Prior Anaphylaxis Research Articles

Revaccination outcomes among adolescents and adults with suspected hypersensitivity reactions following COVID-19 vaccination: A Canadian immunization research network study

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccination has been associated with anaphylaxis and hypersensitivity reactions. Infectious disease physicians and allergists in the Canadian Special Immunization Clinic (SIC) Network developed guidance for evaluating patients with adverse events following immunization (AEFI) including suspected hypersensitivity. This study evaluated management and adverse event recurrence following subsequent COVID-19 vaccinations. MethodsIndividuals aged 12 years and older enrolled at participating SICs before February 28, 2023 who were referred for suspected or diagnosed hypersensitivity reaction following COVID-19 vaccination, or for prevaccination assessment of suspected allergy to a COVID-19 vaccine component were included. De-identified clinical assessments and revaccination data, captured in a centralized database, were analyzed. The Brighton Collaboration case definition (BCCD) for anaphylaxis (2023 version) was applied. ResultsThe analysis included 206 participants from 13 sites: 26 participants referred for pre-vaccination assessment and 180 participants referred for adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination (15/180 [8.3%] with BCCD confirmed anaphylaxis, 84 [46.7%] with immediate hypersensitivity symptoms not meeting BCCD, 33 [18.3%] with other diagnosed hypersensitivity reactions, and 48 [26.7%] participants with a final diagnosis of non-hypersensitivity AEFI). Among participants referred for AEFIs following COVID-19 vaccination, 166/180 (92.2%) were recommended for COVID-19 revaccination after risk assessment, of whom 158/166 (95.2%) were revaccinated (all with a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine). After revaccination, 1/15 (6.7%) participants with prior anaphylaxis, 1/77 (1.3%) with immediate hypersensitivity not meeting criteria for anaphylaxis and 1/24 (4.2%) with other physician diagnosed hypersensitivity developed recurrent AEFI symptoms that met the BCCD for anaphylaxis.All 26 participants referred pre-vaccination, including 9 (34.6%) with history of polyethylene glycol-asparaginase reactions, were vaccinated without occurrence of immediate hypersensitivity symptoms. ConclusionsMost individuals in this national cohort who experienced a hypersensitivity event following COVID-19 vaccination and were referred for specialist review were revaccinated without AEFI recurrence, suggesting that specialist evaluation can facilitate safe revaccination.

Evaluation of Der p 10 in a Cohort of European Children: Role of Molecular Diagnostics and Clinical Features.

Allergy toward the dust mite is steadily increasing on the European continent. This sensitization may be a risk factor for developing sensitization to other mite molecules such as tropomyosin Der p 10. This molecule often correlates with food allergy and the risk of anaphylaxis after ingesting mollusks and shrimps. We analyzed the sensitization profiles by ImmunoCAP ISAC of pediatric patients from 2017 to 2021. The patients under investigation were being followed for atopic disorders such as allergic asthma and food allergies. The study aimed to analyze the prevalence of sensitization toward Der p 10 in our pediatric population and assess the related clinical symptoms and reactions after ingestion of foods containing tropomyosins. This study included 253 patients; 53% were sensitized toward Der p 1 and Der p 2; 10.4% were also sensitized to Der p 10. Assessing patients sensitized to Der p 1 or Der p 2, and Der p 10, we observed that 78.6% were affected by asthma (p < 0.005) and had a history of prior anaphylaxis after ingestion of shrimp or shellfish (p < 0.0001). The component-resolved diagnosis gave us a deeper understanding of patients' molecular sensitization profiles. Our study showed that a fair proportion of children sensitive to Der p 1 or Der p 2 are also sensitive to Der p 10. However, many patients sensitized to all three molecules had a high risk of asthma and anaphylaxis. Therefore, the assessment of Der p 10 sensitization should be considered in atopic patients with sensitization to Der p 1 and Der p 2 to avoid encountering possible adverse reactions after ingesting foods containing tropomyosins.

