Effects of Exercise and Sleep Deprivation on Reaction Severity During Oral Peanut Challenge: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The severity of allergic reactions to foods can vary markedly. Little is known of variations in reaction severity within or between individuals or the effects of cofactors. OBJECTIVE: We examined the effects of sleep deprivation and exercise and repeat challenges on the severity and patterns of allergic reactions to peanut. METHODS: In a randomized crossover study, adults with peanut allergy underwent 3 open peanut challenges in random order: with exercise after each dose, with sleep deprivation preceding challenge, and with no intervention. The primary outcome was eliciting dose, reported elsewhere. Reaction severity was a secondary outcome, evaluated using a weighted log-transformed numerical severity score. Analyses estimated the difference in severity between nonintervention challenge and challenges with exercise or sleep deprivation, adjusting for challenge order and using the highest dose tolerated by each individual across all their challenges. Symptom pattern reproducibility was assessed by comparing symptom sequences using pairwise sequence alignment to obtain a percentage match in symptom pattern. RESULTS: Eighty-one participants (mean age 25 y) completed at least 1 postbaseline challenge. Sleep deprivation, but not exercise, significantly increased severity score by 48% (95% CI 12%-84%; P = .009) compared with no intervention. A 38% increase in severity was observed between the first and the last postbaseline challenge (95% CI 1%-75%; P = .044). The average pairwise match of symptoms within individuals was 82.4% and across individuals was 78.3%. CONCLUSIONS: A novel severity score demonstrates that sleep deprivation and repeated challenges increase reaction severity. Understanding factors affecting severity is essential for effective risk management. We also show that symptom patterns in repeat peanut challenges are similar within and between individuals.

The Polysorbate containing AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is tolerated by polyethylene glycol (PEG) allergic patients.

BACKGROUND: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is the excipient found in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. We previously demonstrated PEG allergy was a cause of severe anaphylaxis to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. PEG is widely used in many household products, cosmetics and medicines. However PEG allergy is rare, there have been few confirmed cases of PEG allergy. The excipient of potential concern in the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is polysorbate 80 (PS80). Cross-reactivity between PEG and polysorbate has been suggested, based on their composition and skin-test data. The aim of this study was to determine whether PEG-allergic patients could be vaccinated with the PS80 containing AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. METHOD: Eight patients with PEG allergy were identified by the allergy clinic at Cambridge University Hospital. Patients underwent skin prick testing to PS80 (20%) and to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine prior to vaccination. RESULTS: All eight patients allergic to PEG tolerated the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, even in 2 patients where the PS80 skin prick test was positive and 1 with a positive skin prick test to the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. CONCLUSION: Patients allergic to PEG, previously denied COVID vaccination, may now be safely vaccinated with the PS80 containing AstraZeneca vaccine and need only avoid the PEG-containing mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. This opens up the possibility that these patients will also tolerate other vaccines containing PS80 such as the Janssen/Johnson and Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. Clinical cross-reactivity between PEG and PS80 did not occur in this vaccine setting.

BSACI 2021 guideline for the management of egg allergy.

This guideline advises on the management of patients with egg allergy. Most commonly egg allergy presents in infancy, with a prevalence of approximately 2% in children and 0.1% in adults. A clear clinical history will confirm the diagnosis in most cases. Investigation by measuring egg-specific IgE (by skin prick testing or specific IgE assay) is useful in moderate-severe cases or where there is diagnostic uncertainty. Following an acute allergic reaction, egg avoidance advice should be provided. Egg allergy usually resolves, and reintroduction can be achieved at home if reactions have been mild and there is no asthma. Patients with a history of severe reactions or asthma should have reintroduction guided by a specialist. All children with egg allergy should receive the MMR vaccine. Most adults and children with egg allergy can receive the influenza vaccine in primary care, unless they have had anaphylaxis to egg requiring intensive care support. Yellow Fever vaccines should only be considered in egg-allergic patients under the guidance of an allergy specialist. This guideline was prepared by the Standards of Care Committee (SOCC) of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) and is intended for allergists and others with a special interest in allergy. The recommendations are evidence based. Where evidence was lacking, consensus was reached by the panel of specialists on the committee. The document encompasses epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis and co-morbid associations.

Polyethylene Glycol-Induced Systemic Allergic Reactions (Anaphylaxis).

