Eliciting dose is associated with tolerance development in peanut and cow's milk allergic children.

BACKGROUND: Tolerance development rates differ between food allergies. Almost all previous studies have not used the gold standard method, the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), which may affect the reported prevalence rates. Little is known about the association of the eliciting dose (ED) obtained during the initial DBPCFC with later tolerance development. METHODS: This was a retrospective, tertiary care study of children who had a positive DBPCFC to either peanut, milk or egg, and at least one follow-up food challenge (open or DBPCFC) with the same food. The association between ED and negative (tolerant) follow-up food challenge outcome was analyzed by logistic regression, with adjustment for confounders. Suspected confounders were initial DBPCFC test characteristics, atopic comorbidities and serum specific IgE (sIgE) levels. RESULTS: In 47 peanut allergic children, tolerance developed in 27.7% (median follow-up duration of 43 months). In 80 milk (follow-up 23 months) and 55 egg (follow-up 37 months) allergic children, tolerance developed in 55.0% and 65.5%. The ED obtained during the initial DBPCFC was significantly associated with tolerance development in peanut and milk allergy, but not in egg allergy. CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 out of 4 children with DBPCFC confirmed peanut allergy developed tolerance, compared to more than half of the children with milk or egg allergy, respectively. Tolerance development in peanut and milk allergy is significantly associated with ED at initial DBPCFC.

Association of STAT6 gene variants with food allergy diagnosed by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges.

This study describes the role of two STAT6 gene variants in food allergy using data of patients and their parents who underwent double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs). After quality control, 369 trios were analysed including 262 children (71.0%) with food allergy. Associations were tested by the Family based association test. The A alleles of both SNPs were associated with food allergy (P = .036 and P = .013 for rs324015 and rs1059513, respectively). Furthermore, these A alleles were associated with peanut allergy, higher sIgE levels to both peanut and cow's milk, more severe symptoms and higher eliciting doses during peanut and cow's milk DBPCFCs (all P < .05). In silico analysis indicates that the identified risk variants increase STAT6 expression which stimulates the differentiation of CD4 +  T cells to the Th2 subset. In conclusion, STAT6 variants may be involved in the pathophysiology of food allergy and their role seems to be independent of the allergenic food.

Retrospective observational cohort study regarding the effect of breastfeeding on challenge-proven food allergy.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Human breast milk is generally regarded as the best nutrition for infants in their first months of life. Whether breastfeeding has a protective effect on food allergy is a point of debate and the subject of this study. SUBJECTS/METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in 649 children who underwent a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) as part of routine care in a tertiary care clinic. Food allergy was defined as having at least one positive DBPCFC to any food. The association between both "any" breastfeeding (yes/no) and its duration in months with food allergy was studied by logistic regression analysis with correction for confounding variables. RESULTS: The prevalence of food allergy was 58.9% (n = 382). Of all subjects, 75.8% (n = 492) was breastfed and 24.2% (n = 157) bottle-fed. There was no significant association between food allergy and breastfeeding versus bottle-feeding after correction for the confounding effect of increased breastfeeding by atopic parents and a history of asthma in the child (OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.85-1.79, p = 0.27). However, in breastfed children, every additional month of breastfeeding lowered the risk for food allergy by ~4% (OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.93-0.99, p = 0.02). No confounders were identified in this association. CONCLUSION: These results show for the first time that in children investigated for possible food allergy, every additional month of breastfeeding is associated with a lower risk of developing clinical food allergy as diagnosed by DBPCFC. However, overall, there was no association between the prevalence of food allergy and breastfeeding versus bottle-feeding in this tertiary care population.

How does dose impact on the severity of food-induced allergic reactions, and can this improve risk assessment for allergenic foods?: Report from an ILSI Europe Food Allergy Task Force Expert Group and Workshop.

Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for food allergens has made considerable progress in recent years, yet acceptability of its outcomes remains stymied because of the limited extent to which it has been possible to incorporate severity as a variable. Reaction severity, particularly following accidental exposure, depends on multiple factors, related to the allergen, the host and any treatments, which might be administered. Some of these factors are plausibly still unknown. Quantitative risk assessment shows that limiting exposure through control of dose reduces the rates of reactions in allergic populations, but its impact on the relative frequency of severe reactions at different doses is unclear. Food challenge studies suggest that the relationship between dose of allergenic food and reaction severity is complex even under relatively controlled conditions. Because of these complexities, epidemiological studies provide very limited insight into this aspect of the dose-response relationship. Emerging data from single-dose challenges suggest that graded food challenges may overestimate the rate of severe reactions. It may be necessary to generate new data (such as those from single-dose challenges) to reliably identify the effect of dose on severity for use in QRA. Success will reduce uncertainty in the susceptible population and improve consumer choice.

Prediction of the severity of allergic reactions to foods.

BACKGROUND: There is currently considerable uncertainty regarding what the predictors of the severity of diagnostic or accidental food allergic reactions are, and to what extent the severity of such reactions can be predicted. OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors for the severity of diagnostic and accidental food allergic reactions and to quantify their impact. METHODS: The study population consisted of children with a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC)-confirmed food allergy to milk, egg, peanut, cashew nut, and/or hazelnut. The data were analyzed using multiple linear regression analysis. Missing values were imputed using multiple imputation techniques. Two scoring systems were used to determine the severity of the reactions. RESULTS: A total of 734 children were included. Independent predictors for the severity of the DBPCFC reaction were age (B = 0.04, P = .001), skin prick test ratio (B = 0.30, P < .001), eliciting dose (B = -0.09, P < .001), level of specific immunoglobulin E (B = 0.15, P < .001), reaction time during the DBPCFC (B = -0.01, P = .004), and severity of accidental reaction (B = 0.08, P = .015). The total explained variance of this model was 23.5%, and the eliciting dose only contributed 4.4% to the model. Independent predictors for more severe accidental reactions with an explained variance of 7.3% were age (B = 0.03, P = .014), milk as causative food (B = 0.77, P < .001), cashew as causative food (B = 0.54, P < .001), history of atopic dermatitis (B = -0.47, P = .006), and severity of DBPCFC reaction (B = 0.12, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: The severity of DBPCFCs and accidental reactions to food remains largely unpredictable. Clinicians should not use the eliciting dose obtained from a graded food challenge for the purposes of making risk-related management decisions.

Low percentage of clinically relevant pistachio nut and mango co-sensitisation in cashew nut sensitised children.

BACKGROUND: Cashew nut, pistachio nut and mango belong to the Anacardiaceae family and are botanically related. Therefore, cashew nut sensitised children are frequently advised to eliminate cashew nuts and pistachio nuts from their diet. The 'Improvement of Diagnostic mEthods for ALlergy assessment (IDEAL trial number NTR3572) study showed that cashew nut sensitised children were co-sensitised to pistachio nut in 98% of cases and to mango in 21% of cases. The aim of this follow-up study to IDEAL is to assess the clinical relevance of co-sensitisation to pistachio nut and mango in cashew nut sensitised children. METHODS: Children were recruited from the study: 'Improvement of Diagnostic mEthods for ALlergy assessment (IDEAL trial number NTR3572). Inclusion criterion for the IDEAL study was sensitization to cashew nut as demonstrated by either SPT or sIgE, and a clinical history of reactions to cashew nuts or no previous (known) exposure. Sensitized children who were tolerant to cashew nuts were excluded. Inclusion criterion for this IDEAL follow-up study was co-sensitization to pistachio nut, regardless the result of the DBPCFC with cashew nut. In this follow-up study a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge with pistachio nut and an open food challenge with mango were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-nine children (mean age of 11.6 years, 62% male) were included. Pistachio nut sensitisation was clinically relevant in only 34% of cashew-sensitised children and only 31% of cashew challenge positive children. None of the children was challenge positive to mango. CONCLUSION: Although co-sensitisation between cashew nut and pistachio nut was observed in 98%, pistachio nut sensitisation was only clinically relevant in 34% of the children. Therefore, a challenge test with pistachio nut is recommended in children with cashew nut and pistachio nut sensitisation. Trial registration The study was registered in the Dutch trial register (registration number 3572) on 10 August 2012 (retrospectively registered).