IgE-mediated cow’s milk allergy in Brazilian children: Outcomes of oral food challenge

BackgroundOral food challenge (OFC) is useful for diagnosing food allergies and assessing tolerance, but severe reactions may occur during the procedure. ObjectiveTo characterize the frequency and severity of reactions during cow's milk (CM) OFCs. MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted to analyze the outcome of cow's milk oral food challenges (CMOFCs) performed to confirm IgE-mediated CM allergy or to assess food tolerance. CM was given first as baked milk (BM), followed by whole CM if there was no prior reaction to BM. An OFC was considered positive if IgE-mediated symptoms developed up to 2 h after ingestion. Symptoms were described and variables including age at OFC, prior anaphylaxis, other atopic diseases, and skin test results were compared according to the OFC outcomes. ResultsA total of 266 CMOFCs were performed, including 159 patients with a median age of 6.3 years old. One hundred thirty-six tests were positive and 62 resulted in anaphylaxis. Thirty-nine anaphylactic reactions were observed up to 30 min after the first dose. Severe anaphylaxis (cardiovascular and/or neurological involvement) was reported in 5 tests. A second dose of epinephrine was required in 3 tests, and 1 presented a biphasic response. Younger patients had a higher risk of anaphylaxis during baked milk oral food challenge (BMOFC) (p = 0.009). The frequency of anaphylaxis was higher in patients submitted to BM (p = 0.009). ConclusionsAnaphylaxis is a known complication of CMOFCs even when there is no prior anaphylaxis or when conducted with baked products. This study reinforces the importance of conducting OFC in appropriate settings with a well-trained team.

COVID-19 Vaccination Is Safe among Mast Cell Disorder Patients, under Adequate Premedication.

Reported cases of anaphylaxis following COVID-19 vaccination raised concerns about the safety of these vaccines, namely in patients suffering from clonal mast cell (MC) disorders—a heterogenous group of disorders in which patients may be prone to anaphylaxis caused by vaccination. This study aimed to assess the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with clonal MC disorders. We performed an ambidirectional cohort study with 30 clonal MC disorder patients (n = 26 in the prospective arm and n = 4 in the retrospective arm), that were submitted to COVID-19 vaccination. Among these, 11 (37%) were males, and median age at vaccination date was 41 years (range: 5y to 76y). One patient had prior history of anaphylaxis following vaccination. Those in the prospective arm received a premedication protocol including H1- and H2-antihistamines and montelukast, while those in the retrospective arm did not premedicate. Overall, patients received a total of 81 doses, 73 under premedication and 8 without premedication. No MC activation symptoms were reported. COVID-19 vaccination seems to be safe in patients with clonal mast cell disorders, including those with prior anaphylaxis following vaccination. Robust premedication protocols may allow for vaccination in ambulatory settings.

Risk factors for severe reactions in food allergy: Rapid evidence review with meta-analysis.

This rapid review summarizes the most up to date evidence about the risk factors for severe food‐induced allergic reactions. We searched three bibliographic databases for studies published between January 2010 and August 2021. We included 88 studies and synthesized the evidence narratively, undertaking meta‐analysis where appropriate. Significant uncertainties remain with respect to the prediction of severe reactions, both anaphylaxis and/or severe anaphylaxis refractory to treatment. Prior anaphylaxis, an asthma diagnosis, IgE sensitization or basophil activation tests are not good predictors. Some molecular allergology markers may be helpful. Hospital presentations for anaphylaxis are highest in young children, yet this age group appears at lower risk of severe outcomes. Risk of severe outcomes is greatest in adolescence and young adulthood, but the contribution of risk taking behaviour in contributing to severe outcomes is unclear. Evidence for an impact of cofactors on severity is lacking, although food‐dependent exercise‐induced anaphylaxis may be an exception. Some medications such as beta‐blockers or ACE inhibitors may increase severity, but appear less important than age as a factor in life‐threatening reactions. The relationship between dose of exposure and severity is unclear. Delays in symptom recognition and anaphylaxis treatment have been associated with more severe outcomes. An absence of prior anaphylaxis does not exclude its future risk.

