Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Understanding about patient-reported biphasic food-related allergic reactions currently remains sparse. OBJECTIVE:To characterize patient-reported biphasic food-related allergic reactions among a national food allergy registry. METHODS:We utilized two Patient Registry surveys established by Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE). Variables were described with proportions and 95% confidence intervals; unadjusted results were stratified by respondent type. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the adjusted odds of reporting a biphasic reaction. RESULTS:The incidence of reported biphasic reactions was 16.4% (CI: 15.3-17.7). 12.8% (CI: 12.5-14.3) of parent/guardian respondents and 21.8% (CI: 19.7-23.8) of self-respondents indicated a biphasic reaction during their most recent food-allergic reaction. Among respondents with a mild initial reaction, 7.4% reported a biphasic reaction compared with 30% with a very severe initial reaction. When the initial reaction was mild, 69.6% of parent/guardian respondents (CI: 47.2 - 85.4) and 52.0% of self-respondents (CI: 38.0 - 35.7) with a biphasic reaction reported a mild secondary reaction. When the initial reaction was very severe, 36.3% of parent/guardian respondents (CI: 26.4 - 47.5) and 42.9% of self-respondents (CI: 31.1 - 55.5) with a biphasic reaction reported a very severe secondary reaction. Female gender, Black/African-American race, reaction age 5-12 and 26-66 years, initial moderate, severe, or very severe reaction, and one or more annual reactions were associated with increased odds of a biphasic reaction. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study characterizes the incidence of patient-reported biphasic reactions and provides valuable information on probable severity of a biphasic food-related allergic reaction. Further research is necessary to understand the epidemiology of food-related biphasic reactions.

Background and aims/UNASSIGNED:The term "Food Allergy" refers to a complex global health problem with a wide spectrum of severity. However, a uniform definition of severe food allergy is currently missing. This systematic review is the preliminary step towards a state-of-the-art synopsis of the current evidence relating to the severity of IgE-mediated food allergy; it will inform attempts to develop a consensus to define food allergy severity by clinicians and other stakeholders. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We undertook a mixed-methods systematic review, which involved searching 11 international biomedical databases for published studies from inception to 31 December 2019. Studies were independently screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised by established instruments. The substantial heterogeneity of included studies precluded meta-analyses and, therefore, narrative synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data was performed. Results/UNASSIGNED:We found 23 studies providing eligible primary data on symptom-specific severity of food allergic reactions, and 31 previously published symptom-severity scoring systems referred to food allergic reactions. There were seven studies which assessed quality-of-life measures in patients (and family members) with different food allergy severity and two studies that investigated the economic burden of food allergy severity. Overall, the quality and the global rating of all included studies were judged as being moderate. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:There is heterogeneity among severity scoring systems used and even outcomes considered in the context of severity of food allergy. No score has been validated. Our results will be used to inform the development of an international consensus to define the severity of food allergy. Systematic review registration/UNASSIGNED:A protocol was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database with the registration number CRD42020183103 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails).

OBJECTIVE:Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) is typically diagnosed based on a characteristic clinical history; however, an oral food challenge (OFC) may be necessary to confirm the diagnosis or evaluate for the development of tolerance. FPIES OFC methods vary globally, and there is no universally agreed upon protocol. The objective of this review is to summarize reported FPIES OFC approaches and consider unmet needs in diagnosing and managing FPIES. DATA SOURCES:PubMed database was searched using the keywords food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome, oral food challenge, cow milk allergy, food allergy, non-immunoglobulin E-mediated food allergy and FPIES. STUDY SELECTIONS:Primary and review articles were selected based on relevance to the diagnosis of FPIES and the FPIES OFC. RESULTS:We reviewed the history of FPIES and the evolution and variations in the FPIES OFC. A summary of current literature suggests that most patients with FPIES will react with 25% to 33% of a standard serving of the challenged food, there is little benefit to offering a divided dose challenge unless there is suspicion of specific immunoglobulin E to the food being challenged, reactions typically appear within 1 to 4 hours of ingestion, and reactions during OFC rarely result in emergency department or intensive care unit admission. CONCLUSION:International standardization in the FPIES OFC approach is necessary with particular attention to specific dose administration across challenged foods, timing between the patient's reaction and offered OFC to verify tolerance, patient safety considerations before the OFC, and identification of characteristics that would indicate home reintroduction is appropriate.

Purpose of Review/UNASSIGNED:Management of anaphylaxis during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic should consider local infection rates so as to not burden local ED at times of pandemic, while also protecting patients from infection risks and progression of anaphylaxis. In this review, we identify a treatment strategy for anaphylaxis that balances the risks versus benefits of ED versus home management in this unprecedented time. Recent Findings/UNASSIGNED:Physicians and patients have had to adapt new approaches to medical care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic due to restricted access to health care facilities. Telemedicine has substituted in-person visits, and such a drastic change in the patient care paradigm presents a need to revise the acute management of anaphylaxis. Summary/UNASSIGNED:Physicians should utilize telemedicine during this time to engage in shared decision-making with patients and their families to devise an anaphylaxis plan of management that emphasizes home care when symptoms are mild with an exception for ED care if a patient has had severe, near-fatal anaphylaxis episodes in the past. Previous anaphylaxis recommendations should remain in place despite the pandemic, including prompt use of epinephrine when needed, avoidance of known allergens, training of patients and their caregivers, and carrying of epinephrine autoinjector devices at all times to remain prepared in the event of an anaphylaxis episode. Supplementary Information/UNASSIGNED:The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40521-021-00284-0.

BACKGROUND:Guidelines on the early introduction of allergen-containing foods are evolving; however, little national data exist defining current allergen-feeding practices. OBJECTIVE:To investigate the consumption rates of foods containing egg and peanut among infants and toddlers before the guideline changes in 2017. METHODS:The Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study 2016 was conducted nationally among 3235 caregivers with a child under 4 years of age. The 24-hour dietary recalls were reviewed for peanut or egg ingredients. Participants were categorized as "consuming peanut or egg-containing foods" or "not consuming peanut or egg-containing foods." Data on physician-diagnosed food allergies and avoidance were collected. RESULTS:The consumption rates of peanut- and egg-containing foods were low. For the age group of 4 to 5.9 months, 0.3% reported peanut consumption and 2.4% reported egg consumption. For the age group of 6 to 8.9 months, 0.9% reported eating peanut-containing foods and 13.0% egg, and for the age group of 9 to 11.9 months, 5.5% were consuming peanut-containing foods and 33.2% egg-containing foods. Peanut or egg ingredients were identified in the diet of children whose caregivers reported avoidance. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Before the publication of the 2017 Addendum Guidelines for the Prevention of Peanut Allergy, there were low rates of reported peanut consumption across the study population with less than 1% of any age group before 9 months of age and less than 6% in any age group before 12 months of age consuming peanut on the 24-hour recall day. In addition, reported egg consumption was low and increased with age. These results serve as an important baseline comparison for future studies evaluating the implementation and impact of early peanut and egg introduction.