Time to ACT-UP: Update on precautionary allergen labelling (PAL).

Background: Precautionary Allergen ("may contain") Labelling (PAL) is used by industry to communicate potential risk to food-allergic individuals posed by unintended allergen presence (UAP). In 2014, the World Allergy Organization (WAO) highlighted that PAL use was increasing, but often applied inconsistently and without regulation - which reduces its usefulness to consumers with food allergy and those purchasing food for them. WAO proposed the need for a regulated, international framework to underpin application of PAL. In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations convened an expert consultation to address the issue of PAL, the outputs of which are now being considered by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL). Objectives: To summarise the latest data to inform the application of PAL in a more systematic way, for implementation into global food standards. Methods: A non-systematic review of issues surrounding precautionary labelling and food allergens in pre-packaged products. Results: Approximately, 100 countries around the world have legislation on the declaration of allergenic ingredients. Just a few have legislation on UAP. Given the risks that UAP entails, non-regulated PAL creates inconvenience in real life due to its unequal, difficult interpretation by patients. The attempts made so far to rationalize PAL present lights and shadows. Conclusions: At a time when CCFL is considering the results of the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation 2020-2023, we summarise the prospects to develop an effective and homogeneous legislation at a global level, and the areas of uncertainty that might hinder international agreement on a regulated framework for PAL of food allergens.

Who is at-risk for severe anaphylaxis in France?

Background: The understanding of risk factors related to severe anaphylaxis is key to implementing prevention strategies. We present the first French population-based nine-year anaphylaxis hospitalization study evaluating specific trends and factors related to severe anaphylaxis (SA), to support identification of phenotypes at-risk. Methods: This study used descriptive data from the French hospitalization database for the years 2012-2021, and included all patients hospitalized with anaphylaxis using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes listed as a primary diagnosis. SA were cases that either required a hospitalization in intensive care units or resulted in death. Potential risk factors were identified according to corresponding ICD codes, available as secondary data during the patient's hospitalization. Results: The average hospitalization rate of all cases of anaphylaxis (SA and non-SA) was 1.34/100,000/year, and rate of admissions for SA was 0.08/100,000/year. Among the 5463 SA, 37.7% had unspecified coding label, when trigger was not identified. For SA cases in which trigger was identified, most were related to drugs (45.6%), followed by food (9.3%) and insect sting (7.2%). Overall, admissions due to anaphylaxis (SA and non-SA) were more frequent in males (57%). However, when the trigger was drugs, the proportion was significantly higher in females. For children aged 5-9 years, the most common trigger for SA was food. Patients for which SA was triggered by insect stings were identified exclusively in the 10-14 years age group. Chronic spontaneous urticaria was associated with insect sting-induced anaphylaxis, regardless of the severity. Angioedema was associated with all causes of SA. Cases of anaphylaxis presenting with urticaria and angioedema included cases with identified and unidentified triggers. Asthma and a personal history of allergy were associated with drug- and food-induced anaphylaxis. Conclusion: This is the first study to provide data on severe phenotypes of anaphylaxis in France. Data presented is key to the implementation of public health actions and preventive strategies to improve quality care.

Allergic and hypersensitivity condition in the International Patients' Summary (IPS) standard: The need of updates through the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11.

In 2010, the United States Human and Health Services (US HHS) and the European Union's (EU) Directorate General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology signed a memorandum of understanding to stimulate cooperation surrounding health-related information communications technology. The key project that emerged from this agreement is the International Patient Summary (IPS), intended to provide succinct clinically relevant patient summaries, which are generalizable and condition-independent, that can be readily used by all clinicians for the care of patients. Although allergies are included in the main information required by the IPS library and framework, it is misrepresented which leads to underdiagnosis or misdiagnosis of patients suffering from allergic and hypersensitivity conditions (A/H). The French and Montpellier World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centres have provided arguments for supporting representation of A/H in the IPS. These are based on the relevance of the new classification of A/H in the WHO International Classification of Diseases 11th version (ICD-11), and the need for alignment of eHealth tools with harmonized health information. We first present the A/H in the IPS initiative with the mission of producing an international information system that can be used globally in electronic health records to standardize clinical diagnoses and facilitate communication between clinicians caring for patients with A/H diseases. It is believed this initiative will provide a strong voice for the allergy community and an effective process for improving the quality of health data that will optimize medical care for our patients worldwide.

