# Pediatric anaphylaxis in the emergency department: Performances of dynamic tryptase measurement

Constance Gonzalez, Meng Sun, Aurélie Morand, Philippe Minodier, Marc

Leone, Jean-Christophe Dubus, Joana Vitte, Moïse Michel

► To cite this version:

Constance Gonzalez, Meng Sun, Aurélie Morand, Philippe Minodier, Marc Leone, et al., Pediatric anaphylaxis in the emergency department: Performances of dynamic tryptase measurement. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: Global, 2025, 4 (3), pp.100524. 10.1016/j.jacig.2025.100524. hal-05371497

HAL Id: hal-05371497

https://amu.hal.science/hal-05371497v1

Submitted on 18 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Pediatric anaphylaxis in the emergency department: Performances of dynamic tryptase measurement

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

Constance Gonzalez, MD,ª Meng Sun, MSc,ᵇ Aurélie Morand, MD, PhD,ᶜ Philippe Minodier, MD,ᵈ
Marc Leone, MD, PhD,ᵇ,ᵉ Jean-Christophe Dubus, MD, PhD,ª,ᵇ Joana Vitte, MD, PhD,ᵇ,ғ,h and
Moïse Michel, PharmD, PhDf,,i
Marseille, Montpellier, Reims, and Nîmes, France

**Background:** Dynamic measurement of serum acute (sAT) and baseline (sBT) tryptase confirms mast cell degranulation during systemic hypersensitivity reactions, provided timing and interpretation are appropriate. The current consensus formula requires sAT greater than a personalized cutoff value [sAT > (1.2 × sBT) + 2]. Only a few studies have investigated its diagnostic performance in children.

**Objective:** We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the consensus formula and alternative algorithms for interpreting tryptase levels in pediatric patients with suspected anaphylaxis.

**Methods:** Medical records of suspected anaphylaxis referred to the pediatric emergency department of the University Hospitals of Marseille (France) from 2011 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical and laboratory data, including total tryptase and allergy evaluations, were collected. Anaphylaxis was defined as a sudden-onset, perceived life-threatening systemic reaction at the time of physician assessment. Inclusion criteria were suspected anaphylaxis and at least one tryptase determination. The diagnostic performance of the consensus formula was compared to 5 alternative tryptase interpretation algorithms.

**Results:** Among 315 patients (median age, 7.8 years; 317 emergency department visits), 175 (55%) were categorized as cases. Food-induced anaphylaxis was diagnosed in 82%, and 92 (52.6%) had two or more tryptase determinations. The highest diagnostic performance was achieved by the sAT/sBT ratio. A cutoff for sAT/sBT ratio of >1.74 yielded 66.7% sensitivity, 90.0% specificity, 96.8% positive predictive value, and 24.3% negative predictive value.

The retrospective study design was a major limitation.

**Conclusion:** Compared to the current consensus formula, a sAT/sBT ratio above 1.74 may enhance the diagnostic performance of dynamic tryptase measurement in children with suspected anaphylaxis. (J Allergy Clin Immunol Global 2025;4:100524.)

**Key words:** Acute tryptase, baseline tryptase, epinephrine, pediatric anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is an immediate and potentially life-threatening systemic reaction, most often due to mast cell (MC) degranulation, that represents a clinical and diagnostic challenge.¹,² International guidelines endorse the use of serum tryptase determination to confirm MC degranulation and thus to support the diagnosis of anaphylaxis.²⁻⁵ However, most studies supporting this recommendation have been conducted in adults.²,³ The literature suggests that the diagnosis of pediatric anaphylaxis, which is more challenging than in adults, might be confirmed by tryptase determination.⁶,⁷

A 2012 international consensus proposal enshrined the adequate sampling times of serum acute tryptase (sAT) and serum baseline tryptase (sBT).⁸ It established the current consensus formula (CCF) that sAT values exceeding a personalized cutoff calculated as [(1.2 × sBT) + 2] confirm systemic MC activation (MCA) and degranulation.⁸ These findings were further confirmed in 2019.⁹

Data on tryptase performance for the diagnosis of pediatric anaphylaxis are scarce.¹⁰⁻¹² A previous study including 41 children with sAT and sBT admitted to the emergency department (ED) found a 60.3% diagnostic sensitivity for the CCF, and up to 85.7% in severe reactions.⁷ In food-induced anaphylaxis in 49 children, serum tryptase determinations displayed 65.3% sensitivity.¹³

These studies applied the CCF to small pediatric cohorts and found moderate performance. We took advantage of a 10-year database on tryptase sampling at the pediatric ED of the University Hospitals of Marseille, France, to describe a large pediatric cohort of anaphylaxis and the performance of tryptase determination in this context.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

