Factors augmenting allergic reactions

Microbial metabolism of food allergens determines the severity of IgE-mediated anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially life-threatening reaction, often triggered by foods and largely mediated by IgE. A critically important aspect of anaphylaxis pertains to the factors that modulate its severity. The human microbiota is known to influence oral tolerance, but the microbial mechanisms directly involved in IgE-mediated anaphylaxis remain unknown. Here, we demonstrate that human saliva harbors peanut-degrading bacteria that metabolize immunodominant allergens (Ara h 1 and Ara h 2) and alter IgE binding. Additionally, we provide in vivo evidence showing that oral bacteria metabolize peanut allergens, influencing systemic allergen exposure and the severity of anaphylaxis. Finally, in a clinical study, we observe that common peanut-degrading bacteria, such as Rothia, from the oral cavity, are more abundant in peanut-allergic patients who exhibit better tolerance to allergen exposure. Altogether, these results demonstrate the role of the human microbiota in modulating IgE-mediated reactions through allergen metabolism. These findings reveal a novel microbial mechanism with potential to prevent, or reduce, the severity of IgE-mediated anaphylaxis.

Factors and co-factors influencing clinical manifestations in nsLTPs allergy: between the good and the bad

Non-specific lipid transfer proteins (nsLTPs) are a family of plant pan-allergens that represent the primary cause of food allergies in the Mediterranean area, characterized by a wide range of clinical manifestations, ranging from the total absence of symptoms up to anaphylaxis. This wide variety of symptoms is related to the intrinsic capacity of nsLTPs to cause an allergic reaction in a specific subject, but also to the presence of co-factors exacerbating (i.e., exercise, NSAIDs, PPIs, alcohol, cannabis, prolonged fasting, menstruation, acute infections, sleep deprivation, chronic urticaria) or protecting from (i.e., co-sensitization to PR10, profilin or polcalcin) severe reactions. In this picture, recognizing some nsLTPs-related peculiarities (i.e., route, type and number of sensitizations, concentration of the allergen, cross-reactions) and eventual co-factors may help the allergist to define the risk profile of the single patient, in order to promote the appropriate management of the allergy from dietary advices up to the prescription of life-saving epinephrine autoinjector.

Alpha-gal syndrome-Food or drug allergy: A case report

Alpha-gal syndrome is an immunoglobulin E-mediated hypersensitivity characterized by delayed allergic reactions to ingested products containing alpha-gal carbohydrate. We present a patient with recurrent urticaria and suspected repaglinide hypersensitivity, who was eventually diagnosed with alpha-gal syndrome, wanting to emphasize possible drug allergy misdiagnosis and required caution with the medication choice.

Cofactors in food anaphylaxis in adults

Around 25% to 50% of food-induced allergic reactions in adults cause anaphylaxis, and epidemiologic evidence suggests that food is the most common cause of anaphylaxis. Reaction severity is unpredictable, and patients will often experience reactions of variable severity, even to an identical exposure (both dose and allergen). A common explanation for this phenomenon has been the impact of "cofactors"-factors that might contribute to reaction severity independent of the allergen exposure. Cofactors can influence reaction severity in 2 ways: either by reducing the reaction threshold (ie, the dose needed to trigger any symptoms) so that patients have no symptoms in the absence of the cofactor and only react with the cofactor present, or by increasing reaction severity such that individuals have only mild symptoms in the absence of the cofactor, but a more severe reaction when the cofactor is present. Indeed, the same patient may have reactions with different cofactors or even need more than one cofactor to develop a severe reaction. Cofactors reportedly play a role in approximately 30% of anaphylaxis reactions in adults. Exercise, nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs, alcohol, and sleep deprivation are the most frequent cofactors reported. Routine evaluation of the possible involvement of cofactors is essential in managing patients with food anaphylaxis: in patients with a suggestive history but a negative oral food challenge, cofactors should be taken into account to provide appropriate advice to reduce the risk of future anaphylaxis.

Accidental allergic reactions to food in adolescents and adults: An overview of the factors involved and implications for prevention

Accidental allergic reactions to food are one of the major problems in adult patients diagnosed with food allergy. Such reactions occur frequently, are often severe and are associated with higher medical and non-medical costs. The aim of this Perspective is to provide insight into the different factors involved in the occurrence of accidental allergic reactions and to present an overview of practical implications for effective preventive measures. Several factors affect the occurrence of accidental reactions. These factors are related to the patient, health care, or food. The most important patient-related factors are age, social barriers to disclosing their allergy and non-adherence to the elimination diet. With regards to healthcare, the degree to which clinical practice is tailored to the individual patient is an important factor. The major food-related factor is the absence of adequate precautionary allergen labeling (PAL) guidelines. Since many factors are involved in accidental allergic reactions, different preventive strategies are needed. It is highly recommended that health care be tailored to the individual patient, with regard to education about the elimination diet, support on behavioral and psychosocial aspects, usage of shared decision-making and taking into account health literacy. In addition, it is crucial that steps are taken to improve policies and guidelines for PAL.

A review of cannabis allergy in the early days of legalization

Cannabis allergy is a burgeoning field; consequently, research is still in its infancy and allergists' knowledge surrounding this topic is limited. As cannabis legalization expands across the world, it is anticipated that there will be an increase in cannabis use. Thus, we hypothesize that a concomitant rise in the incidence of allergy to this plant can be expected. Initiatives aimed at properly educating health care professionals are therefore necessary. This review presents the most up-to-date information on a broad range of topics related to cannabis allergy. Although the clinical features of cannabis allergy are becoming more well described and recognized, the tools available to make a correct diagnosis are meager and often poorly accessible. In addition, research on cannabis allergy is still taking its first steps, and new and potentially groundbreaking findings in this field are expected to occur in the next few years. Finally, although therapeutic approaches are being developed, patient and physician education regarding cannabis allergy is certainly needed.

