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.

Development and acceptability of a decision-aid for food allergy Oral immunotherapy in children.

BACKGROUND: Limited decision-support tools are available to help shared decision-making (SDM) regarding food oral immunotherapy (OIT) initiation. No current tool covers all foods, forms, and pediatric ages for which OIT is offered. METHODS: In compliance with International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria, this pediatric decision-aid comparing OIT versus avoidance was developed in three stages. Nested qualitative data assessing OIT decisional needs were supplemented with evidence-synthesis from the OIT literature to create the prototype decision-aid content. This underwent iterative development with food allergy experts and patient advocacy stakeholders until unanimous consensus was reached regarding content, bias, readability, and utility in making a choice. Lastly, the tool underwent validated assessment of decisional acceptability, decisional conflict, and decisional self-efficacy. RESULTS: The decision-aid underwent 5 iterations, resulting in a 4-page written aid (Flesch-Kincaid reading level 6.1) explaining therapy choices, risks and benefits, providing self-rating for attribute importance for the options and self-assessment regarding how adequate the information was in decision-making. A total of n = 135 caregivers of food-allergic children assessed the decision-aid, noting good acceptability, high decisional self-efficacy (mean score 85.9/100) and low decisional conflict (mean score 20.9/100). Information content was rated adequate and sufficient, the therapy choices wording balanced, and presented without bias for a "best choice." Lower decisional conflict was associated with caregiver-reported anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: This first pediatric OIT decision-aid, agnostic to product, allergen, and age has good acceptability, limited bias, and is associated with low decisional conflict and high decisional self-efficacy. It supports SDM in navigating the decision to start OIT or continue allergen avoidance.

Food allergies on a college campus.

There are limited data on food allergies among college students. In this article, we review the most current available studies. These self-reported surveys and qualitative interviews reported overall poor avoidance of known allergens and low rates of carrying self-injectable epinephrine among students with food allergy. College students may exhibit risk-taking food behaviors due to a number of factors, including age-appropriate risk-taking predilection, strong social influences, and lack of experience in self-advocacy. Having to disclose an otherwise invisible condition repeatedly in a new environment may also lead to "disclosure fatigue," creating an additional barrier to self-advocacy. Common themes in the narrative include hypervigilance, stigma management, and concern about others' misunderstanding of food allergy. Although there is a paucity of data in this area, it is likely that having greater support at the institution level, along with support from peers and faculty, may help improve awareness, self-injectable epinephrine carriage, and allergen avoidance. This review also discusses strategies for preparedness at school, including specific steps to maximize safety.

Cost-effectiveness of budesonide-formoterol vs inhaled epinephrine in US adults with mild asthma.

BACKGROUND: The management of mild asthma has lacked an over-the-counter (OTC) option aside from inhaled epinephrine, which is available in the United States. However, inhaled epinephrine use without an inhaled corticosteroid may increase the risk of asthma death. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol as a plausible alternative to inhaled epinephrine. METHODS: We developed a probabilistic Markov model to compare OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol inhaler use vs inhaled epinephrine use in adults with mild asthma from a US societal perspective over a lifetime horizon, with a 3% annual discount rate (2022 US dollars). Inputs were derived from the SYmbicort Given as-needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) trials, published literature, and commercial costs. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), severe asthma exacerbations, well-controlled asthma days, and asthma-related deaths. Microsimulation was used to evaluate underinsured Americans living with mild asthma (n = 5,250,000). RESULTS: Inhaled epinephrine was dominated (with lower QALYs gains at a higher cost) by both as-needed budesonide-formoterol (INMB, $15,541 at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY) and the no-OTC inhaler option (INMB, $1023). Adults using as-needed budesonide-formoterol had 145 more well-controlled asthma days, 2.79 fewer severe exacerbations, and an absolute risk reduction of 0.23% for asthma-related death compared with inhaled epinephrine over a patient lifetime. As-needed budesonide-formoterol remained dominant in all sensitivity and scenario analyses, with a 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with inhaled epinephrine in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: If made available, OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol for treating mild asthma in underinsured adults without HCP management improves asthma outcomes, prevents fatalities, and is cost-saving.