## METHODS

### Study population

Patients were retrospectively included in our cohort only if at least one tryptase determination was performed during the ED visit and was available from the laboratory database. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected for pediatric patients (18 years or younger) admitted with a suspicion of anaphylaxis from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020, at the

<footnote>FromªAix-Marseille Université, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille (AP-HM), Hôpital Timone, Service de Pneumologie et allergologie pédiatrique, Marseille; ᵇAix-Marseille Université, MEPHI, Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Marseille; ᶜAix-Marseille Université, AP-HM, Hôpital Timone, Service d'accueil des Urgences pédiatriques, Marseille; ᵈAix-Marseille Université, AP-HM, Hôpital Nord, Service d'accueil des Urgences pédiatriques, Marseille; ᵉAix-Marseille Université, AP-HM, Hôpital Nord, Service d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation, Marseille; ᶜthe Desbrест Institute of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Montpellier, INSERM, Montpellier; ᵈthe Immunology Laboratory, University Hospital of Reims, Reims; ᵉthe University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, INSERM UMR1250 P3CELL, Reims; and ᶜthe Department of Immunology, Nimes University Hospital, Nimes.</footnote>

<footnote>Received for publication March 11, 2024; revised April 25, 2025; accepted for publication May 10, 2025.</footnote>

<footnote>Available online June 24, 2025.</footnote>

<footnote>Corresponding author: Moïse Michel, PharmD, PhD, Laboratoire d'Immunologie, CHU Nimes Carémeau, 30029 Nimes Cedex 9, France. E-mail: moise.michel@chu-nimes.fr.</footnote>

<footnote>The CrossMark symbol notifies online readers when updates have been made to the article such as errata or minor corrections
2772-8293</footnote>

<footnote>© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).</footnote>

<footnote>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacig.2025.100524</footnote>
Abbreviations used

CCF: Current consensus formula

dT: Change in tryptase (sAT – sBT)

ED: Emergency department

MC: Mast cell

MCA: MC activation

rT: Ratio tryptase (sAT/sBT)

sAT: Serum acute tryptase

sBT: Serum baseline tryptase

ED of the University Hospitals of Marseille, France. For each patient, we collected data on age, sex, atopic history (asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, food, drug, latex allergy), and presence of MC-related diseases (clonal MC diseases, MCA syndrome).¹⁴ At ED admission, the definition of anaphylaxis was a perceived life-threatening systemic reaction of sudden onset at the time of clinical evaluation by the physician in charge of the child's care.¹⁵ Clinical manifestations were classified as mucocutaneous (rash or skin flushing, angioedema), respiratory (sneezing, bronchospasm, laryngeal edema or stridor), gastrointestinal (abdominal pain, tingling mouth, nausea and vomiting) and cardiovascular (hypotension, tachycardia, bradycardia) symptoms. The severity was graded using the 4-class scale adapted from Ring and Messmer.¹⁶ Grade 1 reactions were defined by the presence of mucocutaneous symptoms only. Grade 2 reactions were characterized by the presence of any of the previous symptoms as well as moderate respiratory or digestive symptoms. Cases were categorized as grade 3 if any of the following symptoms were present: cyanosis, hypoxia (saturation < 92%), hypotension, dysrhythmia, confusion, or loss of consciousness. In case of cardiac arrest, the reaction was classified as grade 4.

Patients received a state-of-the-art allergic assessment relying on clinical information and a set of complementary procedures, according to international and national guidelines. To reduce potential bias, the medical record of each patient was reviewed by two investigators of the study and, if necessary, by the physician who treated the child. The diagnosis of anaphylaxis was confirmed if the reaction involved at least one extracutaneous systemic manifestation and proof of systemic MCA (ie, transient serum tryptase elevation) or if proof of allergic sensitization to the culprit allergen had been obtained.²,⁵ Thus, patients meeting the diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis were categorized as the anaphylaxis group (cases). Patients who did not meet the criteria were categorized as the control group.

Ethics statement

Clinical and laboratory data were collected retrospectively using the institutional electronic medical records and deidentified before statistical analysis. The AP-HM institutional review board approved the study as nonhuman subjects research (PADS 2021-59). Under French law, ethics committee approval and patient consent were waived for this type of noninterventional study, provided the patients had received information about the potential use of anonymized medical data for research purposes and they retained the right to oppose it (SFAR CERAR committee IRB 00010254-2018-004; CIL/APHM registry 2017-24).

