SummaryBackgroundSmall studies suggest peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) might be effective in the treatment of peanut allergy. We aimed to establish the efficacy of OIT for the desensitisation of children with allergy to peanuts.MethodsWe did a randomised controlled crossover trial to compare the efficacy of active OIT (using characterised peanut flour; protein doses of 2–800 mg/day) with control (peanut avoidance, the present standard of care) at the NIHR/Wellcome Trust Cambridge Clinical Research Facility (Cambridge, UK). Randomisation (1:1) was by use of an audited online system; group allocation was not masked. Eligible participants were aged 7–16 years with an immediate hypersensitivity reaction after peanut ingestion, positive skin prick test to peanuts, and positive by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). We excluded participants if they had a major chronic illness, if the care provider or a present household member had suspected or diagnosed allergy to peanuts, or if there was an unwillingness or inability to comply with study procedures. Our primary outcome was desensitisation, defined as negative peanut challenge (1400 mg protein in DBPCFC) at 6 months (first phase). Control participants underwent OIT during the second phase, with subsequent DBPCFC. Immunological parameters and disease-specific quality-of-life scores were measured. Analysis was by intention to treat. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of those with desensitisation to peanut after 6 months between the active and control group at the end of the first phase. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN62416244.FindingsThe primary outcome, desensitisation, was recorded for 62% (24 of 39 participants; 95% CI 45–78) in the active group and none of the control group after the first phase (0 of 46; 95% CI 0–9; p<0·001). 84% (95% CI 70–93) of the active group tolerated daily ingestion of 800 mg protein (equivalent to roughly five peanuts). Median increase in peanut threshold after OIT was 1345 mg (range 45–1400; p<0·001) or 25·5 times (range 1·82–280; p<0·001). After the second phase, 54% (95% CI 35–72) tolerated 1400 mg challenge (equivalent to roughly ten peanuts) and 91% (79–98) tolerated daily ingestion of 800 mg protein. Quality-of-life scores improved (decreased) after OIT (median change −1·61; p<0·001). Side-effects were mild in most participants. Gastrointestinal symptoms were, collectively, most common (31 participants with nausea, 31 with vomiting, and one with diarrhoea), then oral pruritus after 6·3% of doses (76 participants) and wheeze after 0·41% of doses (21 participants). Intramuscular adrenaline was used after 0·01% of doses (one participant).InterpretationOIT successfully induced desensitisation in most children within the study population with peanut allergy of any severity, with a clinically meaningful increase in peanut threshold. Quality of life improved after intervention and there was a good safety profile. Immunological changes corresponded with clinical d...

No abstract

No abstract

Common drugsCommon drugs containing PEG: laxatives, Gaviscon double action, depotcorticosteroids, for example methylprednisolone, Depo Provera, penicillin Importance of brand Depends on brand (checklist of excipients 6.1 on SmPC or contents 6 on PIL). PEG is also called macrogol PEG Molecular Weight Higher PEG MWs appear more allergenic, and molecular weight and amount of PEG determines whether an allergic reaction occurs Topical products Mild usually cutaneous reactions (pruritus, rhino-conjunctivitis) to cosmetics, toothpaste, mouthwashes, shower gels, moisturizers, hand sanitizers and soaps often with lower PEG molecular weights. Vaccine reaction Immediate-onset (minutes) severe systemic allergic reaction to an mRNA COVID−19 vaccine Abbreviations: MW, molecular weight; PEG, polyethylene glycol; SmPC, summary of product characteristics. TA B L E 1 The clinical features of a PEG-allergic patient may help identify at-risk patients before vaccination or if a COVID-19 vaccine reaction was likely due to PEG Key messages 1. The Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine can cause severe anaphylaxis of unknown cause 2. Here, we show polyethylene glycol allergy caused one of the first cases of anaphylaxis to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine 3. Allergy skin prick testing with polyethylene glycol triggered anaphylaxis, highlighting the importance of safety procedures during investigation | 863 RESEARCH LETTER

