F. Rancé

Bio: F. Rancé is an academic researcher from University of Milan. The author has contributed to research in topics: Food allergy & Allergy. The author has an hindex of 14, co-authored 21 publications receiving 2565 citations.

The management of anaphylaxis in childhood: position paper of the European academy of allergology and clinical immunology.

Abstract: Anaphylaxis is a growing paediatric clinical emergency that is difficult to diagnose because a consensus definition was lacking until recently. Many European countries have no specific guidelines for anaphylaxis. This position paper prepared by the EAACI Taskforce on Anaphylaxis in Children aims to provide practical guidelines for managing anaphylaxis in childhood based on the limited evidence available. Intramuscular adrenaline is the acknowledged first-line therapy for anaphylaxis, in hospital and in the community, and should be given as soon as the condition is recognized. Additional therapies such as volume support, nebulized bronchodilators, antihistamines or corticosteroids are supplementary to adrenaline. There are no absolute contraindications to administering adrenaline in children. Allergy assessment is mandatory in all children with a history of anaphylaxis because it is essential to identify and avoid the allergen to prevent its recurrence. A tailored anaphylaxis management plan is needed, based on an individual risk assessment, which is influenced by the child's previous allergic reactions, other medical conditions and social circumstances. Collaborative partnerships should be established, involving school staff, healthcare professionals and patients' organizations. Absolute indications for prescribing self-injectable adrenaline are prior cardiorespiratory reactions, exercise-induced anaphylaxis, idiopathic anaphylaxis and persistent asthma with food allergy. Relative indications include peanut or tree nut allergy, reactions to small quantities of a given food, food allergy in teenagers and living far away from a medical facility. The creation of national and European databases is expected to generate better-quality data and help develop a stepwise approach for a better management of paediatric anaphylaxis.

World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines.

Abstract: Alessandro Fiocchi, MD, Pediatric Division, Department of Child and Maternal Medicine, University of Milan Medical School at the Melloni Hospital, Milan 20129, Italy. Holger Schünemann, MD, Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, 1200 Main Street West Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada. Sami L. Bahna, MD, Pediatrics & Medicine, Allergy & Immunology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA 71130. Andrea Von Berg, MD, Research Institute, Children s department , Marien-Hospital, Wesel, Germany. Kirsten Beyer, MD, Charité Klinik für Pädiatrie m.S. Pneumologie und Immunologie, Augustenburger Platz 1, D-13353 Berlin, Germany. Martin Bozzola, MD, Department of Pediatrics, British Hospital-Perdriel 74-CABA-Buenos Aires, Argentina. Julia Bradsher, PhD, Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network, 11781 Lee Jackson Highway, Suite 160, Fairfax, VA 22033. Jan Brozek, MD, Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University Health Sciences Centre, 1200 Main Street West Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada. Enrico Compalati, MD, Allergy & Respiratory Diseases Clinic, Department of Internal Medicine. University of Genoa, 16132, Genoa, Italy. Motohiro Ebisawa, MD, Department of Allergy, Clinical Research Center for Allergy and Rheumatology, Sagamihara National Hospital, Kanagawa 228-8522, Japan. Maria Antonieta Guzman, MD, Immunology and Allergy Division, Clinical Hospital University of Chile, Santiago, Chile. Santos Dumont 999. Haiqi Li, MD, Professor of Pediatric Division, Department of Primary Child Care, Children’s Hospital, Chongqing Medical University, China, 400014. Ralf G. Heine, MD, FRACP, Department of Allergy & Immunology, Royal Children’s Hospital, University of Melbourne, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia. Paul Keith, MD, Allergy and Clinical Immunology Division, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Gideon Lack, MD, King’s College London, Asthma-UK Centre in Allergic Mechanisms of Asthma, Department of Pediatric Allergy, St Thomas’ Hospital, London SE1 7EH, United Kingdom. Massimo Landi, MD, National Pediatric Healthcare System, Italian Federation of Pediatric Medicine, Territorial Pediatric Primary Care Group, Turin, Italy. Alberto Martelli, MD, Pediatric Division, Department of Child and Maternal Medicine, University of Milan Medical School at the Melloni Hospital, Milan 20129, Italy. Fabienne Rancé, MD, Allergologie, Hôpital des Enfants, Pôle Médicochirurgical de Pédiatrie, 330 av. de Grande Bretagne, TSA 70034, 31059 Toulouse CEDEX, France. Hugh Sampson, MD, Jaffe Food Allergy Institute, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, One Gustave L. Levy Place, NY 10029-6574. Airton Stein, MD, Conceicao Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil. Luigi Terracciano, MD, Pediatric Division, Department of Child and Maternal Medicine, University of Milan Medical School at the Melloni Hospital, Milan 20129, Italy. Stefan Vieths, MD, Division of Allergology, Paul-EhrlichInstitut, Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedicines, Paul-Ehrlich-Str. 51-59, D-63225 Langen, Germany.

Factors affecting the determination of threshold doses for allergenic foods: how much is too much?

