Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT): International Delphi consensus for procedural preparation and consent.

BACKGROUND: Despite the promise of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to treat food allergies, this procedure is associated with potential risk. There is no current agreement about what elements should be included in the preparatory or consent process. OBJECTIVE: We developed consensus recommendations about the OIT process considerations and patient-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and developed a consensus OIT consent process and information form. METHODS: We convened a 36-member Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT) panel of allergy experts to develop a consensus OIT patient preparation, informed consent process, and framework form. Consensus for themes and statements was reached using Delphi methodology, and the consent information form was developed. RESULTS: The expert panel reached consensus for 4 themes and 103 statements specific to OIT preparatory procedures, of which 76 statements reached consensus for inclusion specific to the following themes: general considerations for counseling patients about OIT; patient- and family-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and during OIT; indications for initiating OIT; and potential contraindications and precautions for OIT. The panel reached consensus on 9 OIT consent form themes: benefits, risks, outcomes, alternatives, risk mitigation, difficulties/challenges, discontinuation, office policies, and long-term management. From these themes, 219 statements were proposed, of which 189 reached consensus, and 71 were included on the consent information form. CONCLUSION: We developed consensus recommendations to prepare and counsel patients for safe and effective OIT in clinical practice with evidence-based risk mitigation. Adoption of these recommendations may help standardize clinical care and improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

Clinical characteristics and management of pediatric egg-induced anaphylaxis: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Egg is the third most common food allergy in children; however, data on pediatric egg-induced anaphylaxis are sparse. OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of pediatric egg-induced anaphylaxis. METHODS: Children presenting with anaphylaxis were recruited from 13 emergency departments as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry, from which data on anaphylaxis triggered by egg were extracted. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with prehospital epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) use and to compare anaphylaxis triggered by egg with other triggers of food-induced anaphylaxis (FIA). RESULTS: We recruited 302 children with egg-induced anaphylaxis. The mean age was 2.6 years (SD = 3.6), and 55.3% were male. Only 39.4% had previously been diagnosed with an egg allergy. Prehospital EAI use was 32.1%, but this was not significantly lower than in other triggers of FIA (P = .26). Only 1.4% of patients required hospital admission. Relative to other triggers of FIA, patients with egg-induced anaphylaxis were significantly younger (P < .001) and exhibited more vomiting (P = .0053) and less throat tightness (P = .0015) and angioedema (P < .001). CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest published cohort of pediatric egg-induced anaphylaxis. In this cohort, prehospital EAI use was very low. In addition, we identified certain symptoms that distinguish egg-induced from other triggers of FIA. Taken together, high suspicion is crucial in identifying egg-induced anaphylaxis, given the younger patient demographic and frequent lack of FIA history.

Age-Related Food Aversion and Anxiety Represent Primary Patient Barriers to Food Oral Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Although oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy is a reasonable treatment option, barriers to this procedure's implementation have not been extensively evaluated from a patient perspective. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the barriers patients face during OIT administration, including anxiety and taste aversion, and the role of health care professionals, especially dietitians. METHODS: A survey in Canada and the United States involved families currently enrolled in food OIT programs. RESULTS: Of responses from 379 participants, fear of reaction was the most common barrier to OIT initiation, with 45.6% reporting it being a "very significant" barrier with other fears reported. However, taste aversion represented the prominent obstacle to continuation. Taste aversion was associated with a slower buildup (P = .02) and a reduction in dose (P = .002). Taste aversion was a strongly age-dependent barrier for initiation (P < .001) and continuation (P < .002), with older children over 6 years of age reporting it as a very significant barrier (P < .001). Boredom was reported as a concern for specific allergens such as peanut, egg, sesame, and hazelnuts (P < .05), emphasizing the need for diverse food options. Notably, 59.9% of respondents mixed OIT foods with sweet items. Despite these dietary concerns, dietitians were underutilized, with only 9.5% of respondents having seen a dietitian and the majority finding dietitian support helpful with greater certainty about the exact dose (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Taste aversion and anxiety represent primary patient-related barriers to OIT. Taste aversion was highly age dependent, with older patients being more affected. Dietitians and psychology support were underutilized, representing a critical target to improve adherence and OIT success.

Bypassing the build-up phase for oral immunotherapy in shrimp-allergic children.