SummaryThese guidelines have been prepared by the Standards of Care Committee (SOCC) of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) and are intended for allergists and others with a special interest in allergy. As routine or validated tests are not available for the majority of drugs, considerable experience is required for the investigation of allergic drug reactions and to undertake specific drug challenge. A missed or incorrect diagnosis of drug allergy can have serious consequences. Therefore, investigation and management of drug allergy is best carried out in specialist centres with large patient numbers and adequate competence and resources to manage complex cases. The recommendations are evidencebased but where evidence was lacking consensus was reached by the panel of specialists on the committee. The document encompasses epidemiology, risk factors, clinical patterns of drug allergy, diagnosis and treatment procedures. In order to achieve a correct diagnosis we have placed particular emphasis on obtaining an accurate clinical history and on the physical examination, as these are critical to the choice of skin tests and subsequent drug provocation. After the diagnosis of drug allergy has been established, communication of results and patient education are vital components of overall patient management.

Sensitisation, mainly to peanuts, is occurring in very young children, and multiple peanut/nut allergies appear progressively. Peanut and nut allergy is becoming common and can cause life threatening reactions. The main danger is laryngeal oedema. Young atopic children should avoid peanuts and nuts to prevent the development of this allergy.

SummaryInvestigation of anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia requires an accurate record of events including information on timing of drug administration provided by the anaesthetist, as well as timed acute tryptase measurements. Referrals should be made to a centre with the experience and ability to investigate reactions to a range of drug classes/substances including neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) intravenous (i.v.) anaesthetics, antibiotics, opioid analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), local anaesthetics, colloids, latex and other agents. About a third of cases are due to allergy to NMBAs. Therefore, investigation should be carried out in a dedicated drug allergy clinic to allow seamless investigation of all suspected drug classes as a single day-case. This will often require skin prick tests, intra-dermal testing and/or drug challenge. Investigation must cover the agents administered, but should also include most other commonly used NMBAs and i.v. anaesthetics. The outcome should be to identify the cause and a range of drugs/agents likely to be safe for future use. The allergist is responsible for a detailed report to the referring anaesthetist and to the patient's GP as well as the surgeon/obstetrician. A shorter report should be provided to the patient, adding an allergy alert to the case notes and providing an application form for an alert-bracelet indicating the wording to be inscribed. The MHRA should be notified. Investigation of anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia should be focussed in major allergy centres with a high throughput of cases and with experience and ability as described above. We suggest this focus since there is a distinct lack of validated data for testing, thus requiring experience in interpreting tests and because of the serious consequences of diagnostic error.Keywords allergy, anaphylaxis, anaphylaxis incidence, antibiotics, general anaesthesia, general anaesthetics, latex, local anaesthetic, neuromuscular blocking drugs/agents, patent blue dye, plasma substitute, skin tests Executive summaryThis document describes the investigation of suspected anaphylaxis during anaesthesia focussing on the allergist's role. Referral should be made to a major allergy centre with expertise in drug allergy and high throughput of anaesthetic anaphylaxis because of the need for experience in interpreting tests and the serious consequences of diagnostic error. The anaesthetist is responsible for referral. The centre should be able to investigate all potential causes. This involves a range of drug classes/substances including neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), intravenous (i.v.) anaesthetics, antibiotics, opioid analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), local anaesthetics (LAs), colloids, latex, skin antiseptics and other agents used during general anaesthesia. A lead anaesthetist should be identified in each major hospital for clinical governance and notified of each case of anaphylaxis. The responsibility would be to provide initial guidance on b...

SummaryThis guidance for the management of patients with hymenoptera venom allergy has been prepared by the Standards of Care Committee (SOCC) of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI). The guideline is based on evidence as well as on expert opinion and is for use by both adult physicians and pediatricians practising allergy. During the development of these guidelines, all BSACI members were included in the consultation process using a web-based system. Their comments and suggestions were carefully considered by the SOCC. Where evidence was lacking, consensus was reached by the experts on the committee. Included in this guideline are epidemiology, risk factors, clinical features, diagnostic tests, natural history of hymenoptera venom allergy and guidance on undertaking venom immunotherapy (VIT). There are also separate sections on children, elevated baseline tryptase and mastocytosis and mechanisms underlying VIT. Finally, we have made recommendations for potential areas of future research.