Histological findings in infants with Gastrointestinal food allergy are associated with specific gastrointestinal symptoms; retrospective review from a tertiary centre

Background

Gastrointestinal food allergy (GIFA) occurs in 2 to 4 % of children, the majority of whom are infants (<1 year of age). Although endoscopy is considered the gold standard for diagnosing GIFA, it is invasive and requires general anaesthesia. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether in infants with GIFA, gastrointestinal symptoms predict histological findings in order to help optimise the care pathway for such patients.

Methods

All infants <1 year of age over a 20 year period who underwent an endoscopic procedure gastroscopy or colonoscopy for GIFA were evaluated for the study. Symptoms at presentation were reviewed and compared with mucosal biopsy histological findings, which were initially broadly classified for study purposes as “Normal” or “Abnormal” (defined as the presence of any mucosal inflammation by the reporting pathologist at the time of biopsy).

Results

Of a total of 1319 cases, 544 fitted the inclusion criteria. 62 % of mucosal biopsy series in this group were reported as abnormal. Infants presenting with diarrhoea, rectal (PR) bleeding, irritability and urticaria in any combination had a probability >85 % (OR?>?5.67) of having abnormal histological findings compared to those without. Those with isolated PR bleeding or diarrhoea were associated with 74 % and 68 % probability (OR: 2.85 and 2.13) of an abnormal biopsy, respectively. Conversely, children presenting with faltering growth or reflux/vomiting showed any abnormal mucosal histology in only 50.8 % and 45.3 % (OR: 1.04 and 0.82) respectively.

Conclusions

Food allergy may occur in very young children and is difficult to diagnose. Since endoscopy in infants has significant risks, stratification of decision-making may be aided by symptoms. At least one mucosal biopsy demonstrated an abnormal finding in around half of cases in this selected population. Infants presenting with diarrhoea, PR bleeding, urticaria and irritability are most likely to demonstrate abnormal histological findings.

     

Anaphylaxis: a history with emphasis on food allergy

In the century since Paul Portier and Charles Richet described their landmark findings of severe fatal reactions in dogs re-exposed to venom after vaccination with sea anemone venom, treatment for anaphylaxis continues to evolve. The incidence of anaphylaxis continues to be difficult to measure. Underreporting due to patients not seeking medical care as well as failure to identify anaphylaxis affects our understanding of the magnitude of the disease. Treatment with intramuscular epinephrine continues to be the recommended first-line therapy, although studies indicate that education of both the patients and the medical community is needed. Adverse food reactions continue to be the leading cause of anaphylaxis presenting for emergency care. Current therapy for food-induced anaphylaxis is built on the foundation of strict dietary avoidance, rapid access to injectable epinephrine, and education to recognize signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis. Investigation into therapy with oral and sublingual immunotherapy as well as other modalities holds hope for improved treatment of food-induced anaphylaxis.     

Anaphylaxis: a review of causes and mechanisms

Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening syndrome resulting from the sudden release of mast cell- and basophil-derived mediators into the circulation. Foods and medications cause most anaphylaxis for which a cause can be identified, but virtually any agent capable of directly or indirectly activating mast cells or basophils can cause this syndrome. This review discusses the pathophysiologic mechanisms of anaphylaxis, its causes, and its treatment.     

Anaphylaxis: a review of 601 cases.

BACKGROUND: The allergist usually sees patients with anaphylaxis after the event for the purposes of identifying the cause, establishing a prognosis, and preventing further episodes. Knowledge of the characteristics of such patients is essential to achieve these goals. OBJECTIVE: To examine the natural history, clinical manifestations, and factors that affect the patients' adherence to suggested treatment and preventive strategies of anaphylaxis. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review spanning 25 years (1978-2003) and follow-up questionnaires were used to obtain data on 601 patients who presented with anaphylaxis of unknown origin to a private university-affiliated allergy-immunology practice. RESULTS: Patients ranged in age from 1 to 79 years, with a mean age of 37 years. Females comprised 62% of cases. Causes of anaphylaxis were elucidated in 41% of cases. Known causes included foods in 131 patients (22%), medications in 69 cases (11%), and exercise in 31 cases (5%). Two hundred twenty-three patients (37%) were found to be atopic by history confirmed with skin prick testing. The most common manifestation was urticaria and/or angioedema, reported in 87% of patients. Systemic mastocytosis was found in 3 patients. Episodes tended to decline in frequency with time. Adherence to instructions to carry epinephrine can be improved with more effective teaching. CONCLUSIONS: In most cases, the cause of anaphylaxis is undetermined. Women are affected more commonly than men. Systemic mastocytosis should be considered in cases of idiopathic anaphylaxis, and patients with a history of atopy are at an increased risk of developing anaphylaxis. Patients are more reliably carrying epinephrine as a result of changes in physician instructions. Finally, anaphylactic episodes tend to decrease in frequency and severity with time.     