Polyethylene glycols (PEGs) or macrogols are hydrophilic polymers found in everyday products such as foods, cosmetics, and medications. We present 5 cases of confirmed PEG allergy, which to our knowledge is the largest case series to date. Four of the 5 cases developed anaphylaxis to medications containing PEGs, with 1 near-fatal case resulting in cardiac arrest. Skin tests were undertaken to the index medications and to PEGs of different molecular weights. Three were confirmed with positive skin prick test result to PEG, 1 confirmed with a positive intradermal test result, and 1 confirmed after positive oral challenge. Two patients developed anaphylaxis following intradermal test to PEG and 1 a systemic allergic reaction (without hypotension or respiratory distress) following PEG skin prick tests. Before diagnosis, all 5 patients were mislabeled as allergic to multiple medications and their clinical management had become increasingly challenging. An algorithm is proposed to safely investigate suspected PEG allergy, with guidance on PEG molecular weights and skin test dilutions to minimize the risk of systemic allergic reaction. Investigation carries considerable risk without knowledge and informed planning so should only be conducted in a specialist drug allergy center.

Effect of sleep deprivation and exercise on reaction threshold in adults with peanut allergy: A randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy causes severe and fatal reactions. Current food allergen labeling does not address these risks adequately against the burden of restricting food choice for allergic patients because of limited data on thresholds of reactivity and the influence of everyday factors. OBJECTIVE: We estimated peanut threshold doses for a United Kingdom population with peanut allergy and examined the effect of sleep deprivation and exercise. METHODS: In a crossover study, after blind challenge, participants with peanut allergy underwent 3 open peanut challenges in random order: with exercise after each dose, with sleep deprivation preceding challenge, and with no intervention. Primary outcome was the threshold dose triggering symptoms (in milligrams of protein). Primary analysis estimated the difference between the nonintervention challenge and each intervention in log threshold (as percentage change). Dose distributions were modeled, deriving eliciting doses in the population with peanut allergy. RESULTS: Baseline challenges were performed in 126 participants, 100 were randomized, and 81 (mean age, 25 years) completed at least 1 further challenge. The mean threshold was 214 mg (SD, 330 mg) for nonintervention challenges, and this was reduced by 45% (95% CI, 21% to 61%; P = .001) and 45% (95% CI, 22% to 62%; P = .001) for exercise and sleep deprivation, respectively. Mean estimated eliciting doses for 1% of the population were 1.5 mg (95% CI, 0.8-2.5 mg) during nonintervention challenge (n = 81), 0.5 mg (95% CI, 0.2-0.8 mg) after sleep, and 0.3 mg (95% CI, 0.1-0.6 mg) after exercise. CONCLUSION: Exercise and sleep deprivation each significantly reduce the threshold of reactivity in patients with peanut allergy, putting them at greater risk of a reaction. Adjusting reference doses using these data will improve allergen risk management and labeling to optimize protection of consumers with peanut allergy.

Diagnostic Value of Tryptase in Food Allergic Reactions: A Prospective Study of 160 Adult Peanut Challenges.

BACKGROUND: Serum tryptase is useful in diagnosing drug and venom anaphylaxis. Its utility in food anaphylaxis is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether tryptase rises in food allergic reactions, optimal sampling time points, and a diagnostic cutoff for confirming a clinical reaction. METHODS: Characterized peanut allergic patients were recruited and underwent up to 4 peanut challenges and 1 placebo challenge each. Tryptase was measured serially on challenge days both before (baseline) and during the challenge. The peak percentage tryptase rise (peak/baseline) was related to reaction severity. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated establishing an optimal diagnostic cutoff. RESULTS: Tryptase was analyzed in 160 reactive (9% anaphylaxis) and 45 nonreactive (placebo) challenges in 50 adults aged 18 to 39 years. Tryptase rose above the normal range (11.4 ng/mL) in 4 of 160 reactions. When compared with baseline levels, a rise was observed in 100 of 160 (62.5%) reactions and 0 of 45 placebo challenges. The median rise (95% confidence interval [CI]) for all reactions was 25% (13.3% to 33.3%) and 70.8% (33.3% to 300%) during anaphylaxis. Peak levels occurred at 2 hours and correlated with severity (P < .05). Moderate-to-severe respiratory symptoms, generalized erythema, dizziness, and hypotension were correlated with a higher peak/baseline tryptase (P < .05). ROC curve analysis demonstrated the optimal cutoff to identify a reaction as a 30% rise (sensitivity 0.53; specificity 0.85), area under the curve 0.72 (95% CI, 0.67-0.78). CONCLUSIONS: Serum tryptase measurement is valuable in food allergic reactions, and correlates with symptom severity. Comparing peak reaction levels at 2 hours with baseline is essential. A rise in tryptase of 30% is associated with food allergic reactions.