Anaphylaxis among elderly emergency department patients in a large health system in New York

BackgroundAnaphylaxis in the elderly is poorly understood. ObjectiveTo elucidate demographic, clinical, and management characteristics of older adults presenting to emergency departments (EDs) with National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) criteria-confirmed anaphylaxis vs milder, non-anaphylactic acute allergic reactions (AARs). MethodsA retrospective analysis of ED patients more than or equal to 65 years was conducted, using anaphylaxis International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes or ICD-9–based algorithms incorporating the NIAID diagnostic criteria. Descriptive statistics were generated, and the abovementioned characteristics were compared between cohorts. ResultsOf 164 eligible visits, 71 (43.3%), 90 (54.9%), and 3 (1.8%) cases were identified by ICD-9 codes, the algorithms, or both, respectively. Only half fulfilled NIAID diagnostic criteria. Compared with the non-anaphylactic AAR group, criteria-confirmed anaphylaxis group had lower drug allergy rates (43.9% vs 61.0%, P = .03) but higher food allergy rates (26.8% vs 12.2%, P = .02). For the criteria-confirmed anaphylaxis group, presenting signs and symptoms in descending frequency were mucocutaneous, respiratory, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal. Criteria-confirmed anaphylaxis group had higher rates of prior anaphylaxis (13.4% vs 2.4%, P = .009), pre-ED (12.2% vs 0.0%, P = .001) or ED (72.0% vs 4.9%, P < .001) epinephrine administration, and allergy referral (17.1% vs 2.4%, P = .002). Tryptase levels were rarely ordered, occurring once in the criteria-confirmed anaphylaxis group and never in the non-anaphylactic AAR group. Despite low mortality (n = 1), 64.6% of the criteria-confirmed anaphylaxis cohort required hospitalization, with 23.2% admitted to intensive care unit. ConclusionDiagnosis of elderly ED patients with anaphylaxis remains suboptimal. Identifying NIAID criteria-confirmed cases remain challenging, using the existing methods. Management of these patients poorly adheres to current guidelines.

A Case Report of Prolonged Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 Vaccine.

IntroductionAs the medical community and world have combatted the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a significant advance was the development of a vaccine against the virus that has already claimed over 4.5 million lives worldwide.1 Vaccines manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna were the first two COVID-19 vaccines given emergency use authorization by the United States Food and Drug Administration. Preliminary data demonstrated not only the vaccines’ efficacy rates of greater than 95% after a second dose, but also marked safety. Initial data showed only 21 cases of anaphylaxis of greater than 1.8 million doses administered. The majority of those patients had a history of anaphylaxis and presented within the first 15 minutes after administration of the vaccine.2Case ReportWe describe a patient who had an anaphylactic reaction to her second dose of the Pfizer BioNTech severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) vaccine with no prior history of allergic reactions or anaphylaxis. This reaction required multiple doses of epinephrine and a four-day hospitalization. We review both the available reports of anaphylaxis to the SAR CoV-2 vaccine and information on other prolonged cases of anaphylaxis.ConclusionOur case report is unique in that the patient, despite no prior history of anaphylaxis, had a prolonged course requiring a four-day hospitalization. To our knowledge this is one of the first case reports of prolonged anaphylaxis after the second dose of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in a patient with no history of prior anaphylaxis.3

A Clinical Decision Support Intervention to Improve Inpatient Pediatric Influenza Vaccination

Background: Pediatric influenza vaccination rates remain &lt;50% in the United States. Children with chronic medical conditions are at higher risk of morbidity and mortality from influenza, yet most experience missed opportunities for immunization in outpatient settings. In an adult cohort study, 74% of patients who had not received the influenza vaccine before or during hospitalization remained unvaccinated through the rest of the season. Thus, inpatient settings represent another important opportunity for vaccinating an especially susceptible population. In addition, 4 published studies have shown promise in improving inpatient pediatric influenza vaccination. However, these studies had limited effect sizes and included interventions requiring ongoing maintenance with dedicated staff. In this study, we hypothesized that a clinical decision support (CDS) intervention designed with user-centered design principles would increase inpatient influenza vaccine administration rates in the 2019–2020 influenza season. Methods: We performed a workflow analysis of different care settings to determine optimal timing of influenza vaccine decision support. Through formative usability testing with frontline clinicians, we developed electronic health record (EHR) prototypes of an order set module containing a default influenza vaccine order. This module was dynamically incorporated into order sets for patients meeting the following criteria: ≥6 months old, no prior influenza vaccine in the current season in our medical system or the state immunization registry, and no prior anaphylaxis to the vaccine. We implemented the CDS into select order sets based on operational leader support. We compared the proportion of eligible hospitalized patients in which the influenza vaccine was administered between our intervention period and the 2018–2019 season (historical controls). To account for secular trends, we also compared the vaccination rates for hospitalized patients exposed to our CDS to those that were not exposed to the CDS during the intervention period (concurrent controls). Results: During the intervention period (September 5, 2019–November 1, 2019), influenza vaccine was administered to 762 of 3,242 (24%) of eligible patients, compared to 360 of 2,875 (13%) among historical controls (P &lt; .0001). Among the 42% of patients exposed to the CDS, vaccination rates were 33% compared to 9% for concurrent controls (p &lt; .0001). Our intervention was limited by end-user uptake, with some physicians or nurses discontinuing the default vaccine order. In addition, early in the intervention, some vaccines were ordered but not administered, leading to vaccine waste. Conclusions: CDS targeting eligible hospitalized patients for influenza vaccination incorporated early into the workflow of nurses and ordering clinicians can substantially improve influenza vaccination rates among this susceptible and hard-to-reach population.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Evaluation of the healthcare resource use and the related financial costs of managing peanut allergy in the United Kingdom

