Safety and effectiveness of the Canadian food ladders for children with IgE-mediated food allergies to cow's milk and/or egg

BACKGROUND

Food ladders are tools designed to facilitate home-based dietary advancement in children with food allergies through stepwise exposures to increasingly allergenic forms of milk and egg. Several studies have now documented safety and efficacy of food ladders. In 2021, we published a Canadian adaptation of the previously existing milk and egg ladders originating in Europe using foods more readily available/consumed in Canada. Our study adds to the growing body of evidence supporting food ladder use and provides safety and effectiveness data for our Canadian adaptation of the milk and egg ladders.

METHODS

Surveys were distributed to families of children using the Canadian Milk Ladder and/or the Canadian Egg Ladder at baseline, with follow up surveys at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Data were analyzed using REDCap and descriptive and inferential statistics are presented.

RESULTS

One hundred and nine participants were started on milk/egg ladders between September 2020 and June 2022. 53 participants responded to follow up surveys. Only 2 of 53 (3.8%) participants reported receiving epinephrine during the study. Severe grade 4 reactions (defined according to the modified World Allergy Organization grading system) were not reported by any participants. Minor cutaneous adverse reactions were common, with about 71% (n = 10/14) of respondents reporting cutaneous adverse reactions by 1 year of food ladder use. An increasing proportion of participants could tolerate most foods from steps 2-4 foods after 3, 6, and 12 months of the food ladder compared to baseline.

CONCLUSION

The Canadian food ladders are safe tools for children with cow's milk and/or egg allergies, and participants tolerated a larger range of foods with food ladder use compared to baseline.

Updated guidance regarding the risk of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and recommended evaluation and management: A GRADE assessment and international consensus approach

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history.

The Case for Prompt Salvage Infant Peanut Oral Immunotherapy Following Failed Primary Prevention

Recent guideline recommendations have shifted from recommending prolonged avoidance of allergenic foods in the first 3 years of life to a primary prevention approach involving the deliberate early introduction to infants at risk of developing food allergy. Despite this, some infants, especially those with severe eczema who are at highest risk for developing peanut allergy, fail to receive the preventative benefits of early peanut introduction due to hesitancy and other factors. Difficulty adhering to regular ingestion after introduction further reduces the effectiveness of primary prevention. As emerging real-world evidence has demonstrated that performing peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) among infants is effective and safe, peanut OIT could be a treatment option for infants with peanut allergy. This review discusses the benefits, risks, and barriers to offering peanut OIT to infants who fail primary prevention strategies. We propose the novel concept that infants with peanut allergy be offered peanut OIT as soon as possible after failed peanut introduction through a shared decision-making process with the family, where there is a preference for active management rather than avoidance.

Patient selection for milk and egg ladders using a food ladder safety checklist

A food ladder is a form of home-based dietary advancement therapy that gradually increases exposure to an allergenic food through the gradual introduction of egg or milk containing food with increasing quantity and allergenicity from extensively heated forms, such as baked goods, to less processed products. While widely considered safe, the food ladder is not risk-free and most of the egg and milk ladder studies only included preschoolers with mild egg and milk allergies, and with no or well-controlled asthma. We propose a Food Ladder Safety Checklist to assist with patient selection using “4 A's” based on available evidence for food ladders, including Age, active or poorly controlled Asthma, history of Anaphylaxis, and Adherence.

Dietary exposures and allergy prevention in high-risk infants

Infants at high risk for developing a food allergy have either an atopic condition (such as eczema) themselves or an immediate family member with such a condition. Breastfeeding should be promoted and supported regardless of issues pertaining to food allergy prevention, but for infants whose mothers cannot or choose not to breastfeed, using a specific formula (i.e., hydrolyzed formula) is not recommended to prevent food allergies. When cow's milk protein formula has been introduced in an infant's diet, make sure that regular ingestion (as little as 10 mL daily) is maintained to prevent loss of tolerance. For high-risk infants, there is compelling evidence that introducing allergenic foods early-at around 6 months, but not before 4 months of age-can prevent common food allergies, and allergies to peanut and egg in particular. Once an allergenic food has been introduced, regular ingestion (e.g., a few times a week) is important to maintain tolerance. Common allergenic foods can be introduced without pausing for days between new foods, and the risk for a severe reaction at first exposure in infancy is extremely low. Pre-emptive in-office screening before introducing allergenic foods is not recommended. No recommendations can be made at this time about the role of maternal dietary modification during pregnancy or lactation, or about supplementing with vitamin D, omega 3, or pre- or probiotics as means to prevent food allergy.

