Dataset Information

Understanding Food-Related Allergic Reactions Through a US National Patient Registry.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although previous studies have focused on unintentional food-related allergic reactions, few have explored the motivation of intentional exposure to a known food allergen, independent of oral food challenges and/or oral immunotherapy. Still, data on the frequency and context of food-related allergic reactions remain sparse.

Objective

To identify the frequency and context of food-related allergic reactions among children and adults.

Methods

We analyzed surveys from the Patient Registry established by Food Allergy Research and Education. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated characteristics associated with having frequent food-related allergic reactions as well as intentional food-related allergic reactions.

Results

Over one-third of 4075 (37.7%) respondents reported having more than 1 food-related allergic reaction per year, and 12.8% reported having 1 reaction per year. Of the 3054 respondents who completed the most recent reaction survey, 9.9% of food allergen exposures were classified as intentional, 82.1% as unintentional, and 4.8% as medically related. Among children with intentional exposures, the most common reason was that the child had never had a serious reaction (50.0%), and among adults, it was the decision to take the risk anyway (47.8%). Cross-contamination was the most commonly cited reason for unintentional exposure (children: 24.1%; adults: 32.2%).

Conclusion

Among patients in a national food allergy registry, reports of food-related allergic reactions were common, and a non-negligible number of intentional reactions were reported. Our findings indicate the need for research on reactions in and out of the emergency department as well as intentional risk-taking behavior.

SUBMITTER: Fierstein JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7829042 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcute allergic reactions (AARs) occur shortly after exposure to an allergen, and the severity is on a continuum. Systemic corticosteroids (CS) are mainstay treatment of moderate to severe AARs, whereas those at risk of the most severe AARs (ie, anaphylaxis) are also recommended prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors. There is limited research on the impact of AARs not fulfilling the criteria for anaphylaxis. We have characterized a sample with a history of moderate to severe AARs and evaluated their self-reported disease burden (ie, daily life impact, anxiety, and treatment impediments).MethodsSurvey study of adults with experience of AARs treated with CS. Participants recruited from a web-based panel and using social media were asked to complete a questionnaire related to their allergy and experience of AARs. The results were summarized for the whole sample and across subgroups with and without prescription of epinephrine.ResultsThe final study sample included 387 participants (80% women, mean age 41), of which 129 (33%) had at some point been prescribed epinephrine. The most common symptoms were respiratory (80%) and skin (78%) manifestations, and the mean (standard deviation, SD) self-rated severity score (scale from 0 [very mild] to 10 [very severe]) of the most recent AAR was 6.1 (2.0). More than 80% had experience of AARs interrupting daily activities and 50% of AARs that had limited work/studies or participation in leisure activities. Most of the respondents reported some degree of anxiety related to AARs and 43% had feared for their lives. Moreover, difficulties swallowing allergy medicine at an AAR was experienced by 26% and not having the medicine available when needed by 66%. Participants with prescription of epinephrine experienced more severe AARs than those without such prescription (mean [SD] severity 6.8 [2.1] vs 5.8 [1.8], p < 0.0001); however, also those without epinephrine prescription reported considerable anxiety and impact on daily life and to a similar degree as those with prescription.ConclusionsIn this sample, subjects with experience of AARs treated with CS showed a considerable disease burden with anxiety and interruption on daily life, as well as problems related to access to, and swallowing of, medication. Although respondents with epinephrine prescription had more severe disease, a high disease burden was also evident among those without epinephrine. The study increases the knowledge of people with moderate to severe AARs, a patient population that has previously been underrepresented in the research literature.

Project description:Omalizumab is licensed as add-on therapy for patients with severe allergic asthma. Response is in most studies scored by the physician's global evaluation of treatment effectiveness (GETE). A good clinical and validated parameter for treatment response is currently missing. Also, there are no established criteria for identifying patients who will respond to omalizumab based on pre-treatment characteristics. The Dutch National Omalizumab in Asthma Registry was developed in 2011 to better evaluate inclusion criteria and measure treatment response after 4 months.This is a "real world" prospectively designed, observational data registry in which the outcomes of patients who received omalizumab between 2012 and 2015 were evaluated. Data were collected from all centers in the Netherlands comprising demographic features, criteria for starting treatment, GETE, FEV1, oral corticosteroid use and ACQ.65.5% of the 403 patients had a good or excellent response to omalizumab after 16 weeks according to the treating physician GETE. 64.5% fulfilled all the criteria for prescribing omalizumab at baseline. The mean ACQ improved from 2.96 at baseline to 1.83 at 16 weeks (p < 0.001). 75.3% of the responders showed more than 0.5 points improvement in the ACQ. The mean FEV1 increased from 71.58 to 79.06 (p < 0.001). There was no relationship between patients with a FEV1 <80 and ≥80% at baseline and response (p = 0.981). Most of the responders had a considerable improvement of FEV1 either/or ACQ or OCS use (88.3%). While 86.7% of the responders had an improvement of either ACQ or FEV1. 75.4% of the responders had an improvement of ACQ, while 50.4% had an improvement of FEV1. Finally 11.7% of the patients with no improvement of FEV1, ACQ or OCS use were considered to have a good response.This registry of 403 inadequately controlled severe allergic asthma patients in the Netherlands showed a good or excellent response of 65.5% to omalizumab after 16 weeks, in accordance with previous studies. The assumption that careful registration would lead to higher response rates could not be supported by the data from this registry. Improvement of ACQ appears to be a useful additional assessment tool to measure response in omalizumab treated patients.