Effect of sleep deprivation and exercise on reaction threshold in adults with peanut allergy: A randomized controlled study

Getting in Shape: Updates in Exercise Anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Exercise induced anaphylaxis (EIA) can be difficult to diagnose due to the interplay of co-factors on clinical presentation and the lack of standardized, confirmatory testing.

RECENT FINDINGS

EIA has been historically categorized as either food-independent or food-dependent. However, recent literature has suggested that perhaps EIA is more complex given the relationship between not only food on EIA but other various co-factors such as medications and alcohol ingestion that are either required to elicit symptoms in EIA or make symptoms worse. For the practicing clinician, understanding how these co-factors can be implicated in EIA can enable one to take a more personalized approach in treating patients with EIA and thus improve quality of life for patients.

Adrenaline Auto-Injectors for Preventing Fatal Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis affects up to 5% of people during their lifetime. Although anaphylaxis usually resolves without long-term physical consequences, it can result in anxiety and quality of life impairment. Rarely and unpredictably, community anaphylaxis can cause rapid physiological decompensation and death. Adrenaline (epinephrine) is the cornerstone of anaphylaxis treatment, and provision of adrenaline autoinjectors (AAI) has become a standard of care for people at risk of anaphylaxis in the community. In this article, we explore the effectiveness of AAIs for preventing fatal outcomes in anaphylaxis, using information drawn from animal and human in vivo studies and epidemiology. We find that data support the effectiveness of intravenous adrenaline infusions for reversing physiological features of anaphylaxis, typically at doses from 0.05 to 0.5 μg/kg/min for 1-2 h, or ~ 10 μg/kg total dose. Intramuscular injection of doses approximating 10 μg/kg in humans can result in similar peak plasma adrenaline levels to intravenous infusions, at 100-500 pg/mL. However, these levels are typically short-lived following intramuscular adrenaline, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic outcomes can be unpredictable. Epidemiological data do not support an association between increasing AAI prescriptions and reduced fatal anaphylaxis, although carriage and activation rates remain low. Taken together, these data suggest that current AAIs have little impact on rates of fatal anaphylaxis, perhaps due to a lack of sustained and sufficient plasma adrenaline concentration. Effects of AAI prescription on quality of life may be variable. There is a need to consider alternatives, which can safely deliver a sustained adrenaline infusion via an appropriate route.

Time to ACT-UP: Update on precautionary allergen labelling (PAL)

Background

Precautionary Allergen ("may contain") Labelling (PAL) is used by industry to communicate potential risk to food-allergic individuals posed by unintended allergen presence (UAP). In 2014, the World Allergy Organization (WAO) highlighted that PAL use was increasing, but often applied inconsistently and without regulation - which reduces its usefulness to consumers with food allergy and those purchasing food for them. WAO proposed the need for a regulated, international framework to underpin application of PAL. In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations convened an expert consultation to address the issue of PAL, the outputs of which are now being considered by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL).

Objectives

To summarise the latest data to inform the application of PAL in a more systematic way, for implementation into global food standards.

Methods

A non-systematic review of issues surrounding precautionary labelling and food allergens in pre-packaged products.

Results

Approximately, 100 countries around the world have legislation on the declaration of allergenic ingredients. Just a few have legislation on UAP. Given the risks that UAP entails, non-regulated PAL creates inconvenience in real life due to its unequal, difficult interpretation by patients. The attempts made so far to rationalize PAL present lights and shadows.

Conclusions

At a time when CCFL is considering the results of the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation 2020-2023, we summarise the prospects to develop an effective and homogeneous legislation at a global level, and the areas of uncertainty that might hinder international agreement on a regulated framework for PAL of food allergens.