The Risk of Allergic Reaction to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and Recommended Evaluation and Management: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, GRADE Assessment, and International Consensus Approach

Concerns for anaphylaxis may hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization efforts. We convened a multidisciplinary group of international experts in anaphylaxis composed of allergy, infectious disease, emergency medicine, and front-line clinicians to systematically develop recommendations regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immediate allergic reactions. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, the World Health Organizstion (WHO) global coronavirus database, and the gray literature (inception, March 19, 2021) were systematically searched. Paired reviewers independently selected studies addressing anaphylaxis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate allergy, and accuracy of allergy testing for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy. Random effects models synthesized the data to inform recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, agreed upon using a modified Delphi panel. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine anaphylaxis is 7.91 cases per million (n = 41,000,000 vaccinations; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.02-15.59; 26 studies, moderate certainty), the incidence of 0.15 cases per million patient-years (95% CI 0.11-0.2), and the sensitivity for PEG skin testing is poor, although specificity is high (15 studies, very low certainty). We recommend vaccination over either no vaccination or performing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient screening allergy testing for individuals without history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient, and a shared decision-making paradigm in consultation with an allergy specialist for individuals with a history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient. We recommend further research to clarify SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/vaccine excipient testing utility in individuals potentially allergic to SARS-CoV2 vaccines or their excipients.

Home-Based Peanut Oral Immunotherapy for Low-Risk Peanut-Allergic Preschoolers During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the deprioritization of non-emergency services, such as oral food challenges and the initiation of oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food-allergic children. Recent studies have suggested that home-based peanut OIT could be a safe and effective option for low-risk peanut-allergic children. In the period between September 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, nine preschoolers with a history of mild allergic reactions to peanut underwent home-based peanut OIT. Eight of them (88.9%) completed the build-up phase at home in 11–28 weeks, tolerating a daily maintenance dose of 320 mg peanut protein. During the build-up, six patients (75.0%) reported urticaria, three (33.3%) reported gastrointestinal tract symptoms, and one (14.3%) reported oral pruritis. None of the patients developed anaphylaxis, required epinephrine, or attended emergency services related to OIT. One or two virtual follow-up visits were completed per patient during the build-up phase. Our case series shows that home-based OIT could be offered to the low-risk preschoolers during the COVID-19 pandemic when non-emergency services are limited and could be considered beyond the pandemic, especially for the families living in the rural or remote areas that may otherwise be unable to access OIT.

Canadian food ladders for dietary advancement in children with IgE-mediated allergy to milk and/or egg

Food ladders are clinical tools already widely used in Europe for food reintroduction in milk- and egg-allergic children. Previously developed milk and egg ladders have limited applicability to Canadian children due to dietary differences and product availability. Herein we propose a Canadian version of cow’s milk and egg food ladders and discuss the potential role that food ladders may have in the care of children with IgE-mediated allergies to cow’s milk and/or egg, as either a method of accelerating the acquisition of tolerance in those who would outgrow on their own, or as a form of modified oral immunotherapy in those with otherwise persistent allergy.

The Importance of a Timely Second Dose of the 2021 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Depends on the Protection Afforded by a First Dose and Subsequent Risk of Anaphylaxis

Vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) represents our greatest hope to combat the devastating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Amid ongoing global vaccination efforts, rare cases of severe allergic reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have received significant attention. Although the exact nature of these reactions may be heterogeneous, various approaches exist to engage with patients, communities, public health departments, primary care providers, and other clinicians in a multidisciplinary approach to advance population health. Whereas it is optimal for patients to receive COVID-19 vaccination as outlined in emergency use authorizations, second-dose deferral of mRNA vaccines may be a consideration within a shared decision-making paradigm of care in select circumstances characterized by high durable first-vaccine–dose protection and significant elevations of vaccine anaphylaxis risk. Still, the durability of protection afforded by a single dose of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine is uncertain, and alternative approaches to complete vaccination, including precautionary use of a COVID-19 viral vector vaccine, also remain patient-preference–sensitive options. There is an urgent need to define correlates of COVID-19 immunity and the level of longer-term protection afforded by COVID-19 vaccination.

