Anaphylaxis is a clinical emergency, and all healthcare professionals should be familiar with its recognition and acute and ongoing management. These guidelines have been prepared by the European ...Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Taskforce on Anaphylaxis. They aim to provide evidence‐based recommendations for the recognition, risk factor assessment, and the management of patients who are at risk of, are experiencing, or have experienced anaphylaxis. While the primary audience is allergists, these guidelines are also relevant to all other healthcare professionals. The development of these guidelines has been underpinned by two systematic reviews of the literature, both on the epidemiology and on clinical management of anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a potentially life‐threatening condition whose clinical diagnosis is based on recognition of a constellation of presenting features. First‐line treatment for anaphylaxis is intramuscular adrenaline. Useful second‐line interventions may include removing the trigger where possible, calling for help, correct positioning of the patient, high‐flow oxygen, intravenous fluids, inhaled short‐acting bronchodilators, and nebulized adrenaline. Discharge arrangements should involve an assessment of the risk of further reactions, a management plan with an anaphylaxis emergency action plan, and, where appropriate, prescribing an adrenaline auto‐injector. If an adrenaline auto‐injector is prescribed, education on when and how to use the device should be provided. Specialist follow‐up is essential to investigate possible triggers, to perform a comprehensive risk assessment, and to prevent future episodes by developing personalized risk reduction strategies including, where possible, commencing allergen immunotherapy. Training for the patient and all caregivers is essential. There are still many gaps in the evidence base for anaphylaxis.
Background
Preventive measures to decrease the frequency and intensity of anaphylactic events are essential to provide optimal care for allergic patients. Aggravating factors may trigger or increase ...the severity of anaphylaxis and therefore need to be recognized and avoided.
Objective
To identify and prioritize factors associated with an increased risk of developing severe anaphylaxis.
Methods
Data from the Anaphylaxis Registry (122 centers in 11 European countries) were used in logistic regression models considering existing severity grading systems, elicitors, and symptoms to identify the relative risk of factors on the severity of anaphylaxis.
Results
We identified higher age and concomitant mastocytosis (OR: 3.1, CI: 2.6‐3.7) as the most important predictors for an increased risk of severe anaphylaxis. Vigorous physical exercise (OR: 1.5, CI: 1.3‐1.7), male sex (OR: 1.2, CI: 1.1‐1.3), and psychological burden (OR: 1.4, CI: 1.2‐1.6) were more often associated with severe reactions. Additionally, intake of beta‐blockers (OR: 1.9, CI: 1.5‐2.2) and ACE‐I (OR: 1.28, CI: 1.05, 1.51) in temporal proximity to allergen exposition was identified as an important factor in logistic regression analysis.
Conclusion
Our data suggest it may be possible to identify patients who require intensified preventive measures due to their relatively higher risk for severe anaphylaxis by considering endogenous and exogenous factors.
Background
Occurrence, elicitors and treatment of severe allergic reactions are recognized and reported differently between countries. We aimed to collect standardized data throughout Europe on ...anaphylaxis referred for diagnosis and counselling.
Methods
Tertiary allergy, dermatology and paediatric units in 10 European countries took part in this pilot phase of the first European Anaphylaxis Registry, from June 2011 to March 2014. An online questionnaire was used to collect data on severe allergic reactions based on the medical history and diagnostics.
Results
Fifty‐nine centres reported 3333 cases of anaphylaxis, with 26.7% below 18 years of age. Allergic reactions were mainly caused by food (children and adults 64.9% and 20.2%, respectively) and insect venom (20.2% and 48.2%) and less often by drugs (4.8% and 22.4%). Most reactions occurred within 30 min of exposure (80.5%); a delay of 4+ hours was mainly seen in drug anaphylaxis (6.7%). Symptom patterns differed by elicitor, with the skin being affected most often (84.1%). A previous, usually milder reaction to the same allergen was reported by 34.2%. The mainstay of first‐line treatment by professionals included corticoids (60.4%) and antihistamines (52.8%). Only 13.7% of lay‐ or self‐treated reactions to food and 27.6% of insect anaphylaxis received on‐site adrenaline.
Conclusion
This pilot phase of a pan‐European registry for severe allergic reactions provides for the first time data on anaphylaxis throughout Europe, demonstrates its potential functionality and allows a comparison of symptom patterns, elicitors and treatment habits between referral centres and countries.
Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) is an allergic disorder of the nose and eyes affecting about a fifth of the general population. Symptoms of AR can be controlled with allergen avoidance measures and ...pharmacotherapy. However, many patients continue to have ongoing symptoms and an impaired quality of life; pharmacotherapy may also induce some side‐effects. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only currently available treatment that targets the underlying pathophysiology, and it may have a disease‐modifying effect. Either the subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes may be used. This Guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on AIT for AR and is part of the EAACI presidential project “EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy.” It aims to provide evidence‐based clinical recommendations and has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta‐analysis. Its generation has followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included involvement of the full range of stakeholders. In general, broad evidence for the clinical efficacy of AIT for AR exists but a product‐specific evaluation of evidence is recommended. In general, SCIT and SLIT are recommended for both seasonal and perennial AR for its short‐term benefit. The strongest evidence for long‐term benefit is documented for grass AIT (especially for the grass tablets) where long‐term benefit is seen. To achieve long‐term efficacy, it is recommended that a minimum of 3 years of therapy is used. Many gaps in the evidence base exist, particularly around long‐term benefit and use in children.
Food allergy can result in considerable morbidity, impairment of quality of life, and healthcare expenditure. There is therefore interest in novel strategies for its treatment, particularly food ...allergen immunotherapy (FA‐AIT) through the oral (OIT), sublingual (SLIT), or epicutaneous (EPIT) routes. This Guideline, prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Task Force on Allergen Immunotherapy for IgE‐mediated Food Allergy, aims to provide evidence‐based recommendations for active treatment of IgE‐mediated food allergy with FA‐AIT. Immunotherapy relies on the delivery of gradually increasing doses of specific allergen to increase the threshold of reaction while on therapy (also known as desensitization) and ultimately to achieve post‐discontinuation effectiveness (also known as tolerance or sustained unresponsiveness). Oral FA‐AIT has most frequently been assessed: here, the allergen is either immediately swallowed (OIT) or held under the tongue for a period of time (SLIT). Overall, trials have found substantial benefit for patients undergoing either OIT or SLIT with respect to efficacy during treatment, particularly for cow's milk, hen's egg, and peanut allergies. A benefit post‐discontinuation is also suggested, but not confirmed. Adverse events during FA‐AIT have been frequently reported, but few subjects discontinue FA‐AIT as a result of these. Taking into account the current evidence, FA‐AIT should only be performed in research centers or in clinical centers with an extensive experience in FA‐AIT. Patients and their families should be provided with information about the use of FA‐AIT for IgE‐mediated food allergy to allow them to make an informed decision about the therapy.
Background
The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for IgE‐mediated Food Allergy. To inform the development of ...clinical recommendations, we sought to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost‐effectiveness of AIT in the management of food allergy.
Methods
We undertook a systematic review and meta‐analysis that involved searching nine international electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRS). Eligible studies were independently assessed by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and the Cochrane ACROBAT‐NRS tool for quasi‐RCTs. Random‐effects meta‐analyses were undertaken, with planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
Results
We identified 1814 potentially relevant papers from which we selected 31 eligible studies, comprising of 25 RCTs and six NRS, studying a total of 1259 patients. Twenty‐five trials evaluated oral immunotherapy (OIT), five studies investigated sublingual immunotherapy, and one study evaluated epicutaneous immunotherapy. The majority of these studies were in children. Twenty‐seven studies assessed desensitization, and eight studies investigated sustained unresponsiveness postdiscontinuation of AIT. Meta‐analyses demonstrated a substantial benefit in terms of desensitization (risk ratio (RR) = 0.16, 95% CI 0.10, 0.26) and suggested, but did not confirm sustained unresponsiveness (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.08, 1.13). Only one study reported on disease‐specific quality of life (QoL), which reported no comparative results between OIT and control group. Meta‐analyses revealed that the risk of experiencing a systemic adverse reaction was higher in those receiving AIT, with a more marked increase in the risk of local adverse reactions. Sensitivity analysis excluding those studies judged to be at high risk of bias demonstrated the robustness of summary estimates of effectiveness and safety of AIT for food allergy. None of the studies reported data on health economic analyses.