Tryptase determination

Serum tryptase was measured using a fluorescent enzyme immunoassay ImmunoCAP platform (Phadia Thermo Fisher Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden) according to the manufacturer's recommendations. The lower and upper limits of quantification were 1 and 200 µg/L. In line with international recommendations, we considered an adequate sampling time to be sAT sampled between 30 minutes and 2 hours after symptom onset and sBT sampled at least 24 hours after symptom resolution.¹⁷

Tryptase interpretations and statistical analysis

For tryptase interpretation in patients with adequate sAT and sBT sampling times, we compared the manufacturer's upper reference limit (11.0 µg/L during the study period), the CCF, and 2 other formulae (sAT > 1.35 × sBT; sAT > sBT + 3) according to previous data.¹⁸,¹⁹ We also evaluated the ratio (sAT/sBT) and the change (sAT – sBT) in tryptase (hereafter rT and dT, respectively) using receiver operator curve analysis, with the area under the curve to quantify the overall ability of the formulae to discriminate between anaphylaxis and control groups. Then the optimal thresholds maximizing both sensitivity and specificity were identified.

Statistical analysis was performed by GraphPad Prism v9.2.0 software (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, Calif). Results are expressed as medians with 5-95 percentiles. Mann-Whitney tests were performed to compare tryptase values and all numeric data between the two groups because of its suitability for nonparametric data, which does not assume a normal distribution. Significance was set at *P* < .05.

RESULTS

Description of study cohort

The study cohort comprised 315 patients referred to the pediatric ED with a suspicion of anaphylaxis, with two children experiencing two distinct episodes, resulting in 317 events (Table I). The median (range) age was 7.8 (0.2-15.9) years with a male/female sex ratio of 1.3. Sixty-six patients (21.0%) had a history of asthma according to their general practitioner. Epinephrine was administered to 96 children (30.3%). Retrospective analysis, as described above, confirmed the diagnosis of anaphylaxis in 175 patients (55.2%; anaphylaxis group). The remaining 142 patients formed the control group. Skin symptoms affected 226 patients (71.3%), while grade 2 reactions represented 111 patients (63.4%).

Comparison of anaphylaxis and control groups

We compared the patients in the anaphylaxis group (n = 175, 55.2%) with those in the control group (n = 142, 44.8%). Cutaneous (86.9% vs 52.1%, *P* < 10⁻³), lung (53.7% vs 21.8%, *P* < 10⁻³), gastrointestinal (46.3% vs 16.9%, *P* < .001), and cardiovascular (18.3% vs 4.9%, *P* < .001) symptoms were reported more frequently in the anaphylaxis group than in controls (Table II). Epinephrine was significantly more often administered in the anaphylaxis group (*P* < .001).

In the anaphylaxis group, at least two serum tryptase determinations were performed more often (52.6% vs 22.5%, *P* < .001), whereas a single serum tryptase determination was more frequent in the control group (77.5% vs 47.4%, *P* < .001).
<table><caption>**TABLE I.** Demographic and clinical characteristics of study cohort</caption><thead><tr><th>Characteristic</th><th>Value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Demographic information</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sample size</td><td>315</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>0-3 years</td><td>101 (32.1)</td></tr><tr><td>3-6 years</td><td>41 (13.0)</td></tr><tr><td>6-9 years</td><td>36 (11.4)</td></tr><tr><td>9-12 years</td><td>48 (15.2)</td></tr><tr><td>12-15 years</td><td>46 (14.6)</td></tr><tr><td>16-18 years</td><td>43 (13.7)</td></tr><tr><td>No. of episodes</td><td>317</td></tr><tr><td>No. with tryptase sampling</td><td>486</td></tr><tr><td>Mean no. of tryptase samples per episode</td><td>1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Age (years), median (5-95 percentile)</td><td>7.8 (0.2-15.9)</td></tr><tr><td>Sex ratio (M/F)</td><td>1.3 (177/140)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Atopic, allergic, and MC-related conditions</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Asthma</td><td>66 (21.0)</td></tr><tr><td>Atopic dermatitis</td><td>43 (13.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis</td><td>20 (6.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Known allergy*</td><td>22 (7.0)</td></tr><tr><td>MC-related diseases</td><td>5 (1.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Symptoms per episode</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mucocutaneous system</td><td>226 (71.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Respiratory system</td><td>125 (39.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Gastrointestinal system</td><td>105 (33.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Cardiovascular system</td><td>39 (12.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Anaphylaxis group†</td><td>175 (55.2)</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 1</td><td>20 (11.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 2</td><td>111 (63.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 3</td><td>31 (17.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 4</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Unknown</td><td>13 (7.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Control group</td><td>142 (44.8)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Data are presented as nos. (%) unless otherwise indicated.

*Refers to presence of physician-diagnosed food-, inhalant-, drug-, and/or Hymenoptera venom-induced allergy in patient's known history.