The incidence and features of systemic reactions to skin prick tests.

BACKGROUND: Skin prick testing (SPT) has been regarded as a safe procedure with few systemic reactions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate of systemic reactions and their associations after SPT in the largest population to date. METHODS: In this study reactions were recorded prospectively in a specialist UK allergy clinic for 6 years (2007-2013). An estimated 31,000 patients underwent SPT. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (age range 7 months to 56 years, mean 23.5 years, 17 female patients, 12 with asthma) had systemic reactions. The rate of systemic reactions to SPT was 0.077%. The likely allergens causing the reaction were foods (18; peanut, 7; walnut, 1; Brazil nut, 2; pistachio, 1; lupin, 1; cow's milk, 2; shrimp, 1; spinach, 1; legume, 1; soy, 1), aeroallergens (4; rabbit, 1; rat, 1; ragwort, 1; grass pollen, 1), wasp venom (1), and Tazocin (1). The causative SPT wheal was larger than 8 mm in 75%. The reaction to Tazocin was severe, with anaphylaxis occurring minutes after SPT. Reactions were treated immediately in the clinic and did not require further medical care. CONCLUSION: In this largest single-center study, the rate of systemic reactions after SPT was 77 per 100,000 patients. It is the first study to identify foods as a common and important cause (75%), with nuts posing the highest risk. This study reports the first systemic reaction to venom SPT and the first anaphylactic reaction after drug SPT. There was an association with a history of severe reactions and large skin test reaction. There are risks, albeit small, when undertaking SPT.

Assessing the efficacy of oral immunotherapy for the desensitisation of peanut allergy in children (STOP II): a phase 2 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Small studies suggest peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) might be effective in the treatment of peanut allergy. We aimed to establish the efficacy of OIT for the desensitisation of children with allergy to peanuts. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled crossover trial to compare the efficacy of active OIT (using characterised peanut flour; protein doses of 2-800 mg/day) with control (peanut avoidance, the present standard of care) at the NIHR/Wellcome Trust Cambridge Clinical Research Facility (Cambridge, UK). Randomisation (1:1) was by use of an audited online system; group allocation was not masked. Eligible participants were aged 7-16 years with an immediate hypersensitivity reaction after peanut ingestion, positive skin prick test to peanuts, and positive by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). We excluded participants if they had a major chronic illness, if the care provider or a present household member had suspected or diagnosed allergy to peanuts, or if there was an unwillingness or inability to comply with study procedures. Our primary outcome was desensitisation, defined as negative peanut challenge (1400 mg protein in DBPCFC) at 6 months (first phase). Control participants underwent OIT during the second phase, with subsequent DBPCFC. Immunological parameters and disease-specific quality-of-life scores were measured. Analysis was by intention to treat. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of those with desensitisation to peanut after 6 months between the active and control group at the end of the first phase. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN62416244. FINDINGS: The primary outcome, desensitisation, was recorded for 62% (24 of 39 participants; 95% CI 45-78) in the active group and none of the control group after the first phase (0 of 46; 95% CI 0-9; p<0·001). 84% (95% CI 70-93) of the active group tolerated daily ingestion of 800 mg protein (equivalent to roughly five peanuts). Median increase in peanut threshold after OIT was 1345 mg (range 45-1400; p<0·001) or 25·5 times (range 1·82-280; p<0·001). After the second phase, 54% (95% CI 35-72) tolerated 1400 mg challenge (equivalent to roughly ten peanuts) and 91% (79-98) tolerated daily ingestion of 800 mg protein. Quality-of-life scores improved (decreased) after OIT (median change -1·61; p<0·001). Side-effects were mild in most participants. Gastrointestinal symptoms were, collectively, most common (31 participants with nausea, 31 with vomiting, and one with diarrhoea), then oral pruritus after 6·3% of doses (76 participants) and wheeze after 0·41% of doses (21 participants). Intramuscular adrenaline was used after 0·01% of doses (one participant). INTERPRETATION: OIT successfully induced desensitisation in most children within the study population with peanut allergy of any severity, with a clinically meaningful increase in peanut threshold. Quality of life improved after intervention and there was a good safety profile. Immunological changes corresponded with clinical desensitisation. Further studies in wider populations are recommended; peanut OIT should not be done in non-specialist settings, but it is effective and well tolerated in the studied age group. FUNDING: MRC-NIHR partnership.