Canadian Anaphylaxis Network-Predicting Recurrence after Emergency Presentation for Allergic REaction (CAN-PREPARE): a prospective, cohort study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Anaphylaxis is a severe, potentially fatal multiorgan system manifestation of an allergic reaction. The highest incidence of anaphylaxis is in children and adolescents. Biphasic anaphylaxis (BA) is defined as the recurrence of allergic symptoms after resolution of an initial reaction. It has been reported to occur in 10%-20% of cases within 1-48 hours from the onset of the initial reaction. The dilemma for physicians is determining which patients with resolved anaphylaxis should be observed for BA and for how long. Guidelines for duration of postanaphylaxis monitoring vary, are based on limited evidence and can have unintended negative impacts on patient safety, quality of life and healthcare resources. The objectives of this study are to derive a prognostic model for BA and to develop a risk-scoring system that informs disposition decisions of children who present to emergency departments (ED) with anaphylaxis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This prospective multicentre cohort study will enrol 1682 patients from seven paediatric EDs that are members of the Paediatric Emergency Research Canada network. We will enrol patients younger than 18 years of age with an allergic reaction meeting anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria. Trained ED research assistants will screen, obtain consent and prospectively collect study data. Research assistants will follow patients during their ED visit and ascertain, in conjunction with the medical team, if the patient develops BA. A standardised follow-up survey conducted following study enrolment will determine if a biphasic reaction occurred after ED disposition. Model development will conform to the broad principles of the PROGRESS (Prognosis Research Strategy) framework and reporting will follow the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis Statement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been received from all participating centres. Our dissemination plan focuses on informing clinicians, policy makers and parents of the results through publication in peer-reviewed journals and broadcasting on multiple media platforms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05135377.

Anaphylaxis in Children

ABSTRACT

Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening event in children, commonly encountered in the prehospital and emergency department settings. Recently published clinical guidelines emphasize early recognition of anaphylaxis and administration of epinephrine as the mainstay of management. Literature regarding adjuvant therapies, biphasic reactions, observation times, and disposition of patients with anaphylaxis remains controversial. In this article, we will review the background and pathophysiology of anaphylaxis, as well as the diagnostic approach, management, and future directions of anaphylaxis in children.

Oral immunotherapy for children with a high-threshold peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Between 25% and 30% of children with peanut allergy (PA) have a relatively high-threshold peanut allergy (HTPA), with a single maximal tolerated dose (SMTD) higher than 100 mg of peanut protein (PP). However, this threshold may decrease with time, age, exercise, illness, sleep deprivation, and other covariates.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the feasibility of a simplified oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocol in a group of children with HTPA.

METHODS

Children with PA with an SMTD higher than 100 mg were placed on a 40-week OIT protocol of either 300 mg/d of PP or 100 mg/d for 20 weeks followed by 300 mg/d for 20 weeks. A repeat open peanut food challenge was performed after 40 weeks of treatment and at a 6-month follow-up visit. After the 40-week challenge, all children received a maintenance dosage of 2 gPP 3 times a week.

RESULTS

A total of 28 children with HTPA were enrolled, with 56% boys, 89% younger than 6 years old, and a mean SMTD of 304 mg (95% confidence interval 229-378). All were placed on the described OIT protocol. Overall, 2 children were not compliant and 3 had allergic reactions at home on the dose previously tolerated in clinic, 23 completed the 40-week protocol, and all were able to consume 2 g of PP. The mean tolerated dosage at the 6-month follow-up was 8 g. This enabled most children age-appropriate dietary inclusion of peanut-containing products.

CONCLUSION

In children with HTPA, a simple, fixed-dose OIT can be both safe and efficacious.

Eight tips for the implementation of the first licenced peanut allergy oral immunotherapy into clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Shared learnings from the early use of novel therapies can aid in their optimization. The recent introduction of peanut oral immunotherapy (peanut OIT; Palforzia [Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Allergen Powder-dnfp]) for peanut allergy addresses a significant unmet need but also highlights the requirement for consideration of several factors by both prescribers and patients.

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance for prescribers of licenced peanut OIT to facilitate treatment delivery and improve outcomes.

METHODS

Clinicians with experience of licenced peanut OIT (United States n = 6, United Kingdom n = 1) participated in a series of interviews and group discussions designed to elicit tips for successful implementation.

RESULTS

Clinicians identified 8 tips that were considered the most relevant, practical, and impactful for prescribers of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Allergen Powder-dnfp: (1) preparing to provide treatment, (2) assessing the medical indication for treatment and (3) shared decision making, (4) staff education, (5) establishing office processes, (6) managing patient expectations and using anticipatory guidance, (7) optimising adherence and (8) maintaining flexibility throughout the treatment process. In addition, a range of supporting materials (e.g., checklists and action plans) are provided.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of a novel therapy often requires healthcare providers to modify or adopt practices to effectively employ the treatment. The provision of guidance based upon early real-world experiences of licenced peanut OIT may help inform clinical practice and improve treatment outcomes.

Acute Urticaria and Anaphylaxis: Differences and Similarities in Clinical Management

Acute urticaria is a common condition that presents with wheals and/or angioedema. However, these symptoms are also frequent in anaphylaxis, a life-threatening reaction that should be immediately diagnosed and treated. In both, mast cells play a central role in the physiopathology. Causes and triggers of acute urticaria and anaphylaxis are similar in general, but some peculiarities can be observed. The diagnostic approach may differ, accordingly to the condition, suspicious causes, age groups and regions. Adrenaline is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, but not for acute urticaria, where H1-antihistamines are the first choice. In this paper, we review the main aspects, similarities and differences regarding definitions, mechanisms, causes, diagnosis and treatment of acute urticaria and anaphylaxis.