Melatonergic Signaling Sustains Food Allergy Through FcεRI Recycling

The prevalence of food allergies is increasing dramatically and causing serious public health concerns. Notably, melatonin metabolism imbalance in patients with food allergies; however, the role of melatonin in food allergies remains unclear. Here, we demonstrated that melatonin suppresses food allergy responses and reprograms the gut microbiota of food-allergic mice, while melatonin aggravates food allergy during gut microbiota depletion. Mechanistically, melatonin boosts the degranulation of mast cells by up-regulating the expression of membrane high-affinity immunoglobulin E (IgE) receptor (FcεRI). Melatonin increases the mRNA expression of Rabenosyn-5 (a component of factors for endosome recycling and Rab interactions) through melatonin receptor 2 (MT2)-extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) signaling, thereby driving the recycling of FcεRI and elevating the abundance of membrane FcεRI. Likewise, the inhibition of MT2 attenuates melatonin-induced food allergy in mice with gut microbiota depletion. Collectively, our finding provides insights into the pathogenesis of food allergies and provides a potential therapeutic target for the prevention and treatment of food allergies.

Identifying thresholds of reaction for different foods

Current food allergy management universally treats all patients with food allergy as being at risk for anaphylaxis (with the exception perhaps of pollen food allergy syndrome). Thus, patients are told to avoid the allergenic food in all potentially allergic forms and amounts. However, research over the past 2 decades has shown that many patients will tolerate small amounts of the allergen without any allergic reaction. Thus, if one were able to identify the threshold of reactivity, this could change management. At the population level, establishing levels at which the vast majority of patients (e.g., 95%) do not react could have public health ramifications, such as altering labeling laws. At the individual patient level, personal threshold levels could determine avoidance strategies, affect quality of life, and alter treatment decisions, e.g., oral immunotherapy starting doses. In this review, threshold data for various allergens and their potential effect on the management of the patient with food allergy are examined.

Identifying patients at risk of anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially fatal, systemic hypersensitivity reaction that warrants prompt diagnosis and management. It continues to be challenging to anticipate who may be at risk of a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction. Anaphylaxis can be caused by a range of allergens, such as certain foods, medications, latex, insect stings, etc. Cofactors that augment the severity of clinical symptoms and increase the risk of poor outcomes include exercise, stress, infectious diseases, underlying mast cell disease, active allergic disease such as asthma, advanced age, intake of certain medications, history of previous anaphylaxis, and delayed or missed administration of adrenaline. According to the European Anaphylaxis Registry, food is the major elicitor of anaphylaxis, especially eggs, cow milk, and nuts, in children and adolescents. Reaction to insect venom has also been noted in young adulthood. Early recognition of signs and symptoms and prompt treatment are crucial in anaphylaxis management to avoid serious and even fatal outcomes. It is crucial for both individuals and clinicians to identify the cause of anaphylaxis. Biomarkers of anaphylaxis, such as histamine, tryptase, platelet activation factor (PAF), chymase, carboxypeptidase A3, dipeptidyl peptidase I (DPPI), basogranulin, CCL-2, hsa-miR-451a, may be useful in diagnosis and management. The purpose of this review article is to present a comprehensive overview of current evidence and expert opinions regarding the risk factors that predispose individuals to anaphylaxis. Additionally, it provides insights into potential biomarkers and genetic markers for accurate diagnosis and management. This review underscores the significance of expert guidance in enhancing patient outcomes and enabling self-management of anaphylactic episodes.

Oral Immunotherapy With Extensively Hydrolyzed Milk for a 12-Year-Old Child With Persistent, Severe Cow's Milk Allergy

A 12-year-old girl with severe cow's milk allergy (CMA) was able to safely consume 300 mL of unhydrolyzed cow's milk after three and a half years of oral immunotherapy (OIT) with extensively hydrolyzed milk. The treatment consisted of gradually increasing the intake of hydrolyzed and partially hydrolyzed milk and reintroducing cow's milk. Despite some allergic reactions during treatment, the patient was able to consume more than 200 ml of milk consistently for more than six months without recurrence of symptoms. This case suggests the possibility of an alternative treatment for persistent CMA: not only OIT with cow's milk alone but also a safer introduction to treatment with extensively hydrolyzed formulas.

