A systematic review and expert Delphi Consensus recommendation on the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab: A position paper of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha subunit, thus blocking the effects of IL-4 and IL-13, and has shown efficacy in treating various conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and others. Because of its immune modulatory effects, clinical trials that studied dupilumab did not allow patients to receive live vaccines during the clinical trials because of an abundance of caution, and thus package inserts recommend that patients who are being treated with dupilumab should avoid live vaccines. Because dupilumab is now approved for use in patients from 6 months of age for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, this reported contraindication is now posing a clinical dilemma for patients and clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of literature on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in patients who are receiving dupilumab and to provide expert guidance on the use of vaccines in patients who are receiving dupilumab. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed, and an expert Delphi Panel was assembled. RESULTS: The available literature on patients who received vaccinations while using dupilumab overall suggests that live vaccines are safe and that the vaccine efficacy, in general, is not affected by dupilumab. The expert Delphi panel agreed that the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab was likely safe and effective. CONCLUSION: Vaccines (including live vaccines) can be administered to patients receiving dupilumab in a shared decision-making capacity.

Addressing common questions on food oral immunotherapy: a practical guide for paediatricians.

Food allergy has been increasing in prevalence in most westernised countries and poses a significant burden to patients and families; dietary and social limitations as well as psychosocial and economic burden affect daily activities, resulting in decreased quality of life. Food oral immunotherapy (food-OIT) has emerged as an active form of treatment, with multiple benefits such as increasing the threshold of reactivity to the allergenic food, decreasing reaction severity on accidental exposures, expanding dietary choices, reducing anxiety and generally improving quality of life. Risks associated with food immunotherapy mostly consist of allergic reactions during therapy. While the therapy is generally considered both safe and effective, patients and families must be informed of the aforementioned risks, understand them, and be willing to accept and hedge these risks as being worthwhile and outweighed by the anticipated benefits through a process of shared decision-making. Food-OIT is a good example of a preference-sensitive care paradigm, given candidates for this therapy must consider multiple trade-offs for what is considered an optional therapy for food allergy compared with avoidance. Additionally, clinicians who discuss OIT should remain increasingly aware of the growing impact of social media on medical decision-making and be prepared to counter misconceptions by providing clear evidence-based information during in-person encounters, on their website, and through printed information that families can take home and review.

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update.

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

Atopic dermatitis (eczema) guidelines: 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters GRADE- and Institute of Medicine-based recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Guidance addressing atopic dermatitis (AD) management, last issued in 2012 by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force, requires updating as a result of new treatments and improved guideline and evidence synthesis methodology. OBJECTIVE: To produce evidence-based guidelines that support patients, clinicians, and other decision-makers in the optimal treatment of AD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary guideline panel consisting of patients and caregivers, AD experts (dermatology and allergy/immunology), primary care practitioners (family medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine), and allied health professionals (psychology, pharmacy, nursing) convened, prioritized equity, diversity, and inclusiveness, and implemented management strategies to minimize influence of conflicts of interest. The Evidence in Allergy Group supported guideline development by performing systematic evidence reviews, facilitating guideline processes, and holding focus groups with patient and family partners. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. Evidence-to-decision frameworks, subjected to public comment, translated evidence to recommendations using trustworthy guideline principles. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 25 recommendations to gain and maintain control of AD for patients with mild, moderate, and severe AD. The eAppendix provides practical information and implementation considerations in 1-2 page patient-friendly handouts. CONCLUSION: These evidence-based recommendations address optimal use of (1) topical treatments (barrier moisturization devices, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, PDE4 inhibitors [crisaborole], topical JAK inhibitors, occlusive [wet wrap] therapy, adjunctive antimicrobials, application frequency, maintenance therapy), (2) dilute bleach baths, (3) dietary avoidance/elimination, (4) allergen immunotherapy, and (5) systemic treatments (biologics/monoclonal antibodies, small molecule immunosuppressants [cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, JAK inhibitors], and systemic corticosteroids) and UV phototherapy (light therapy).

Epicutaneous immunotherapy with Viaskin™ Peanut in toddlers: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine about the EPITOPE clinical study, which tested a skin patch called ViaskinTM Peanut 250 µg (micrograms) as a treatment option for peanut allergy in children aged 1 through 3 years. The patch is a form of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT), which is a new approach to allergen immunotherapy that delivers a small amount of peanut protein to the immune system through the skin. Viaskin Peanut is an investigational therapy, meaning it has not yet been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that has been studied before in young children aged 4 through 11 years. In those studies, the children who received the patch were desensitized and were less likely to experience anaphylaxis when they ate peanut at the end of the study. The EPITOPE study included children aged 1 through 3 years with peanut allergy and looked at how well the peanut patch worked and how safe it was compared to a patch with no medicine (placebo, no medicine) after 12 months. WHAT WERE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: The study showed that the peanut patch was better in desensitizing children to peanuts than the placebo patch. Most of the children in the study who received the peanut patch for 12 months (the treatment group) were able to eat and tolerate more peanut at the end of the study than those who received only the placebo patch (the control group). This demonstrates that the children in the treatment group were less likely to have an allergic reaction if they ate peanut by accident at the end of the study. The children in the treatment group also had less severe symptoms when they were given peanut during the oral food challenges at the end of the study. Most children in both groups experienced side effects. Mild to moderate local skin reactions where the patch was applied were most common. These side effects happened less often and were less serious over the 12-month treatment period. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: Overall, these results show the peanut patch may be a possible treatment option to help desensitize young children with peanut allergy to peanut.