†Anaphylaxis reactions are classified according to Ring and Messmer.¹⁶

Adequate sampling time as per international guidelines was more frequent in the anaphylaxis group than in the control group (48.4% vs 28.1%, *P* = .04). sAT was adequately measured in 99.4% of anaphylaxis patients and in 95.1% of controls (*P* = .01), and a higher serum concentration was reported in the anaphylaxis group (7.37 vs 4.57 µg/L, *P* < .001). Similarly, sBT was adequately sampled in 33.1% of anaphylaxis patients compared to 12.0% of controls (*P* < .001). However, sBT concentrations were similar (3.94 vs 4.26 µg/L, *P* = .65).

## Triggers of anaphylaxis and differential diagnosis

Most anaphylaxis triggers in this cohort, or 144 (82%) of 175, were foods: legumes, seeds, and nuts (36.0%, n = 58), cow's-milk proteins (28.0%, n = 45), and miscellaneous foods (25.5%, n = 41). Drugs and Hymenoptera stings accounted for 17 events (10.6%), grouped together as nonfood allergens. In 14 cases, the trigger could not be identified.

The nature of the anaphylaxis trigger was associated with variations in the severity of reactions (*P* = .004). Indeed, we found grade 2 (79.3%) and grade 3 (15.5%) reactions with legumes, seeds, and nuts, while cow's-milk proteins were

associated with grade 2 (60.0%) and grade 1 (17.8%) reactions (Table III). sAT and sBT did not differ as a function of the trigger in the study cohort (*P* = .43 for both).

In the control group, several differential diagnoses were identified. The most common was an infectious disease (33.8%, n = 48), which could present with gastrointestinal and/or cutaneous symptoms, or even with cardiovascular signs in cases of septic shock. Additionally, severe acute asthma exacerbations (30.3%, n = 43), acute urticaria episodes (12.0%, n = 17), drug adverse effects mimicking anaphylaxis (11.3%, n = 16), and food poisoning (7.0%, n = 10) were also observed. Mastocytosis and MCA syndrome were also observed in the control group (5.6%, n = 8). In the control group, epinephrine was administered to 14 patients, all of whom were hospitalized for septic shock initially misdiagnosed as anaphylaxis, given the cardiovascular involvement and a credible history of exposure to a potential allergen.

## Performance of different decision thresholds for serum tryptase

To evaluate the performance of serum tryptase, we only considered episodes with an adequate sampling time and compared the patients with anaphylaxis to the control group. The CCF displayed 62.2% sensitivity and 80% specificity, with a Youden index of 0.42. Table IV details the results for each formula. Receiver operator curve analysis for rT and dT showed an area under the curve of 0.84 and 0.80, respectively, with 1.74 and 4.12 as optimal thresholds. At the optimal threshold, the sensitivity was 66.7% and 51.1% for rT and dT, with 90% specificity for both. rT was the best option to confirm anaphylaxis.

## DISCUSSION

Pediatric anaphylaxis remains a challenging issue, underlined by the unmet need of specific guidelines. Here, using the description of a 10-year series of pediatric anaphylaxis in outpatients, we provide insight into pediatric anaphylaxis diagnosis in ED, with a focus on the use and interpretation of serum tryptase.

