Clinical features of anaphylaxis in children

Background: Despite the considerable increase in anaphylaxis frequency, there are limited studies on clinical features of anaphylaxis in children in developing countries. Objective: We aimed to analyze the demographic and clinical features of anaphylaxis in children in Turkey by comparing different age groups and triggers. Methods: Medical records of 147 children, ages 0‐18 years, diagnosed with anaphylaxis between 2010 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: The mean ± standard deviation age at first anaphylaxis episode was 5.9 ± 5.2 years, with a male predominance (63.9%); 25.2% were infants and 52.4% were < 6 years of age at their first anaphylaxis episode; 78.2% were atopic, with the highest frequency in children with food-induced anaphylaxis (FIA). The home (51.7%) was the most frequent setting. The overall leading cause of anaphylaxis was food (44.2%), which was more frequent at < 6 years of age, followed by drugs (28.6%) and bee venom (22.4%), both were more frequent among older children (>6 years). The patients with venom allergy had the highest rate of rapid onset of symptoms (p < 0.001). Gastrointestinal symptoms were observed significantly more in infants (48.6%) and in children with FIA (38.5%); cardiovascular symptoms were more frequently observed in children > 6 years of age (48.6%) and in children with drug-induced anaphylaxis (64.3%). Although recurrent anaphylaxis was reported for 23.1% of the patients, it was highest in the patients with FIA (35.9%). Overall, only 47.6% of the patients received epinephrine in the emergency department (ED) and 27.3% were referred to an allergy specialist, with the patients with FIA having the lowest rate for both, 32.3% and 10.8%, respectively. Children with drug-induced anaphylaxis had the highest rate of severe anaphylaxis (57.1%). Conclusion: There is a need to improve anaphylaxis recognition and management in all children regardless of age and trigger. Inadequate treatment was most evident in infants and patients with FIA.

Diverging trends of respiratory allergies and eczema in Greek schoolchildren: Six surveys during 1991‐2018

Background: The prevalence of childhood asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema in the city of Patras, Greece, has been followed in four consecutive surveys since 1991. After a continuous rise in the prevalence of all three of these disorders, a plateau was reached for asthma between 2003 and 2008, whereas the prevalence of rhinoconjunctivitis and eczema continued to increase. Objective: To investigate these trends in the same population into the following decade. Methods: We repeated two methodologically identical cross-sectional parental questionnaire surveys in 2013 and 2018 among 8‐9-year-old schoolchildren (N = 2554 and N = 2648, respectively). In 2018, spirometry and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) measurements were also performed. Results: Current asthma (i.e., wheeze/asthma in the past 2 years) decreased from 6.9% in 2008 to 5.2% in 2013 and 4.3% in 2018 (p for trend < 0.001). The prevalence of lifetime (“ever had”) rhinoconjunctivitis also declined (5.1% in 2008, 4.4% in 2013, 3.0% in 2018; p for trend < 0.001), whereas that of lifetime eczema increased (10.8%, 13.6%, and 16.1%, respectively; p for trend < 0.001). The relative risk of current asthma in children with ever-had rhinoconjundtivitis was 7.73 in 2008, 6.00 in 2013, and 6.69 in 2018, whereas the relative risk in those with ever-had eczema was 5.15, 2.80, and 2.22, respectively. Among children with asthma, those with rhinoconjunctivitis had lower forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration and higher FeNO values than those with eczema. Conclusion: The prevalence of asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis declined during the past decade in Greek schoolchildren, whereas the prevalence of eczema continued to rise. Nevertheless, the relationship between rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma remained strong, whereas the association between eczema and asthma appears to have weakened.

Outcomes of eosinophilic esophagitis in patients managed in a multidisciplinary clinic

Background: Eosinophilic esophagitis is a complex disease with an increasing prevalence. Multidisciplinary teams are often needed to manage this difficult-to-treat condition. Objective: To observe the clinical and histologic outcomes of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis after management in a multidisciplinary clinic. Methods: An observational, retrospective chart review was conducted to include all patients referred to the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center multidisciplinary eosinophilic esophagitis clinic between August 2012 and February 2021. Only patients who had at least one esophagogastroduodenoscopy before referral, one or more visits and endoscopy after multidisciplinary management, and documented clinical symptoms were included. Statistical analysis was performed by using McNemar and Wilcoxon tests. Results: A total of 103 patients were included in the study, with a mean age at diagnosis of 17.9 years. Management in the multidisciplinary clinic was associated with a reduction in solid-food dysphagia by 70.9%, poor growth by 70.8%, and emesis or regurgitation by 87.5%. We observed that 48.5% and 62.1% had histologic remission (<15 eosinophils/hpf) on the initial and any post-multidisciplinary endoscopy, respectively. Only seven patients (5.8%) with two or more visits and endoscopies did not achieve histologic remission. More than two-thirds of the patients (68.9%) required combination therapy to achieve remission. Conclusion: Although an observational study, these findings may suggest that the management of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis in a multidisciplinary clinic may improve the likelihood of clinical and histologic remission. Targeted management with a multidisciplinary approach may reduce overall morbidity and slow disease progression; however, more research is needed.