ABSTRACT Aims: We aimed to estimate the resource use and associated costs for patients with peanut allergy (PA) compared to matched controls. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics. PA patients were matched to two control cohorts: the first (simple-matched) were matched 1:1 on year of birth, general practice, gender and registration year. The second (atopy-matched) were matched on the same characteristics plus presence/absence of an atopic condition. Prescriptions and primary and secondary care contacts were compared between cases and controls. Results: 15,483 peanut-allergic patients were identified: 13,609 (87.9%) were simple-matched and 9,320 (60.2%) atopy-matched. The total per person annual incremental health-care costs associated with PA were £253 (atopy-matched) and £333 (simple-matched). For those with PA and a prior anaphylaxis incremental costs were £662, for those prescribed an epinephrine autoinjector incremental costs were £392. Extrapolated to the U.K. population, total excess costs of PA were between £33 and 44 million in 2015. Conclusions: Patients with PA had increased health-care contacts and consequently increased associated costs compared to controls. Observation bias should be considered in interpretation, but this study suggests that PA presents significant burden to health-care systems.

Anaphylaxis during oral food challenge: can we predict it?

Despite being the gold standard for food allergy diagnosis, oral food challenge (OFC) poses an inherent risk of undesirable reactions, including anaphylaxis. Risk factors for severe symptoms remain unclear. This study aims to describe OFC outcomes to identify possible risk factors for anaphylaxis in this procedure. Retrospective evaluation of medical records from patients with suspected IgE-mediated food allergy to cow’s milk (CM) or egg, who underwent OFC in a pediatric hospital (2016-2018). Patients challenged to either raw or processed CM/egg were included. Anaphylaxis was defined according to Sampson et al, 2006. Data were compared through non-parametric tests 125 OFC (97/CM and 28/egg) carried out in 80 patients (median age of 6.5y) were reviewed. Anaphylaxis was observed in nearly one third of the tests (41). Among these, the first complaint was oropharyngeal pruritus. The most affected systems were cutaneous (82.9%), followed by respiratory (78%), and less frequently cardiovascular (9.7%). Most patients achieved clinical resolution of symptoms after one dose of epinephrine, but five patients required additional doses. One patient had a biphasic anaphylaxis. OFC with raw food compared to processed allergen evidenced similar potential to trigger anaphylaxis (p> 0.05). Personal history of asthma or prior anaphylaxis did not increase the risk of anaphylaxis on OFC (p>0.05). Among patients challenged with raw allergens, older age increased the risk of anaphylaxis (p<0.001). OFC is a high risk setting for anaphylaxis regardless of allergen processing or patient’s medical history. Readiness for emergencies is always mandatory, as severe reactions could not be anticipated.