We described a cohort of 317 pediatric episodes (315 patients) of suspected anaphylaxis in a tertiary-care hospital, with 175 children (55.2%) confirmed as anaphylactic on retrospective review. Most of these patients experienced food-induced, milder reactions, in line with previous findings.²⁰,²¹ Indeed, half of our cases were attributable to seeds, nuts, and cow's-milk proteins, which are well-known allergens in children. Epinephrine, the first-line treatment for suspected anaphylaxis,²² was prescribed in only 96 (30.3%) of the suspected cases, and 14 were inadequately administered the drug to patients with septic shock with cardiovascular involvement. Several clinically salient features were noted in our 10-year pediatric ED cohort. Interestingly, no grade 4 pediatric anaphylaxis was observed. Drugs and insect stings were unfrequent triggers, demonstrated in less than 11% of the anaphylaxis events. A trigger could not be identified in only 8%, a relatively small proportion of anaphylaxis events. By collecting data, we found that 8 patients had an elevated sBT (above 8 µg/L), which could suggest the presence of an underlying MC-related disease, one not necessarily known at the time of the episode. Our results were in line with some,²³,²⁴ but not all,²⁵ available data from various surveys.²⁶
<table><caption>TABLE II. Comparison of clinical and laboratory data of episodes between anaphylaxis and control groups</caption><thead><tr><th>Characteristic</th><th>Anaphylaxis</th><th>Control</th><th>P value</th><th>All</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sample size</td><td>175 (55.2)</td><td>142 (44.8)</td><td>—</td><td>317</td></tr><tr><td>Age, median (5-95 percentile)</td><td>6.3 (0.1-15.7)</td><td>9.1 (0.5-16.7)</td><td>.003</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Sex ratio (M/F)</td><td>1.5 (105/70)</td><td>1.0 (72/70)</td><td>.11</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Symptoms</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mucocutaneous system</td><td>152 (86.9)</td><td>74 (52.1)</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>226 (71.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Respiratory system</td><td>94 (53.7)</td><td>31 (21.8)</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>125 (39.4)</td></tr><tr><td>Gastrointestinal system</td><td>81 (46.3)</td><td>24 (16.9)</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>105 (33.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Cardiovascular system</td><td>32 (18.3)</td><td>7 (4.9)</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>39 (12.3)</td></tr><tr><td>Epinephrine receipt</td><td>82 (46.9)</td><td>14 (9.9)</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>96 (30.3)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Tryptase</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Only 1 tryptase sample</td><td>83 (47.4)</td><td>110 (77.5)</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>193 (60.9)</td></tr><tr><td>At least 2 tryptase samples</td><td>92 (52.6)</td><td>32 (22.5)</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>124 (39.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Adequate sampling time*</td><td>45 (48.4)</td><td>9 (28.1)</td><td>.04</td><td>54 (43.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Premature sAT (&lt;30 minutes)</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>—</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Delayed sAT (&gt;2 hours)</td><td>24 (26.9)</td><td>8 (25.0)</td><td>.99</td><td>32 (25.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Premature sBT (&lt;24 hours)</td><td>23 (24.7)</td><td>15 (46.9)</td><td>.02</td><td>38 (30.7)</td></tr><tr><td>Acute tryptase (sAT) (count)</td><td>174 (99.4)</td><td>135 (95.1)</td><td>.01</td><td>309 (97.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Acute tryptase (µg/L), median (5-95 percentile)</td><td>7.4 (2.7-25.4)</td><td>4.6 (1.6-11.1)</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>6.0 (2.0-21.5)</td></tr><tr><td>sBT count</td><td>58 (33.1)</td><td>17 (12.0)</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>75 (23.7)</td></tr><tr><td>All (µg/L), median (5-95 percentile)</td><td>3.9 (1.3-13.8)</td><td>4.3 (1.4-8.6)</td><td>.65</td><td>4.2 (1.4-11.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Samples with sBT &gt; 8 µg/L</td><td>7 (12.1)</td><td>1 (5.9)</td><td>.47</td><td>8 (2.5)</td></tr><tr><td>sBT &gt; 8 µg/L, median (5-95 percentile)</td><td>11.5 (9.6-18.0)</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>11.5 (9.6-18.0)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Data are presented as nos. (%) unless otherwise indicated.

<table><caption>TABLE III. Comparison of clinical and tryptase determinations according to anaphylaxis triggers</caption><thead><tr><th>Trigger</th><th>Legumes, seeds, nuts</th><th>Cow's-milk proteins</th><th>Other foods</th><th>Nonfood*</th><th>P value†</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sample size</td><td>58</td><td>45</td><td>41</td><td>17</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Anaphylaxis</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>.004</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 1</td><td>2 (3.5)</td><td>8 (17.8)</td><td>4 (9.8)</td><td>5 (29.4)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Grade 2</td><td>46 (79.3)</td><td>27 (60.0)</td><td>22 (53.7)</td><td>6 (35.3)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Grade 3</td><td>9 (15.5)</td><td>4 (8.9)</td><td>10 (24.4)</td><td>5 (29.4)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Grade 4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Unknown</td><td>1 (1.7)</td><td>6 (13.3)</td><td>5 (12.2)</td><td>1 (5.9)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Acute tryptase (µg/L), median (5-95 percentile)</td><td>8.4 (4.7-15.2)</td><td>9.4 (3.1-25.3)</td><td>7.0 (2.4-21.5)</td><td>6.6 (1.8-49.4)</td><td>.4</td></tr><tr><td>Baseline tryptase, (µg/L), median (5-95 percentile)</td><td>4.0 (1.4-11.4)</td><td>4.5 (2.2-14.3)</td><td>3.1 (1.7-10.3)</td><td>4.3 (2.5-7.0)</td><td>.4</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>TABLE IV. Performance analysis of algorithm for tryptase dynamic evaluation with adequate sampling time</caption><thead><tr><th>Characteristic</th><th>Anaphylaxis (no.)</th><th>Control (no.)</th><th>Sensitivity (%)</th><th>Specificity (%)</th><th>PPV (%)</th><th>NPV (%)</th><th>Youden index*</th><th>Optimal threshold</th><th>AUC (95% CI)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>sAT &gt; (1.2 × sBT) + 2</td><td>45</td><td>9</td><td>62.2</td><td>80.0</td><td>93.3</td><td>32.0</td><td>0.42</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>sAT &gt; 1.35 × sBT</td><td>45</td><td>9</td><td>82.2</td><td>60.0</td><td>90.2</td><td>42.9</td><td>0.42</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>sAT &gt; sBT + 3</td><td>45</td><td>9</td><td>60</td><td>70.0</td><td>90.0</td><td>28.0</td><td>0.30</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>sAT &gt; 11.0 µg/L</td><td>131</td><td>92</td><td>29.8</td><td>94.6</td><td>88.6</td><td>48.6</td><td>0.24</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>rT</td><td>45</td><td>9</td><td>66.7</td><td>90.0</td><td>96.8</td><td>37.5</td><td>0.57</td><td>&gt;1.74</td><td>0.84 (0.72-0.96)</td></tr><tr><td>dT</td><td>45</td><td>9</td><td>51.1</td><td>90.0</td><td>95.8</td><td>29.0</td><td>0.41</td><td>&gt;4.12</td><td>0.80 (0.64-0.96)</td></tr></tbody></table>