Evaluating Hymenoptera Venom Allergy Severity: A Data-Centric Comparison of Grading Instruments

INTRODUCTION

While a consensus seems to have been reached with regard to the definition of anaphylaxis, there is no universal instrument for scoring allergic reaction severity despite more than 30 having been proposed by the time of writing. This severely hampers comparison of data between studies. While scales have been compared with regard to their utility in grading food-related reactions, no such comparisons have been made for Hymenoptera venom-associated reactions.

METHODS

The study conducted a retrospective analysis to compare the severity of Hymenoptera venom allergy reactions in 104 participants with suspected Hymenoptera venom allergy. The study applied six grading instruments to each reaction, also evaluating them against the NIAID/FAAN anaphylaxis criteria. Sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) for identifying anaphylaxis were calculated. Severity scales were simplified into "mild," "moderate," and "severe" categories. The most common severity grade across the five scales was determined using a custom function to establish a consensus severity grade.

RESULTS

The most common culprit insects were honeybees (49.0%). Among the 88 participants with generalized reactions, the highest proportion had involvement of four organ systems. The scales showed high specificity for detecting anaphylaxis, especially when using higher grades of the Mueller, WAO, and Dribin scales. The diagnostic yields (AUC) varied, with the WAO scale having the highest AUC (0.94) for grades 3, 4, and 5. Spearman correlation analysis showed the strongest correlations seen between the Brown and Dribin, Ring and Messmer and Dribin, and Ring and Messmer and Reisman scales. The lowest correlations were observed with the Mueller scale when paired with the WAO, Reisman, and Dribin scales. An inter-rater reliability analysis showed substantial agreement between scales with the same number of grading levels. The agreement was highest for the Brown and Dribin scales, indicating a strong consistency in reaction severity classification across different instruments.

CONCLUSION

While all instruments were effective in stratifying reactions, they showed limitations in differentiating milder phenotypes. The Brown and Dribin scales stood out for their high agreement with the consensus score and sensitivity in identifying anaphylaxis. Our findings suggest that adopting either of these scales could significantly unify the reporting of allergic reactions. We believe the format of an instrument should be tailored to its intended purpose, with clinical decision aids being simpler and research tools being more detailed.

Comprehensive Diagnosis, Management, and Treatment of Sesame Allergy

Sesame allergy prevalence varies regionally and by age, in the range of 0.1% to 0.9%. Reactions can be severe and potentially fatal. Resolution rates are in the range of 20% to 50%. The diagnosis requires a careful history and the use of tests, such as skin prick tests and serum sesame-specific IgE. The availability of serum IgE testing for the sesame protein Ses i 1 has improved diagnostic accuracy. The emerging potential for sesame basophil activation tests and additional new tests will likely improve diagnosis in coming years, further reducing the need for diagnostic oral food challenges. Although sesame proteins share homology with those in many foods, clinically relevant cross-reactivity appears uncommon. Nevertheless, sesame is a prominent allergen for those with multiple food allergies. Management may include strict avoidance, but sesame products vary dramatically in protein content. Many people with sesame allergy tolerate forms that are low in protein, such as scattered seeds, rather than sesame paste that is protein-dense. Thus, options in the approach to avoidance are possible. Studies suggest that sesame oral immunotherapy may be safe and effective, and this and additional treatment options are emerging. Here, we review the current comprehensive diagnosis, management, and treatment for sesame allergy.