Further Evaluation of Factors That May Predict Biphasic Reactions in Emergency Department Anaphylaxis Patients

Anaphylaxis is a systemic allergic reaction that is commonly treated in the emergency department (ED). The risk of a biphasic reaction is the rationale for observation. To derive a prediction rule to stratify ED anaphylaxis patients at risk of a biphasic reaction. We conducted an observational study of a cohort of patients presenting to an academic ED with signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis. We collected clinical data on biphasic reactions meeting National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network diagnostic criteria. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors of biphasic reactions, and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs are reported. The predictive ability of the model features is summarized using the area under a receiver operating characteristics curve, or AUC. Internally validated AUCs were obtained using bootstrap resampling. We identified 872 anaphylaxis-related visits. Thirty-six (4.1%) visits resulted in biphasic reactions. Multivariable analysis showed that prior anaphylaxis (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.33-5.63), unknown inciting trigger (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.14-4.99), and first epinephrine administration more than 60 minutes after symptom onset (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.09-4.79) were statistically significantly associated with biphasic reactions. The AUC of this model was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.61-0.79), with an internally validated AUC of 0.67 (95% CI, 0.59-0.76). The P value from the goodness-of-fit test was .91. Our study demonstrated a 4.1% rate of biphasic reactions and found that prior anaphylaxis, unknown inciting trigger, and delayed epinephrine use were risk factors for biphasic reactions.

Can we identify patients at risk of life-threatening allergic reactions to food?

Anaphylaxis has been defined as a 'severe, life-threatening generalized or systemic hypersensitivity reaction'. However, data indicate that the vast majority of food-triggered anaphylactic reactions are not life-threatening. Nonetheless, severe life-threatening reactions do occur and are unpredictable. We discuss the concepts surrounding perceptions of severe, life-threatening allergic reactions to food by different stakeholders, with particular reference to the inclusion of clinical severity as a factor in allergy and allergen risk management. We review the evidence regarding factors that might be used to identify those at most risk of severe allergic reactions to food, and the consequences of misinformation in this regard. For example, a significant proportion of food-allergic children also have asthma, yet almost none will experience a fatal food-allergic reaction; asthma is not, in itself, a strong predictor for fatal anaphylaxis. The relationship between dose of allergen exposure and symptom severity is unclear. While dose appears to be a risk factor in at least a subgroup of patients, studies report that individuals with prior anaphylaxis do not have a lower eliciting dose than those reporting previous mild reactions. It is therefore important to consider severity and sensitivity as separate factors, as a highly sensitive individual will not necessarily experience severe symptoms during an allergic reaction. We identify the knowledge gaps that need to be addressed to improve our ability to better identify those most at risk of severe food-induced allergic reactions.

Safety of live attenuated influenza vaccine in atopic children with egg allergy

BackgroundLive attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is an intranasal vaccine recently incorporated into the United Kingdom immunization schedule. However, it contains egg protein and, in the absence of safety data, is contraindicated in patients with egg allergy. Furthermore, North American guidelines recommend against its use in asthmatic children.ObjectiveWe sought to assess the safety of LAIV in children with egg allergy.MethodsWe performed a prospective, multicenter, open-label, phase IV intervention study involving 11 secondary/tertiary centers in the United Kingdom. Children with egg allergy (defined as a convincing clinical reaction to egg within the past 12 months and/or >95% likelihood of clinical egg allergy as per published criteria) were recruited. LAIV was administered under medical supervision, with observation for 1 hour and telephone follow-up 72 hours later.ResultsFour hundred thirty-three doses were administered to 282 children with egg allergy (median, 4.9 years; range, 2-17 years); 115 (41%) had experienced prior anaphylaxis to egg. A physician's diagnosis of asthma/recurrent wheezing was noted in 67%, and 51% were receiving regular preventer therapy. There were no systemic allergic reactions (upper 95% CI for population, 1.3%). Eight children experienced mild self-limiting symptoms, which might have been due an IgE-mediated allergic reaction. Twenty-six (9.4%; 95% CI for population, 6.2% to 13.4%) children experienced lower respiratory tract symptoms within 72 hours, including 13 with parent-reported wheeze. None of these episodes required medical intervention beyond routine treatment.ConclusionsIn contrast to current recommendations, LAIV appears to be safe for use in children with egg allergy. Furthermore, the vaccine appears to be well tolerated in children with a diagnosis of asthma or recurrent wheeze.