AUC, Area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value; rT, ratio tryptase; sAT, acute tryptase; sBT, baseline tryptase.

Our main objective was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of serum tryptase determination. In suspected anaphylaxis, two tryptase samples are required to confirm the diagnosis of anaphylaxis: sAT and sBT.²,⁹ These rules were barely followed in our center because a single sample was collected in roughly

half of our patients. Actually, in a survey, Grossman et al²⁵ showed that most physicians discharged patients after 4 or 8 hours of monitoring, making it impossible to complete sequential tryptase sampling with adequate timing. A previous local study showed that pediatricians intuitively adapted the treatment to

<footnote>*Defined as sAT sampled between 30 minutes and 2 hours after symptom onset and sBT sampled at least 24 hours after symptom resolution.</footnote>

<footnote>*Anaphylaxis triggered by drugs (n = 13) and Hymenoptera venom (n = 4).</footnote>

<footnote>†One-way ANOVA performed between subgroups of patients attending ED.</footnote>

<footnote>*The Youden index is a statistical method used to determine the optimal threshold for diagnostic tests. It takes into account both sensitivity and specificity, aiming to identify the cutoff point that maximizes both parameters simultaneously. The closer the index is to 1, the better the overall test performance.</footnote>
the clinical severity of anaphylaxis, with a 4-fold increase in epinephrine administration in grade 3 compared to grade 2 anaphylaxis.²⁶ When at least two samples of tryptase were collected, the sampling timing was adequate in only half of the cases. Taken together, our study underlines the need for improved adherence to guidelines by better education of ED medical staff. A before-and-after comparative study suggested the relevance of an updated protocol to improve the anaphylaxis management in a pediatric ED.²⁷

We evaluated 3 different formulae for the interpretation of dynamic serum tryptase. In our hands, the CCF was not the best option. Indeed, we found a better sensitivity (82.2%) with the [sAT > 1.35 × sBT] formula and a better specificity (94.6%) with the [sAT > 11.0 µg/L] formula. Overall, the best formula was the rT—that is, the ratio of sAT over sBT, with 66.7% sensitivity, 90.0% specificity, and 0.57 Youden index. All these formulae exhibited high positive predictive values, but none of them had a high negative predictive value, which is an important limitation in clinical practice. However, because of our strict analysis conditions (adherence to adequate tryptase sampling times), we only analyzed a small number of case samples. All these results must be confirmed in larger cohorts with a prospective design to minimize potential biases. A previous study, which analyzed sAT and sBT to discriminate IgE-dependent from non-IgE-dependent hypersensitivity reactions in both children and adults using rT,²⁸ found that the ratio was higher in IgE-mediated reactions. Moreover, rT and dT were previously evaluated on 12 shrimp-related pediatric anaphylaxis episodes, and at optimal thresholds, the authors found 92% and 83% sensitivity, and 96% and 93% specificity, respectively.²⁹ As a whole, rT displayed convincing results and appears to be the best option for pediatric anaphylaxis, notably because of its high specificity, which helps avoid falsely positive results. Having a more accurate formula for documenting systemic MCA in children may improve overall patient management. Clinical practice implementation of a formula with validated performance ensures better characterization of anaphylactic reactions, patient referral for allergy assessment, and improved prevention of future episodes. In a multicenter cohort of suspected pediatric perioperative hypersensitivity, we did not find that the CCF was the best option to document MCA. Instead, sAT values exceeding a cutoff of sBT + 0.71 displayed 53.2% sensitivity and 96.9% specificity.³⁰

One probable explanation for the performance variations between adult and pediatric populations lies in the fact that baseline tryptase secretion of MC significantly evolves throughout childhood. Indeed, several studies aiming to establish age-specific reference values of sBT have shown a marked decrease between ages 9 and 19, followed by a gradual increase into adulthood.³¹,³²