Utility of food allergy thresholds

Food allergy is a prevalent disease worldwide that is a significant quality-of-life burden, and accidental exposures to food allergens may elicit severe, life-threatening reactions such as anaphylaxis. The threshold level, or the dose that triggers an allergic reaction determined by oral food challenges, varies considerably among individuals suffering from food allergies. Moreover, IgE concentration, diversity, or function can only partially explain this variation in threshold; pathogenic effector TH2 cells have also been found to contribute to the eliciting dose. Though very sensitive to cofactors such as physical activity/stress, the threshold is a stable and reproducible feature of an individual's allergy over periods of many months, made clear in the past several years from treatment studies in which repeated threshold determination has been used as a treatment outcome; however, there also seem to be age-related changes at a population level. More routine determination of food allergy thresholds may help patients stratify risk to improve the management of their food allergy. Precautionary allergen labeling, such as "may contain" labels, often causes confusion since they are inconsistent and regularly contain little to trace allergen residues; thus, food products with such labeling may be unnecessarily avoided. Population-based eliciting dose levels have been determined in the literature; patients at lower risk with higher thresholds may be more confident with introducing foods with precautionary allergen labels. Understanding a patient's threshold level could aid in shared decision-making to determine the most suitable treatment options for patients, including the starting dose for oral immunotherapy and/or the use of biologics.

Evaluation of peripheral basophil activation during exercise provocation test for desensitized patients

Some food allergic patients who have undergone oral immunotherapy develop exercise-induced allergic reactions on desensitization (EIARDs). This study investigated basophil activation status during the exercise provocation test (EPT) performed to diagnose EIARD. EPT was performed on 20 participants, and in vivo basophil activation status was analyzed using activation markers CD203c and CD63. The results showed that there was no significant difference between EPT-positive and negative subjects for basophil activation status throughout EPT. Consequently, in vivo basophil activation after ingestion of the causative food may not be associated with EIARDs. New tests are desired for predicting EIARDs.

Updates in food allergen immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Food allergies are on the rise. Though allergen avoidance and management of acute reactions have been the backbone of therapy, complete avoidance and timely acute care is often not feasible. Food allergen immunotherapy (FAIT) is a novel and evolving treatment option intended to induce desensitization and potential sustained unresponsiveness (SU) to food allergens. This review addresses the methods, mechanisms, efficacy, and adverse effects of oral immunotherapy (OIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for food allergens in the published literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

Single FAIT has been most extensively studied in peanut, milk, and hen's egg allergic patients and has been successful in achieving desensitization in treated individuals through various modalities. Long-term data regarding SU is limited; however, current data suggests subsets of patients may be more likely to achieve SU compared to others. Other studies are actively assessing multifood AIT and novel FAIT protocols with adjunctive therapies.

SUMMARY

Food allergy constitutes a prevalent problem with far-reaching consequences. The emergence of FAIT may mitigate the burden of food allergy. Current evidence is promising for specific allergens and pediatric patient populations. Future studies are needed to further assess efficacy between different modalities of immunotherapy for food allergens across an age continuum.

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.

Comparison of recent anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria in real life: Can more patients be diagnosed as having anaphylaxis?

Introduction

In 2020, World Allergy Organization (WAO) updated their diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis, which differed as a result from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (NIAID/FAAN) criteria which were still used in the 2021 update of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) anaphylaxis guideline. Our aim was to evaluate and to compare both diagnostic criteria and attempt to identify factors affecting severity of anaphylaxis.

Methods

The medical records of the patients who were evaluated with suspected anaphylaxis at 3 medical centers in Türkiye between 2014 and 2021, and underwent a detailed diagnostic work-up, were analyzed retrospectively. Diagnosis of anaphylaxis was evaluated based on the WAO 2020 and EAACI 2021 and NIAID/FAAN diagnostic criteria. The severity of anaphylaxis was determined according to the WAO systemic allergic reaction grading system. Grade 5 anaphylaxis was defined as having respiratory failure, collapse/hypotension, loss of consciousness. Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics were further analyzed depending on the severity of the reaction.