Background: Oral immunotherapy is an effective treatment for food allergies; however, its use in clinical practice is limited by resources and lack of standardized protocols for foods other than peanut. Previous studies have suggested that shrimp has a higher threshold for reaction than other allergenic foods, suggesting it may be safe to directly administer maintenance doses of immunotherapy. Methods: Children aged 3-17 years who had 1) skin prick test ≥3 mm and/or specific IgE level ≥0.35 kU/L and convincing objective IgE-mediated reaction to shrimp, or 2) no ingestion history and specific IgE level ≥5 kU/L, underwent a low-dose oral food challenge to 300 mg shrimp protein, with the goal of continuing daily ingestion of the 300 mg maintenance dose as oral immunotherapy. Results: Between January 2020 and April 2023, 17 children completed the low-dose oral food challenge. Nine (53%) tolerated this amount with no reaction, and 8 (47%) had a mild reaction (isolated oral pruritis or redness on chin). Sixteen (94%) continued maintenance low-dose oral immunotherapy eating 300 mg shrimp protein daily. None of the patients developed anaphylaxis related to the immunotherapy. Conclusion: Our case series suggests that some shrimp allergic patients being considered for oral immunotherapy should be offered a low-dose oral food challenge, to potentially bypass the build-up phase of immunotherapy.

Safety and Effectiveness of Bypassing Oral Immunotherapy Buildup With an Initial Phase of Sublingual Immunotherapy for Higher-Risk Food Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Because of its favorable safety, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for food allergy has been proposed as an alternative treatment for those in whom oral immunotherapy (OIT) is of higher risk-older children, adolescents, adults, and those with a history of severe reactions. Although safe, SLIT has been shown to be less effective than OIT. OBJECTIVE: To describe the safety of multifood SLIT in pediatric patients aged 4 to 18 years and the effectiveness of bypassing OIT buildup with an initial phase of SLIT. METHODS: Patients aged 4 to 18 years were offered (multi)food SLIT. Patients built up to 2 mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of 3 to 5 visits under nurse supervision. After 1 to 2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC) (cumulative dose, 300 mg protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup. RESULTS: Between summer 2020 and winter 2023, 188 patients were enrolled in SLIT (median age, 11 years). Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department, but none experienced grade 4 (severe) reaction. A subset of 20 patients had 50 low-dose OFCs to 300 mg protein and 35 (70%) OFCs were successful, thereby bypassing OIT buildup. CONCLUSIONS: In combination with very favorable safety of SLIT, with no life-threatening reactions and few reactions requiring epinephrine, we propose that an initial phase of SLIT to bypass supervised OIT buildup be considered for children in whom OIT is considered to be of higher risk.

Milk-induced anaphylaxis among children presenting to Canadian emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: Cow's milk is one of the most common and burdensome allergens in pediatrics, and it can induce severe anaphylactic reactions in children. However, data on cow's milk-induced anaphylaxis are sparse. OBJECTIVE: To describe the epidemiology of pediatric cow's milk-induced anaphylaxis and to determine risk factors for repeat emergency department (ED) epinephrine administration. METHODS: Between April 2011 and May 2023, data were collected on children with anaphylaxis presenting to 10 Canadian EDs. A standardized form documenting symptoms, triggers, treatment, and outcome was used. Multivariate logistic regression was used. RESULTS: Of 3118 anaphylactic reactions, 319 milk-induced anaphylaxis cases were identified (10%). In the prehospital setting, 54% of patients with milk-induced anaphylaxis received intramuscular epinephrine. In those with milk-induced anaphylaxis, receiving epinephrine before presenting to the ED was associated with a reduced risk of requiring 2 or more epinephrine doses in the ED (adjusted odds ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-0.99]). Children younger than 5 years of age were more likely to experience a mild reaction compared with that in older children, who experienced a moderate reaction more often (P < .0001). Compared with other forms of food-induced anaphylaxis, children presenting with milk-induced anaphylaxis were younger; a greater proportion experienced wheezing and vomiting, and less experienced angioedema. CONCLUSION: Prehospital epinephrine in pediatric milk-induced anaphylaxis is underused; however, it may decrease risk of requiring 2 ED epinephrine doses. Milk-induced anaphylaxis in children younger than 5 years of age may be less severe than in older children. Wheezing and vomiting are more prevalent in milk-induced anaphylaxis compared with that of other foods.

Safety and effectiveness of the Canadian food ladders for children with IgE-mediated food allergies to cow's milk and/or egg.

BACKGROUND: Food ladders are tools designed to facilitate home-based dietary advancement in children with food allergies through stepwise exposures to increasingly allergenic forms of milk and egg. Several studies have now documented safety and efficacy of food ladders. In 2021, we published a Canadian adaptation of the previously existing milk and egg ladders originating in Europe using foods more readily available/consumed in Canada. Our study adds to the growing body of evidence supporting food ladder use and provides safety and effectiveness data for our Canadian adaptation of the milk and egg ladders. METHODS: Surveys were distributed to families of children using the Canadian Milk Ladder and/or the Canadian Egg Ladder at baseline, with follow up surveys at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Data were analyzed using REDCap and descriptive and inferential statistics are presented. RESULTS: One hundred and nine participants were started on milk/egg ladders between September 2020 and June 2022. 53 participants responded to follow up surveys. Only 2 of 53 (3.8%) participants reported receiving epinephrine during the study. Severe grade 4 reactions (defined according to the modified World Allergy Organization grading system) were not reported by any participants. Minor cutaneous adverse reactions were common, with about 71% (n = 10/14) of respondents reporting cutaneous adverse reactions by 1 year of food ladder use. An increasing proportion of participants could tolerate most foods from steps 2-4 foods after 3, 6, and 12 months of the food ladder compared to baseline. CONCLUSION: The Canadian food ladders are safe tools for children with cow's milk and/or egg allergies, and participants tolerated a larger range of foods with food ladder use compared to baseline.