Overall, data from our study suggest that the CCF may not be the most suitable formula for documenting MCA. Here, we highlight a plausible option for pediatric populations referred to the ED. The performance might vary according to factors such as age (pediatric or adult), sex,³³ clinical context, type of suspected allergen, or presence of comorbidities, most of which are much less prevalent in children than in adults, including chronic renal disease,⁹ myeloid neoplasm,⁹ MC-related diseases,³⁴ and obesity.³⁵

The major strength of our study is the real-world data described in a specific population of pediatric patients. To date, our study represents the largest cohort analysis on sequential tryptase performance in pediatric anaphylaxis outside the perioperative

setting.⁶,³⁶ The major weaknesses of our study was its retrospective, single-center design and the absence of grade 4 cases of anaphylaxis. The lack of demographic matching with a control group is a potential limitation of our study, but this can be explained by the nature of our study, which focuses on the analysis of real-life data.

Our study underlines the need for a better implementation of both sAT and sBT measurements at adequate sampling times in pediatric ED and contributes to the ongoing debate regarding the optimal interpretation of pediatric dynamic tryptase. Similar to adult sAT and sBT, pediatric laboratory documentation of MCA supports the demonstration of pediatric anaphylaxis, contributes to uncovering disease-modifying MC-related conditions, and ultimately improves the management of pediatric anaphylaxis.

In conclusion, pediatric anaphylaxis is an at-risk clinical condition that is frequently suspected in the ED. Improving the knowledge on the kinetics of serum tryptase concentrations for pediatric patients should result in improved management of these patients. We provided here some key points about this topic through our single-center experience. Further studies are required to confirm our observations about pediatric anaphylaxis in order to improve patient management.

## DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: J. Vitte reports receipt of speaker and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, HpVac, Novartis, L'Oréal, Sanofi, and Thermo Fisher Scientific outside the submitted work. The rest of the authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interest.

## REFERENCES

1. Castells M. Diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis in precision medicine. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2017;140:321-33.

2. Muraro A, Worm M, Alviani C, Cardona V, DunnGalvin A, Garvey LH, et al. EAACI guidelines: anaphylaxis (2021 update). Allergy 2022;77:357-77.

3. Simons FER, Arduoso LR, Bilò MB, Cardona V, Ebisawa M, El-Gamal YM, et al. International consensus on (ICON) anaphylaxis. World Allergy Organ J 2014;7:9.

4. Cardona V, Ansotegui IJ, Ebisawa M, El-Gamal Y, Fernandez Rivas M, Fineman S, et al. World Allergy Organization anaphylaxis guidance, 2020. World Allergy Organ J 2020;13:100472.

5. Golden DBK, Wang J, Waserman S, Akin C, Campbell RL, Ellis AK, et al. Anaphylaxis: a 2023 practice parameter update. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2024;132:124-76.

6. Khaleva E, Franz A, Garvey LH, Jay N, Ylescupidez A, Bahnson HT, et al. Perioperative anaphylaxis in children: etiology, time sequence, and patterns of clinical reactivity. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2020;31:85-94.

7. De Schryver S, Halbrich M, Clarke A, La Vieille S, Eisman H, Alizadehfar R, et al. Tryptase levels in children presenting with anaphylaxis: temporal trends and associated factors. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2016;137:1138-42.

8. Valent P, Akin C, Arock M, Brockow K, Butterfield JH, Carter MC, et al. Definitions, criteria and global classification of mast cell disorders with special reference to mast cell activation syndromes: a consensus proposal. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2012;157:215-25.

9. Valent P, Bonadonna P, Hartmann K, Broesby-Olsen S, Brockow K, Butterfield JH, et al. Why the 20% + 2 tryptase formula is a diagnostic gold standard for severe systemic mast cell activation and mast cell activation syndrome. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2019;180:44-51.

10. Karaatmaca B, Sahiner UM, Sekerel BE, Soyer O. Perioperative hypersensitivity reactions during childhood and outcomes of subsequent anesthesia. Paediatr Anaesth 2021;31:436-43.

11. Tanverdi MS, Wiersma A, Kim KM, Hicks AG, Mistry RD. Anaphylaxis in children. Pediatr Emer Care 2022;38:456-61.

12. Poowuttikul P, Seth D. Anaphylaxis in children and adolescents. Pediatr Clin North Am 2019;66:995-1005.

13. Rehimini S, Gabrielli S, Langlois A, Clarke AE, De Schryver S, McCusker C, et al. Specific IgE antibody levels during and after food-induced anaphylaxis. Clin Exp Allergy 2021;51:364-8.
14. Sabato V, Michel M, Blank U, Ebo DG, Vitte J. Mast cell activation syndrome: is anaphylaxis part of the phenotype? A systematic review. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2021;21:426-34.

