Anaphylaxis: first clinical presentation, subsequent referral practise, and suspected elicitor-an observational study.

Anaphylaxis is an allergic manifestation characterised by rapid onset and progression. Rapid treatment may be challenging in patients with atypical symptoms or no previous history of anaphylaxis. This study aimed to describe the clinical prehospital presentation of first-time anaphylactic patients. To help target educational initiatives, we sought to identify which groups of medical professionals are most likely to encounter first-time anaphylactic patients and investigated the referral pattern for suspected anaphylactic patients for specialised treatment. A retrospective register-based study from the Region of Southern Denmark. Patients referred to the Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital, from 2019 to 2021 were included. The medical records were manually reviewed for first contact with the emergency departments or the emergency medical service. 444 patients with suspected anaphylaxis were referred. 226 patients had grade 3-5 systemic allergic reactions as classified by the World Allergy Organisation; 90% had cutaneous symptoms, 63% symptoms from the central nervous system, 42% gastrointestinal symptoms, 40% cardiovascular symptoms, 36% had upper-airway symptoms, and 36% had lower-airway symptoms. Patients treated prehospitally had a significantly more severe degree of anaphylaxis than patients only treated within the hospital. More than half of the patients with suspected anaphylaxis were referred to the Allergy Centre from the emergency departments. Patients with allergies progressing to severe anaphylaxis most often are treated prehospitally before transport to emergency departments. From the emergency departments, they are referred to the allergy centre. Education concerning the immediate treatment of severe anaphylaxis should primarily be targeted towards prehospital care providers.

Detection of Sensitization Profiles with Cellular In Vitro Tests in Wheat Allergy Dependent on Augmentation Factors (WALDA).

Wheat allergy dependent on augmentation factors (WALDA) is the most common gluten allergy in adults. IgE-mediated sensitizations are directed towards ω5-gliadin but also to other wheat allergens. The value of the different in vitro cellular tests, namely the basophil activation test (BAT) and the active (aBHRA) and passive basophil histamine-release assays (pBHRA), in the detection of sensitization profiles beyond ω5-gliadin has not been compared. Therefore, 13 patients with challenge-confirmed, ω5-gliadin-positive WALDA and 11 healthy controls were enrolled. Specific IgE (sIgE), skin prick tests, BATs, aBHRA, and pBHRA were performed with allergen test solutions derived from wheat and other cereals, and results were analyzed and compared. This study reveals a distinct and highly individual reactivity of ω5-gliadin-positive WALDA patients to a range of wheat allergens beyond ω5-gliadin in cellular in vitro tests and SPT. In the BAT, for all tested allergens (gluten, high-molecular-weight glutenin subunits, α-amylase/trypsin inhibitors (ATIs), alcohol-free wheat beer, hydrolyzed wheat proteins (HWPs), rye gluten and secalins), basophil activation in patients was significantly higher than in controls (p = 0.004-p < 0.001). Similarly, significant histamine release was detected in the aBHRA for all test substances, exceeding the cut-off of 10 ng/mL in all tested allergens in 50% of patients. The dependency of tests on sIgE levels against ω5-gliadin differed; in the pBHRA, histamine release to any test substances could only be detected in patients with sIgE against ω5-gliadin ≥ 7.7 kU/L, whereas aBHRA also showed high reactivity in less sensitized patients. In most patients, reactivity to HWPs, ATIs, and rye allergens was observed. Additionally, alcohol-free wheat beer was first described as a promising test substance in ω5-gliadin-positive WALDA. Thus, BAT and aBHRA are valuable tools for the identification of sensitization profiles in WALDA.

