CSACI position statement: Newer generation H1-antihistamines are safer than first-generation H1-antihistamines and should be the first-line antihistamines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria.

Oral H1-antihistamines (AHs) are the most commonly used therapy to treat allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. Older, first-generation AHs (e.g. diphenhydramine, hydroxyzine) have significant and common side effects including sedation, impairment with decreased cognitive function, poor sleep quality, dry mouth, dizziness, and orthostatic hypotension. These drugs have also been found to result in death from accidents, intentional or unintentional overdoses, and sudden cardiac death. The unfavourable risk-benefit profile of first-generation AHs led to the development of newer, less-sedating second- and third-generation AHs, which first became available in Canada in the 1980s. High-quality trials have proven that newer generation AHs are superior in safety compared to older first-generation AHs. On average, they have improved potency and efficacy. Second- and third-generation AHs are the recommended first-line treatment for mild allergic rhinitis and acute and chronic urticaria. Despite this evidence, older first-generation AHs continue to be over-utilized because of their over-the-counter (OTC) status and long history of use. The Canadian Society of Allergy Clinical Immunology (CSACI) recommends that newer generation AHs should be preferred over first-generation AHs for the treatment of allergic rhino-conjunctivitis and urticaria. To promote this recommendation, education of health professionals and the public is necessary. Further, given the dangers of older first-generation AHs, we believe they should be used only as a last resort with eventual consideration given to having them only available behind the counter in pharmacies.

Diagnosis and management of food allergies: new and emerging options: a systematic review.

It is reported that 6% of children and 3% of adults have food allergies, with studies suggesting increased prevalence worldwide over the last few decades. Despite this, our diagnostic capabilities and techniques for managing patients with food allergies remain limited. We have conducted a systematic review of literature published within the last 5 years on the diagnosis and management of food allergies. While the gold standard for diagnosis remains the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge, this assessment is resource intensive and impractical in most clinical situations. In an effort to reduce the need for the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge, several risk-stratifying tests are employed, namely skin prick testing, measurement of serum-specific immunoglobulin E levels, component testing, and open food challenges. Management of food allergies typically involves allergen avoidance and carrying an epinephrine autoinjector. Clinical research trials of oral immunotherapy for some foods, including peanut, milk, egg, and peach, are under way. While oral immunotherapy is promising, its readiness for clinical application is controversial. In this review, we assess the latest studies published on the above diagnostic and management modalities, as well as novel strategies in the diagnosis and management of food allergy.

A 4-month-old baby boy presenting with anaphylaxis to a banana: a case report.

INTRODUCTION: Food allergy is the most common cause of anaphylaxis in children and recent studies suggest increased prevalence of both food allergy and anaphylaxis. Among foods, fruits are rarely implicated as the cause of anaphylaxis. Furthermore, anaphylaxis to fruit in the first months of life is rare. Although banana allergy has been well described in adults, there are only two case reports of anaphylaxis to banana in children. CASE PRESENTATION: A 4-month-old Hispanic baby boy with a history of eczema presented to our emergency room with vomiting, urticaria and cyanosis following first exposure to a banana. He improved with administration of intramuscular epinephrine. Skin prick tests showed positive results for both fresh banana (4mm wheal/15mm erythema) and banana extract (8mm wheal/20mm erythema). CONCLUSIONS: Banana is not considered a highly allergenic food. However, as food allergy becomes more common and solid foods are being introduced earlier in babies, banana may become an important allergen to consider in cases of babies presenting with anaphylaxis.

Critical upper airway obstruction in sporadic angioedema responding to C1-esterase inhibitor.

We describe a case of recurrent oropharyngeal angioedema in a 16-year-old boy with a history of sickle cell disease and thrombocytopenia and with no family history of angioedema. Emergency treatment of angioedema with C1-esterase inhibitor (C1-INH) provided immediate relief, avoiding the placement of a surgical airway. Further evaluation has shown C1-INH to be normal in quantity and function, with normal complement studies during acute attacks. Genetic testing revealed no abnormality in the factor XII gene. Our case exemplifies that even in cases of sporadic angioedema, treatment with C1-INH may be an effective and life-saving management strategy.