15. Pouessel G, Deschildre A, Dribin TE, Ansotegui IJ, Cardona V, Chinthrajah RS, et al. Refractory anaphylaxis: a new entity for severe anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2023.

16. Ring J, Messmer K. Incidence and severity of anaphylactoid reactions to colloid volume substitutes. Lancet 1977;1(8009):466-9.

17. Michel M, Klingebiel C, Vitte J. Tryptase in type I hypersensitivity. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2022;130:169-77.

18. Passia E, Jandus P. Using baseline and peak serum tryptase levels to diagnose anaphylaxis: a review. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2020;58:366-76.

19. Vitte J, Sabato V, Tacquard C, Garvey LH, Michel M, Mertes PM, et al. Use and interpretation of acute and baseline tryptase in perioperative hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2021;9:2994-3005.

20. Grabhenrich LB, Dölle S, Moneret-Vautrin A, Köhli A, Lange L, Spindler T, et al. Anaphylaxis in children and adolescents: the European Anaphylaxis Registry. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2016;137:1128-37.e1.

21. Worm M, Moneret-Vautrin A, Scherer K, Lang R, Fernandez-Rivas M, Cardona V, et al. First European data from the network of severe allergic reactions (NORA). Allergy 2014;69:1397-404.

22. Kemp SF, Lockey RF, Simons FER. World Allergy Organization *ad hoc* Committee on Epinephrine in Anaphylaxis. Epinephrine: the drug of choice for anaphylaxis. A statement of the World Allergy Organization. Allergy 2008; 63:1061-70.

23. Santos AF, Lack G. Food allergy and anaphylaxis in pediatrics: update, 2010-2012. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2012;23:698-706.

24. Gaspar À, Santos N, Piedade S, Santa-Marta C, Pires G, Sampaio G, et al. One-year survey of paediatric anaphylaxis in an allergy department. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol 2015;47:197-205.

25. Grossman SL, Baumann BM, Garcia Peña BM, Linares MYR, Greenberg B-Hernandez-Trujillo VP. Anaphylaxis knowledge and practice preferences of pediatric emergency medicine physicians: a national survey. J Pediatr 2013;163:841-6.

26. Dubus JC, Lê MS, Vitte J, Minodier P, Boutin A, Carsin A, et al. Use of epinephrine in emergency department depends on anaphylaxis severity in children. Eur J Pediatr 2019;178:69-75.

27. Arroabarren E, Lasa EM, Olaciregui I, Sarasqueta C, Muñoz JA, Pérez-Yarza EG. Improving anaphylaxis management in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2011;22:708-14.

28. Gastaminza G, Lafuente A, Goikoetxea MJ, D'Amelio CM, Bernad-Alonso A, Vega O, et al. Improvement of the elevated tryptase criterion to discriminate IgE- from non-IgE-mediated allergic reactions. Anesth Analg 2018;127:414-9.

29. Wongkaewpothong P, Pacharn P, Sripramong C, Boonchoo S, Piboonpocanun S, Visitsunthorn N, et al. The utility of serum tryptase in the diagnosis of food-induced anaphylaxis. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 2014;6:304-9.

30. Vlaeminck N, Poorten ML van der, Nygaard Madsen C, Bech Melchiors B, Michel M, Gonzalez C, et al. Paediatric perioperative hypersensitivity: the performance of the current consensus formula and the effect of uneventful anaesthesia on serum tryptase. BJA Open 2024;9:100254.

31. Slot MC, Claessen LHJ, Bons JAP, Menheere PPCA, Nieuwhof CMG, de Boer D. Tryptase reference ranges are age-dependent in a large population-based cohort. Allergy 2022.

32. Francois F, Mauff BL, Waeckel L, de Chaisemartin L, Tabary T, Dumontet E, et al. Basal serum tryptase: a critical reconsideration of reference values. Allergy 2023.

33. Puel M, Rossignol J, Devin C, Madrange M, Diep A, Roland PN, et al. Redefining tryptase norms in the pediatric population reveals sex-based differences: clinical implications. Allergy 2024.

34. Mateja A, Wang Q, Chovanec J, Kim J, Wilson KJ, Schwartz LB, et al. Defining baseline variability of serum tryptase levels improves accuracy in identifying anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2021.

35. Vitte J, Sjölander A, Rydell N, Molin M, Pejler G, Hallgren J, et al. Tryptase reference values in a Swedish middle-aged general population and association with diabetes mellitus. Clin Exp Allergy 2022;52:1330-3.

36. Toh TS, Foo SY, Loh W, Chong KW, En Goh A, Hee HI, et al. Perioperative anaphylaxis: a five-year review in a tertiary paediatric hospital. Anaesth Intensive Care 2021.