Prehospital and In-Hospital Treatment with Adrenaline and Related Prognosis in Anaphylaxis Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Although intramuscular adrenaline is the recommended first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, not all patients receive this treatment. The consequences in daily clinical practice are sparsely described. This study aimed to investigate the treatment administered to anaphylactic patients and the related prognosis. METHODS: A retrospective register-based study of patients with anaphylaxis referred to the allergy centre, Odense University Hospital (2019-2021). Each patient's medical records were reviewed for contacts with the emergency departments and the prehospital emergency medical service in the Region of Southern Denmark. The World Allergy Organization (WAO) grading system was used to assess the severity of prehospital and in-hospital anaphylaxis. Furthermore, the treatment administered to the patients was registered. RESULTS: In total, 315 patients were included. The prehospital system had contact with 256 of these patients (two were released prehospitally following treatment and 12 patients had insufficient data to assess anaphylaxis). Of the remaining 242 patients, 115 had anaphylaxis prehospitally (WAO grades 3-5); 59% (67/115) received adrenaline. Among the 67 patients who received prehospital adrenaline, 9 patients (13.4%; 95% CI: 6.3-24.0%) still had anaphylaxis at arrival at the emergency department. Of the 48 patients that were not treated with prehospital adrenaline, 17 patients (35.5%; 95% CI: 22.1-50.5) had anaphylaxis at the arrival to the emergency department. Among the 127 patients without prehospital anaphylaxis (WAO grades 0-2), 22 patients (18.2%; 95% CI: 11.8-26.2%) who did not receive prehospital adrenaline had anaphylaxis at arrival to the emergency department, while none of the 6 patients treated prehospitally with adrenaline had anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: Omission of prehospital adrenaline in anaphylactic patients is associated with more severe anaphylactic symptoms at arrival to the hospital. Adrenaline treatment remains suboptimal since only half of the patients received prehospital adrenaline and only 1 out of 4 patients, with clinical signs of anaphylaxis, received adrenaline inside the hospital.

A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study on the efficacy of Omalizumab on food allergy threshold in children with severe food allergy.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy is common in childhood with some children having a low threshold and being difficult to protect from accidental ingestion of the offending food. Therapies for this potentially life-threatening condition are highly needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Omalizumab in food-allergic children. METHODS: This is a single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Food allergic children with a cumulative threshold ≤443 mg food protein at DBPCFC were randomized to Omalizumab (asthma dose) or placebo (3:1). After 3 months, a second DBPCFC was performed (steps 3, 10, 30, 100, 300, 1000, and 3000 mg food protein), followed by a separate open challenge up to 10,000 and 30,000 mg food protein if negative. Responders were defined as ≥2-step increases in threshold. Non-responders received high-dose Omalizumab. A third DBPCFC was performed after 6 months. Skin testing, blood samples, and the severity of atopic co-morbidity were registered during the study and 3 months after treatment. RESULTS: In total, 20 children were evaluated at 3 months (14 Omalizumab, 6 placebo). All treated with Omalizumab increased their threshold at least two steps and with a significant difference between the Omalizumab and the placebo group (p = .003), although the intended number of included children was not reached. The threshold before Omalizumab treatment was 13-443 mg food protein while the threshold after 3 months of treatment increased up to 44,000 mg (1143-44,000). In the placebo group, two children improved threshold during the study. CONCLUSION: An increase in the threshold level during Omalizumab treatment significantly improve patient safety and protected all children against small amount of allergen.

Real-Life Adherence to Venom Immunotherapy and Adrenaline Autoinjector.

INTRODUCTION: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) and adrenaline autoinjector (AAI) are important therapies in venom anaphylaxis. Adherence to VIT and AAI in patients with venom allergy has been evaluated in a few studies; however, solid data are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate VIT and AAI retrieval rates in patients with venom allergy with a special focus on adherence to treatment. Adherence was compared to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with inhalant allergens. METHODS: This was a retrospective study among patients registered for allergen immunotherapy at the Allergy Center, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014. Data on purchased immunotherapy and AAI were obtained from the Danish National Health Service Prescription Database. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze if allergen, age, sex, mastocytosis, and treatment site affected adherence. RESULTS: The 3-year adherence to VIT was 92.4% (244/264) compared to 87.4% (215/246) in SCIT with inhalant allergens, and the 5-year adherence to VIT was 84.1% (222/264) compared to 74.8% (184/246) in SCIT with inhalant allergens (p = 0.045). Females treated with VIT were more adherent than males (p = 0.45 [3-year], p = 0.008 [5-year]), whereas allergen, age, mastocytosis, or treatment site did not significantly affect adherence. Only 28.6% of patients (12/42) purchased an AAI after premature termination of VIT. CONCLUSION: In this register-based study, we found that the 3- and 5-year adherences to VIT and SCIT with inhalant allergens are at the upper end of the spectrum hitherto reported. Patients' 5-year adherence to VIT was higher than patients' 5-year adherence to SCIT with inhalant allergens. If VIT was prematurely terminated, less than 1/3 would have purchased an AAI.