Incomplete and incorrect epinephrine auto-injector training to food-allergic patients by pharmacists in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Successful treatment of anaphylaxis in the community relies on early and correct use of epinephrine auto-injectors (EAI). In the Netherlands, pharmacists supply EAIs to patients and have a crucial role in instructing patients in how and when to use EAI. However, there are currently no data in Europe on the quality of such instruction provided by pharmacists. Therefore, the aims of this study were to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding food allergy among pharmacists in the Netherlands and to investigate the quality of EAI instructions and demonstrations to patients by pharmacists. METHODS: Pharmacists were asked to complete an online questionnaire. Quality of instructions and demonstration accuracy were assessed in mystery guest visits to randomly selected pharmacies. For the statistical analysis, descriptive methods were used. RESULTS: In total, 25 of 115 questionnaires were completed. Only two (8%) respondents gave correct answers concerning the proper EAI demonstration. Twenty-one (84%) respondents thought that the provision of instructions was the responsibility of pharmacists. In total, ten pharmacies were included in simulated patient visits. Five of them (50%) demonstrated the EAI. None of them demonstrated the EAI use correctly. CONCLUSION: Food-allergic patients at high risk for anaphylaxis who receive their EAI from a community pharmacy are often not instructed on how to use an EAI or receive incorrect instructions. Pharmacists show considerable gaps in knowledge about food allergy and its management. These data suggest that opportunities exist to improve the quality of care provided by pharmacies to high-risk food-allergic patients.

sIgE Ana o 1, 2 and 3 accurately distinguish tolerant from allergic children sensitized to cashew nuts.

BACKGROUND: The double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge test (DBPCFC) is the gold standard in cashew nut allergy. This test is costly, time consuming and not without side effects. Analysis of IgE reactivity to cashew nut components may reduce the need for food challenge tests. METHODS: In a prospective and multicentre study, children with suspected cashew nut allergy underwent a DBPCFC with cashew nut. Specific IgE to cashew nut and to the components Ana o 1, 2 and 3 were determined. A skin prick test (SPT) with cashew nut extract was performed. The association between the outcome of the food challenge test and specific IgE to Ana o 1, 2 and 3 was assessed with logistic regression analyses, unadjusted and adjusted for other diagnostic variables. Discriminative ability was quantified with a concordance index (c). RESULTS: A total of 173 children (103 boys, 60%) with a median age of 9 years were included. About 79% had a positive challenge test outcome. A steep rise in the risk of a positive challenge was observed for specific IgE to each individual component Ana o 1, 2 and 3 with estimated risks up to approximately 100%. Median values of Ana o 1, 2, 3 were 1.29 kU/l (range 0-100 kU/l), 4.77 kU/l (range 0-100 kU/l) and 8.33 kU/l (range 0-100 kU/l) respectively and varied significantly (p < 0.001). Specific IgE to Ana o 1, 2 and 3 was better distinguished between cashew-allergic and tolerant children (c = 0.87, 0.85 and 0.89, respectively) than specific IgE to cashew nut or SPT (c = 0.76 and 0.83, respectively). CONCLUSION: The major cashew nut allergens Ana o 1, 2 and 3 are each individually predictive for the outcome of food challenge tests in cashew-allergic children.

Dutch guideline on food allergy.

The diagnosis of food allergy is established in cases where an immediate allergic reaction has occurred in the last year to a clearly identifiable allergenic food combined with sensitisation to this allergenic food. In all other cases, a food challenge test is required to establish or reject the diagnosis of food allergy. Although the double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) test is considered the gold standard, false-positive and false-negative outcomes occur. The incidence of false-positive outcomes is unknown because the results of DBPCFC tests cannot be further confirmed by other tests. If possible, it is important to perform double-blind challenges with recipes that have been validated for blinding and to use challenge procedures that have been proven safe in clinical practice, in order to reduce the risk of unwanted false-positive and false-negative outcomes and severe challenge reactions. The national guideline of the Dutch Society of Allergology describes when challenges are indicated and contraindicated, how food challenges are best conducted and how patients could best be managed and followed-up after the challenge tests have been completed.