Perioperative Anaphylaxis from a Perspective of Temperature

Perioperative anaphylaxis poses a special challenge due to its unique condition with the additive effects of surgery and anesthesia, which tends to be more difficult to recognize, diagnose, and manage, resulting in potentially fatal outcomes. Appropriate prevention and treatment benefits patients and reduces mortality and morbidity. Significant body temperature changes occur during anaphylaxis and/or anesthesia, which correlates with the outcomes. During the perioperative period, body temperature and anaphylaxis bidirectionally interact with each other, and anaphylaxis is generally deteriorated by hypothermia, which is usually required in cardiac surgeries. Perioperative factors, such as surgery and anesthesia, affect body temperature and anaphylaxis. The complicated role of body temperature and its application in the diagnosis of perioperative anaphylaxis and prediction of the outcomes are still unclear. To date, a profile of body temperature change during perioperative anaphylaxis is lacking, which requires further study. This literature review was conducted with updated data on perioperative anaphylaxis from the perspective of temperature as a component aiming to bring attention to and offer some cues for improving perioperative prevention and management for perioperative medical teams.Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/08941939.2021.1922553 .

Anaphylaxis: Epidemiology and Differential Diagnosis

Anaphylaxis-related emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations are increasing. Triggers for anaphylaxis include food, medications, and stinging insects. Idiopathic anaphylaxis accounts for 30% to 60% of cases of anaphylaxis in adults and up to 10% of cases in children with novel allergens such as galactose-α-1,3 galactose reclassifying these cases. Recent practice guidelines have recommended against the routine use of systemic corticosteroids and antihistamines for the prevention of biphasic reactions and recommend an extended observation, up to 6 hours, for those with risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis and those with lack of access to epinephrine and to emergency medical services.

The influence of acetylsalicylic acid and alcohol on absorption kinetics of hen´s egg white in a human passive cutaneous anaphylaxis model

Background

Despite the well-known fact that acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) can induce anaphylaxis in patients susceptible to wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis, few studies have sought to investigate the effects of cofactors on type-1 food allergy and none with ASA and hen’s egg and hen’s egg and alcohol combined.

Methods and results

We applied the experimental model of ‘passive cutaneous anaphylaxis’ in humans to study whether the absorption kinetics of egg white is altered while being treated with ASA or under the influence of alcohol. Donor sera from four egg allergic patients with specific immunoglobulin E (s-IgE) to ovalbumin (0.1–8.87–19.5–170 kUA/L) were injected intracutaneously into the forearm of 12 healthy volunteers who were then challenged separately to: 1) egg white 2) egg white + ASA and 3) egg white + alcohol. ‘Time to wheal’ and ‘wheal size’ were compared among the three experiments.

We saw that ‘time to wheal’ with both ASA (P = 0.001) and alcohol (P = 0.019) added as cofactor significantly decreased compared with baseline.

Conclusion

In this passive cutaneous anaphylaxis model, ASA and alcohol affected both reaction time and size of reactions elicited after egg ingestion. This suggests that patients with egg allergy could have faster and more severe reactions during ASA treatment or under alcohol influence.

Food allergies and food-induced anaphylaxis: role of cofactors

Food allergies and food-induced anaphylaxis are important health problems. Several cofactors modulating the onset of anaphylaxis have been identified. In the presence of cofactors, allergic reactions may be induced at lower doses of food allergens and/or become severe. Exercise and concomitant infections are well-documented cofactors of anaphylaxis in children. Other factors such as consumption of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alcohol ingestion, and stress have been reported. Cofactors reportedly play a role in approximately 30% of anaphylactic reactions in adults and 14%-18.3% in children. Food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (FDEIA) is the best-studied model of cofactor-induced anaphylaxis. Wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis, the most common FDEIA condition, has been studied the most. The mechanisms of action of cofactors have not yet been fully identified. This review aims to educate clinicians on recent developments in the role of cofactors and highlight the importance of recognizing cofactors in food allergies and food-induced anaphylaxis.

Managing Food Allergy When the Patient Is Not Highly Allergic

Few patients with food allergy are "highly allergic," meaning they always have severe reactions and always react to very small amounts of allergen. Standard medical approaches for allergy management have focused on the safety and lifestyle modifications this group truly needs, but consequently families with food allergy are typically advised to strictly avoid any exposure to their implicated allergens. Most food-allergic subjects are actually not reactive to very low doses, and many never experience severe reactions. There are also notable conditions where a different care plan is already commonly offered: patients with pollen-related food allergy syndrome, with food-associated exercise-induced anaphylaxis, and with resolving or mild milk or egg allergy might be advised to ingest the allergens in specific circumstances with detailed instructions. Because oral immunotherapy and allergy prevention by early exposure have emphasized alternatives to strict avoidance, there is increasing interest in prospects to forego strict avoidance in those with food allergy. For patients with a high threshold of reactivity (low-dose tolerant, high-dose mildly reactive), there may be options such as allowing the ingestion of products with precautionary allergen labels, allowing dietary indiscretions with small amounts of the allergen, or even encouraging ingestion of subthreshold amounts with therapeutic intent. These practices have not been extensively studied and could be considered controversial. If these approaches are considered, shared decision making is needed in discussing them with patients and families. This review considers the potential approaches to those who are "not highly allergic": the risks, benefits, shared decision making, and research needs.

