Getting in Shape: Updates in Exercise Anaphylaxis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Exercise induced anaphylaxis (EIA) can be difficult to diagnose due to the interplay of co-factors on clinical presentation and the lack of standardized, confirmatory testing. RECENT FINDINGS: EIA has been historically categorized as either food-independent or food-dependent. However, recent literature has suggested that perhaps EIA is more complex given the relationship between not only food on EIA but other various co-factors such as medications and alcohol ingestion that are either required to elicit symptoms in EIA or make symptoms worse. For the practicing clinician, understanding how these co-factors can be implicated in EIA can enable one to take a more personalized approach in treating patients with EIA and thus improve quality of life for patients.

Yardstick for managing cough, part 2: In children.

Nationwide statistics in the United States and Australia reveal that cough of undifferentiated duration is the most common complaint for which patients of all ages seek medical care in the ambulatory setting. Management of chronic cough is one of the most common reasons for new patient visits to respiratory specialists. Because symptomatic cough is such a common problem and so much has been learned about how to diagnose and treat cough of all durations but especially chronic cough, this 2-part yardstick has been written to review in a practical way the evidence-based guidelines most of which have been developed from high-quality systematic reviews on how best to manage cough of all durations in adults, adolescents, and children. Chronic cough in children is often benign and self-limiting. Using established and validated protocols and specific pointers (clues in history, findings on examination) can aid the clinician in identifying causes when present and improve outcomes. In this manuscript, part 2 of the 2-part series, we provide evidence-based, expert opinion recommendations on the management of chronic cough in the pediatric patient (<14 years of age).

A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of the use of viscous oral cromolyn sodium for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for effective, nonsteroid pharmacologic therapies for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Cromolyn sodium offers an option because mast cells have been implicated in the symptomatology of EoE and cromolyn has been shown to have some anti-eosinophilic properties. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of cromolyn in decreasing esophageal eosinophilia in patients with EoE. Secondary outcomes included symptom improvement and adverse effects. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of viscous oral cromolyn for EoE in pediatric patients. Subjects were randomized to 100 mg (2-11 years of age) or 200 mg (12-17 years of age) of cromolyn or placebo 4 times daily. The medications were mixed with powdered sugar at home to make them viscous. RESULTS: Sixteen subjects (50% boys, median age 11.4 years) were enrolled. Nine were randomized to cromolyn and 7 were randomized to placebo. Cromolyn decreased the peak eosinophil count from 62.1 to 57.3 eosinophils per high-powered field (P = .78) and placebo decreased the peak eosinophil count from 87.0 to 71.3 eosinophils per high-powered field (P = .62) One subject randomized to cromolyn and none in the placebo arm had complete resolution of eosinophilia. Cromolyn decreased symptoms scores from a mean baseline score of 37.8 to a mean post-therapy score of 17.5, which was a 54% decrease (P = .04). Placebo decreased the symptom scores from a baseline score of 32.2 to a post-therapy score of 23.3, which was a 28% decrease (P = .05). CONCLUSION: Cromolyn, when mixed into a viscous preparation, did not significantly decrease esophageal eosinophilia. However, it did decrease symptom scores (although not significantly more than placebo) and led to complete resolution in 1 subject.

An analysis of anaphylaxis cases at a single pediatric emergency department during a 1-year period.