Evidence-based data support strategies for the prevention of Hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to identify phenotypes at-risk of Hymenoptera venom-induced anaphylaxis (HVA), focusing on different perspectives (epidemiological, clinical, and therapeutic) in order to adapt future preventive strategies. RECENT FINDINGS: HVA remains one of the leading causes of anaphylaxis, with a broad pattern of symptoms. Although most cases occur outside healthcare settings, data indicate a high emergency admission rate due to insect stings. Mortality is often underestimated because of the lack of witnesses and difficulties in recognizing the signs and the culprit. Targeting risk factors could be a clue to improve these statistics and the prognosis of the disease.Potential risk factors for severe HVA in the European population are basal serum tryptase (BST) above 8 µg, mast cell disorders, the absence of skin symptoms, and cardiovascular conditions requiring the use of beta blockers and ACE inhibitors. Identifying these criteria, mainly based on clinical patterns, helps to develop personalized strategies for management and prevention. SUMMARY: With a personalized medicine approach, phenotypes must be characterized to adapt to the management of patients suffering from Hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis (HVA), including venom immunotherapy (VIT). In this systematic review, all articles mentioned systemic reactions with heterogeneous severity degrees. Half of those reported grade III-IV systemic reactions (Ring and Messmer). HVA clinical patterns could be worsened by one Hymenoptera sting, a patient's history with mast cell disorders, or cardiovascular diseases. VIT failure was attributed to bee venom extract and monotherapy in two-thirds of publications. Findings stress the difficulty of having uniform epidemiological data on HVA and the lack of financial support in some world regions to support appropriate management of these conditions. Although observing a heterogeneity of data, we were able to identify potential risk factors, in particular for the severe cases. We believe our work will support allergists and health professionals to implement improved personalized management of patients suffering from severe HVA.

Management of Refractory Anaphylaxis: An Overview of Current Guidelines.

In this review, we compare different refractory anaphylaxis (RA) management guidelines focusing on cardiovascular involvement and best practice recommendations, discuss postulated pathogenic mechanisms underlining RA and highlight knowledge gaps and research priorities. There is a paucity of data supporting existing management guidelines. Therapeutic recommendations include the need for the timely administration of appropriate doses of aggressive fluid resuscitation and intravenous (IV) adrenaline in RA. The preferred second-line vasopressor (noradrenaline, vasopressin, metaraminol and dopamine) is unknown. Most guidelines recommend IV glucagon for patients on beta-blockers, despite a lack of evidence. The use of methylene blue or extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is also suggested as rescue therapy. Despite recent advances in understanding the pathogenesis of anaphylaxis, the factors that lead to a lack of response to the initial adrenaline and thus RA are unclear. Genetic factors, such as deficiency in platelet activating factor-acetyl hydrolase or hereditary alpha-tryptasaemia, mastocytosis may modulate reaction severity or response to treatment. Further research into the underlying pathophysiology of RA may help define potential new therapeutic approaches and reduce the morbidity and mortality of anaphylaxis.