Urticaria.

Urticaria is a frequent skin condition presenting with wheals, angioedema or both due to the activation of mast cells. Acute urticaria (less-than 6 weeks duration) is associated with infections and allergies, whereas chronic urticaria (≥ 6 weeks) is either spontaneous (chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU)), inducible or both. Quality of life (QoL) is frequently impaired. The pathogenesis of CSU is often of an autoimmune nature. As argued in this review, the treatment aims to restore QoL with a stepwise approach, most often using second-generation H1-antihistamines, omalizumab and cyclosporine.

EAACI guidelines on the diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy.

This European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guideline provides recommendations for diagnosing IgE-mediated food allergy and was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Food allergy diagnosis starts with an allergy-focused clinical history followed by tests to determine IgE sensitization, such as serum allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) and skin prick test (SPT), and the basophil activation test (BAT), if available. Evidence for IgE sensitization should be sought for any suspected foods. The diagnosis of allergy to some foods, such as peanut and cashew nut, is well supported by SPT and serum sIgE, whereas there are less data and the performance of these tests is poorer for other foods, such as wheat and soya. The measurement of sIgE to allergen components such as Ara h 2 from peanut, Cor a 14 from hazelnut and Ana o 3 from cashew can be useful to further support the diagnosis, especially in pollen-sensitized individuals. BAT to peanut and sesame can be used additionally. The reference standard for food allergy diagnosis is the oral food challenge (OFC). OFC should be performed in equivocal cases. For practical reasons, open challenges are suitable in most cases. Reassessment of food allergic children with allergy tests and/or OFCs periodically over time will enable reintroduction of food into the diet in the case of spontaneous acquisition of oral tolerance.

A concept for integrated care pathways for atopic dermatitis-A GA2 LEN ADCARE initiative.

INTRODUCTION: The integrated care pathways for atopic dermatitis (AD-ICPs) aim to bridge the gap between existing AD treatment evidence-based guidelines and expert opinion based on daily practice by offering a structured multidisciplinary plan for patient management of AD. ICPs have the potential to enhance guideline recommendations by combining interventions and aspects from different guidelines, integrating quality assurance, and describing co-ordination of care. Most importantly, patients can enter the ICPs at any level depending on AD severity, resources available in their country, and economic factors such as differences in insurance reimbursement systems. METHODS: The GA2 LEN ADCARE network and partners as well as all stakeholders, abbreviated as the AD-ICPs working group, were involved in the discussion and preparation of the AD ICPs during a series of subgroup workshops and meetings in years 2020 and 2021, after which the document was circulated within all GAL2 EN ADCARE centres. RESULTS: The AD-ICPs outline the diagnostic procedures, possible co-morbidities, different available treatment options including differential approaches for the pediatric population, and the role of the pharmacists and other stakeholders, as well as remaining unmet needs in the management of AD. CONCLUSION: The AD-ICPs provide a multidisciplinary plan for improved diagnosis, treatment, and patient feedback in AD management, as well as addressing critical unmet needs, including improved access to care, training specialists, implementation of educational programs, assessment on the impact of climate change, and fostering a personalised treatment approach. By focusing on these key areas, the initiative aims to pave the way for a brighter future in the management of AD.

Challenge-verified thresholds for allergens mandatory for labeling: How little is too much for the most sensitive patient?