BACKGROUND: Case series of anaphylaxis can vary regarding causes, treatments, and follow-up of patients. Unfortunately, case series that are specific to the pediatric population are few. OBJECTIVE: To describe confirmed cases of pediatric anaphylaxis in patients presenting to a pediatric hospital emergency department (ED). METHODS: We identified all ED visits with the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes 995.XX (allergic reactions) and 989.5 (sting or venom reaction) for 1 calendar year (January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014). Cases were reviewed by an allergist and an emergency medicine physician to identify true anaphylaxis cases using National Institute of Health/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases criteria. Any questionable or debatable cases were evaluated and adjudicated by a second allergist. RESULTS: We identified 927 unique ED visits. Of these visits, 40 were determined to definitively meet anaphylaxis criteria. Median age of the patients was 6.5 years. A total of 70% of patients were male, and 80% were African American. Causes included foods (65%), venom or insect sting (12.5%), and medications (5%), and 17.5% were idiopathic. All patients had multiorgan involvement, with 98% having skin involvement, 78% having lower respiratory tract symptoms, and 40% having gastrointestinal symptoms. There were no deaths. Only 33% of patients received epinephrine at some point in their care. Only 12 patients were referred to an allergist, and only 4 of these were actually seen by an allergist. CONCLUSION: At our center, foods are the most common trigger for pediatric anaphylaxis. Patients continue to be undertreated, and referral to an allergist from the ED is rare.

Pediatric Angioedema.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aims of this study are to update the clinician on current understanding of angioedema as it presents in the pediatric population and to review proper diagnostic techniques and treatment modalities for various types of angioedema. RECENT FINDINGS: Angioedema is still best classified by whether it is likely histaminergic or kinin-mediated. New guidelines have been published around the world to help diagnose and treat both forms (urticaria/angioedema and hereditary angioedema). The vast majority of the studies on treatment have been conducted in the adult population; however, there are data available in the pediatric population. In the realm of hereditary angioedema, there are multiple new therapies that have been studied in the pediatric population (down to 2 years in some studies) in recent years and offer the clinician options for treatment. Angioedema (whether occurring with or without urticaria) is common in the pediatric population. The majority of the recent studies has been conducted in hereditary angioedema, and now, the clinician should have various options to treat all forms of angioedema. Many treatment options, especially for hereditary angioedema, are further being examined specifically in the pediatric population.

Identifying thresholds of reaction for different foods.

Current food allergy management universally treats all patients with food allergy as being at risk for anaphylaxis (with the exception perhaps of pollen food allergy syndrome). Thus, patients are told to avoid the allergenic food in all potentially allergic forms and amounts. However, research over the past 2 decades has shown that many patients will tolerate small amounts of the allergen without any allergic reaction. Thus, if one were able to identify the threshold of reactivity, this could change management. At the population level, establishing levels at which the vast majority of patients (e.g., 95%) do not react could have public health ramifications, such as altering labeling laws. At the individual patient level, personal threshold levels could determine avoidance strategies, affect quality of life, and alter treatment decisions, e.g., oral immunotherapy starting doses. In this review, threshold data for various allergens and their potential effect on the management of the patient with food allergy are examined.

Evidence-based use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Epinephrine is the first line treatment for anaphylaxis, however, there are limited data to support this. This review examines data surrounding evidence for the use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis, data on prescription for and use of epinephrine autoinjectors, and data examining newer routes of delivery of epinephrine; with a focus on recent publications over the past few years. RECENT FINDINGS: With recent epidemiologic studies of anaphylaxis and new forms of epinephrine being studied, new data on the effects of epinephrine are aiding in the understanding of epinephrine's effects and the shortcomings of epinephrine both in its effect and utility in the real world. SUMMARY: Epinephrine is still considered the first line therapy for anaphylaxis, and we are starting to have a better understanding of its effects in both healthy patients and those with anaphylaxis.

Epinephrine in anaphylaxis: too little, too late.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Epinephrine is the agreed-upon first line treatment for anaphylaxis, yet it continues to be underused by patients/caregivers and providers alike. RECENT FINDINGS: There are unfortunately limited data on how epinephrine can best be utilized in anaphylaxis, which hinders how best to inform patients and providers. Studies reporting underuse suggest various barriers and themes on why this may happen. SUMMARY: Continued education of patients, caregivers, and providers is needed; however, is not likely to be enough to close the gap. Thus, novel studies on how to increase use; increase availability in a cost-effective manner; and newer, effective delivery routes are still needed.