Drug allergy awareness and perspectives with the implementation of the International Classification of Diseases-11.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To understand the current global scale of drug hypersensitivity (DH) and drug allergy (DA), and to identify possible strategies to increase the accuracy of epidemiological data. RECENT FINDINGS: Global patterns of DH/DA seem to be changing and increasing worldwide, but there are still great challenges in capturing quality DH/DA mortality and morbidity statistics (MMS). DH/DA MMS may gain new perspectives with the global implementation of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11. Improving the quality of epidemiological data related to DH/DA should clarify areas of uncertainty, which would lead to better strategies to reduce the burden of these conditions. SUMMARY: DH/DA remains a complex and unaddressed problem globally that often deprives patients of optimal medication choices and places them at risk for life-threatening reactions. DH/DA labels should contribute to people well being, by protecting true allergic individuals from being re-exposed to their allergic drugs and providing needed medications to individuals wrongly labeled as allergic or who have lost allergic sensitivity. The true rate of DH/DA is in fact unknown due to a number of factors, such as misdiagnosis, miscoding and under- and over-notification, among others. Moreover, there is lack of data about DH/DA epidemiology in many countries. Difficulties on collecting accurate and comparable data should be acknowledged, with great impact in the correct labeling DH/DA in electronic health records and official statistics. More accurate definitions, classification and coding may contribute to a better-quality MMS thanks to the ICD-11, under implementation worldwide. Improving the quality of epidemiological data related to DH/DA should clarify areas of uncertainty, which would lead to better strategies to reduce the burden of these conditions. As knowledge derived from populations is key information for more realistic decision-making, the construction of the new section addressed to DH/DA in the ICD-11 will allow the collection of more accurate epidemiological data to support quality management of patients, and facilitate healthcare planning to implement public health measures to prevent and reduce the morbidity and mortality attributable to these conditions.

Updated grading system for systemic allergic reactions: Joint Statement of the World Allergy Organization Anaphylaxis Committee and Allergen Immunotherapy Committee.

There is a lack of consensus over the description and severity assignment of allergic adverse reactions to immunotherapy, although there seems to be a consensus at least in terms of using the World Allergy Organization (WAO) grading systems to describe local adverse events for Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT) and Systemic Allergic Reactions (SARs) to Subcutaneous Immunotherapy (SCIT) amongst the major national/regional allergy societies. In this manuscript, we propose a modification of the previous WAO Grading system for SARs, which aligns with the newly-proposed Consortium for Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions in Food Allergy (version 3.0). We hope this can facilitate a unified grading system appropriate to SARs due to allergen immunotherapy, independent of allergen and route of administration, and across clinical and research practice.

Anaphylaxis mortality in the perioperative setting: Epidemiology, elicitors, risk factors and knowledge gaps.

Perioperative anaphylaxis (PA) is a severe condition that can be fatal, but data on PA mortality are scarce. The aim of this article is to review the epidemiology, elicitors and risk factors for PA mortality and identify knowledge gaps and areas for improvement regarding the management of severe PA. PA affects about 100 cases per million procedures. Mortality is rare, estimated at 3 to 5 cases per million procedures, but the PA mortality rate is higher than for other anaphylaxis aetiologies, at 1.4% to 4.8%. However, the data are incomplete. Published data mention neuromuscular blocking agents and antibiotics, mainly penicillin and cefazolin, as the main causes of fatal PA. Reported risk factors for fatal PA vary in different countries. Most frequently occurring comorbidities are obesity, male gender, cardiovascular diseases and ongoing treatment with beta-blockers. However, there are no clues about how these factors interact and the impact of individual risk factors. The pathophysiology of fatal PA is still not completely known. Genetic factors such as deficiency in PAF-acetyl hydrolase and hereditary alpha-tryptasemia, have been reported as modulators of severe anaphylaxis and possible targets for specific treatments. Our review underlines unmet needs in the field of fatal PA. Although we confirmed the need for timely administration of an adequate dose of adrenaline and the proper infusion of fluids, there is no evidence-based data on the proper dose of intravenous titrated adrenaline and which clinical manifestations would flag the need for fluid therapy. There are no large clinical studies supporting the administration of alternative vasopressors, such as glucagon and methylene blue. Further research on pathophysiological mechanisms of PA and its severity may address these issues and help clinicians to define new therapeutic approaches.

Changing patterns in the epidemiology of drug allergy.