No difference in health-related quality of life, after a food challenge with cashew nut in children participating in a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies showed that health-related quality of life (HRQL) significantly improved after the food challenge, with greater improvements in HRQL after a negative outcome than after a positive outcome. It is currently unknown whether this also occurs in patients undergoing DBPCFCs with cashew nut in the context of a clinical trial. METHODS: Quality of life was studied in children enrolled in a cashew nut study using Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaires (FAQLQs). Children, teenagers and parents of the children completed the questionnaires before the challenge test and 6 months after the DBPCFC with cashew nut. The difference in the change in HRQL between the children with a positive and negative DBPCFC outcome was studied by Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: In total, 112 children (67 boys, median age of 9 years) were included. The children, teenagers and parents of the children completed 143 sets of questionnaires in total. There were no significant differences in baseline total and domain scores compared to the follow-up scores in the FAQLQ-CF, FAQLQ-TF and FAQLQ-PF. In children, the delta FAIM score in the negative DBPCFC tested group was significantly better than the delta FAIM score in the positive challenged group (p = 0.026). There were no significant differences in the changes in the scores of the FAQLQ-CF and FAQLQ-PF in the children with a positive challenge outcome, compared to the children with a negative challenge result. However, there was a significant difference in the change in score between the latter groups in the domain 'accidental exposure' of the FAQLQ-TF (p = 0.049). CONCLUSION: This study showed no difference in the change in HRQL scores after a DBPCFC with cashew nut in children participating in a clinical trial. The utility of HRQL as an outcome for clinical trials in food allergy may be limited if participant baseline HRQL is relatively unimpaired.

Late reactions in food-allergic children and adolescents after double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges.

The time during which children are observed following a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) varies in clinical practice. There are little data on late reactions (LRs) following DBPCFCs. Therefore, we determined the prevalence, severity and clinical characteristics of late reactions in food-allergic children and adolescents after DBPCFC, and ascertained which factors are associated with, and may predict, LRs. Logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate which factors were associated with LRs and to develop the association and prediction models. A total of 1142 children underwent DBPCFCs (child-test combinations). Of these 1142 child-test combinations, 400 reported LRs following the DBPCFC. LRs in food-allergic children after DBPCFC are poorly predictable and are generally not severe. All LRs, including those on the placebo day, are more frequently reported in younger children. Children who do not experience severe immediate reactions may be safely discharged home 2 h after a DBPCFC.

The compliance and burden of treatment with the epinephrine auto-injector in food-allergic adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Food-allergic patients at high risk of potential fatal anaphylaxis should carry an epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) at all times. This treatment may be perceived as burdensome and this may affect compliance and health-related quality of life (HRQL). The aims of the study were (1) to determine the burden of treatment (BoT) of an EAI, (2) to examine the relationship between this burden and compliance, and (3) to analyze which factors contribute to the BoT of the EAI as perceived by food-allergic adolescents and their parents. METHODS: Dutch food-allergic adolescents prescribed an EAI, and their parents completed a questionnaire package (n = 55). Relationships between BoT and HRQL, illness severity and perception, and anxiety measures were investigated. RESULTS: Food-allergic adolescents and their parents were (extremely) positive about the EAI (54.5%; 72.7%, respectively) (=low BoT). The BoT measure showed a significantly greater burden in food-allergic adolescents prescribed an EAI who reported not carrying the EAI at all times than adolescents who reported they did. The BoT scores of both adolescents and their parents were not associated with HRQL, illness severity and perception, or trait anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of food-allergic adolescents and their parents were positive about the EAI (=low BoT). However, the BoT was significantly associated with self-reported compliance with carrying the EAI. The BoT was higher in food-allergic adolescents prescribed an EAI who reported not carrying the EAI at all times. The BoT measure seems to be a useful tool to study compliance with carrying an EAI. The BoT of an EAI is not associated with HRQL. The BoT measures a distinct concept related to compliance behavior.