BACKGROUND: It is mandatory to label food products with the 14 main allergens in the EU. Reasonable allergen labeling requires knowledge of population-based thresholds derived from food challenges. The aim of this study was to evaluate the threshold-distribution in clinically verified food allergic patients for allergens mandatory for labeling. METHODS: All positive open oral food challenges and double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) performed at the Allergy Center, Odense University Hospital, Denmark (2000-2022) were included. For each included challenge, the cumulative threshold (LOAEL) was obtained and NOAEL estimated. Data were modelled as an interval censored log-normal distribution. RESULTS: Overall, 38 of all 2612 challenges (1.5%) in 1229 patients (717 male, 986 children) reacted to <5 mg protein. The majority of the most sensitive patients reacted with a Sampson severity score of 2-3. Using interval censored log-normal models only five groups (hens´ egg, fish, peanut, milk, tree-nuts) elicited reactions after ingestion of 0.5 mg protein and in low frequencies of the population. Hen's egg was the most potent allergen, with reactivity to <0.5 mg protein in 0.24% [0.13-0.44%] of egg allergic patients while the estimated fraction of allergic patients reacting to a eliciting dose on 0.5 mg protein for most other allergens were below 0.04%. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrates that the majority of food allergic patients as expected tolerating traces of allergenic foods without developing severe allergic symptoms and signs. Hen's egg appears to be the food most likely to elicit reactions in the most sensitive individuals at very low doses.

A comparison of double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge and open food challenge.

BACKGROUND: Double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) remains the gold standard for diagnosing food allergy, despite sparse comparisons to open food challenges (OpenFCs). The objective of this retrospective study was to compare severity of symptoms and threshold values (cumulative dose of food allergen eliciting a clinical reaction) in children and adults with peanut allergy, challenged in an open and/or double-blind, placebo-controlled protocol. METHODS: This study included patients from the Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital with a positive oral food challenge, defined as strict objective signs, with peanut during the period 2001-2022. Severity of symptoms was graded using the Sampson's severity score. Distribution models of threshold values were calculated using log-normal interval-censored survival analysis, and the number of placebo reactions was evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 318 positive OpenFCs and 86 DBPCFCs were included. There was no difference in severity of symptoms nor threshold values comparing the two challenge types, neither when stratified for age groups. However, a higher proportion of children experienced Grade 3 symptoms in the double-blind group. Only one patient had a positive reaction to a placebo challenge. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not advocate for DBPCFC being superior to OpenFC, if the latter is performed with strict objective stop criteria by trained staff.

Wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis: subtypes, diagnosis, and management.

Wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (WDEIA) is an IgE-mediated food allergy with allergic symptoms ranging from intermittent urticaria to severe anaphylaxis that occurs when wheat ingestion is combined with augmenting cofactors such as exercise, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or alcohol. In most cases, patients are identified by sensitization to ω5-gliadins in the gluten fraction of wheat. ω5-gliadin-negative subtypes of WDEIA are often difficult to diagnose and may be caused by Tri a 14 (wheat lipid transfer protein), after percutaneous sensitization with hydrolyzed wheat proteins, or, in rare cases, by cross-reactivity to grass pollen. Diagnosis is established based on the patients' history in combination with serum IgE profile, skin testing, basophil activation tests, and challenge tests with cofactors. Individual dietary counselling remains the central pillar in the management of WDEIA patients. A completely wheat-free diet is a possible option. However, this appears to promote tolerance less than continued regular consumption of gluten-containing cereals in the absence of cofactors. All patients should have an emergency set for self-treatment including an adrenaline autoinjector and receive adequate instruction. More data are needed on sublingual immunotherapy for WDEIA, a potentially promising therapeutic prospect. This article provides an overview of current knowledge on the diagnosis and management of WDEIA including an optimized challenge protocol using wheat gluten and cofactors.

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.

Contact allergy to corticosteroids: Is the European baseline series sufficient?