Predictors of Biphasic Reactions in the Emergency Department for Patients With Anaphylaxis

A biphasic reaction is the recurrence of anaphylaxis symptoms within 72 hours of the initial anaphylactic event, without re-exposure to the trigger. Biphasic reactions are uncommon and unpredictable, and risk factors for biphasic reactions are poorly understood. To identify predictors of biphasic anaphylactic reactions in patients with anaphylaxis in the emergency department (ED). Patients of all ages who presented to the ED andmet diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis from April 2008 toJanuary 2013 at an academic medical center with 73,000 annual patient visits were consecutively included. We collected data on patient characteristics, suspected triggers, signs and symptoms, ED management, and disposition. Univariate analyses were performed to estimate the association between potential predictor variables and biphasicreactions. We report associations as odds ratios (OR)and corresponding 95% CIs. Among 541 patients with anaphylaxis, median age was 34.6 years (interquartile range, 18-52 years), and 320 (59%) were female patients. Twenty-one patients (4%) had biphasic reactions. Two pediatric patients, ages of 5 years old and 16 years old, developed a biphasic reaction. The median time between the resolution of initial symptoms and onset of the biphasic reaction was 7 hours (range, 1-72 hours). Biphasic reactions were associated with a history of prior anaphylaxis (OR 2.6 [95% CI, 1.1-6.4]; P= .029), unknown precipitant (OR 2.6 [95% CI, 1.1-6.2]; P= .03), symptoms of diarrhea (OR 4.5 [95% CI, 1.4-14.0]; P= .024), and wheezing (OR 2.6 [95% CI, 1.4-8.9]; P=.029). Patients with a history of prior anaphylaxis, an unknown precipitant, or who present with symptoms of diarrhea or wheezing may be at increased risk for a biphasic reaction.

Anafilaxia secundaria a pruebas cutáneas Prick-to-Prick para alimentos y sus factores de riesgo

The diagnosis of food allergy requires a proper anamnesis and diagnostic testing with skin prick tests with fresh foods and/or standardized allergen, or specific IgE tests. The risk of systemic reactions is of 15-23 per 100,000 skin tests performed by prick method, specifically anaphylaxis at 0.02%. This paper reports the case of four patients, who while performing prick to prick test with fresh food presented anaphylactic reaction. Implicated foods were fruits of the Rosaceae, Anacardiaceae and Caricaceae families. The severity of anaphylaxis was: two patients with grade 4, one patient grade 2 and one grade 3, all with appropriate response to drug treatment. The risk factors identified were: female sex, personal history of atopy, previous systemic reaction to Hymenoptera venom, prior anaphylaxis to prick tests to aeroallergens. We found that a history of positive skin test for Betulla v, can be a risk factor for anaphylaxis in patients with oral syndrome. During testing prick to prick with food anaphylaxis can occur, so it should be made with aerial red team on hand. The history of positivity Betulla v is an additional risk factor in these patients.

No systemic reactions to influenza vaccination in egg-sensitized tertiary-care pediatric patients.

BackgroundThere are numerous, disparate guidelines for influenza vaccination in egg-allergic patients. We aimed to describe the outcome of selectively applied guidelines, based on risk-stratification, to our high risk, egg-allergic, tertiary-care pediatric population.MethodsEgg allergy was confirmed with skin testing. The vaccine administered was an adjuvunated 2009 H1N1 influenza A vaccine with < 0.165 mcg/ml ovalbumin. Patients with mild egg allergy were to receive the vaccination in 1 dose, those with severe egg allergy were to receive 2 split doses, and patients with exquisite egg allergy or significant co-morbidities were to be skin tested with the vaccine (prick full strength, intradermal 1:100 of final concentration without adjuvant) and had 5 step desensitization if the testing was positive, or 1-2 step administration if negative. Patients were observed for 60 minutes after the final dose and anaphylaxis treatment was available. We report the frequency of allergic reactions.ResultsNinety-nine patients were referred and 79 had positive egg testing. Asthma was present in 67% and 30% had prior anaphylaxis to egg. We vaccinated 77 of 79 patients: 71 without performing vaccine skin testing. Two refused vaccination. No patient had a systemic reaction or required treatment. Two patients experienced positive testing to the adjuvanated intradermal vaccine, but were negative without adjuvant.ConclusionsOur results suggest that most egg-allergic tertiary care pediatric patients can be vaccinated with a low ovalbumin content influenza vaccine without prior vaccine testing. Vaccine skin testing, if used at all, can be reserved for special circumstances. The squalene adjuvant may cause an irritant reaction with intradermal testing.

