Food allergy and anaphylaxis

Figures & data

Table 1 Summary of included studies

Theme	Study	Objective	Setting/duration	Population	Design
Prevalence	Gonzalez-Estrada et al^Citation6	To determine the pattern of anaphylaxis at a tertiary care referral center	Allergy and Immunology Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA Electronic medical record review between 2002 and 2013	N=730 patients with anaphylaxis	Retrospective study
	Acker et al^Citation8	To determine the prevalence of food allergy and intolerance documented in the electronic health records (EHR) allergy module	Allergy data review with large health care organization’s EHR (Partners Healthcare, Boston, MA, USA) between 2000 and 2013	N=97,482 patients with one or more food allergies or intolerances	Retrospective study
	Leickly et al^Citation9	To confirm new observations on peanut allergy and answer current concerns that families and health care providers have about peanut allergy	Riley Peanut Registry; Riley Outpatient Center in Indianapolis; Indiana University North in Carmel, IN, USA; and Riley Children’s Specialists in Bloomington, IN, USA, between April 2011 and March 2016	N=1,070 children with peanut allergy	Retrospective study
	Lee et al^Citation4	To determine the incidence rate and causes of anaphylaxis during a 10-year period in Olmsted County, MN, USA	Rochester Epidemiology Project, Olmsted County, MN, USA, from 2001 to 2010	N=631 cases of anaphylaxis	Population-based incidence study
	O’Keefe et al^Citation10	To determine the recurrence rate of anaphylaxis in children medically attended in an emergency department (ED)	EDs, Outaouais region of Quebec, Canada, between April 2011 and February 2014	N=292 children with anaphylaxis	Prospective cohort study
Diagnostics	Griffiths et al^Citation18	To review currently available diagnostic tests performance, how they are used, and how their use might be optimized to address unmet needs in allergy diagnosis	National Allergy Service for Wales at the University Hospital of Wales between April 2011 and March 2014	N=1,434 females and 634 male patients; new referrals with clinical histories and presented with diagnostic difficulty	Retrospective study
	Akuete et al^Citation22	To examine the epidemiology, symptoms, and treatment of clinical low-risk oral food challenges (OFCs) in the non-research setting	Data from five US food allergy centers: Texas Children’s Hospital Food Allergy Program (South); University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (North Midwest); Riley Hospital for Children at Indiana University Health (Midwest); University of Washington School of Medicine, Northwest Asthma & Allergy Center (Northwest); and Boston Children’s Hospital (Northeast); study conducted from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2013	N=6,377 open OFCs	Retrospective study
	Chan et al^Citation23	To compare reaction profiles from food challenges and parent-reported reactions on accidental ingestion and assess predictors of severe reactions	HealthNuts study; birth cohort 2006–2009; Specialist Clinic at Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital	2-month-old infants via their parents/guardians at childhood immunization sessions across the city of Melbourne, Australia N=5,276 12-month-old infants	Longitudinal population-based cohort study
	Yanagida et al^Citation24	To identify the risk factors for severe symptoms during OFC testing among high-risk patients	Sagamihara National Hospital, Japan Between June 2008 and June 2012	N=393 patients ≥5 years old with anaphylactic history	Retrospective chart review
Acute management	Cantrell et al^Citation30	To determine whether EpiPens expired up to 50 months retain their stated potency	Two-week period; patients and practitioners at a community clinic were asked to provide unused, expired EpiPens	N=40 expired EpiPens	Retrospective study
	Feuille et al^Citation33	To assess time trends in food allergy diagnoses, epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) prescriptions, and EAI administrations in the school setting	Student data from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, between school years 2007 and 2013 pertaining to diagnoses of food allergy, student-specific EAI orders, and EAI administrations among students in New York City	N=6,418,039 students	Retrospective study
	Waserman^Citation34	To examine the availability of EAIs globally	Online survey administered to patients (with food allergy) through a global network (48 countries) of patient allergy associations (August–December 2016)	N=7,241 patients with food allergy	Cross-sectional study
Oral immunotherapy (OIT)	Vickery et al^Citation39	To test the safety, effectiveness, and feasibility of early OIT (E-OIT) in the treatment of peanut allergy	University of North Carolina, at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA	N=40 children aged 9–36 months with suspected or known peanut allergy	Clinical trial (single center)
Epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT)	Jones et al^Citation41	To evaluate the clinical safety and immunologic effects of EPIT for the treatment of peanut allergy	Five clinical Consortium of Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) sites; 52 weeks of blinded treatment	N=74 peanut allergy Aged 4–25 years Placebo (n=25) Viaskin® Peanut (VP) 100 μg (n=24) VP 250 μg (n=25)	Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study
	Shreffler^Citation42	To assess the long-term efficacy and safety of VP treatment up to 36 months	24-month extension of the VIPES Phase IIb randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted Subjects rolled over into the open-label OLFUS-VIPES extension with VP 250 μg	N=171 subjects (6–55 years)	Open-label extension study