COVID-19 vaccine testing & administration guidance for allergists/immunologists from the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (CSACI)

BACKGROUND

Safe and effective vaccines provide the first hope for mitigating the devastating health and economic impacts resulting from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and related public health orders. Recent case reports of reactions to COVID-19 vaccines have raised questions about their safety for use in individuals with allergies and those who are immunocompromised. In this document, we aim to address these concerns and provide guidance for allergists/immunologists.

METHODS

Scoping review of the literature regarding COVID-19 vaccination, adverse or allergic reactions, and immunocompromise from PubMed over the term of December 2020 to present date. We filtered our search with the terms "human" and "English" and limited the search to the relevant subject age range with the term "adult." Reports resulting from these searches and relevant references cited in those reports were reviewed and cited on the basis of their relevance.

RESULTS

Assessment by an allergist is warranted in any individual with a suspected allergy to a COVID-19 vaccine or any of its components. Assessment by an allergist is NOT required for individuals with a history of unrelated allergies, including to allergies to foods, drugs, insect venom or environmental allergens. COVID-19 vaccines should be offered to immunocompromised patients if the benefit is deemed to outweigh any potential risks of vaccination.

INTERPRETATION

This review provides the first Canadian guidance regarding assessment of an adolescent and adult with a suspected allergy to one of the COVID-19 vaccines currently available, or any of their known allergenic components, and for patients who are immunocompromised who require vaccination for COVID-19. As information is updated this guidance will be updated accordingly.

A High Proportion of Canadian Allergists Offer Oral Immunotherapy but Barriers Remain

BACKGROUND

Limited data on clinical implementation of oral immunotherapy (OIT) have been reported with incomplete evaluation of barriers.

OBJECTIVE

To survey Canadian allergists on their current practice of OIT and barriers to implementation and expansion of OIT.

METHODS

A survey investigating current practice and logistical and clinical barriers to offering or expanding OIT was distributed to all Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology allergists.

RESULTS

Of 90 responding allergists, 52.2% reported offering OIT, most commonly to peanut. Food sublingual immunotherapy was offered by 7% of allergists. Having received training for OIT was associated with currently performing OIT (P = .008); 44.7% of allergists offering OIT had received training on OIT, and 81.4% not offering OIT had no training. A total of 87% of allergists performing OIT reported lack of efficacy data and lack of support staff and clinic space, and concerns about increased oral challenges (84%) were "moderately" to "extremely" important barriers to expanding OIT. For clinicians not offering OIT, concerns about safety (95%), after-hours support (95%), efficacy (93%), medicolegal risk (93%), and long-term practice implications (93%) were prioritized as significant barriers. Qualitative assessment suggested concerns about the practical challenges associated with OIT, the need for increased safety and efficacy data, and a desire for OIT guidelines and training.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of OIT faces many barriers, both clinical and logistical. Increasing high-quality safety and efficacy data may support those hesitant to offer OIT, and improving funding may address the practical infrastructure challenges. In addition, training will help expand access for allergists interested in performing OIT.

First Real-World Effectiveness Analysis of Preschool Peanut Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

We previously described safety of preschool peanut oral immunotherapy (P-OIT) in a real-world setting; 0.4% of patients experienced a severe reaction, and 4.1% received epinephrine, during build-up.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of preschool P-OIT after 1 year of maintenance.

METHODS

Preschoolers (9-70 months) with at least 1 objective reaction to peanut (during baseline oral food challenge (OFC) or P-OIT build-up) received a follow-up OFC to cumulative 4000 mg protein after 1 year on 300 mg peanut daily maintenance. Effectiveness of desensitization was defined as proportion of patients with a negative follow-up OFC. Symptoms and treatment at follow-up OFC were recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 117 patients who successfully completed 1 year of P-OIT and subsequently underwent a cumulative 4000-mg follow-up OFC, 92 (78.6%) had a negative OFC and 115 (98.3%) tolerated a cumulative dose of greater than or equal to 1000 mg. For the 25 (21.4%) who reacted, their threshold increased by 3376 mg (95% CI, 2884-3868) from baseline to follow-up; 17 (14.5%) patients experienced grade 1 reactions, 7 (6.00%) grade 2, and 1 (0.85%) grade 3. Two patients (1.71%) received epinephrine associated with P-OIT, and 1 (0.85%) went to the emergency department.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate that real-world preschool P-OIT is effective after 1 year of maintenance for those who received a follow-up OFC. For those who reacted, their threshold increased sufficiently to protect against accidental exposures. P-OIT should be considered for preschoolers as an alternative to current recommendations to avoid peanut.