Anaphylaxis: a ten years inpatient retrospective study

The actual incidence of anaphylaxis is unknown. Periodical study of the anaphylaxis in different countries will raise the awareness to improve further the prevention and care. To investigate anaphylaxis among inpatients in the previous decade, we conducted a retrospective study of adult patients between 1992 and 2001 at a tertiary care center in Bangkok. Of 448,211 admissions, 80 events of anaphylaxis in 79 patients (0.017%) were found. The incidence had increased from 2.6 to 46 per 100,000 inpatients. Mean age +/- SD was 36 +/- 16 years-old, with an equal male:female ratio. Drugs, mainly antibiotics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, (48%) and food (31%) were the most common causes. Over-the-counter medication and multiple drug use were responsible for up to a half of the unspecified drug causes. There was no fatality. 84% received epinephrine, but in only 7% it was given intramuscularly. Fifteen cases (20%) had a history of prior anaphylaxis, nonetheless only one had received prefilled epinephrine. The rise in the incidence of anaphylaxis over the two decades of the study period is alarming. Raising the awareness of anaphylaxis management among healthcare providers and the public is warranted.

Nahrungsmittel als Auslöser einer Anaphylaxie

Foods are common elicitors of allergic reactions. Whereas the majority of symptoms are mild, fatal reactions do occur. Foods represent the most common elicitor of anaphylaxis treated in emergency departments. Fatal anaphylaxis is caused by food in 1/3 of the cases, especially by peanuts, tree nuts, cows milk, shellfish and fish. Asthma bronchiale is the principal risk factor for a fatal reaction. Whereas a large inter- and intraindividual variability does exist, often minute amounts of food are sufficient to result in serious reactions. Although the majority of patients do know about their food anaphylaxis, many are not able to avoid the offending food completely. Education and training of patients and treating physicians is necessary. Thus, an anaphylaxis training and educational program is being constructed by the Arbeits-gemeinschaft Anaphylaxie Training and Education (AGATE) to better protect patients with prior anaphylaxis.

Lingonberry allergy

During the past few years, cranberry and lingonberry products have been increasingly marketed as a natural solution to avoid recurrent urinary infections. We would like to describe a case of allergy to lingonberry ( Vaccinium vitis-idaea) in an atopic 25-year-old woman with a history of mite allergic rhinitis, but no food allergies or prior anaphylaxis. She entered a restaurant and then ingested meatballs, baked potatoes and lingonberry jam. During the meal, itching and wheals developed around her mouth. Symptoms resolved without treatment. She later tolerated either beef or potatoes. Skin prick testing by prick-prick method with fresh lingonberry evoqued a mean wheal diameter of 5 mm (Saline 0 mm; Histamine 7 mm) and mean flare diameter of 20 mm. Skin prick tests performed with the foodstuffs involved in the episode produced no reaction. On her responsibility, she subsequently took lingonberry jam several days later and immediately noticed intense itching on her mouth, tongue and throat and wheals around her mouth. An extract of lingonberry (protein concentration: 0.6 mgr/ml) was analyzed by PAGE. After informed consent serum was obtained. IgE-ELISA was positive and western-blot revealed IgE in the patient's serum that bound to 53, 35 and 27 kD bands. To the best of our knowledge, we believe this to be the first case of allergy to lingonberry and indicate that this fruit may be allergenic when ingested. Further studies would be needed to characterize the allergenic components in this fruit.

Erwinia carotovora asparaginase in patients with prior anaphylaxis to asparaginase from E. coli.

Asparaginase prepared from Erwinia carotovora was well tolerated when given to four patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia who previously had had anaphylactic reactions from E. coli asparaginase. The Erwinia enzyme was cleared from plasma with a half life of 7 to 13 hours, a time similar to some preparations of E. coli asparaginase in patients who had not sustained anaphylaxis. Serum asparagine levels decreased to unmeasurable levels after Erwinia asparaginase in a manner reminiscent of the E. coli enzyme. No positive precipitin reaction or skin test to either E. coli or Erwinia enzyme was detected. These results indicate that there is no great degree of immunologic cross reaction to prevent the use of the Erwinia enzyme in patients who sustained anaphylaxis to the E. coli preparation. The availability of a second active asparaginase from a different microbiological source extends the usefulness of asparaginase in clinical therapy. Stabilization and protective effect of Erwinia enzyme activity by human plasma was demonstrated.