Epinephrine auto-injector prescriptions to food-allergic patients in primary care in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The knowledge of general practitioner(s) (GPs) regarding food allergy and anaphylaxis and practices in the prescription of epinephrine auto-injector(s) (EAIs) among GPs has previously only been studied using questionnaires and hypothetical cases. Therefore, there are currently no data as to whether or not GPs prescribe EAIs to high risk food-allergic patients presenting to primary care practices. The aim of this study was therefore to describe and evaluate practice in EAI prescription by GPs to food-allergic patients in The Netherlands. METHODS: Patients aged 12-23 years who consulted their GP for allergic symptoms were identified in a primary care database. Patients were classified as probably or unlikely to be food-allergic. A risk factor assessment was done to identify probably food-allergic patients at high risk for anaphylaxis to assess the need for an EAI. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight out of 1015 patients consulted their GP for allergic symptoms due to food. Eighty patients were excluded from analysis because of incomplete records. Thirty-four patients were classified as probably food-allergic. Twenty-seven of them were considered high risk patients and candidates for an EAI. Importantly, only 10 of them had actually been prescribed an EAI by their GP. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that high risk food-allergic patients that visit their GPs are often not prescribed an EAI. Thus, previously identified low rates of EAI ownership may be partly due to GPs not prescribing this medication to patients for whom it would be appropriate to do so. These data suggest that there is a need for improvement of the quality of care for high risk food-allergic patients in primary care.

First successful reduction of clinical allergenicity of food by genetic modification: Mal d 1-silenced apples cause fewer allergy symptoms than the wild-type cultivar.

BACKGROUND: Genetic modification of allergenic foods such as apple has the potential to reduce their clinical allergenicity, but this has never been studied by oral challenges in allergic individuals. METHODS: We performed oral food challenges in 21 apple-allergic individuals with Elstar apples which had undergone gene silencing of the major allergen of apple, Mal d 1, by RNA interference. Downregulation of Mal d 1 gene expression in the apples was verified by qRT-PCR. Clinical responses to the genetically modified apples were compared to those seen with the wild-type Elstar using a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: Gene silencing produced two genetically modified apple lines expressing Mal d 1.02 and other Mal d 1 gene mRNA levels which were extensively downregulated, that is only 0.1-16.4% (e-DR1) and 0.2-9.9% (e-DR2) of those of the wild-type Elstar, respectively. Challenges with these downregulated apple lines produced significantly less intense maximal symptoms to the first dose (Vmax1) than with Elstar (Vmax1 Elstar 3.0 mm vs 0.0 mm for e-DR1, P = 0.017 and 0.0 mm for e-DR2, P = 0.043), as well as significantly less intense mean symptoms per dose (meanV/d) than with Elstar (meanV/d Elstar 2.2 mm vs 0.2 mm for e-DR1, P = 0.017 and 0.0 mm for e-DR2, P = 0.043). Only one subject (5%) remained symptom-free when challenged with the Elstar apple, whereas 43% did so with e-DR1 and 63% with e-DR2. CONCLUSION: These data show that mRNA silencing of Mal d 1 results in a marked reduction of Mal d 1 gene expression in the fruit and reduction of symptoms when these apples are ingested by allergic subjects. Approximately half of the subjects developed no symptoms whatsoever, and virtually all subjects wished to consume the apple again in the future.

The effects of food allergy on quality of life.