Eosinophilic esophagitis in children: Updates and practical aspects of management for allergists in a non‐tertiary care private practice setup

Background: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune and/or antigen-mediated disease characterized by eosinophilic infiltration of mucosa (≥15 eosinophils per high power field) without any secondary etiology. Non‐immunoglobulin E mediated mechanisms predominate in EoE. Objective: This review concentrated on a stepwise approach for the allergist working in non‐tertiary care private practice. Methods: A medical literature search that focused on several areas of the latest developments in the diagnosis and management of EoE was conducted. Results: There has been a steady increase in the prevalence and incidence of EoE. Clinical symptoms can vary from dysphagia to failure to thrive, depending on the age at presentation; some children develop adaptive behaviors to compensate for dysphagia, such as food preferences and slow eating. The diagnosis is based on a high index of clinical suspicion and is confirmed with endoscopy with biopsies after ruling out other causes of esophageal eosinophilia. Treatment options may include dietary therapy, pharmacologic therapies, or combination therapy. Therapeutic options may also include endoscopic dilation for stricturing disease. Conclusion: Providers should be aware of recent recommendation changes in the diagnostic workup, the role of skin-prick testing, and role of the proton-pump inhibitor as first-line therapy for EoE. Also, clinicians should be aware of the emerging role of empiric dietary therapy as a preferable therapeutic option when compared with the testing-directed diet and the elemental diet. Furthermore, topical glucocorticoid therapies are available, and new developing therapies are being investigated. Reevaluation of esophageal mucosa with biopsies is required approximately 2 months after therapy for a response and after a change in therapies to confirm continued resolution.

Guidelines for management of hereditary angioedema: What is new? What is missing?

Background: Hereditary angioedema is an autosomal dominant disease that presents with recurrent episodic swelling of the submucosal and/or subcutaneous tissues of the cutaneous, gastrointestinal, and respiratory systems. Evaluation and treatment guidelines have been published nationally and internationally to aid the treating provider. Methods: A review of the most cited and most recent updated guidelines was undertaken to review key points and to explore real-world feasibility of incorporating them into clinical practice. The International World Allergy Organization/European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (WAO/EAACI) Guideline for the Management of Angioedema - The 2017 Revision and Update, and the consensus reports from the Hereditary Angioedema International Working Group, the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters focused practice parameter update, and the most recently updated US HAEA Medical Advisory Board 2020 Guidelines for the Management of Hereditary Angioedema were reviewed and summarized. Results: Key points that have been consistent throughout the guidelines include recommendations for evaluation and classification of hereditary angioedema as well as evidence-based guidelines for treatment. Further attention is required on the evaluation and continuous assessment of the burden of illness and quality of life (QoL). Conclusion: The guidelines for management of hereditary angioedema provide a framework for the clinician. However, the physician-patient dialog with regard to the patient disease experience, which includes attack frequency, severity, and Qol, must be continually assessed.

Monitored COVID-19 mRNA vaccine second doses for people with adverse reactions after the first dose

Background: After Emergency Use Authorization of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, guidance was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that persons with an immediate allergic reaction to a messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine should be evaluated by an allergist/immunologist before receipt of the second dose. Methods: In vaccinating health-care personnel, we referred those with significant reactions to allergy/immunology specialists so that they could safely receive the second dose. Results: We found that many reactions after the first dose were nonallergic but could be debilitating and a barrier to the second dose. We created a protocol of premedications to allow health-care personnel to safely receive their second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose. Conclusion: This protocol is adaptable and can be used in settings where allergy/immunology referral is not immediately available.

Delayed systemic urticarial reactions following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination

Background: As the vaccination campaign in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, concerns with regard to adverse reactions to the vaccine remain. Although immediate hypersensitivity reactions have received much attention, delayed systemic urticarial reactions after vaccination can occur. Objective: To describe the clinical presentation, vaccine excipient skin testing results, and outcomes of subsequent COVID-19 vaccination in patients who experienced delayed systemic urticarial reactions after messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: This was a retrospective case series of 12 patients referred to the Mayo Clinics in Rochester, Minnesota, and Jacksonville, Florida, between January 19, 2021, and April 30, 2021, for evaluation of delayed systemic urticarial reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Demographics, medical and allergic history, reaction details, vaccine excipient skin testing results (when performed), and the outcome after subsequent vaccination were collected for each patient. Results: The mean age of the patients was 52 years, all were white, and 9 (75%) were women. Half of the patients had a history of drug allergy, and one had a history of chronic spontaneous urticaria. Seven patients reacted to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and five reacted to the Moderna vaccine. Seven patients developed symptoms between 8 and 24 hours after vaccination. Nine patients required antihistamines for treatment. The median time to symptom resolution was 4 days. Nine patients underwent allergist-directed COVID-19 vaccine excipient skin testing, all of which were negative. Ten patients chose to receive their next mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and four patients experienced recurrent delayed urticaria. Conclusion: Delayed systemic urticarial reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination were not life-threatening, could be treated with antihistamines, and were not predicted with vaccine excipient skin testing. They were not a contraindication to subsequent vaccination, although patients should be counseled with regard to the possibility of recurrence.