able to provide scientifically consistent proposals into the new ICD-11 platform for the best practice parameters of our specialty. With the aim of promoting a harmonized comprehension and aligning it with the ICD-11 revision, we have reviewed the definitions and concepts currently used for desensitization and/or tolerance induction and immunotherapy. We strongly believe that this review is a key instrument to support the allergy specialty identity into the ICD-11 framework and serves as a platform to perform positive quality improvement in clinical practice.

International Consensus on Allergen Immunotherapy II: Mechanisms, standardization, and pharmacoeconomics.

This article continues the comprehensive international consensus (ICON) statement on allergen immunotherapy (AIT). The initial article also recently appeared in the Journal. The conclusions below focus on key mechanisms of AIT-triggered tolerance, requirements in allergen standardization, AIT cost-effectiveness, and regulatory guidance. Potential barriers to and facilitators of the use of AIT are described in addition to future directions. International allergy specialists representing the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; and the World Allergy Organization critically reviewed the existing literature and prepared this summary of recommendations for best AIT practice. The authors contributed equally and reached consensus on the statements presented herein.

Mouse allergen skin sensitization in asthmatic children of suburban, rural, and inner-city populations.

Mouse allergen (MA) exposure is a well-known risk factor for allergic sensitization and is implicated in the pathogenesis of pediatric asthma. Although previous studies report high prevalence of MA sensitization in inner-city asthmatic children, no data exist on its comparison with either suburban or rural children with asthma. We did a retrospective cohort study by chart review of all children (≤18 years of age) who underwent allergy testing during a 6-month period in a tertiary care referral center. Patients were divided geographically into suburban, rural, and inner-city groups based on their zip codes. MA was tested using the standard allergy test panel by skin prick/puncture. Positive skin test reactivity was defined as wheal diameter ≥3 mm and erythema ≥5 mm. A total of 989 patients underwent allergy testing and 349 children were tested for MA with the overall positivity rate of 18.6% (65/349). In children with asthma (mean age, 12.8 years; SD ± 3.19) who had MA testing (n = 166), the rate of positive skin test reactivity was 18% (n = 30). Inner-city asthmatic children had significantly greater MA sensitization compared with either suburban or rural children. MA sensitization is highly prevalent among children with asthma, especially in inner-city populations but also among suburban and rural children. Although most allergists do not routinely test for MA sensitization during the initial evaluation, it may be useful to include it in the allergy testing for children with asthma.

Effectiveness of air filters and air cleaners in allergic respiratory diseases: a review of the recent literature.

Air filtration is frequently recommended as a component of environmental control measures for patients with allergic respiratory disease. Residential air filtration can be provided by whole house filtration via the home's heating, ventilation, or air conditioning system, by portable room air cleaners, or a combination of the two. Appliances to filter the sleep breathing zone also have been developed. High-efficiency whole house filtration, high-efficiency particulate air sleep zone air filtration, and high-efficiency particulate air room air cleaners all appear to provide various degrees of benefit. Recent studies of various types of filtration, used alone or as part of more comprehensive environmental control measures, are reviewed.