Abstract: Background: Ingestion of small amounts of an offending food can elicit adverse reactions in individuals with IgE-mediated food allergies The threshold dose for provocation of such reactions is often considered to be zero However, because of various practical limitations in food production and processing, foods may occasionally contain trace residues of the offending food Are these very low, residual quantities hazardous to allergic consumers? How much of the offending food is too much? Very little quantitative information exists to allow any risk assessments to be conducted by the food industry Objective: We sought to determine whether the quality and quantity of existing clinical data on threshold doses for commonly allergenic foods were sufficient to allow consensus to be reached on establishment of threshold doses for specific foods Methods: In September 1999, 12 clinical allergists and other interested parties were invited to participate in a roundtable conference to share existing data on threshold doses and to discuss clinical approaches that would allow the acquisition of that information Results: Considerable data were identified in clinical files relating to the threshold doses for peanut, cows' milk, and egg; limited data were available for other foods, such as fish and mustard Conclusions: Because these data were often obtained by means of different protocols, the estimation of a threshold dose was very difficult Development of a standardized protocol for clinical experiments to allow determination of the threshold dose is needed (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002;109:24-30)

Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA): A summary report

Abstract: The 2nd Milan Meeting on Adverse Reactions to Bovine Proteins was the venue for the presentation of the first consensus-based approach to the management of cow's milk allergy. It was also the first time that the Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development, and Evaluation approach for formulating guidelines and recommendations was applied to the field of food allergy. In this report we present the contributions in allergen science, epidemiology, natural history, evidence-based diagnosis, and therapy synthesized in the World Allergy Organization Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy guidelines and presented during the meeting. A consensus emerged between discussants that cow's milk allergy management should reflect not only basic research but also a newer and better appraisal of the literature in the light of the values and preferences shared by patients and their caregivers in partnership. In the field of diagnosis, atopy patch testing and microarray technology have not yet evolved for use outside the research setting. With foreseeable breakthroughs (eg, immunotherapy and molecular diagnosis) in the offing, the step ahead in leadership can only stem from a worldwide organization implementing consensus-based clinical practice guidelines to diffuse and share clinical knowledge.

Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Food Allergy in the United States: Summary of the NIAID-Sponsored Expert Panel Report

Abstract: Food allergy is an important public health problem that affects children and adults and may be increasing in prevalence. Despite the risk of severe allergic reactions and even death, there is no current treatment for food allergy: the disease can only be managed by allergen avoidance or treatment of symptoms. The diagnosis and management of food allergy also may vary from one clinical practice setting to another. Finally, because patients frequently confuse nonallergic food reactions, such as food intolerance, with food allergies, there is an unfounded belief among the public that food allergy prevalence is higher than it truly is. In response to these concerns, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, working with 34 professional organizations, federal agencies, and patient advocacy groups, led the development of clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy. These Guidelines are intended for use by a wide variety of health care professionals, including family practice physicians, clinical specialists, and nurse practitioners. The Guidelines include a consensus definition for food allergy, discuss comorbid conditions often associated with food allergy, and focus on both IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated reactions to food. Topics addressed include the epidemiology, natural history, diagnosis, and management of food allergy, as well as the management of severe symptoms and anaphylaxis. These Guidelines provide 43 concise clinical recommendations and additional guidance on points of current controversy in patient management. They also identify gaps in the current scientific knowledge to be addressed through future research.

Food allergy: Epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment

Abstract: This review focuses on advances and updates in the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of food allergy over the past 3 years since our last comprehensive review. On the basis of numerous studies, food allergy likely affects nearly 5% of adults and 8% of children, with growing evidence of an increase in prevalence. Potentially rectifiable risk factors include vitamin D insufficiency, unhealthful dietary fat, obesity, increased hygiene, and the timing of exposure to foods, but genetics and other lifestyle issues play a role as well. Interesting clinical insights into pathogenesis include discoveries regarding gene-environment interactions and an increasing understanding of the role of nonoral sensitizing exposures causing food allergy, such as delayed allergic reactions to carbohydrate moieties in mammalian meats caused by sensitization from homologous substances transferred during tick bites. Component-resolved diagnosis is being rapidly incorporated into clinical use, and sophisticated diagnostic tests that indicate severity and prognosis are on the horizon. Current management relies heavily on avoidance and emergency preparedness, and recent studies, guidelines, and resources provide insight into improving the safety and well-being of patients and their families. Incorporation of extensively heated (heat-denatured) forms of milk and egg into the diets of children who tolerate these foods, rather than strict avoidance, represents a significant shift in clinical approach. Recommendations about the prevention of food allergy and atopic disease through diet have changed radically, with rescinding of many recommendations about extensive and prolonged allergen avoidance. Numerous therapies have reached clinical trials, with some showing promise to dramatically alter treatment. Ongoing studies will elucidate improved prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.

Anaphylaxis: guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Abstract: Anaphylaxis is a clinical emergency, and all healthcare professionals should be familiar with its recognition and acute and ongoing management. These guidelines have been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Taskforce on Anaphylaxis. They aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for the recognition, risk factor assessment, and the management of patients who are at risk of, are experiencing, or have experienced anaphylaxis. While the primary audience is allergists, these guidelines are also relevant to all other healthcare professionals. The development of these guidelines has been underpinned by two systematic reviews of the literature, both on the epidemiology and on clinical management of anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening condition whose clinical diagnosis is based on recognition of a constellation of presenting features. First-line treatment for anaphylaxis is intramuscular adrenaline. Useful second-line interventions may include removing the trigger where possible, calling for help, correct positioning of the patient, high-flow oxygen, intravenous fluids, inhaled short-acting bronchodilators, and nebulized adrenaline. Discharge arrangements should involve an assessment of the risk of further reactions, a management plan with an anaphylaxis emergency action plan, and, where appropriate, prescribing an adrenaline auto-injector. If an adrenaline auto-injector is prescribed, education on when and how to use the device should be provided. Specialist follow-up is essential to investigate possible triggers, to perform a comprehensive risk assessment, and to prevent future episodes by developing personalized risk reduction strategies including, where possible, commencing allergen immunotherapy. Training for the patient and all caregivers is essential. There are still many gaps in the evidence base for anaphylaxis.