Growing up with allergies: Transitioning from adolescence to adulthood.

Allergic disease management for adolescents and young adults requires consideration of unique psychosocial challenges and opportunities. Erik Erikson's model for the Stages of Psychosocial Development is a useful lens through which we can understand adolescent and young adult experiences with allergic and immunologic disease, particularly with regard to identity and relationship development. It is important to provide anticipatory guidance for patients who are transitioning environments (eg, home to college), with attention to the anxiety-provoking demands for increased responsibility on top of new stressors such as academic and vocational demands. It is critical that health care professionals use an empathetic, shared decision-making approach regarding the emotional impact of allergy on a patient's social engagement. A patient's ability to develop positive lifelong habits is also shaped by their environment's "culture of wellness," and clinicians can encourage habits to promote healthy choices and effective disease management. Social media provides opportunities and challenges as a conduit for both social connection and possible misinformation. Overall, allergic disease management in adolescents and young adults is a "high-risk, high-reward" period of time-and with awareness, anticipation, and proactive action, health care professionals can better serve patients by leveraging this transitional period to promote positive approaches to management of allergies and asthma, trusting relationships, and personal responsibility.

Updates in Food Allergy Prevention in Children.

Although significant evidence exists that feeding early has a role in the prevention of food allergy, this intervention in isolation may not be sufficient. Recent evidence highlights that early introduction of peanut specifically has had no significant impact on the populational prevalence of peanut allergy. Other factors that may contribute to food allergy prevention include regularity of ingestion once an allergen is introduced and consideration to the form in which the allergen is introduced (such as baked versus cooked egg). There are also many practicalities to early feeding and some discrepant viewpoints on these practicalities, which has led to poor implementation of early feeding strategies. In general, preemptive screening before food introduction is not recommended by most international allergy societies. Although there is little guidance to inform early introduction of allergens other than milk, egg, and peanut, the mechanism of sensitization is thought to be similar and there is no harm to early introduction. In terms of frequency and duration of feeding, there is little evidence to inform any concrete recommendations.

How Likes and Retweets Impacted Our Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The growing dependence on social media for health-related information boomed during the COVID-19 pandemic, posing unprecedented challenges in navigating the vast amounts of information available right at our fingertips. Social media had a major impact on clinical decision-making affecting individuals, communities, and societies at large. In this review, we discuss the role of social media in amplifying information and misinformation as well as factors contributing to its reliance and prevalence. We review how medical providers have been impacted by this changing landscape, useful communication strategies to employ with in-office patient encounters, and how we can be active players in using social media as a tool for health promotion, correcting misinformation, and preparing for future pandemics.

The future of food allergy: Challenging existing paradigms of clinical practice.

The field of food allergy has seen tremendous change over the past 5-10 years with seminal studies redefining our approach to prevention and management and novel testing modalities in the horizon. Early introduction of allergenic foods is now recommended, challenging the previous paradigm of restrictive avoidance. The management of food allergy has shifted from a passive avoidance approach to active interventions that aim to provide protection from accidental exposures, decrease allergic reaction severity and improve the quality of life of food-allergic patients and their families. Additionally, novel diagnostic tools are making their way into clinical practice with the goal to reduce the need for food challenges and assist physicians in the-often complex-diagnostic process. With all the new developments and available choices for diagnosis, prevention and therapy, shared decision-making has become a key part of medical consultation, enabling patients to make the right choice for them, based on their values and preferences. Communication with patients has also become more complex over time, as patients are seeking advice online and through social media, but the information found online may be outdated, incorrect, or lacking in context. The role of the allergist has evolved to embrace all the above exciting developments and provide patients with the optimal care that fits their needs. In this review, we discuss recent developments as well as the evolution of the field of food allergy in the next decade.

In-Office Amoxicillin to Increase Graded-Dose Challenges at Initial Evaluation for Penicillin Allergy.

BACKGROUND: More than 90% of pediatric patients labeled with a penicillin allergy can tolerate subsequent treatment courses without reaction. Graded-dose challenges (GDCs) are an important tool to clarify reported penicillin allergy. OBJECTIVE: To increase the use of same-day amoxicillin GDCs among patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy history who presented for outpatient allergy office evaluation from 2% to 15% and sustain for 6 months. METHODS: New patients evaluated in an academic pediatric allergy clinic with a documented penicillin allergy were included, regardless of reason for referral. The percentage of these patients who were administered a GDC to amoxicillin at the initial evaluation was assessed over time. Multiple interventions were implemented to increase same-day GDC: amoxicillin, previously only available from pharmacy, was made available in clinic, and penicillin-allergic patients were scheduled earlier in the clinic session. RESULTS: The baseline rate of new patients with penicillin allergy who received a GDC increased from 2% to 18% after amoxicillin was stocked in the allergy clinic. GDCs further increased to 34% after penicillin-allergic patients were scheduled at a time conducive to challenge. CONCLUSIONS: Amoxicillin availability in the clinic setting increased the percentage of eligible patients who completed same-day GDCs. Scheduling adjustments further increased the ability to conduct GDCs. Proactive penicillin allergy delabeling efforts can be assisted through practical approaches in the outpatient setting.