The RCPCH care pathway for children at risk of anaphylaxis: an evidence and consensus based national approach to caring for children with life-threatening allergies.

AIMS: Numerous studies have identified shortcomings in the management of children at risk of severe acute allergic reactions (anaphylaxis). The Science and Research Department at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) was commissioned by the Department of Health to develop competence based national care pathways for children with allergies. Anaphylaxis is the first completed pathway. METHODS: The anaphylaxis pathway was developed by a multidisciplinary working group, reviewed by a broad group of stakeholders and approved by the Allergy Care Pathways Project Board and the RCPCH Clinical Standards Committee. RESULTS: Pathway development is described under five headings: evidence review, mapping, external review, core knowledge documents and key recommendations. The full pathway can be downloaded from www.rcpch.ac.uk/allergy/anaphylaxis. This document describes the entry points and the ideal pathway of care from self-care through to follow-up. The five key recommendations focus on: (1) prompt administration of adrenaline by intramuscular injection; (2) referral to specialists with competence in paediatric allergies; (3) risk analysis; (4) provision of a self-management plan; and (5) suggested creation of a national anaphylaxis death register. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first national care pathway for anaphylaxis, which is based on a critique of published evidence, expert consensus and multi-stakeholder input including patient representation via the Anaphylaxis Campaign. The Project Board urges health professionals to work together across networks to improve care for children at risk of anaphylaxis, in particular during the period after an acute reaction. Additionally, the Project Board strongly recommends the funding of a national anaphylaxis register.

Good prognosis, clinical features, and circumstances of peanut and tree nut reactions in children treated by a specialist allergy center.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of nut allergy causes anxiety. Few studies exist that estimate risk of reactions and inform management. OBJECTIVE: To describe frequency and circumstances of reactions after the institution of a management plan. METHODS: Prospective study of children with peanut/nut allergy with an allergist's management plan. Severity and circumstances of worst reaction before diagnosis (index) and follow-up reactions were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 785 children were followed for 3640 patient-years from diagnosis. Index reactions were mild in 66% (516), moderate in 29% (224), and severe in 5% (45). Fourteen percent (114/785) had follow-up reactions (3% annual incidence rate). Ninety percent had the same/reduced severity grade, and 1 of 785 (0.1%) had a severe reaction. Preschool children (n = 263) had a low incidence of reactions, and none were severe. There was a 3-fold reduction in injected epinephrine use from that used in the index reaction, required in 1 severe reaction, never twice; 14% (16/114) required no medication, 78% only oral antihistamines. Forty-eight percent reacted to the index nut type, 19% to a different nut (55% sensitized at diagnosis, 14% not sensitized, 31% not tested). Accidental versus index reactions were 4-fold more likely to be a result of contact exposure rather than ingestion. Contact reactions were always mild. Most (53%) reactions occurred at home, 5% in school, 21% at other sites (21% not recorded). The nut was given by a parent/self in 69 (61%) reactions or teacher in 5 (4%). CONCLUSION: With a comprehensive management plan, accidental reactions were uncommon and usually mild, most requiring little treatment; 99.8% self-treated appropriately and 100% effectively.

Emergency treatment of anaphylactic reactions--guidelines for healthcare providers.

*The UK incidence of anaphylactic reactions is increasing. *Patients who have an anaphylactic reaction have life-threatening airway and, or breathing and, or circulation problems usually associated with skin or mucosal changes. *Patients having an anaphylactic reaction should be treated using the Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, Exposure (ABCDE) approach. *Anaphylactic reactions are not easy to study with randomised controlled trials. There are, however, systematic reviews of the available evidence and a wealth of clinical experience to help formulate guidelines. *The exact treatment will depend on the patient's location, the equipment and drugs available, and the skills of those treating the anaphylactic reaction. *Early treatment with intramuscular adrenaline is the treatment of choice for patients having an anaphylactic reaction. *Despite previous guidelines, there is still confusion about the indications, dose and route of adrenaline. *Intravenous adrenaline must only be used in certain specialist settings and only by those skilled and experienced in its use. *All those who are suspected of having had an anaphylactic reaction should be referred to a specialist in allergy. *Individuals who are at high risk of an anaphylactic reaction should carry an adrenaline auto-injector and receive training and support in its use. *There is a need for further research about the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of anaphylactic reactions.