Drug allergy (DA) remains a complex and unaddressed problem worldwide that often deprives patients of optimal medication choices and places them at risk for life-threatening reactions. Underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis are common and due to the lack of standardized definitions and biomarkers. The true burden of DA is unknown, and recent efforts in data gathering through electronic medical records are starting to provide emerging patterns around the world. Ten percent of the general population engaged in health care claim to have a DA, and the most common label is penicillin allergy. Up to 20% of emergency room visits for anaphylaxis are due to DA and 15%-20% of hospitalized patients report DA. It is estimated that DA will increase based on the availability and use of new and targeted antibiotics, vaccines, chemotherapies, biologicals, and small molecules, which are aimed at improving patient's options and quality of life. Global and regional variations in the prevalence of diseases such as human immunodeficiency virus and mycobacterial diseases, and the drugs used to treat these infections have an impact on DA. The aim of this review is to provide an update on the global impact of DA by presenting emerging data on drug epidemiology in adult and pediatric populations.

Global disparities in availability of epinephrine auto-injectors.

Background: Anaphylaxis is the most severe clinical presentation of acute systemic allergic reactions and can cause death. Given the prevalence of anaphylaxis within healthcare systems, it is a high priority public health issue. However, management of anaphylaxis - both acute and preventative - varies by region. Methods: The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Anaphylaxis Committee and the WAO Junior Members Steering Group undertook a global online survey to evaluate local practice in the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis across regions. Results: Responses were received from WAO members in 66 countries. While intramuscular epinephrine (adrenaline) is first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, some countries continue to recommend alternative routes in contrast to guidelines. Epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) devices, prescribed to individuals at ongoing risk of anaphylaxis in the community setting, are only available in 60% of countries surveyed, mainly in high-income countries. Many countries in South America, Africa/Middle-East and Asian-Pacific regions do not have EAI available, or depend on individual importation. In countries where EAIs are commercially available, national policies regarding the availability of EAIs in public settings are limited to few countries (16%). There is no consensus regarding the time patients should be observed following emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. Conclusion: This survey provides a global snapshot view of the current management of anaphylaxis, and highlights key unmet needs including the global availability of epinephrine for self-injection as a key component of anaphylaxis management.

Anaphylaxis management in a French pediatric emergency department: Lessons from the ANA-PED study.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is a serious systemic hypersensitivity reaction that requires immediate recognition and prompt administration of epinephrine/adrenaline. The present study aimed to assess the appropriateness of epinephrine/adrenaline use in children identified as allergic by physicians in the emergency department (ED) at the time of the reaction, and to identify factors that are possibly associated with epinephrine/adrenaline administration, auto-injector prescription, and further referral to an allergist. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study at the pediatric ED of the University Hospital of Montpellier, France. We included all consecutive children who attended the ED between 2016 and 2020 with an allergy-related diagnosis at discharge. RESULTS: We included 1056 allergy-related visits, including 224 (21.2%) with a diagnosis of anaphylaxis at discharge; only 17.0% of them received an epinephrine/adrenaline injection, and 57.1% consulted an allergist after the acute episode. An auto-injector was prescribed to 63 (28.1%) patients at discharge from the ED. Besides the severity of the clinical presentation, factors associated with a guidelines-based management of the anaphylactic reaction and with an increased administration rate of epinephrine/adrenaline included presence of asthma symptoms and presence of extended skin reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underlines persistent gaps in the management of pediatric anaphylaxis in ED, focusing on hereby identified levers. By disseminating current knowledge and guidelines on anaphylaxis and allergies, specialists could work together with emergency physicians to establish effective management algorithms and improve anaphylaxis management and care pathways for children experiencing allergic reactions, especially anaphylaxis. TRAIL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials, number NCT05112367.