Conclusions
AIT may be effective in raising the threshold of reactivity to a range of foods in children with IgE‐mediated food allergy whilst receiving (i.e. desensitization) and post‐discontinuation of AIT. It is, however, associated with a modest increased risk in serious systemic adverse reactions and a substantial increase in minor local adverse reactions. More data are needed in relation to adults, long term effects, the impact on QoL and the cost‐effectiveness of AIT.
Hymenoptera venom allergy is a potentially life‐threatening allergic reaction following a honeybee, vespid, or ant sting. Systemic‐allergic sting reactions have been reported in up to 7.5% of adults ...and up to 3.4% of children. They can be mild and restricted to the skin or moderate to severe with a risk of life‐threatening anaphylaxis. Patients should carry an emergency kit containing an adrenaline autoinjector, H1‐antihistamines, and corticosteroids depending on the severity of their previous sting reaction(s). The only treatment to prevent further systemic sting reactions is venom immunotherapy. This guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on Venom Immunotherapy as part of the EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy initiative. The guideline aims to provide evidence‐based recommendations for the use of venom immunotherapy, has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta‐analysis and produced using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included representation from a range of stakeholders. Venom immunotherapy is indicated in venom‐allergic children and adults to prevent further moderate‐to‐severe systemic sting reactions. Venom immunotherapy is also recommended in adults with only generalized skin reactions as it results in significant improvements in quality of life compared to carrying an adrenaline autoinjector. This guideline aims to give practical advice on performing venom immunotherapy. Key sections cover general considerations before initiating venom immunotherapy, evidence‐based clinical recommendations, risk factors for adverse events and for relapse of systemic sting reaction, and a summary of gaps in the evidence.
Background
Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially fatal, multi‐organ system, allergic reaction caused by the release of chemical mediators from mast cells and basophils. Uncertainty exists around ...epidemiological measures of incidence and prevalence, risk factors, risk of recurrence, and death due to anaphylaxis. This systematic review aimed to (1) understand and describe the epidemiology of anaphylaxis and (2) describe how these characteristics vary by person, place, and time.
Methods
Using a highly sensitive search strategy, we identified systematic reviews of epidemiological studies, descriptive and analytical epidemiological investigations, and studies involving analysis of routine data.
Results
Our searches identified a total of 5 843 potentially eligible studies, of which 49 satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these, three were suitable for pooled estimates of prevalence. The incidence rates for all‐cause anaphylaxis ranged from 1.5 to 7.9 per 100 000 person‐years. These data indicated that an estimated 0.3% (95% CI 0.1–0.5) of the population experience anaphylaxis at some point in their lives. Food, drugs, stinging insects, and latex were the most commonly identified triggers.
Conclusions
Anaphylaxis is a common problem, affecting an estimated 1 in 300 of the European population at some time in their lives. Future research needs to focus on better understanding of the trends across Europe and identifying those most likely to experience fatal reactions.
Purpose
The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) has produced Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT). We sought to gauge the preparedness of primary care to participate in ...the delivery of AIT in Europe.
Methods
We undertook a mixed‐methods, situational analysis. This involved a purposeful literature search and two surveys: one to primary care clinicians and the other to a wider group of stakeholders across Europe.
Results
The 10 papers identified all pointed out gaps or deficiencies in allergy care provision in primary care. The surveys also highlighted similar concerns, particularly in relation to concerns about lack of knowledge, skills, infrastructural weaknesses, reimbursement policies and communication with specialists as barriers to evidence‐based care. Almost all countries (92%) reported the availability of AIT. In spite of that, only 28% and 44% of the countries reported the availability of guidelines for primary care physicians and specialists, respectively. Agreed pathways between specialists and primary care physicians were reported as existing in 32%‐48% of countries. Reimbursement appeared to be an important barrier as AIT was only fully reimbursed in 32% of countries. Additionally, 44% of respondents considered accessibility to AIT and 36% stating patient costs were barriers.
Conclusions
Successful working with primary care providers is essential to scaling‐up AIT provision in Europe, but to achieve this, the identified barriers must be overcome. Development of primary care interpretation of guidelines to aid patient selection, establishment of disease management pathways and collaboration with specialist groups are required as a matter of urgency.
PDF