Integrating oral immunotherapy into clinical practice

In 2020, the first food allergy treatment, an oral immunotherapy (OIT) product for peanut allergy, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and a peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy patch was under review. As food allergy therapies become available and widespread, allergy offices will need to adjust practices to be able to offer their patients these new treatments. OIT is an intensive therapy that requires commitment from patients and their families, and open communication with the practice is paramount. OIT may not be the right therapy for every patient, and although identifying good candidates is still an area rich for research opportunity, experience from cohorts and clinical trials provides some insight. It is important to understand the scope of practice for each member of the OIT team based on state regulations for a particular location. Staffing and space will likely dictate how many patients at an individual office could be on active OIT at one time. Emergency medications, supplies, and protocols must be in place. Screening, scheduling, visit procedures, monitoring, home dosing, dose modifications, safety precautions, adverse reactions, and maintenance will be addressed in this article. Finally, adjunct therapies under investigation will be reviewed.

Clinical Relevance of Cross-Reactivity in Food Allergy

The diagnosis and management of food allergy is complicated by an abundance of homologous, cross-reactive proteins in edible foods and aeroallergens. This results in patients having allergic sensitization (positive tests) to many biologically related foods. However, many are sensitized to foods without exhibiting clinical reactivity. Although molecular diagnostics have improved our ability to identify clinically relevant cross-reactivity, the optimal approach to patients requires an understanding of the epidemiology of clinically relevant cross-reactivity, as well as the food-specific (degree of homology, protein stability, abundance) and patient-specific factors (immune response, augmentation factors) that determine clinical relevance. Examples of food families with high rates of cross-reactivity include mammalian milks, eggs, fish, and shellfish. Low rates are noted for grains (wheat, barley, rye), and rates of cross-reactivity are variable for most other foods. This review discusses clinically relevant cross-reactivity related to the aforementioned food groups as well as seeds, legumes (including peanut, soy, chickpea, lentil, and others), tree nuts, meats, fruits and vegetables (including the lipid transfer protein syndrome), and latex. The complicating factor of addressing co-allergy, for example, the risks of allergy to both peanut and tree nuts among atopic patients, is also discussed. Considerations for an approach to individual patient care are highlighted.

Got a Pen for Allergen Immunotherapy? Lessons from Near-Fatal Anaphylaxis with Pulmonary Edema

On our pediatric intensive care unit, we successfully treated a 10-year-old boy with severe pulmonary edema due to anaphylaxis after his last injection of a 3-year course of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). In view of the severity of the adverse event, we initiated a case analysis with all involved medical professionals. The evaluation revealed delayed administration of epinephrine due to dosing uncertainty and underestimation of severity. Consequently, all involved institutions established epinephrine auto-injectors (EAIs) in their emergency equipment. We suggest providing EAIs in every practice conducting AIT, as well as in pediatric emergency rooms and ambulances. We would like to remind readers of the risk of anaphylaxis, even on the last day of AIT.

Food Dependent Exercise-Induced Anaphylaxis in pediatric age. Can we trust the oral food challenge with exercise and acetylsalicylic acid?

Food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (FDEIA) is an IgE-mediated allergy resulting from the combination of the ingestion of an offending food and physical exercise. According literature, oral food challenge (OFC) followed by physical exercise (OFCPE) should be considered the diagnostic gold standard. In the absence of adverse reactions, other cofactors should be added (e.g. acetylsalicylic acid, alcohol in adulthood), one at a time. But many other factors increase patient’s reactivity. This could reduce the sensitivity of the OFCPE and, consequently, make instructions for patients less reliable. On the other hand, the addition of cofactors not reported by the patient may reduce test specificity. With the help of two exemplary stories, that present opposite outcomes, diagnostic difficulties of FDEIA are discussed.

[Update on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: joint document from the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) and Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) - Part II: etiology and diagnosis]

This second joint document, written by experts from the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) concerned with perioperative anaphylaxis, aims to review the pathophysiological reaction mechanisms, triggering agents (in adults and children), and the approach for diagnosis during and after an episode of anaphylaxis. As anaphylaxis assessment is extensive, the identification of medications, antiseptics and other substances used at each setting, the comprehensive data documentation, and the use of standardized nomenclature are key points for obtaining more consistent epidemiological information on perioperative anaphylaxis.

Update on perioperative hypersensitivity reactions: joint document from the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) and Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) - Part II: etiology and diagnosis

This second joint document, written by experts from the Brazilian Association of Allergy and Immunology (ASBAI) and Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA) concerned with perioperative anaphylaxis, aims to review the pathophysiological reaction mechanisms, triggering agents (in adults and children), and the approach for diagnosis during and after an episode of anaphylaxis. As anaphylaxis assessment is extensive, the identification of medications, antiseptics and other substances used at each setting, the comprehensive data documentation, and the use of standardized nomenclature are key points for obtaining more consistent epidemiological information on perioperative anaphylaxis.

Immunoglobulin E-mediated food allergy diagnosis and differential diagnosis

Food allergies consist of aberrant immunologic, typically immunoglobulin E mediated, reactions that involve food proteins. A clinical history with regard to the suspected food, temporal associations, the duration of symptoms, characteristic symptom complex, and reproducibility in some cases is the key to making an accurate diagnosis. The differential diagnosis includes, for example, other immunologic adverse food reactions, nonimmunologic adverse food reactions, and reactions that involve nonfood items. Skin and blood immunoglobulin E testing for the suspected food antigen can aid the diagnosis in the context of a supportive clinical history. Immunoglobulin E testing for food components may further enhance diagnostic accuracy. Novel testing modalities are under development but are not yet ready to replace the current paradigm. Thus, double-blinded placebo controlled oral food challenge is considered the criterion standard of testing, although unblinded oral food challenges are usually confirmatory.