Epidemiology of anaphylaxis: is the trend still going up?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To understand the current global scale of anaphylaxis and identify possible strategies to increase the accuracy of epidemiological data. RECENT FINDINGS: Anaphylaxis mortality and morbidity statistics may gain new perspectives with the global implementation of the ICD-11. Improving the quality of epidemiological data related to anaphylaxis should clarify some areas of uncertainty about risk factors, leading to better targeting of strategies to protect those patients at risk, and support decision-making to facilitate health care planning and implementation of public health measures to prevent anaphylaxis. SUMMARY: The true rate of anaphylaxis is unknown due to a number of factors, such as misdiagnosis, miscoding and undernotification. Moreover, there is lack of information about anaphylaxis epidemiology in many countries. Difficulties on collecting accurate and comparable data should be acknowledged and anaphylaxis data can vary widely. Currently, most robust data are derived from hospitalization datasets and national mortality databases. Anaphylaxis accounts for up to 0.26% of overall hospital admissions. It is suggested that the number of hospital admissions for anaphylaxis is increasing in many countries, both with respect to all-causes of anaphylaxis and by trigger, but the mortality rate remains low. However, there are still great challenges in capturing quality anaphylaxis mortality and morbidity statistics. Better understanding of anaphylaxis trends should clarify some areas of uncertainty about risk factors and prospect effective prevention strategies. As the knowledge derived from populations is key information for more realistic decision-making, the construction of the new section addressed to anaphylaxis in the ICD-11 will allow the collection of more accurate epidemiological data to support high quality management of patients, and to better facilitate health care planning to implement public health measures, reduce the morbidity and mortality attributable to anaphylaxis.

Drug allergy in primary care: systematic review to support quality improvement initiative of management and optimization of healthcare pathways.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this study was to review the practice of general practitioners (GPs) in regard to the diagnosis and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to identify major challenges and to facilitate the development of decision support tools to GPs confronted with DHRs patients. RECENT FINDINGS: DHRs are still a challenge in the GPs clinical practice, which implies difficulties in clinical decisions and referral to allergy specialists. SUMMARY: DHRs can range from mild to severe and even life-threatening. Drugs are the main cause of anaphylaxis deaths in most countries. Most DHRs are firstly seen by GPs, paediatricians or emergency doctors. However, our systematic review demonstrated difficulties in differentiating DHRs from other drug side effects. Most DHRs epidemiological data are from hospital and emergency departments, which may not reflect the real-life experience in primary care. GPs should be aware of the alert signs of DHRs: the involvement of other systems beyond the skin and/or atypical skin/ mucosal involvement, which mandated immediate referral to an emergency department. Data still stress difficulties in the recognition of DHRs clinical manifestations and highlight the need for decision aids to support their management by GPs. Structured clinical history and clinical examination are key diagnostic tools. Reasons for referring to allergy specialists based on the literature are to investigate cause, to undergo specific procedure, such as desensitization and to identify well tolerated, alternative drugs.

Optimization of the allergen classification of the International Classification Of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11).

BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis of triggers or causative allergens is essential for appropriate risk assessment, providing correct advice to patients with allergy and their caregivers and personalized treatment. However, allergens have never been represented in the World Health Organization International Classification of Diseases (ICD). OBJECTIVE: In this article, we present the process of selection of allergens to better fit the ICD, 11th Revision (ICD-11) structure and the outcomes of this process. METHODS: The Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes database, containing 1444 allergens, was used as the basis for the selection process. Two independent experts were responsible for the first selection of the allergens according to specific technical criteria. The second step of the selection process was based on real-life relevance of the allergens according to the frequency of requests regarding each of them. RESULTS: We selected 1109 allergens (76.8%) from all 1444 present in the Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes database, with considerable agreement between experts (Cohen κ = 8.6). After assessment of real-life data, 297 additional relevant allergens worldwide were selected and grouped as plants (36.4%), drugs (32.6%), animal proteins (21%), mold and other microorganisms (1.5%), occupational allergens (0.4%), and miscellaneous allergens (0.5%). CONCLUSION: The stepwise approach allowed us to select the most relevant allergens in practice, which is the first step to building a classification of allergens for the WHO ICD-11. Aligned with the achievement in the construction of the pioneer section addressed to the allergic and hypersensitivity conditions in the ICD-11, the introduction of a classification for allergens can be considered timely and much needed in clinical practice.