The Need for Required Stock Epinephrine in All Schools: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee.

Epinephrine is the first line of treatment for anaphylaxis that can occur outside a medical setting in community environments such as schools. Patients with diagnosed IgE-mediated food allergy at risk of anaphylaxis are prescribed self-injectable epinephrine and given an individualized anaphylaxis action plan. As students, such patients/families provide their school with completed medication forms, a copy of their anaphylaxis plan, and additional student-specific epinephrine. However, students approved to self-carry prescribed self-injectable epinephrine may forget to do so or have other reasons for lacking prescribed epinephrine such as familial inability to fill the prescription due to cost or other access barriers. Undiagnosed students lacking prescribed epinephrine may also experience anaphylaxis at school. The presence of non-student-specific school stock epinephrine allows school nurses and other staff the ability to treat anaphylaxis onsite while awaiting Emergency Medical Services. Notably, not all states legally mandate K-12 schools to stock epinephrine. In states with laws only voluntarily allowing schools to stock epinephrine, it provides the ability to opt-out. Herein, we present a comprehensive review of barriers to school stock epinephrine, related improvement strategies, and workgroup recommendations supporting the need for mandated stock epinephrine in all schools in every state. Proposed solutions include ensuring legal immunity from liability for prescribers; advocacy for legislation to stabilize cost of self-injectable epinephrine; educational initiatives to schools promoting merits and safety of epinephrine and related anaphylaxis training; and partnerships between patient advocacy groups, medical and nursing organizations, public health departments and other health professionals to promote laws and district policies addressing need for stock epinephrine and school nurses to train and supervise school staff.

Children and caregiver proxy quality of life from peanut oral immunotherapy trials.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is significantly and substantially reduced in individuals with peanut allergy due to many factors associated with unanticipated or potentially fatal reactions. Further insight on the impact of peanut oral immunotherapy in managing peanut allergy on HRQoL is needed. The aim of this analysis was to assess effects of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH), a biologic drug for peanut oral immunotherapy, on HRQoL from three phase 3 and two follow-on trials of PTAH. METHODS: HRQoL assessments from participants aged 4-17 in the PALISADE (ARC003), ARC004 (PALISADE follow-on), ARTEMIS (ARC010), RAMSES (ARC007), and ARC011 (RAMSES follow-on) trials were included in this analysis. Responses on the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire (FAQLQ) and Food Allergy Independent Measure (FAIM) were evaluated by age group and respondent (self or caregiver proxy). Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Student t tests. RESULTS: Baseline FAQLQ and FAIM total scores appeared comparable between PTAH- and placebo-treated participants. Self and caregiver proxy-reported total scores on the FAQLQ for PTAH-treated participants generally improved at trial exit versus baseline; FAIM total scores improved throughout all trials. The tendency for improvement in FAQLQ total scores from baseline for PTAH appeared larger in self versus caregiver proxy-reports. Between treatment groups, PTAH was generally favored in the PALISADE and ARTEMIS trials; differences varied in the RAMSES trial based on age and respondent types. CONCLUSIONS: PTAH for the management of peanut allergy in children appeared to have a beneficial effect on HRQoL in trials. Improvements were seen despite rigors of trial participation.

A study to assess current approaches of allergists in European countries diagnosing and managing children and adolescents with peanut allergy.

RATIONALE: Food allergy is documented to result in considerable morbidity, negative impact on quality of life, and substantial medical care costs. Although anecdotal data suggest widely varying practices in the diagnosis and management of food allergies, the diversity and relative frequency of these practices have not been documented. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed evaluating allergists' management approaches of individuals with peanut allergy (PA) in Germany (DE), France (FR), and the United Kingdom (UK). RESULTS: Here, we report the survey results from a total of 109 allergists from DE, FR and the UK. They reported to confirm PA at initial diagnosis using skin prick test (≥60%), while allergists from DE and FR reported using allergen-specific IgE testing more (>86%) compared to the UK (<50%). At initial diagnosis, oral food challenge was used less in DE (13%) and FR (14%) and very rarely in the UK (3%) to confirm diagnosis. Recognition of acute reactions, use of adrenaline auto-injectors and allergen avoidance were reported to be discussed with the patient/caregiver at the initial office visit by most allergists (>75%). Half of the responders reported assessing the patient's quality of life. 63% allergists reported retesting for PA resolution at a later date, with 45% allergists indicated to recommend ingestion of a normal serving of peanut regularly upon resolution. Lack of effective PA treatment was reported to be a 'very significant' barrier for optimal PA treatment, with allergists being less than 'moderately familiar' with data from clinical trials testing new treatments options for PA. Lastly, allergists stated that the severity of patient's PA ranked as the most important factor in their decision to recommend oral immunotherapy for PA treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides essential insights into the practice of allergists and highlights some areas that would inform strategies for education and improving PA healthcare.