Clinical manifestations of immunoglobulin E-mediated food allergy, including pollen-food allergy syndrome

Immunoglobulin E-(IgE) mediated food allergy affects people of all ages but does not have a consistent presentation and may result in various manifestations, even for an individual. The onset of symptoms is usually quite rapid, minutes to a few hours after consumption of the allergen, although exceptions exist. Cutaneous and gastrointestinal symptoms are the most common clinical manifestations; however, they are not present in all allergic reactions. Clinicians, particularly those in emergency care settings, need to be aware that the lack of cutaneous manifestations does not exclude the possibility of anaphylaxis. It is extremely unusual for food allergy reactions to present with isolated upper or lower respiratory symptoms, nor is chronic urticaria a manifestation of food allergy. Clinical manifestations of IgE-mediated food allergy range from mild to severe and, in rare cases, can be fatal. Mild, localized reactions, such as those that occur in pollen-food allergy syndrome, occur in individuals with sensitization to pollens. A small proportion of patients with this syndrome develop anaphylaxis. Alcohol, medications (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antacids), physical exertion, increased body temperature, acute infection, and menstruation are factors that are known to augment the severity of food-induced allergic reactions.

Personalized Nutrition in Food Allergy: Tips for Clinical Practice

Nowadays, food allergies are considered as a wide spectrum of disorders that need different approaches. The "one size fits all" approach is giving way to a "targeted approach," based on the identification of the patient's phenotype. Thus, the approach of nutritional management of food allergy has moved on from simply being "yes or no" to "how much?", "in which form?" and "for which patients?" Different factors should be considered in order to make a patient-tailored nutritional plan in clinical practice. Tailored nutritional plans may help to reduce the nutritional, social and economic burden of food allergy.

Impact of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease on Mucosal Immunity and Atopic Disorders

Atopic disorders and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are some of the most common medical conditions treated by primary care physicians and specialists alike. The observation that atopic disorders, like asthma, allergic rhinitis and sinusitis, food allergies, atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, and eosinophilic esophagitis are common comorbidities in patients with GERD raises the question of the nature of the relationship that may exist between GERD and atopic disorders. In this article, we review the pathophysiology of GERD, its effect on the immune system, the effect of acid-blocking medications on allergic responses, as well as several common atopic conditions that have been associated with GERD including asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), allergic rhinitis (AR), atopic dermatitis (AD), contact dermatitis (CD), food allergies, proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-responsive esophageal eosinophilia (PPI-REE), and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). In each condition, the evidence of a causal link is not definitive. Although the relationship between asthma and GERD remains controversial, evidence suggests that a subset of asthma patients with documented GERD may experience improved asthma control following appropriate treatment of GERD. The relationship of GERD to allergic rhinitis and chronic sinusitis is weak; however, studies support the concept that treatment of frequent episodes of GERD can have a positive effect on rhinitis and sinusitis overall. The relationship between allergic sensitization and GERD is likely bidirectional. GERD may induce changes in the mucosal immune system that may favor the development of food allergy and allergic sensitization to aeroallergens; however, the underlying mechanisms have not been established.

Exercise Lowers Threshold and Increases Severity, but Wheat-Dependent, Exercise-Induced Anaphylaxis Can Be Elicited at Rest

BACKGROUND

Wheat-dependent, exercise-induced anaphylaxis (WDEIA) is a severe form of allergy in which exercise is being considered as mandatory. The diagnosis is often complex and the clinical reproducibility low.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to establish a standardized challenge method for the diagnosis of WDEIA and to investigate whether exercise is an essential trigger factor or alternatively an augmentation factor able to lower threshold and increase severity.

METHODS

We investigated 71 patients (age, 18.6-73.7 years) with a case history of WDEIA. Skin prick test (SPT) and measurement of specific IgE (sIgE) were followed by an oral food challenge with gluten at rest and in combination with treadmill exercise.

RESULTS

A clinical reaction was elicited in 47 of 71 (66%), and in 26 of these (37%) the reaction could be elicited at rest. The median dose required at rest was 48 g (8-80 g) and in combination with exercise 24 g (4-80 g). Severity was significantly higher with exercise (2.3) than at rest (1.1) using Sampson severity score. In the challenge, SPT was positive to wheat in 93.6% (44 of 47) and to gluten in 95.7% (45 of 47). sIgE to wheat, gliadin, and omega-5 gliadin was present in 78.7% (37 of 47), 76.5% (36 of 47), and 91.4% (43 of 47) of the patients. Receiver operating characteristic-curve analysis for sIgE to omega-5 gliadin, a component of the gluten fraction and the major allergen in WDEIA, showed best sensitivity (91%) and specificity (92%) when gluten was combined with exercise.

CONCLUSIONS

A challenge test with gluten at rest and combined exercise is a safe confirmatory test for WDEIA. A reaction can be elicited at rest (without exercise), but exercise is able to lower the threshold and increase the severity.

Diagnosis and prevention of food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis

Introduction: Food-dependent, exercise-induced anaphylaxis (FDEIA) is a rare type of anaphylaxis with a growing incidence. Although the precise mechanism by which the patient reacts only in a combination of a culprit food and cofactors are not currently understood, many advances in diagnosis and management have been made since their first description. Areas covered: A literature search in PubMed was performed to review the diagnosis and management of FDEIA. Clinicians should have a high level of suspicion for identification of the culprit foods and the cofactors involved. Component-resolved diagnosis and more accurate provocation tests have revolutionized the diagnosis accuracy. Management is not easy and involves educating the patient to evict the combination of exposure to the culprit foods and the cofactors that elicit anaphylaxis, and how to act and treat if a reaction occurs. Expert opinion: FDEIA is currently misdiagnosed and the authors believe that there are many FDEIA patients labelled as idiopathic anaphylaxis with unnecessary evictions and with a poor quality of life because of the fear of an imminent reaction. Due to recent advances in diagnostic tools and the use of monoclonal antibodies for prophylaxis in persistent cases, FDEIA can have a better prognosis improving the quality of life of the patients and their families.