Gonzalez-EstradaASilversSKKleinAZellKWangXFLangDMEpidemiology of anaphylaxis at a tertiary care center: a report of 730 casesAnn Allergy Asthma Immunol20171181808528007089

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

AckerWWPlasekJMBlumenthalKGPrevalence of food allergies and intolerances documented in electronic health recordsJ Allergy Clin Immunol201714061587159128577971

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

LeicklyFEKloepferKMSlavenJEVitalpurGPeanut allergy: an epidemiologic analysis of a large databaseJ Pediatr2018192223228.e129246346

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

LeeSHessEPLohseCGilaniWChamberlainAMCampbellRLTrends, characteristics, and incidence of anaphylaxis in 2001-2010: a population-based studyJ Allergy Clin Immunol2017139118218827378753

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

O’KeefeAClarkeASt PierreYThe risk of recurrent anaphylaxisJ Pediatr201718021722127743592

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

GriffithsRLMEl-ShanawanyTJollesSRAComparison of the performance of skin prick, immunoCAP and ISAC tests in the diagnosis of patients with allergyInt Arch Allergy Immunol2017172421522328456812

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

AkueteKGuffeyDIsraelsenRBMulticenter prevalence of anaphylaxis in clinic-based oral food challengesAnn Allergy Asthma Immunol20171194339348.e128890356

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ChanJCPetersRLKoplinJJFood challenge and community-reported reaction profiles in food-allergic children aged 1 and 4 years: a population-based studyJ Allergy Clin Immunol Pract201752398409.e328283159

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

YanagidaNSatoSAsaumiTOguraKEbisawaMRisk factors for severe reactions during double-blind placebo-controlled food challengesInt Arch Allergy Immunol2017172317318228380495

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

CantrellFLCantrellPWenAGeronaREpinephrine concentrations in EpiPens after the expiration dateAnn Intern Med20171661291891928492859

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

FeuilleELawrenceCVolelCSichererSHWangJTime trends in food allergy diagnoses, epinephrine orders, and epinephrine administrations in New York City schoolsJ Pediatr2017190939929144278

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

WasermanSGlobal review of epinephrine availability and anaphylaxis management practices amongst patient organization countriesAbstracts from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology CongressJune 17–21; 2017Helsinki, Finland72S103216217

 Google Scholar

VickeryBPBerglundJPBurkCMEarly oral immunotherapy in peanut-allergic preschool children is safe and highly effectiveJ Allergy Clin Immunol20171391173181.e827522159

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

JonesSMSichererSHBurksAWConsortium of Food Allergy ResearchEpicutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy in children and young adultsJ Allergy Clin Immunol2017139412421252.e928091362

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

ShrefflerWGEfficacy and safety of long-term epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) treatment of peanut allergy with Viaskin® peanut: results of the two-year extension of the VIPES phase IIb clinical trialPresented at: Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & ImmunologyMarch 5; 2017Atlanta, GA

 Google Scholar