A Phased Approach to Resuming Suspended Allergy/Immunology Clinical Services

In early 2020, the first US and Canadian cases of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were detected. In the ensuing months, there has been rapid spread of the infection. In March 2020, in response to the virus, state/provincial and local governments instituted shelter-in-place orders, and nonessential ambulatory care was significantly curtailed, including allergy/immunology services. With rates of new infections and fatalities potentially reaching a plateau and/or declining, restrictions on provision of routine ambulatory care are lifting, and there is a need to help guide the allergy/immunology clinician on how to reinitiate services. Given the fact that coronavirus disease 2019 will circulate within our communities for months or longer, we present a flexible, algorithmic best-practices planning approach on how to prioritize services, in 4 stratified phases of reopening according to community risk level, as well as highlight key considerations for how to safely do so. The decisions on what services to offer and how fast to proceed are left to the discretion of the individual clinician and practice, operating in accordance with state and local ordinances with respect to the level of nonessential ambulatory care that can be provided. Clear communication with staff and patients before and after all changes should be incorporated into this new paradigm on continual change, given the movement may be forward and even backward through the phases because this is an evolving situation.

COVID-19: Pandemic Contingency Planning for the Allergy and Immunology Clinic

In the event of a global infectious pandemic, drastic measures may be needed that limit or require adjustment of ambulatory allergy services. However, no rationale for how to prioritize service shut down and patient care exists. A consensus-based ad-hoc expert panel of allergy/immunology specialists from the United States and Canada developed a service and patient prioritization schematic to temporarily triage allergy/immunology services. Recommendations and feedback were developed iteratively, using an adapted modified Delphi methodology to achieve consensus. During the ongoing pandemic while social distancing is being encouraged, most allergy/immunology care could be postponed/delayed or handled through virtual care. With the exception of many patients with primary immunodeficiency, patients on venom immunotherapy, and patients with asthma of a certain severity, there is limited need for face-to-face visits under such conditions. These suggestions are intended to help provide a logical approach to quickly adjust service to mitigate risk to both medical staff and patients. Importantly, individual community circumstances may be unique and require contextual consideration. The decision to enact any of these measures rests with the judgment of each clinician and individual health care system. Pandemics are unanticipated, and enforced social distancing/quarantining is highly unusual. This expert panel consensus document offers a prioritization rational to help guide decision making when such situations arise and an allergist/immunologist is forced to reduce services or makes the decision on his or her own to do so.

First Real-World Safety Analysis of Preschool Peanut Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

In 2017, a clinical trial of 37 subjects demonstrated that preschool peanut oral immunotherapy (P-OIT) was safe, with predominantly mild symptoms reported and only 1 moderate reaction requiring epinephrine.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to examine whether these findings would be applicable in a real-world setting.

METHODS

As part of a Canada-wide quality improvement project, community and academic allergists administered P-OIT to preschool-age children who had (1) skin prick test wheal diameter greater than or equal to 3 mm or specific IgE level greater than or equal to 0.35 kU/L and history of reaction and/or positive baseline oral food challenge, or (2) no ingestion history and specific IgE level greater than or equal to 5 kU/L. Over 16 to 22 weeks, patients had biweekly clinic visits for updosing, and consumed the dose daily at home between visits. Target maintenance dose was 300 mg peanut protein. Symptoms were classified using a modified World Allergy Organization Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Reaction Grading System (1 mildest, 5 fatal).

RESULTS

Of 270 patients who started P-OIT in the period 2017 to 2018, 243 reached maintenance, and 27 dropped out (10.0%); 67.8% of patients experienced reactions during buildup: 36.3% grade 1, 31.1% grade 2, and 0.40% grade 4. Eleven patients (4.10%) received epinephrine (10 patients received 1 dose, 1 patient received epinephrine on 2 separate days), representing 2.23% of reactions (12 of 538) and 0.029% of doses (12 of 41,020).

CONCLUSIONS

We are the first group to describe preschool P-OIT in a real-world multicenter setting. The treatment appears to be safe for the vast majority of patients because symptoms were generally mild and very few reactions received epinephrine; however, life-threatening reactions in a minority of patients (0.4%) can still occur.

Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially fatal systemic allergic reaction with varied mechanisms and clinical presentations. Although prompt recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis are imperative, both patients and healthcare professionals often fail to recognize and diagnose early signs and symptoms of the condition. Clinical manifestations vary widely; however, the most common signs are cutaneous symptoms, including urticaria, angioedema, erythema and pruritus. Immediate intramuscular administration of epinephrine into the anterolateral thigh is first-line therapy, even if the diagnosis is uncertain. The mainstays of long-term management include specialist assessment, avoidance measures, and the provision of an epinephrine auto-injector and an individualized anaphylaxis action plan. This article provides an overview of the causes, clinical features, diagnosis and acute and long-term management of this serious allergic reaction.

Primum non nocere-first do no harm. And then feed peanut

The Addendum Guidelines for the Prevention of Peanut Allergy in the United States—Report of the NIAID-Sponsored Expert Panel were developed to build on previous food allergy guidelines after several key studies demonstrated the benefit of early introduction of allergenic foods. These landmark studies including the Learning Early about Peanut (LEAP), LEAP-On and Enquiring about Tolerance trials created a paradigm shift in food allergy prevention. The “take home” messages of this guideline include that peanut should be introduced early in the first year of life, and for the majority of infants, peanut can be introduced at home. The only group of infants for which medical assessment is recommended is those with severe eczema, egg allergy or both. Here we summarize the Guideline recommendations, endorsed by the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and highlight important aspects relevant to Canadian practitioners.

Dietary exposures and allergy prevention in high-risk infants: a joint position statement of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the Canadian Paediatric Society

Allergic conditions in children are a prevalent health concern in Canada. The burden of disease and the societal costs of proper diagnosis and management are considerable, making the primary prevention of allergic conditions a desirable health care objective. This position statement reviews current evidence on dietary exposures and allergy prevention in infants at high risk of developing allergic conditions. It revisits previous dietary recommendations for pregnancy, breastfeeding and formula-feeding, and provides an approach for introducing solid foods to high-risk infants. While there is no evidence that delaying the introduction of any specific food beyond six months of age helps to prevent allergy, the protective effect of early introduction of potentially allergenic foods (at four to six months) remains under investigation. Recent research appears to suggest that regularly ingesting a new, potentially allergenic food may be as important as when that food is first introduced. This article has already been published (Paediatr Child Health. 2013 Dec;18(10):545–54), and is being re-published with permission from the original publisher, the Canadian Paediatric Society.

Allostatic load biomarkers and asthma in adolescents

RATIONALE

Allostatic load (AL), a novel measure of the physiologically dysregulated response of the body to stress, represents a biomarker of chronic stress exposure.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether preadolescent children with high AL are more susceptible to asthma as adolescents.

METHODS

This was a prospective evaluation of children recruited at 7 to 10 years of age in the nested case-control arm of the Study of Asthma, Genes and Environment and followed until 11 to 14 years of age. AL was measured using eight biomarkers: fasting glucose, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate, cortisol, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and waist-to-hip ratio. AL, created from the sum of biomarkers in a high-risk quartile, was related to prevalence and incidence of asthma using logistic regression.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Among 352 participants followed until 11 to 14 years of age, prevalent asthma was four times more likely in boys with high (>3) versus low (≤2) AL after adjusting for current asthma/atopy, age, ethnicity, parental history of asthma, and overweight status. Similar results were observed in the analysis of new-onset asthma in boys (adjusted odds ratio, 4.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-15.9). In girls, there were no associations between AL and asthma. In the analysis of a subset of biomarkers, combinations of total cholesterol, glucose, and cortisol were associated with similar or greater risk of asthma prevalence or onset in boys.

CONCLUSIONS

AL and its biomarkers are associated with an increased likelihood of asthma in adolescent boys. The observed association between AL and asthma may be attributable to a combined subset of AL biomarkers.