Background: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an emerging approach to the treatment of patients with IgE-mediated food allergy and is in the process of transitioning to clinical practice.Objective: To develop patient-oriented clinical practice guidelines on oral immunotherapy based on evidence and ethical imperatives for the provision of safe and efficient food allergy management. Materials and methods:Recommendations were developed using a reflective patient-centered multicriteria approach including 22 criteria organized in five dimensions (clinical, populational, economic, organizational and sociopolitical). Data was obtained from: (1) a review of scientific and ethic literature; (2) consultations of allergists, other healthcare professionals (pediatricians, family physicians, nurses, registered dieticians, psychologists, peer supporters), patients and caregivers; and patient associations through structured consultative panels, interviews and on-line questionnaire; and (3) organizational and economic data from the milieu of care. All data was synthesized by criteria in a multicriteria deliberative guide that served as a platform for structured discussion and development of recommendations for each dimension, based on evidence, ethical imperatives and other considerations. Results:The deliberative grid included 162 articles from the literature and media reviews and data from consultations involving 85 individuals. Thirty-eight (38) recommendations were made for the practice of oral immunotherapy for the treatment of IgE mediated food allergy, based on evidence and a diversity of ethical imperatives. All recommendations were aimed at fostering a context conducive to achieving objectives identified by patients and caregivers with food allergy. Notably, specific recommendations were developed to promote a culture of shared responsibility between patients and healthcare system, equity in access, patient empowerment, shared decision making and personalization of OIT protocols to reflect patients' needs. It also provides recommendations to optimize organization of care to generate capacity to meet demand according to patient choice, e.g. OIT or avoidance. These recommendations were made acknowledging the necessity of ensuring sustainability of the clinical offer in light of various economic considerations. © The Author(s) 2020. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article' s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article'A multidisciplinary team comprised of experts from a diversity of fields was assembled, including allergists and other healthcare professional...

No abstract

No abstract

Background Vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is a rare event (1.34 events/million doses; 0.00017% occurrence over 26 years). Several reports of allergic reactions concerning for anaphylaxis have been reported early into the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine campaign in the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom. Objective To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis characterizing the risks of COVID-19 versus vaccine anaphylaxis, comparing universal COVID-19 vaccination vs. risk-stratified vaccination approaches. Methods Cohort analysis models were created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of universal vaccination vs. risk-stratified vaccination (e.g., contraindicated in persons with a history of any prior episode of anaphylaxis) with a threshold for cost-effective care at $10,000,000 per death prevented. In the base case, risk of anaphylaxis was estimated at 0.1% with case-fatality estimated at 0.3%. Results On a population level (n=300,000,000 simulated persons), universal vaccination was associated with a cost-savings of $503,596,316 and saved 7,607 lives, but the cost-savings was sensitive to increasing rates of vaccine-associated anaphylaxis. The universal strategy dominated at higher rates of COVID-19 infection and low rates of vaccine-associated anaphylaxis in both the healthcare and societal perspectives. When the risk of vaccine-associated anaphylaxis exceeded 0.8%, the risk-stratified approach to vaccination was the most cost-effective strategy. There was also an interaction between anaphylaxis risk and anaphylaxis fatality, with a risk-stratified approach becoming cost-effective as each risk increased concurrently. Stratified observation time by anaphylaxis history (15 minutes vs 30 minutes) was not cost-effective until a 1% anaphylaxis case-fatality was assumed and risk of vaccine anaphylaxis exceeded 6%. Conclusion This study demonstrates that unless vaccine anaphylaxis rates exceed 0.8% a universal vaccination approach dominates a risk-stratified approach where persons with any history of anaphylaxis would be contraindicated from vaccination, with lower cost and superior health outcomes.

Peanut allergy is one of the most common food allergies in children, with increasing prevalence over time. The dual-allergen exposure hypothesis now supports transcutaneous sensitization to peanut as a likely pathophysiologic mechanism for peanut allergy development. As a result, there is emerging evidence that early peanut introduction has a role in peanut allergy prevention. Current first-line diagnostic tests for peanut allergy have limited specificity, which may be enhanced with emerging tools such as component-resolved diagnostics. Although management of peanut allergy includes avoidance and carrying an epinephrine autoinjector, risk of fatal anaphylaxis is extremely low, and there is minimal risk related to cutaneous or inhalational exposure. Quality of life in children with peanut allergy requires significant focus. Moving forward, oral and epicutaneous immunotherapy are emerging and exciting tools that may have a role to play in desensitization to peanut.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract