Abigail Cheung1, Sharon Choo2, Kirsten P Perrett3. 1. Department of Allergy and Immunology, Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide, Australia. 2. Department of Allergy and Immunology, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Laboratory Services, Immunology Laboratory, The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Department of Allergy and Immunology, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Population Allergy Research Group and Melbourne Children's Trial Centre, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; Department of General Medicine, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: Kirsten.perrett@mcri.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rate of true vaccine allergy is unknown. Children with potential IgE-mediated adverse events following immunization (AEFI) should undergo allergy investigation that may include skin testing or challenge. Previous protocols tend to be highly conservative and often suggest invasive testing for all, a practice not evidence based, technically difficult, and unpleasant in children. It has more recently been suggested that skin testing may be restricted to those with allergic-like events within the first hour and those with a history of anaphylaxis. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the outcome of vaccine skin testing and challenge in children referred to a tertiary pediatric hospital with a potential IgE-mediated AEFI. The secondary aim was to identify any significant risk factors for vaccine allergy. METHODS: A retrospective review of all children (<18 years) who underwent vaccine skin testing (skin prick testing or intradermal testing [IDT]) or challenge over a 5-year period (May 1, 2011, to April 30, 2016) at the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne is presented. RESULTS: There were 95 admissions in 73 children. Eight percent (6 of 73) of children had confirmed vaccine allergy (positive skin testing or challenge to the index vaccination). Two had positive IDT to a suspect vaccine but challenge negative to an alternative brand vaccine. Two had negative IDT but subsequent positive challenge and two had immediate urticaria on challenge without prior skin testing. All children in the positive group either had index reaction within 15 minutes of vaccination or had history consistent with anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of children (92%) presenting with a potential IgE-mediated AEFI are able to tolerate challenge to a suspect vaccine without reaction. We present our investigation protocol recommending skin testing in all children with anaphylaxis and challenge with a suspect vaccine if negative testing or previous nonanaphylactic potential IgE-mediated AEFI. Crown
BACKGROUND: The rate of true vaccine allergy is unknown. Children with potential IgE-mediated adverse events following immunization (AEFI) should undergo allergy investigation that may include skin testing or challenge. Previous protocols tend to be highly conservative and often suggest invasive testing for all, a practice not evidence based, technically difficult, and unpleasant in children. It has more recently been suggested that skin testing may be restricted to those with allergic-like events within the first hour and those with a history of anaphylaxis. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the outcome of vaccine skin testing and challenge in children referred to a tertiary pediatric hospital with a potential IgE-mediated AEFI. The secondary aim was to identify any significant risk factors for vaccine allergy. METHODS: A retrospective review of all children (<18 years) who underwent vaccine skin testing (skin prick testing or intradermal testing [IDT]) or challenge over a 5-year period (May 1, 2011, to April 30, 2016) at the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne is presented. RESULTS: There were 95 admissions in 73 children. Eight percent (6 of 73) of children had confirmed vaccine allergy (positive skin testing or challenge to the index vaccination). Two had positive IDT to a suspect vaccine but challenge negative to an alternative brand vaccine. Two had negative IDT but subsequent positive challenge and two had immediate urticaria on challenge without prior skin testing. All children in the positive group either had index reaction within 15 minutes of vaccination or had history consistent with anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of children (92%) presenting with a potential IgE-mediated AEFI are able to tolerate challenge to a suspect vaccine without reaction. We present our investigation protocol recommending skin testing in all children with anaphylaxis and challenge with a suspect vaccine if negative testing or previous nonanaphylactic potential IgE-mediated AEFI. Crown