Comparing the risk of anaphylaxis requiring epinephrine in oral immunotherapy and subcutaneous immunotherapy: A review of recent Canadian real-world literature.

Background: The safety of pediatric food oral immunotherapy (Ped-OIT) has been depicted by some as less favorable than subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) owing to the increased number of serious adverse events requiring epinephrine. A review of real-world data comparing Ped-OIT and SCIT safety is necessary to guide shared decision making. Objectives: Our aim was to compare the safety and adverse event profiles of peanut Ped-OIT and SCIT using Canadian real-word literature. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of recent Canadian real-world literature on peanut Ped-OIT and SCIT safety and adverse events. Results: The incidences of systemic reactions requiring epinephrine were 11 in 270 patients (4.07%) and 12 in 41,020 doses (0.029%) in a multicenter study in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia studying 270 preschool-age children treated with peanut OIT. Similarly, a multicenter study in South-Western Ontario examining 160 patients between the ages of 1 and 17 years who were treated with peanut OIT showed that the incidences of systemic reactions requiring epinephrine were 5 in 160 patients (3.1%) and 8 in 52,751 doses (0.015%). A single-center retrospective review of 380 patients receiving aeroallergen SCIT showed that the incidences of systemic reactions requiring epinephrine were 28 in 380 patients (7.4%) and 1 in 1047 injection visits (0.095%). These findings are comparable to those of a review of 860 patients in Ontario who received either aeroallergen or venom SCIT, in which the incidence of systemic reaction requiring epinephrine was 10 in 4242 injections (0.24%). Conclusion: Despite differences in the OIT protocols used and age groups studied, recent real-world data suggest that the safety of preschool peanut OIT or peanut OIT using a slower buildup schedule is comparable to that of SCIT.

Risk factors associated with safety of preschool peanut oral immunotherapy.

Background: An understanding of how patient characteristics such as age, baseline peanut-specific IgE, and atopic comorbidities may influence potential safety outcomes during peanut oral immunotherapy (P-OIT) could aid in shared decision making between clinicians and patient families. Objective: This study explored the relationship between baseline patient characteristics and reactions during P-OIT using a large sample size to better understand potential risk factors influencing P-OIT safety. Methods: Data were obtained from the Food Allergy Immunotherapy (FAIT) registry, which collects real-world OIT data from community and academic allergy clinics across Canada. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was performed to examine the relationship between baseline patient characteristics and reactions during P-OIT. Multiple imputation was applied to reduce potential bias caused by missingness and to maximize the use of available information to preserve statistical power. Results: Between April 2017 and June 2021, a total of 653 eligible patients initiated P-OIT. Multivariable regression analysis showed pre-OIT grade 2+ initial reaction (odds ratio [OR] = 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10, 1.61), allergic rhinitis (OR = 1.60, 95% CI 1.08, 2.38), older age (OR = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00, 1.02), and higher baseline peanut-specific IgE (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.02, 1.03) were associated with grade 2+ reaction during P-OIT after adjusting for potential risk factors. Conclusion: Our study identified several clinically important risk factors for grade 2+ reactions during P-OIT: pre-OIT grade 2+ initial reaction, allergic rhinitis, older age, and higher baseline peanut-specific IgE. These results highlight the need for individualized risk stratification for OIT.

Managing anaphylaxis: Epinephrine, antihistamines, and corticosteroids: More than 10 years of Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis REgistry data.

