The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Guidelines for the assessment and management of anaphylaxis provide a unique global perspective on this increasingly common, potentially life-threatening disease. Recommendations made in the original WAO Anaphylaxis Guidelines remain clinically valid and relevant, and are a widely accessed and frequently cited resource. In this 2015 update of the evidence supporting recommendations in the Guidelines, new information based on anaphylaxis publications from January 2014 through mid- 2015 is summarized. Advances in epidemiology, diagnosis, and management in healthcare and community settings are highlighted. Additionally, new information about patient factors that increase the risk of severe and/or fatal anaphylaxis and patient co-factors that amplify anaphylactic episodes is presented and new information about anaphylaxis triggers and confirmation of triggers to facilitate specific trigger avoidance and immunomodulation is reviewed. The update includes tables summarizing important advances in anaphylaxis research.

Controversies exist with regards to in vivo approaches to delayed immunologically mediated adverse drug reactions (ADR) such as exanthem (maculopapular eruption), drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and fixed drug eruption. In particular, widespread differences exist between regions and practice on the availability and use of intradermal testing (IDT) and patch testing, the standard drug concentrations used, the use of additional drugs in IDT and patch testing to help determine cross-reactivity, the timing of testing in relation to the occurrence of the adverse drug reaction, the use of testing in specific phenotypes, and the use of oral challenge in conjunction with delayed intradermal and patch testing to ascertain drug tolerance. It was noted that there have been advances in the science of delayed T-cell mediated reactions that have shed light on immunopathogenesis and provided a mechanism of pre-prescription screening in the case of HLA-B*57:01 and abacavir hypersensitivity and HLA-B*15:02 and carbamazepine SJS/TEN in Southeast Asians. Future directions should include the collaboration of large international networks to develop and standardize in vivo diagnostic approaches such as skin testing and patch testing combined with ex vivo and in vitro laboratory approaches.

The study of anaphylaxis mortality using secondary data requires the use of information derived from the underlying as well as from the contributing causes-of-death fields. Coding definitions should be standardized with a view of enabling trend analyses and international comparisons. The ICD-11 revision is a unique opportunity to improve the coding system so as to facilitate epidemiological studies of anaphylaxis mortality. Educational interventions targeted at improving the quality of death certificate completion are urgently needed.

No abstract

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used in the pediatric population as antipyretics/analgesics and anti-inflammatory medications. Hypersensitivity (HS) reactions to NSAID in this age group, while similar to adults, have unique diagnostic and management issues. Although slowly accumulating, published data in this age group are still relatively rare and lacking a unifying consensus. This work is a summary of current knowledge and consensus recommendations utilizing both published data and expert opinion from the European Network of Drug Allergy (ENDA) and the Drug Hypersensitivity interest group in the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI). This position paper summarizes diagnostic and management guidelines for children and adolescents with NSAIDs hypersensitivity.

Background: Anaphylaxis hospitalizations are increasing in many countries, in particular for medication and food triggers in young children. Food-related anaphylaxis remains an uncommon cause of death, but a significant proportion of these are preventable.Aim: To review published epidemiological data relating to food-induced anaphylaxis and potential risk factors of fatal and/or near-fatal anaphylaxis cases, in order to provide strategies to reduce the risk of severe adverse outcomes in food anaphylaxis. Methods:We identified 32 published studies available in MEDLINE (1966MEDLINE ( -2017, EMBASE (1980EMBASE ( -2017, CINAHL (1982CINAHL ( -2017, using known terms and synonyms suggested by librarians and allergy specialists.Results: Young adults with a history of asthma, previously known food allergy particularly to peanut/tree nuts are at higher risk of fatal anaphylaxis reactions. In some countries, cow's milk and seafood/fish are also becoming common triggers of fatal reactions. Delayed adrenaline injection is associated with fatal outcomes, but timely adrenaline alone may be insufficient. There is still a lack of evidence regarding the real impact of these risk factors and co-factors (medications and/or alcohol consumption, physical activities, and mast cell disorders).Conclusions: General strategies should include optimization of the classification and coding for anaphylaxis (new ICD 11 anaphylaxis codes), dissemination of international recommendations on the treatment of anaphylaxis, improvement of the prevention in food and catering areas, and dissemination of specific policies for allergic children in schools. Implementation of these strategies will involve national and international support for ongoing local efforts in relationship with networks of centres of excellence to provide personalized management (which might include immunotherapy) for the most at-risk patients. K E Y W O R D Sanaphylaxis, fatal anaphylaxis, fatality, food-induced anaphylaxis, mortality, mortality rate

Objective: Little is known regarding food anaphylaxis in infancy. We aimed to describe specificities of food anaphylaxis in infants (≤12 months) as compared to preschool children (1-6 years). Methods:We conducted a retrospective study of all food anaphylaxis cases recorded by the Allergy Vigilance Network from 2002 to 2018, in preschool children focusing on infants.Results: Of 1951 food anaphylaxis reactions, 61 (3%) occurred in infants and 386 (20%) in preschool children. Two infants had two anaphylaxis reactions; thus, we analyzed data among 59 infants (male: 51%; mean age: 6 months [SD: 2.9]); 31% had a history of atopic dermatitis, 11% of previous food allergy. The main food allergens were cow's milk (59%), hen's egg (20%), wheat (7%) and peanut (3%) in infants as compared with peanut (27%) and cashew (23%) in preschool children. Anaphylaxis occurred in 28/61 (46%) cases at the first cow's milk intake after breastfeeding discontinuation. Clinical manifestations were mainly mucocutaneous (79%), gastrointestinal (49%), respiratory (48%) and cardiovascular (21%); 25% of infants received adrenaline. Hives, hypotension and neurologic symptoms were more likely to be reported in infants than in preschool children (P = .02; P = .004; P = .002, respectively).Antihistamines and corticosteroids were more often prescribed in preschool children than in infants (P = .005; P = .025, respectively). Conclusion:Our study found that in infants presenting with their first food allergy, in a setting with a high rate of infant formula use, the most predominant trigger was cow's milk. As compared to older preschool children, hives, hypotonia and hypotension were more likely to be reported in infants. We believe that this represents a distinct food anaphylaxis phenotype that can further support developing the clinical anaphylaxis criteria in infants. | 75POUESSEL Et aL.

In contrast to the majority of allergic or hypersensitivity conditions, worldwide anaphylaxis epidemiological data remain sparse with low accuracy, which hampers comparable morbidity statistics. Data can differ widely depending on a number of variables. In the current document we reviewed the forms on which anaphylaxis has been defined and classified; and how it can affect epidemiological data. With regards to the methods used to capture morbidity statistics, we observed the impact of the anaphylaxis coding utilizing the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases. As an outcome and depending on the anaphylaxis definition, we extracted the cumulative incidence, which may not reflect the real number of new cases. The new ICD-11 anaphylaxis subsection developments and critical view of morbidity statistics data are discussed in order to reach new perspectives on anaphylaxis epidemiology.