Anaphylaxis, killer allergy: long-term management in the community

Traditionally, physicians are trained to diagnose and treat anaphylaxis as an acute emergency in a health care setting. In addition to this crucial and time-honored role, we should be cognizant of our wider responsibility to (1) provide a risk assessment for individuals with anaphylaxis, (2) prevent future anaphylaxis episodes by developing long-term personalized risk reduction strategies for affected individuals, and (3) emphasize anaphylaxis education. Risk assessment should include verification of the trigger factor or factors for the anaphylaxis episode by obtaining a comprehensive history and performing relevant investigations, including allergen skin tests and measurement of allergen-specific IgE in serum. In addition, the potential effect of comorbidities and concurrently administered medications on the recognition and emergency treatment of subsequent episodes should be determined. Risk reduction strategies should be personalized to include information about avoidance of specific triggers and initiation of relevant specific preventive treatment (eg, venom immunotherapy). At-risk individuals should be coached in the use of self-injectable epinephrine and equipped with an anaphylaxis emergency action plan and with accurate medical identification. Anaphylaxis education should be provided for these individuals, their families and caregivers, health care professionals, and the general public. Further development of an optimal diagnostic test for anaphylaxis and of tests and algorithms to predict future risk and prevent fatality are urgently needed.     

EAACI Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Guidelines: managing patients with food allergy in the community

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Guidelines, managing patients with food allergy (FA) in the community, intend to provide guidance to reduce the risk of accidental allergic reactions to foods in the community. This document is intended to meet the needs of early‐childhood and school settings as well as providers of non‐prepackaged food (e.g., restaurants, bakeries, takeaway, deli counters, and fast‐food outlets) and targets the audience of individuals with FA, their families, patient organizations, the general public, policymakers, and allergists. Food allergy is the most common trigger of anaphylaxis in the community. Providing children and caregivers with comprehensive information on food allergen avoidance and prompt recognition and management of allergic reactions are of the utmost importance. Provision of adrenaline auto‐injector devices and education on how and when to use these are essential components of a comprehensive management plan. Managing patients at risk of anaphylaxis raises many challenges, which are specific to the community. This includes the need to interact with third parties providing food (e.g., school teachers and restaurant staff) to avoid accidental exposure and to help individuals with FA to make safe and appropriate food choices. Education of individuals at risk and their families, their peers, school nurses and teachers as well as restaurant and other food retail staff can reduce the risk of severe/fatal reactions. Increased awareness among policymakers may improve decision‐making on legislation at local and national level.     

Experience in patch testing: A 6-year retrospective review from a single academic allergy practice

BackgroundPatch testing is the “gold standard” to identify culprit allergen(s) causing allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), but there are limited studies of patch testing from allergy practice settings.ObjectiveWe sought to explore patch test findings in a large academic allergy practice, including patch testing results, history of atopy, location of dermatitis, and referral source. We also wanted to determine whether patch testing using an extended panel, such as the North American screening series, compared with a limited series, such as the Thin-Layer Rapid-Use Epicutaneous (T.R.U.E.) Test, increased the sensitivity.MethodsA retrospective chart review was conducted of patients referred for patch testing over a 6-year period.ResultsA total of 585 patients (mean age 48.7 years, 71.6 % female) underwent patch testing over the 6-year period, of which 369 (63%) had a positive test. Of those who tested positive, 202 (55%) reported a history of atopy. The extremities were the most commonly involved site, followed by the head/neck and trunk. The 5 most common positive allergens were nickel sulfate, gold sodium thiosulfate, methylchloroisothiazolinone, thimerosal, and bacitracin. Three hundred fourteen (53.6%) patients were positive to at least 1 allergen on TRUE testing. Extended screening series identified an additional 10.8% of patients with positive tests who were negative to T.R.U.E. test allergens.ConclusionPatch testing is a valuable diagnostic tool for the practicing allergist and provides early identification of culprit allergens in ACD. Performing an extended screening series such as the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) or supplemental panel of allergens increased sensitivity when compared with a limited series.     

Safety and effectiveness of a preoperative allergy clinic in decreasing vancomycin use in patients with a history of penicillin allergy.

BACKGROUND: We developed a clinical pathway to optimize the use of antimicrobials by decreasing vancomycin use in preoperative patients with a history of penicillin allergy. OBJECTIVE: To decrease the use of vancomycin in surgical patients with a self-reported penicillin allergy. METHODS: In June 2002, same-day allergy consultation and penicillin skin testing were made available for preoperative patients with self-reported penicillin allergy at the preoperative evaluation (POE) clinic. We reviewed the penicillin allergy skin test results, recommendations, and beta-lactam antibiotic administration outcomes from July 1, 2002, to September 16, 2003. RESULTS: A total of 1,204 of 11,819 patients were evaluated for beta-lactam allergy at the POE clinic. Of these, 1,120 were approved by the institutional review board for inclusion in the study and 9 were excluded from the study. Of the remaining 1,111 patients, 1,030 (93%) underwent skin testing for penicillin allergy. Forty-three (4%) had a positive skin test result to penicillin. A total of 947 (85%) of the 1,111 patients with a history of beta-lactam allergy were advised to use a beta-lactam antibiotic, and 164 (15%) were advised to avoid beta-lactams. A total of 955 patients (86%) actually received preoperative antibiotics. Of these 955 patients, 716 (75%) received cefazolin, and only 149 (16%) received vancomycin compared with 30% historical controls (P < .01). Among the patients with a negative penicillin skin test result who received a cephalosporin, 5 (0.7%) of 675 experienced an adverse drug reaction to a cephalosporin. CONCLUSIONS: Establishment of a clinical pathway in a preoperative clinic that includes allergy consultation and penicillin skin testing reduced vancomycin use to only 16% in surgical patients with a history of beta-lactam allergy.