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.

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.

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.

Management of anaphylaxis after pre-hospital epinephrine use in children with food-induced anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Previous guidelines recommend prompt epinephrine administration, followed by observation in the emergency department (ED). The need for transfer in all cases of anaphylaxis has recently been challenged. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the need for additional ED treatment among children with anaphylaxis who received prehospital epinephrine. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2023, data were collected on symptoms, triggers, comorbidities, and prehospital and in-hospital management from children (<18 years) with food-induced anaphylaxis who received at least 1 dose of prehospital epinephrine presenting at 7 pediatric EDs. Multivariable logistic regression assessed factors associated with the use of 2 or more prehospital epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs), epinephrine use in the ED, and hospital admission. RESULTS: Of the 1127 children (mean 8.1 ± 5.3 years; 60.6% male sex) with food-induced anaphylaxis who used at least 1 EAI prehospital, the most common trigger was peanuts (25.3%). There were 209 (18.5%) children who received additional epinephrine in the ED, most of whom (88.0%) received 1 dose. A total of 30 (2.7%) patients were admitted to hospital. Among all patients, severe reactions (cardiovascular instability/cyanosis/loss of consciousness) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.22; 95% CI 1.12-1.33) and reactions to tree nuts (aOR 1.09; 95% CI 1.03-1.16) were associated with increased odds of in-hospital epinephrine use. Prehospital inhaled ß-agonists (aOR 1.08; 95% CI 1.01-1.16) use and severe reactions (aOR 1.13; 95% CI 1.05-1.22) were associated with the use of 2 or more EAI prehospital. CONCLUSION: A minority of anaphylaxis cases that used prehospital EAIs required additional treatment, supporting that shared decision making about transfer to ED works for most patients.

A systematic review and expert Delphi Consensus recommendation on the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab: A position paper of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha subunit, thus blocking the effects of IL-4 and IL-13, and has shown efficacy in treating various conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and others. Because of its immune modulatory effects, clinical trials that studied dupilumab did not allow patients to receive live vaccines during the clinical trials because of an abundance of caution, and thus package inserts recommend that patients who are being treated with dupilumab should avoid live vaccines. Because dupilumab is now approved for use in patients from 6 months of age for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, this reported contraindication is now posing a clinical dilemma for patients and clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of literature on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in patients who are receiving dupilumab and to provide expert guidance on the use of vaccines in patients who are receiving dupilumab. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed, and an expert Delphi Panel was assembled. RESULTS: The available literature on patients who received vaccinations while using dupilumab overall suggests that live vaccines are safe and that the vaccine efficacy, in general, is not affected by dupilumab. The expert Delphi panel agreed that the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab was likely safe and effective. CONCLUSION: Vaccines (including live vaccines) can be administered to patients receiving dupilumab in a shared decision-making capacity.

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.

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.

Contextual community epinephrine prescribing: Is more always better?

OBJECTIVE: Prompt administration of epinephrine is first-line management of anaphylaxis. Although severe anaphylaxis may require more than 1 epinephrine dose, multiple epinephrine device packs may not be necessary for all patients at risk for allergic reactions. DATA SOURCES: A narrative review was used to describe key considerations to contextualize community epinephrine prescribing. RESULTS: Anaphylaxis has a lifetime prevalence of 1.6% to 5.1%. Meeting diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis is not required for epinephrine treatment of a severe allergic reaction. A "1-2-3" approach to anaphylaxis treatment is important to clearly relay central management steps: promptly administer a first dose of intramuscular epinephrine with proper positioning, and activate emergency medical services if immediate symptom resolution does not occur; consider a second dose of intramuscular epinephrine with consideration of oxygen administration and intravenous fluid if initial epinephrine response is not adequate; and consider a third intramuscular epinephrine dose together with consideration of intravenous fluid support and oxygen for continued lack of appropriate response. Although multiple epinephrine doses may be required to treat severe anaphylaxis, 90% of anaphylaxis cases do not require more than 1 epinephrine dose. A universal requirement for multiple epinephrine devices in patients without a history of anaphylaxis is not cost-effective. Patients without a history of anaphylaxis may be managed without multiple device prescriptions within a patient-preference sensitive paradigm of care. CONCLUSION: Anaphylaxis prevention involves appropriate education to avoid allergen triggers, recognize symptoms of an allergic reaction, rapidly access and administer intramuscular epinephrine, and appropriately activate emergency medical services when needed. For patients with previous anaphylaxis, particularly those who have required more than 1 dose of epinephrine to treat an allergic reaction, possessing multiple epinephrine devices is an important part of managing community anaphylaxis risk.