The majority of research on food allergy has been bio-medical in orientation, focusing on issues such as the molecular structure of allergens, or aimed at methods of diagnosis. In the last decade, there has been a growing interest in the development of questionnaires that measure the impact of food allergy on health-related quality of life (HRQL). These studies have provided insight into the everyday burden of living with food allergy and have suggested ways that HRQL can be improved. The EuroPrevall project (europrevall@bbsrc.ac.uk) has given great impetus to research in the area of HRQL. In addition to clinical research on the prevalence, mechanisms and causes of food allergy, research output in the area of psycho-social impact has included HRQL measures for all age groups and examination of the socio-economic impact of food allergy. In this chapter, we review the literature on the impact of food allergy on children, teens and their parents; the majority of this data was generated over the life of the EuroPrevall project. We then examine both quantitative and qualitative research findings to provide an in-depth picture of the impact of food allergy on the concerns and everyday lives of children, teens, adults and parents. Research on factors that are related to and impact HRQL is also discussed. There is a strong emphasis throughout the chapter on developmental considerations of food allergy, spanning from infants to adults. We conclude by discussing methodological issues in relation to the measurement of HRQL in relation to food allergy. We offer some recommendations for future research and practice on HRQL so that HRQL measures can reach their full potential in research, practice and policy, with the help of the findings in this review. Overall, the findings suggest that food allergy has a strong impact on HRQL in terms of social, dietary, and psychological factors. 'Rules' and restrictions ostensibly apply to food, but because food is such an integral part of everyday life, these restrictions extend far beyond 'mealtimes'. Therefore, social events are experienced differently and have a different meaning for those living with food allergy, giving rise to feelings of exclusion and difference when compared to those without allergy. Children, teens, and parents need to cope with normal developmental changes as well as with the food allergy, placing them under increased psycho-social stress and leading to adverse effects on HRQL and coping. To address and attempt to alleviate such stressors, both quantitative and qualitative research suggests that targeting uncertainty should be a major goal for health professionals working with children, teens and families with a food allergy. Remarkable similarities in response to food allergy across countries suggest that policies and programmes that address quality of life issues may be relevant to many different populations. An in-depth understanding of the relationship between a diagnosis of food allergy and HRQL, as well as the factors that impact it, will ultimately lead to the promotion of earlier, more effective preventive strategies and interventions that are focused on maximising optimal health development and quality of life.

Loss-of-function variants of the filaggrin gene are associated with clinical reactivity to foods.

The aim of this study was to assess the genetic association of Filaggrin loss-of-function (FLG LOF) genetic variants with food allergy, and to investigate the added value of this test in diagnosing food allergy. Clinical reactivity to foods was diagnosed by the gold standard, the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Of 155 children, 33 (21.3%) children had at least one FLG LOF variant, and of these, 29 (87.9%) were clinically reactive to at least one food, compared to 73 of 122 children (59.8%) carrying wild-type alleles. The odds ratio for having at least one FLG LOF variant and clinical reactivity to at least one food was 4.9 (CI = 1.6-14.7, P = 0.005), corresponding to a relative risk of 1.5, compared to carriers of wild-type alleles. Prediction of food allergy improved when FLG LOF variants were included in the model. Therefore, genetic markers may be useful as an addition to clinical assessment in the diagnosis of food allergy.

Predictors of health-related quality of life of European food-allergic patients.

BACKGROUND: Although food allergy has universally been found to impair HRQL, studies have found significant differences in HRQL between countries, even when corrected for differences in perceived disease severity. However, little is known about factors other than disease severity which may contribute to HRQL in food-allergic patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify factors which may predict HRQL of food-allergic patients and also to investigate the specific impact of having experienced anaphylaxis and being prescribed an EAI on HRQL. METHODS: A total of 648 European food-allergic patients (404 adults, 244 children) completed an age-specific questionnaire package including descriptive questions. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to develop models for predicting HRQL of these patients. RESULTS: For adults, the prediction model accounted for 62% of the variance in HRQL and included perceived disease severity, type of symptoms, having a fish or milk allergy, and gender. For children, the prediction model accounted for 28% of the variance in HRQL and included perceived disease severity, having a peanut or soy allergy, and country of origin. For both adults and children, neither experiencing anaphylaxis nor being prescribed an epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) contributed to impairment of HRQL. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, food allergy-related HRQL may be predicted to a greater extent in adults than in children. Allergy to certain foods may cause greater HRQL impairment than others. Country of origin may affect HRQL, at least in children. Experiencing anaphylaxis or being prescribed an EAI has no impact on HRQL in either adults or children.

Anaphylaxis: guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

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.