How to manage food dependent exercise induced anaphylaxis (FDEIA)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In recent years, the number of reports on food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (FDEIA) has been increasing. This review aims to describe the standard management of FDEIA including provocation tests and identify the issues that remain unclear.

RECENT FINDINGS

Provocation tests with aspirin for FDEIA enable us to confirm the definitive diagnosis and to make differential diagnosis. In some cases, FDEIA symptoms can be induced by aspirin and the causative food without exercise. Exercise may only be an augmenting factor of FDEIA, similar to aspirin or alcohol.

SUMMARY

The mechanisms of FDEIA development remain unclear. It has been suggested that in FDEIA, exercise lowers the threshold of a food allergy. Further research is needed to elucidate the mechanism of FDEIA and to establish strategies for effective disease management.

Innovation in Food Challenge Tests for Food Allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review incorporates findings from studies of oral food challenges (OFC) over the last decade and highlights the latest innovations and understanding of the procedure.

RECENT FINDINGS

PRACTALL guidelines are widely used in OFC research, but there is still no international consensus on the OFC protocol in clinical practice. Guidelines for performing OFC in clinical practice have been updated to include oral food challenges for infants. There have been advances in predictive models for outcomes and severity of reaction during OFC that take into account multiple clinical data as well as newer laboratory modalities. Low-dose OFC and eliciting threshold dose determination are being examined for additional diagnostic and therapeutic use in the management of food allergy. Quality-of-life considerations have also been reviewed, as well as post-OFC assessment and care. The OFC remains an important diagnostic tool in the management of food allergy and in clinical research. Advances in the field should improve safety and broaden the clinical applications of this essential procedure.

Potential cofactors in accidental food allergic reactions are frequently present but may not influence severity and occurrence

BACKGROUND

Cofactors, such as physical exercise and alcohol intake, might be associated with the severity or occurrence of food allergic reactions.

OBJECTIVE

To gain insight into the frequency of presence of potential cofactors in accidental food allergic reactions in adults and to what extent these factors influence the severity and occurrence of allergic reactions.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted, with a 1-year follow-up in adult patients with a physician-diagnosed food allergy. Patients were required to fill in a questionnaire after every accidental allergic reactions to food over a 1-year period. The primary outcome measure was the frequency that potential cofactors were present in these allergic reactions.

RESULTS

A total of 157 patients were included, of which 46% reported a total of 153 reactions during a 1-year follow-up period. In 74% of the reactions, ≥1 potential cofactor was reported to be present: tiredness (38%), alcohol intake (16%), stress (14%), symptoms of pollinosis (16%), symptoms of asthma (9%), sickness/flu (3%), physical exercise (3%) and use of analgesics (2%). More than one potential cofactor was reported in almost half of all reactions (47%). There was no significant difference in the presence of these factors between mild, moderate and severe reactions (P = 0.522). In the total study population, 9% of the patients used medication that might act as cofactor (antacids, angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], beta blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs]) on a daily basis, which however did not influence the occurrence of reactions. Furthermore, 38% daily used allergy-suppressing medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Although factors suggested to be cofactors were frequently present during accidental food allergic reactions, we found no evidence for an association between the potential cofactors examined and reaction severity, in a population where most reactions were of mild to moderate severity.

The urgent need for a harmonized severity scoring system for acute allergic reactions

The accurate assessment and communication of the severity of acute allergic reactions are important to patients, clinicians, researchers, the food industry, and public health and regulatory authorities. Severity has different meanings to different stakeholders with patients and clinicians rating the significance of particular symptoms very differently. Many severity scoring systems have been generated, most focusing on the severity of reactions following exposure to a limited group of allergens. They are heterogeneous in format, none has used an accepted developmental approach, and none has been validated. Their wide range of outcome formats has led to difficulties with interpretation and application. Therefore, there is a persisting need for an appropriately developed and validated severity scoring system for allergic reactions that work across the range of allergenic triggers and address the needs of different stakeholder groups. We propose a novel approach to develop and then validate a harmonized scoring system for acute allergic reactions, based on a data-driven method that is informed by clinical and patient experience and other stakeholders' perspectives. We envisage two formats: (i) a numerical score giving a continuum from mild to severe reactions that are clinically meaningful and are useful for allergy healthcare professionals and researchers, and (ii) a three-grade-based ordinal format that is simple enough to be used and understood by other professionals and patients. Testing of reliability and validity of the new approach in a range of settings and populations will allow eventual implementation of a standardized scoring system in clinical studies and routine practice.

Adrenaline in the Acute Treatment of Anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is the most serious manifestation of an immediate allergic reaction and the most common emergency event in allergology. Adrenaline (epi- nephrine) is the mainstay of acute pharmacotherapy for this complication. Although epinephrine has been in use for more than a century, physicians and patients are often unsure and inadequately informed about its proper administration and dosing in everyday situations.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications from the period 1 January 2012 to 30 September 2017 that were retrieved, on the basis of the existing guide- lines of 2007 and 2014, by a PubMed search employing the keywords "anaphylaxis treatment," "allergic shock," "adrenaline," and "epinephrine," as well as on further ar- ticles from the literature.

RESULTS

Adrenaline/epinephrine administration often eliminates all manifestations of anaphylaxis. The method of choice for administering it (except in intensive-care medicine) is by intramuscular injection with an autoinjector; this is mainly done to treat reactions of intermediate severity. The injection is given in the lateral portion of the thigh and can be repeated every 10-15 minutes until there is a response. The dose to be administered is 300-600 µg for an adult or 10 µg/kg for a child. The risk of a serious cardiac adverse effect is lower than with intravenous administration. There have not been any randomized controlled trials on the clinical efficacy of ephi- nephrine in emergency situations. The use of an autoinjector should be specially practiced in advance.

