Anaphylaxis is a clinical emergency which all healthcare professionals need to be able to recognize and manage. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Anaphylaxis multidisciplinary ...Task Force has updated the 2014 guideline. The guideline was developed using the AGREE II framework and the GRADE approach. The evidence was systematically reviewed and recommendations were created by weighing up benefits and harms. The guideline was peer‐reviewed by external experts and reviewed in a public consultation. The use of clinical criteria to identify anaphylaxis is suggested with blood sampling for the later measurement of tryptase. The prompt use of intramuscular adrenaline as first‐line management is recommended with the availability of adrenaline autoinjectors to patients in the community. Pharmacokinetic data should be provided for adrenaline autoinjector devices. Structured, comprehensive training for people at risk of anaphylaxis is recommended. Simulation training and visual prompts for healthcare professionals are suggested to improve the management of anaphylaxis. It is suggested that school policies reflect anaphylaxis guidelines. The evidence for the management of anaphylaxis remains mostly at a very low level. There is an urgent need to prioritize clinical trials with the potential to improve the management of patients at risk of anaphylaxis.
Background
Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is commonly used for preventing further allergic reactions to insect stings in people who have had a sting reaction. The efficacy and safety of this treatment has ...not previously been assessed by a high‐quality systematic review.
Objectives
To assess the effects of immunotherapy using extracted insect venom for preventing further allergic reactions to insect stings in people who have had an allergic reaction to a sting.
Search methods
We searched the following databases up to February 2012: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), PsycINFO (from 1806), AMED (from 1985), LILACS (from 1982), the Armed Forces Pest Management Board Literature Retrieval System, and OpenGrey. There were no language or publication status restrictions to our searches. We searched trials databases, s from recent European and North American allergy meetings, and the references of identified review articles in order to identify further relevant trials.
Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials of venom immunotherapy using standardised venom extract in insect sting allergy.
Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias. We identified adverse events from included controlled trials and from a separate analysis of observational studies identified as part of a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Health Technology Assessment.
Main results
We identified 6 randomised controlled trials and 1 quasi‐randomised controlled trial for inclusion in the review; the total number of participants was 392. The trials had some risk of bias because five of the trials did not blind outcome assessors to treatment allocation. The interventions included ant, bee, and wasp immunotherapy in children or adults with previous systemic or large local reactions to a sting, using sublingual (one trial) or subcutaneous (six trials) VIT. We found that VIT is effective for preventing systemic allergic reaction to an insect sting, which was our primary outcome measure. This applies whether the sting occurs accidentally or is given intentionally as part of a trial procedure.
In the trials, 3/113 (2.7%) participants treated with VIT had a subsequent systemic allergic reaction to a sting, compared with 37/93 (39.8%) untreated participants (risk ratio RR 0.10, 95% confidence interval CI 0.03 to 0.28). The efficacy of VIT was similar across studies; we were unable to identify a patient group or mode of treatment with different efficacy, although these analyses were limited by small numbers. We were unable to confirm whether VIT prevents fatal reactions to insect stings, because of the rarity of this outcome.
Venom immunotherapy was also effective for preventing large local reactions to a sting (5 studies; 112 follow‐up stings; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.69) and for improving quality of life (mean difference MD in favour of VIT 1.21 points on a 7‐point scale, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.67).
We found a significant risk of systemic adverse reaction to VIT treatment: 6 trials reported this outcome, in which 14 of 150 (9.3%) participants treated with VIT and 1 of 135 (0.7%) participants treated with placebo or no treatment suffered a systemic reaction to treatment (RR 8.16, 95% CI 1.53 to 43.46; 2 studies contributed to the effect estimate). Our analysis of 11 observational studies found systemic adverse reactions occurred in 131/921 (14.2%) participants treated with bee venom VIT and 8/289 (2.8%) treated with wasp venom VIT.
Authors' conclusions
We found venom immunotherapy using extracted insect venom to be an effective therapy for preventing further allergic reactions to insect stings, which can improve quality of life. The treatment carries a small but significant risk of systemic adverse reaction.
Mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS) is a condition characterized by recurrent episodes of clinically relevant, systemic, severe reactions to mast cell (MC)-derived mediators released in the context ...of anaphylaxis or another acute MC-related event. It is important to document MC involvement in these reactions in order to establish the diagnosis MCAS. The most specific and reliable marker of systemic MC activation is an acute and substantial event-related (transient) increase in the serum tryptase level over the individual's baseline value. However, the baseline level of tryptase varies depending on the underlying disease and the genetic background. For example, an estimated 3-5% of healthy individuals exhibit duplications or multiple copies of the TPSAB1 gene encoding for alpha-tryptase, and over 30% of all patients with myeloid neoplasms, including mastocytosis, have elevated basal tryptase levels. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to adjust the event-related diagnostic (MCAS-confirming) increase in tryptase over the individual baseline in a robust approach. To address this challenge, the 20% + 2 formula was proposed by the consensus group in 2012. Since then, this approach has been validated in clinical practice by independent groups and found to be sound. In the current article, we discuss the emerging importance and value of the 20% + 2 formula in clinical practice and its role as a criterion of severe systemic MC activation and MCAS.
To cite this article: Flokstra-de Blok BMJ, Dubois AEJ, Vlieg-Boerstra BJ, Oude Elberink JNG, Raat H, DunnGalvin A, Hourihane JO'B, Duiverman EJ. Health-related quality of life of food allergic ...patients: comparison with the general population and other diseases. Allergy 2010; 65: 238-244. To date no studies have compared generic health-related quality of life (HRQL) of food allergic patients from childhood to adulthood with that of the general population or patients with other chronic diseases. The aim of this study was to compare generic HRQL of food allergic patients with the general population and other diseases. Generic HRQL questionnaires (CHQ-CF87 and RAND-36) were completed by 79 children, 74 adolescents and 72 adults with food allergy. The generic HRQL scores were compared with scores from published studies on the general population and patients with asthma, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), diabetes mellitus (DM) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Food allergic children and adolescents reported fewer limitations in school work due to behavioural problems (P less-than or equal to 0.013), but food allergic adolescents and adults reported more pain (P = 0.020), poorer overall health (P < 0.001), more limitations in social activities (P < 0.001) and less vitality (P = 0.002) than individuals from the general population. Food allergic patients reported poorer generic HRQL than patients with DM, but better generic HRQL than patients with RA, asthma and IBS. HRQL is impaired in food allergic adolescents and adults, compared to the general population, and it is intermediate in magnitude between DM and RA, asthma and IBS. Children show the least impact on generic HRQL from food allergy.
Fish allergy is one of the most common food allergies. The currently recommended treatment commonly consists of avoiding all fish species. Recent literature suggests that these recommendations are ...overprotective for the majority of fish-allergic patients. This review summarizes recent findings and provides practical information regarding management of fish allergy in the individual patient. After precise history taking supported by additional specific IgE measurements and/or skin prick tests, fish-allergic patients can generally be categorized into the following clinical clusters: (A) poly-sensitized patients reacting to all fish species due to their sensitization to the panallergen β-parvalbumin, (B) mono-sensitized patients with selective reactions to individual fish species only, and (C) oligo-sensitized patients reacting to several specific fish. A number of allergens including parvalbumin, enolase, and aldolase can be involved. Depending on the specific cluster the patient belongs to, oral food challenges for one or more fish species can be performed with the aim to provide safe alternatives for consumption. This way, several alternative fish species can be identified for mono- and oligo-sensitized patients that can safely be consumed. Notably, even poly-sensitized patients generally tolerate fish species low in β-parvalbumin such as tuna and mackerel, particularly when processed. Taken together, allergological evaluation of patients with a documented fish allergy should be strongly considered, as it will allow the majority of patients to safely reintroduce one or more fish species.