BACKGROUND: Epinephrine is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis but is often replaced with antihistamines or corticosteroids. Delayed epinephrine administration is a risk factor for fatal anaphylaxis. Convincing data on the role of antihistamines and corticosteroids in anaphylaxis management are sparse. OBJECTIVE: To establish the impact of prehospital treatment with epinephrine, antihistamines, and/or corticosteroids on anaphylaxis management. METHODS: Patients presenting with anaphylaxis were recruited prospectively and retrospectively in 10 Canadian and 1 Israeli emergency departments (EDs) between April 2011 and August 2022, as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis REgistry. Data on anaphylaxis cases were collected using a standardized form. Primary outcomes were uncontrolled reactions (>2 doses of epinephrine in ED), no prehospital epinephrine use, use of intravenous fluids in ED, and hospital admission. Multivariate regression was used to identify factors associated with primary outcomes. RESULTS: Among 5364 reactions recorded, median age was 8.8 years (IQR, 3.78-16.9); 54.9% of the patients were males, and 52.5% had a known food allergy. In the prehospital setting, 37.9% received epinephrine; 44.3% received antihistamines, and 3.15% received corticosteroids. Uncontrolled reactions happened in 250 reactions. Patients treated with prehospital epinephrine were less likely to have uncontrolled reactions (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.955 [95% CI, 0.943-0.967]), receive intravenous fluids in ED (aOR, 0.976 [95% CI, 0.959-0.992]), and to be admitted after the reaction (aOR, 0.964 [95% CI, 0.949-0.980]). Patients treated with prehospital antihistamines were less likely to have uncontrolled reactions (aOR, 0.978 [95% CI, 0.967-0.989]) and to be admitted after the reaction (aOR, 0.963 [95% CI, 0.949-0.977]). Patients who received prehospital corticosteroids were more likely to require intravenous fluids in ED (aOR, 1.059 [95% CI, 1.013-1.107]) and be admitted (aOR, 1.232 [95% CI, 1.181-1.286]). CONCLUSION: Our findings in this predominantly pediatric population support the early use of epinephrine and suggest a beneficial effect of antihistamines. Corticosteroid use in anaphylaxis should be revisited.

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.

A Survey of Canadian Dietitians on Identification of Infants at High Risk of Food Allergy and Frequency of Allergenic Food Consumption.

Purpose: To assess knowledge of Canadian dietitians on the topics of food allergy and food allergy prevention guidelines, including introduction of allergenic solids to infants at risk of food allergy.Methods: An online survey was distributed via email listservs targeting Canadian dietitians.Results: In total, 144 of 261 dietitians completed the survey (60.5%). Respondents recommend introduction of peanut (89.5%) and allergenic solids (91.2%) within the recommended age of 4-6 months for infants at high risk of food allergy, but only 26.2% recommend offering peanut three times per week once it has been introduced. In identifying what constitutes an infant at high risk of developing peanut allergy, dietitians expressed lower comfort levels and lower number of correct responses.Conclusions: Dietitians demonstrated they are up to date regarding the timing of introduction of allergenic solids, but not the frequency of consumption once introduced, for infants at high risk of food allergy. They also expressed low comfort level identifying risk factors for peanut allergy. There are opportunities for further education of dietitians, as well as potential to further utilize dietitian services for the benefit of patients with food allergy or who are at risk for food allergy.

Assessment of multiple-opinion referrals and consults at the BC Children's Hospital Allergy Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Allergic disease is on the rise. Waitlists for specialists are long, and many referred patients have already received prior allergic assessment, either by a certified Allergist, Primary Care Provider, or other Specialist. It is important to understand the prevalence and motivating factors for multiple-opinion referrals, to deliver timely assessment for patients with allergic disease. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of demographic information, number of previous consultations, and motivation for new consults and multiple-opinion referrals, of pediatric patients aged 8 months-17 years to BC Children's Hospital Allergy Clinic from September 1, 2016-August 31, 2017, was performed. Referral data including reason for referral or multiple-opinion, primary allergic concerns, and others, from referral forms and consult notes were accessed through local Electronic Medical Records and subsequently analyzed for trends in categorical variables to assess the rationale for and impact of multiple-opinion referrals to our clinic. RESULTS: Of 1029 new referrals received, 210 (20.4%) were multiple-opinion referrals. Food allergy was the predominant allergic concern prompting further opinion (75.7%). The main rationale for seeking further opinions was wanting an assessment by a certified allergist in cases where prior consultation was performed by non-allergist specialist, primary care provider, or alternative health care provider. Of second-opinion referrals generated, 70 (33.3%) initial consultations were performed by an Allergist, whereas 140 (66.7%) were performed by a non-allergist. CONCLUSIONS: Many new consults at the BCCH Allergy Clinic are multiple-opinion assessments, contributing to long waitlists. Advocacy at the systems level through standardized referral guidelines, centralized triaging systems, and stronger support for Primary Care Providers is needed to provide better access in Canada for children needing a specialized Allergist. Trial registration UBC/BCCH Research Ethics Board.

Challenges implementing recent recommendations of daily formula supplementation for allergy prevention and practical real-world options.

The Canadian Paediatric Society's Position statement 'Dietary exposures and allergy prevention in high-risk infants' December 2021 provides recommendations for regular ingestion of cow's milk protein (CMP) once introduced in early infancy. These recommendations are based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where researchers supported participants in adhering to diet recommendations. Real-life dilemmas that relate to dietary adherence including cost, food wastage, and practicality are not addressed and are the crux of where -evidence-based recommendations fail. This commentary highlights the difficulties in carrying out the proposed recommendation for regular ingestion of CMP in practice and offers three practical real-world options instead.