BACKGROUND: Patients are consecutively screened for contact allergy to corticosteroids with budesonide and tixocortol-21-pivalate in the European baseline series. Centres using TRUE Test also include hydrocortisone-17-butyrate. A supplementary corticosteroid patch test series is used in case of suspicion of corticosteroid contact allergy or when a marker of corticosteroid contact allergy is positive. OBJECTIVE: The aims were to evaluate (1) the efficacy of corticosteroids in the TRUE Test and (2) co-sensitization patterns. METHODS: This retrospective study analysed patients patch tested with TRUE Test corticosteroids plus supplementary corticosteroid series in the period 2006-2020 at the Department of Dermatology and Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital. RESULTS: Of 1852 patients tested, 119 were sensitised to TRUE Test corticosteroids and supplementary testing found additional reactions to other corticosteroids in 19 of 119 patients. TRUE Test corticosteroids gave more positive and stronger reactions compared to allergens in petrolatum/ethanol. Fourteen percent of sensitised patients were co-sensitised to multiple corticosteroid groups. Baeck group 3 corticosteroids accounted for 9 of 16 patients not identified by TRUE Test. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide, hydrocortisone-17-butyrate, and tixocortol-21-pivalate in combination are sensitive corticosteroid markers. In case of clinical suspicion of corticosteroid contact allergy, patch testing with supplementary corticosteroids is highly recommended.

Patients with positive patch test to formaldehyde can be safely vaccinated with formaldehyde-containing vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic vaccination against influenza and other epidemic viruses is recommended for citizens above 65 years. Several vaccines may contain traces of formaldehyde and are contra-indicated in patients hypersensitive (in the broadest possible meaning) to formaldehyde. Thorough knowledge on the various subtypes of hypersensitivity is sparse among non-dermatologists and non-allergists, and therefore many patients are prevented from vaccination based on a positive patch test to formaldehyde. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate whether patients with positive patch test to formaldehyde subsequently receiving a formaldehyde-containing vaccine and developed a severe adverse reaction. METHODS/MATERIALS: From January 2000 to June 2021, 169 patients (>50 years) had a positive formaldehyde patch test at the Department of Dermatology and Allergy Center, Odense University Hospital and were included into this retrospective study. The electronic medical record was assessed for receipt of a formaldehyde-containing vaccine after patch test and for subsequent contact with the Acute Ward in the Region of Southern Denmark within 14 days after vaccination. RESULTS: Of the 158 patients residing in the Region of Southern Denmark, 130 patients were vaccinated with one or more formaldehyde-containing vaccines of whom 123 received an influenza vaccine. No contacts to the acute wards were identified. DISCUSSION: Although prospective studies would be beneficial, patients with positive patch test to formaldehyde can be safely vaccinated with formaldehyde-containing vaccines.

A nationwide 104 weeks real-world study of dupilumab in adults with atopic dermatitis: Ineffectiveness in head-and-neck dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of effectiveness and safety of new systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) after approval is important. There are few published data exceeding 52-week therapy with dupilumab. OBJECTIVES: To examine the safety, effectiveness and drug survival of dupilumab in a Danish nationwide cohort with moderate-to-severe AD up to 104 weeks exposure. METHODS: We included 347 adult patients with AD who were treated with dupilumab and registered in the SCRATCH registry during 2017-2022. RESULTS: At all visits, we observed improvement in AD severity measured by Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) [median (IQR)]. EASI score at baseline was 18.0 (10.6-25.2), at week 4: 6.5 (3.5-11.6), at week 16: 3.7 (1.2-6.2), at week 52: 2.0 (0.8-3.6), at week 104: 1.7 (0.8-3.8). While drug survival was high (week 52: 90%; week 104: 86%), AD in the head-and-neck area remained present in most patients at high levels; proportion with head-and-neck AD at baseline was 76% and 68% at week 104. 35% of patients reported any AE. Conjunctivitis was the most frequent (25% of all patients) and median time to first registration of conjunctivitis was 201 days. CONCLUSIONS: While 2-year drug survival was 86%, dupilumab was unable to effectively treat AD in the head-and-neck area, and conjunctivitis was found in 25% of patients.