The most important causative factor for anaphylaxis in mastocytosis are insect stings. The purpose of this review is to analyse the available data concerning prevalence, diagnosis, safety and ...effectiveness of venom immunotherapy (VIT) in mastocytosis patients. If data were unclear, authors were contacted personally for further information. Quality of evidence (A: high, B: moderate, C: low and D: very low) and strength of recommendation (strong 1 and weak 2) concerning VIT in mastocytosis patients are assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and are marked in square brackets. Results of VIT were described in 117 patients to date. The mean rate of side‐effects during treatment in studies published so far is 23.9% (7.6% requiring adrenaline) with an overall protection rate of 72%. Based on the review we conclude that (1) mastocytosis patients have a high risk of severe sting reactions in particular to yellow jacket, (2) VIT could be suggested 2 in mastocytosis, (3) probably should be done life long 2, (4) VIT in mastocytosis is accompanied by a higher frequency of side‐effects, so (5) special precautions should be taken into account notably during the built up phase of the therapy 2, (6) VIT is able to reduce systemic reactions, but to a lesser extent compared to the general insect venom allergic population 2, so (7) patients should be warned that the efficacy of VIT might be less than optimal and they should continue carrying two adrenaline auto injectors 2.
Hymenoptera venom allergy ranks among the top three causes of anaphylaxis worldwide, and approximately one‐quarter of sting‐induced reactions are classified as severe. Fatal sting reactions are ...exceedingly rare, but certain factors may entail a considerably higher risk. Delayed administration of epinephrine and upright posture are situational risk factors which may determine an unfavorable outcome of the acute anaphylactic episode and should be addressed during individual patient education. Systemic mastocytosis and senior age are major, unmodifiable long‐term risk factors and thus reinforce the indication for venom immunotherapy. Vespid venom allergy and male sex likewise augment the risk of severe or even fatal reactions. Further studies are required to assess the impact of specific cardiovascular comorbidities. Available data regarding potential effects of beta‐blockers and/or ACE inhibitors in coexisting venom allergy are inconclusive and do not justify recommendations to discontinue guideline‐directed antihypertensive treatment. The absence of urticaria/angioedema during sting‐induced anaphylaxis is indicative of a severe reaction, serum tryptase elevation, and mast cell clonality. Determination of basal serum tryptase levels is an established diagnostic tool for risk assessment in Hymenoptera venom‐allergic patients. Measurement of platelet‐activating factor acetylhydrolase activity represents a complementary approach but is not available for routine diagnostic use.
Diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom allergy Biló, B. M.; Rueff, F.; Mosbech, H. ...
Allergy (Copenhagen),
November 2005, Letnik:
60, Številka:
11
Journal Article
Recenzirano
The purpose of diagnostic procedure is to classify a sting reaction by history, identify the underlying pathogenetic mechanism, and identify the offending insect. Diagnosis of Hymenoptera venom ...allergy thus forms the basis for the treatment. In the central and northern Europe vespid (mainly Vespula spp.) and honeybee stings are the most prevalent, whereas in the Mediterranean area stings from Polistes and Vespula are more frequent than honeybee stings; bumblebee stings are rare throughout Europe and more of an occupational hazard. Several major allergens, usually glycoproteins with a molecular weight of 10–50 kDa, have been identified in venoms of bees, vespids. and ants. The sequences and structures of the majority of venom allergens have been determined and several have been expressed in recombinant form. A particular problem in the field of cross‐reactivity are specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies directed against carbohydrate epitopes, which may induce multiple positive test results (skin test, in vitro tests) of still unknown clinical significance. Venom hypersensitivity may be mediated by immunologic mechanisms (IgE‐mediated or non‐IgE‐mediated venom allergy) but also by nonimmunologic mechanisms. Reactions to Hymenoptera stings are classified into normal local reactions, large local reactions, systemic toxic reactions, systemic anaphylactic reactions, and unusual reactions. For most venom‐allergic patients an anaphylactic reaction after a sting is very traumatic event, resulting in an altered health‐related quality of life. Risk factors influencing the outcome of an anaphylactic reaction include the time interval between stings, the number of stings, the severity of the preceding reaction, age, cardiovascular diseases and drug intake, insect type, elevated serum tryptase, and mastocytosis. Diagnostic tests should be carried out in all patients with a history of a systemic sting reaction to detect sensitization. They are not recommended in subjects with a history of large local reaction or no history of a systemic reaction. Testing comprises skin tests with Hymenoptera venoms and analysis of the serum for Hymenoptera venom‐specific IgE. Stepwise skin testing with incremental venom concentrations is recommended. If diagnostic tests are negative they should be repeated several weeks later. Serum tryptase should be analyzed in patients with a history of a severe sting reaction.
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.
PDF