Food allergies on vacation-there and back again.

OBJECTIVE: Food allergy is an important public health concern that affects all facets of life, and travel is no exception. We sought to provide a scoping review regarding the literature pertaining to management of FA while traveling. DATA SOURCES: Medline and Embase were queried for English-language articles published in the last 20 years containing "food allergy" and "travel". STUDY SELECTIONS: The search produced 83 references which were reviewed. After removal of duplicates and irrelevant material, 23 references that discussed travel and FA remained, 13 of which were conference abstracts published as supplemental material. RESULTS: Priorities for consideration by patient-families and their allergist-immunologist include concern for reactions away from home, proximity to emergency medical services, risk for various methods of travel including potential for cross-contact exposure resulting in symptoms, and considerations for international travel including language barriers. CONCLUSION: Patients with FA must use careful planning and preparation to ensure access to safe food and emergency medications at all times while away from home.

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.

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.

Tree nut introduction in a peanut-allergic child: To eat, to screen, or to avoid?

There is no defined standard of care around tree nut introduction in a peanut-allergic child, and the role of screening prior to tree nut introduction is controversial. There is some evidence that peanut-allergic children are at increased risk of tree nut allergy, with approximately 23-68% of children with co-existent peanut/tree nut allergy. In some studies, it has been shown that tree nut allergy in children has the potential to be a severe allergy. However, this appears to be age-specific as infant anaphylaxis in general tends to be milder, and there has been no fatality reported on the first ingestion of an allergen in infancy. Familial hesitancy has been identified as a possible condition for undertaking screening tests prior to allergen introduction. Indeed, there has been limited evidence that caregiver hesitancy may exist in peanut-allergic families with tree nut introduction. However, pre-emptive screening has the potential to overdiagnose tree nut allergy and delay introduction (which could paradoxically increase risk). As a result, the decision is best made in the context of shared decision-making and patient preference-sensitive care.

The COVID-19 pandemic: Adverse effects on the social determinants of health in children and families.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of social determinants on the experience of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic within the pediatric population, how this impact may influence the long-term health and security of children, and what measures can be taken to ameliorate this impact moving forward. DATA SOURCES: Nonsystematic review of relevant literature and news sources. STUDY SELECTIONS: Relevant literature and news sources. RESULTS: There have been increases in housing insecurity and food insecurity during the pandemic, including global increases in poverty. Public policies such as school closures have had a disproportionate impact on those facing adverse social determinants. There has been a dramatic increase in reports of abuse-related injuries and other injuries indicative of child abuse during the pandemic. In addition, there are disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 based on race and ethnicity within the United States. It is clear that children are facing more adverse determinants as a result of this pandemic and that there are both short-term and long-term implications associated. For those living in poverty or with other adverse social determinants of health, the pandemic has made a bad situation worse. Ongoing studies are required to measure the impact of COVID-19 on those with adverse social determinants, in particular among children. CONCLUSION: Social determinants of health must be part of pandemic research priorities, public health and vaccination goals, and economic policy implementation. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has further served to shed a light on the broad disparities that exist within our society and their direct and indirect impacts on health outcomes.