CONCLUSION

The immediate treatment of patients with anaphylaxis is held to be ad- equate, yet major deficiencies remain in their further diagnostic evaluation, in the prescribing of emergency medications, and in patient education. Further research is needed on cardiovascular involvement in anaphylaxis and on potential new thera- peutic approaches.

Patterns of Carriage of Prescribed Adrenaline Autoinjectors in 10- to 14-Year-Old Food-Allergic Students: A Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Adolescence is well recognized as a period of increased risk for severe and fatal food-induced anaphylaxis. Current Australian adrenaline autoinjector (AAI) prescription guidelines therefore suggest that consideration be given to AAI prescription in all adolescents with a food allergy. To date, however, few studies have assessed the AAI carriage behavior of adolescents prescribed AAI devices.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the carriage behavior of prescribed AAI devices in a population-based sample of young Australian adolescents.

METHODS

Students aged 10 to 14 years (and their parents) from randomly selected schools in metropolitan Melbourne completed self-administered questionnaires regarding the history and management of food allergy, including prescription and carriage of AAI device in different domains of school and social life.

RESULTS

A total of 9816 students completed the questionnaire (46% response): 620 students were assessed to have likely IgE-mediated food allergy and 234 (38%) of these had been prescribed an AAI. Most students (93%; 95% CI, 89%-96%) who were prescribed AAIs reported that they provided their AAI and anaphylaxis action plan to their school. Adherence to AAI carriage in other domains of social life was poor, with 49% (95% CI, 42%-56%) never carrying their AAI in 1 or more locations. Carriage of the AAI device was particularly poor when students were independent of parental supervision: 32% (95% CI, 25%-39%) never carried it when they were by themselves, 28% (95% CI, 22%-36%) never carried it while out with friends, and 36% (95% CI, 30%-43%) never carried their AAI to sporting activities.

CONCLUSIONS

Carriage of AAI devices is suboptimal in young adolescents prescribed AAIs, particularly when young adolescents are independent of parental supervision.

How does dose impact on the severity of food-induced allergic reactions, and can this improve risk assessment for allergenic foods?: Report from an ILSI Europe Food Allergy Task Force Expert Group and Workshop

Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for food allergens has made considerable progress in recent years, yet acceptability of its outcomes remains stymied because of the limited extent to which it has been possible to incorporate severity as a variable. Reaction severity, particularly following accidental exposure, depends on multiple factors, related to the allergen, the host and any treatments, which might be administered. Some of these factors are plausibly still unknown. Quantitative risk assessment shows that limiting exposure through control of dose reduces the rates of reactions in allergic populations, but its impact on the relative frequency of severe reactions at different doses is unclear. Food challenge studies suggest that the relationship between dose of allergenic food and reaction severity is complex even under relatively controlled conditions. Because of these complexities, epidemiological studies provide very limited insight into this aspect of the dose-response relationship. Emerging data from single-dose challenges suggest that graded food challenges may overestimate the rate of severe reactions. It may be necessary to generate new data (such as those from single-dose challenges) to reliably identify the effect of dose on severity for use in QRA. Success will reduce uncertainty in the susceptible population and improve consumer choice.

Genome-wide association study of self-reported food reactions in Japanese identifies shrimp and peach specific loci in the HLA-DR/DQ gene region

Food allergy is an increasingly important health problem in the world. Several genome-wide association studies (GWAS) focused on European ancestry samples have identified food allergy-specific loci in the HLA class II region. We conducted GWAS of self-reported reactivity with common foods using the data from 11011 Japanese women and identified shrimp and peach allergy-specific loci in the HLA-DR/DQ gene region tagged by rs74995702 (P = 6.30 × 10⁻¹⁷, OR = 1.91) and rs28359884 (P = 2.3 × 10⁻¹², OR = 1.80), respectively. After HLA imputation using a Japanese population-specific reference, the most strongly associated haplotype was HLA-DRB1*04:05-HLA-DQB1*04:01 for shrimp allergy (P = 3.92 × 10⁻¹⁹, OR = 1.99) and HLA-DRB1*09:01-HLA-DQB1*03:03 for peach allergy (P = 1.15 × 10⁻⁷, OR = 1.68). Additionally, both allergies’ associated variants were eQTLs for several HLA genes, with HLA-DQA2 the single eQTL gene shared between the two traits. Our study suggests that allergy to certain foods may be related to genetic differences that tag both HLA alleles having particular epitope binding specificities as well as variants modulating expression of particular HLA genes. Investigating this further could increase our understanding of food allergy aetiology and potentially lead to better therapeutic strategies for allergen immunotherapies.

Patterns of anaphylaxis after diagnostic workup: A follow-up study of 226 patients with suspected anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Most published studies on anaphylaxis are retrospective or register based. Data on subsequent diagnostic workup are sparse. We aimed to characterize patients seen with suspected anaphylaxis at the emergency care setting (ECS), after subsequent diagnostic workup at our Allergy Center (AC).

METHODS

Prospective study including patients from the ECS, Odense University Hospital, during May 2013-April 2014. Possible anaphylaxis cases were daily identified based on a broad search profile including history and symptoms in patient records, diagnostic codes and pharmacological treatments. At the AC, all patients were evaluated according to international guidelines.

RESULTS

Among 226 patients with suspected anaphylaxis, the diagnosis was confirmed in 124 (54.9%) after diagnostic workup; 118 of the 124 fulfilled WAO/EAACI criteria of anaphylaxis at the ECS, while six were found among 46 patients with clinical suspicion but not fulfilling the WAO/EAACI criteria at the ECS. The estimated incidence rate of anaphylaxis was 26 cases per 100 000 person-years and the one-year period prevalence was 0.04%. The most common elicitor was drugs (41.1%) followed by venom (27.4%) and food (20.6%). In 13 patients (10.5%), no elicitor could be identified. Mastocytosis was diagnosed in 7.7% of adult patients and was significantly associated with severe anaphylaxis. Atopic diseases were significantly associated only with food-induced anaphylaxis. Cofactors were present in 58.1% and were significantly associated with severe anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSION

A broad search profile in the ECS and subsequent diagnostic workup is important for identification and classification of patients with anaphylaxis. Evaluation of comorbidities and cofactors is important.

Food allergy: A review and update on epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention, and management

This review provides general information to serve as a primer for those embarking on understanding food allergy and also details advances and updates in epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment that have occurred over the 4 years since our last comprehensive review. Although firm prevalence data are lacking, there is a strong impression that food allergy has increased, and rates as high as approximately 10% have been documented. Genetic, epigenetic, and environmental risk factors are being elucidated increasingly, creating potential for improved prevention and treatment strategies targeted to those at risk. Insights on pathophysiology reveal a complex interplay of the epithelial barrier, mucosal and systemic immune response, route of exposure, and microbiome among other influences resulting in allergy or tolerance. The diagnosis of food allergy is largely reliant on medical history, tests for sensitization, and oral food challenges, but emerging use of component-resolved diagnostics is improving diagnostic accuracy. Additional novel diagnostics, such as basophil activation tests, determination of epitope binding, DNA methylation signatures, and bioinformatics approaches, will further change the landscape. A number of prevention strategies are under investigation, but early introduction of peanut has been advised as a public health measure based on existing data. Management remains largely based on allergen avoidance, but a panoply of promising treatment strategies are in phase 2 and 3 studies, providing immense hope that better treatment will be imminently and widely available, whereas numerous additional promising treatments are in the preclinical and clinical pipeline.

Food-Dependent, Exercise-Induced Anaphylaxis: Diagnosis and Management in the Outpatient Setting

Food-dependent, exercise-induced anaphylaxis is a disorder in which anaphylaxis develops most predictably during exercise, when exercise takes place within a few hours of ingesting a specific food. IgE to that food should be demonstrable. It is the combination of the food and exercise that precipitates attacks, whereas the food and exercise are each tolerated independently. Recently, it was demonstrated that exercise is not essential for the development of symptoms, and that if enough of the culprit food is ingested, often with additional augmentation factors, such as alcohol or acetylsalicylic acid, symptoms can be induced at rest in the challenge setting. Thus, food-dependent, exercise-induced anaphylaxis appears to be more correctly characterized as a food allergy syndrome in which symptoms develop only in the presence of various augmentation factors, with exercise being the primary one. However, additional factors are not usually present when the patient exercises normally, so ongoing investigation is needed into the physiologic and cellular changes that occur during exercise to facilitate food-induced anaphylaxis.

Mechanisms, Cofactors, and Augmenting Factors Involved in Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is an acute and life-threatening systemic reaction. Many triggers have been described, including food, drug, and hymenoptera allergens, which are the most frequently involved. The mechanisms described in anaphylactic reactions are complex and implicate a diversity of pathways. Some of these mechanisms may be key to the development of the anaphylactic reaction, while others may only modify its severity. Although specific IgE, mast cells, and basophils are considered the principal players in anaphylaxis, alternative mechanisms have been proposed in non-IgE anaphylactic reactions. Neutrophils, macrophages, as well as basophils, have been involved, as have IgG-dependent, complement and contact system activation. A range of cationic substances can induce antibody-independent mast cells activation through MRGPRX2 receptor. Cofactors and augmenting factors may explain why, in some patients, food allergen exposure can cause anaphylaxis, while in other clinical scenario it can be tolerated or elicits a mild reaction. With the influence of these factors, food allergic reactions may be induced at lower doses of allergen and/or become more severe. Exercise, alcohol, estrogens, and some drugs such as Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, β-blockers, and lipid-lowering drugs are the main factors described, though their mechanisms and signaling pathways are poorly understood.

Cofactors in allergic reactions to food: physical exercise and alcohol are the most important

Introduction

Involvement of cofactors, like physical exercise, alcohol consumption and use of several types of medication, are associated with more severe food allergic symptoms. However, there is limited evidence on how often cofactors play a role in food allergic reactions. The study aimed to get more insight into the frequency of exposure to cofactors and how often cofactors are associated with more severe symptoms in food allergic patients.

Methods

A questionnaire was completed by patients visiting the Allergology outpatient clinic. Patients with food allergy were included. Outcome measures were the frequency of medication use of medication groups that might act as cofactor and the frequency that physical exercise, alcohol consumption and use of analgesics are associated with more severe food allergic symptoms.

Results

Four hundred ninety‐six patients were included in the study. The frequency with which patients used one or more types of medication that might act as cofactors was 7.7%: antacids/acid neutralizing medication (5%), NSAIDs (2%), beta blockers (0.6%), angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (0.6%), and angiotensin receptor blockers (0.2%). Of all patients, 13% reported more severe symptoms to food after involvement of one or more of the cofactors: physical exercise (10%), alcohol consumption (5%), and use of analgesics (0.6%). Sixty‐five percent did not know if these cofactors caused more severe symptoms; 22% reported that these cofactors had no effect.

Conclusions

Only a small percentage of patients (7.7%) used medication that might aggravate food allergic reactions. Physical exercise and alcohol consumption were the most frequently reported cofactors, but occurring still in only 10% or less.