Sesame-induced anaphylaxis in pediatric patients from the cross-Canada anaphylaxis registry.

BACKGROUND: Sesame can cause severe allergic reactions and is a priority allergen in Canada. OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical characteristics and management of pediatric sesame-induced anaphylaxis and identify factors associated with epinephrine treatment. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2021, children with sesame-induced anaphylaxis presenting to 7 emergency departments (ED) in 4 Canadian provinces and 1 regional emergency medical service were enrolled in the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry. Standardized recruitment forms provided data on symptoms, severity, triggers, and management. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated associations with epinephrine treatment pre-ED and multiple epinephrine dosages. RESULTS: Of all food-induced anaphylactic reactions (n = 3279 children), sesame accounted for 4.0% (n = 130 children), of which 61.5% were boys, and the average (SD) age was 5.0 (4.9) years. Hummus containing sesame paste triggered 58.8% of reactions. In the pre-ED setting, 32.3% received epinephrine, and it was more likely to be used in boys (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.50) and those with a known food allergy (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.11-1.68]). In the ED, 47.7% of cases received epinephrine, with older children more likely to receive multiple epinephrine doses (aOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02). CONCLUSION: In Canada, hummus is the major trigger of sesame-induced anaphylaxis. Knowledge translation focused on prompt epinephrine use and product-labeling policies are required to limit sesame reactions in communities.

Seafood-induced anaphylaxis in children presenting to Canadian emergency departments: Rates, clinical presentation, and management.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data on seafood-induced anaphylaxis in children in Canada. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate, clinical features, and management of seafood-induced anaphylaxis in children presenting to emergency departments across Canada. METHODS: Children with anaphylaxis were recruited at 6 emergency departments between 2011 and 2020 as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis REgistry. A standardized form documenting symptoms, triggers, comorbidities, and management was used to collect data. RESULTS: There were 75 fish-induced and 71 shellfish-induced cases of suspected anaphylaxis, most of which were caused by salmon and shrimp, respectively. Mucocutaneous symptoms were most common, whereas respiratory symptoms were associated with patients with fish-induced reactions who have comorbid asthma (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.36). Prehospital epinephrine was underused (<35%), whereas in-hospital epinephrine was given to less than 60% of the patients. Among those with a known fish or shellfish allergy, prehospital epinephrine use was associated with known asthma (aOR 1.39 [95% CI, 1.05-1.84] and aOR 1.25 [95% CI, 1.02-1.54], respectively). Among children who were assessed by either skin test or specific immunoglobulin E, 36 patients (76.6%) with suspected fish-induced anaphylaxis and 19 patients (51.4%) with suspected shellfish-induced anaphylaxis tested positive. CONCLUSION: Prehospital epinephrine is underused in the management of seafood-induced anaphylaxis. Among children with known seafood allergy, prehospital epinephrine use is more likely if there is a known asthma comorbidity.

Food allergy across the globe.

The prevalence of food allergy (FA) is increasing in some areas of the globe, highlighting the need for better strategies for prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. In the last few decades, we have made great strides in understanding the causes and mechanisms underlying FAs, prompting guideline updates. Earlier guidelines recommended avoidance of common food allergens during pregnancy and lactation and delaying the introduction of allergenic foods in children aged between 1 and 3 years. Recent guidelines for allergy prevention recommend consumption of a healthy and diverse diet without eliminating or increasing the consumption of allergenic foods during pregnancy or breast-feeding. Early introduction of allergenic foods is recommended by most guidelines for allergy prevention after a period of exclusive breast-feedng (6 months [World Health Organization] or 4 months [European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology]). New diagnostics for FA have been developed with varied availability of these tests in different countries. Finally, the first oral immunotherapy drug for FA was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency in 2020. In this review, we will address the global prevalence of FA, our current understanding of the causes of FA, and the latest guidelines for preventing, diagnosing, and treating FA. We will also discuss similarities and differences between FA guidelines.