Results

One thousand and six patients were evaluated and 232 patients without a convincing diagnosis of anaphylaxis were excluded from the study. The remaining 774 patients (70.6% female, median [Inter quartile range (IQR) 25-75] age: 42 [33-52]) were included for further examination. Anaphylaxis was diagnosed in 729 (94.2%) patients meeting both criteria whereas 35 patients (4.5%) with isolated laryngeal involvement and 10 (1.3%) patients with isolated respiratory involvement were only diagnosed according to the WAO 2020 criteria. Twenty-three patients (3.0%) had a diagnosis of indolent systemic mastocytosis. Mastocytosis was related to grade 5 anaphylaxis [p = 0.022, OR (CI) = 2.9 (1.1-7.6)]. Venom allergy was a risk factor for grade 5 anaphylaxis among those for whom an eliciting allergen could be determined [p = 0.03, OR (CI) = 2.7 (1.1-6.8)]. For drug induced anaphylaxis, parenteral route of drug administration and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) allergy were considered as risk factors for grade 5 anaphylaxis [p < 0.001, OR (CI) = 6.5 (2.5-17.0); p = 0.011, OR (CI) = 10.3 (1.6-63.3)].

Conclusion

This multicenter study demonstrated that both criteria identified the majority of patients with anaphylaxis, but the WAO 2020 diagnostic criteria identified an additional 6%. Hymenoptera stings, PPI allergy, parenteral drug administration, and underlying mastocytosis were associated with more severe episodes.

The future of food allergy: Challenging existing paradigms of clinical practice

The field of food allergy has seen tremendous change over the past 5-10 years with seminal studies redefining our approach to prevention and management and novel testing modalities in the horizon. Early introduction of allergenic foods is now recommended, challenging the previous paradigm of restrictive avoidance. The management of food allergy has shifted from a passive avoidance approach to active interventions that aim to provide protection from accidental exposures, decrease allergic reaction severity and improve the quality of life of food-allergic patients and their families. Additionally, novel diagnostic tools are making their way into clinical practice with the goal to reduce the need for food challenges and assist physicians in the-often complex-diagnostic process. With all the new developments and available choices for diagnosis, prevention and therapy, shared decision-making has become a key part of medical consultation, enabling patients to make the right choice for them, based on their values and preferences. Communication with patients has also become more complex over time, as patients are seeking advice online and through social media, but the information found online may be outdated, incorrect, or lacking in context. The role of the allergist has evolved to embrace all the above exciting developments and provide patients with the optimal care that fits their needs. In this review, we discuss recent developments as well as the evolution of the field of food allergy in the next decade.

Impact of using less objective symptoms to define tolerated dose during food challenges: A data-driven approach

BACKGROUND

Food challenges (FCs) form the basis for assessing efficacy outcomes in interventional studies of food allergy; however, different studies have used a variety of similar but not identical criteria to define a challenge reaction, including subjective (nonobjective) symptoms occurring in a single-organ system as dose limiting.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to undertake a secondary analysis of 4 interventional studies to assess the impact of using less objective criteria to determine challenge-stop on reaction thresholds and their reproducibility.

METHODS

We analyzed individual participant data, including individual participant data meta-analysis, by using 3 different published challenge-stop criteria: (1) PRACTALL consesus criteria; (2) Consortium for Food Allergy Research version 3 (CoFAR v3) with at least 1 moderate- or severe-grade symptom; or (3) CoFAR v3 with at least 2 mild symptoms occurring in different organ systems. Reproducibility of challenge threshold was also assessed in participants undergoing subsequent repeat FCs.

RESULTS

Four studies, with detailed challenge data from a total of 592 participants, were included. Applying CoFAR v3 definitions for dose-limiting symptoms resulted in an underestimate of reaction thresholds compared with those in PRACTALL (P < .001) that is equivalent to almost a single dosing increment when using a semi-log dosing regimen. Reproducibility was also reduced when applying CoFAR v3 (P < .001 [n = 223]). Using the least conservative interpretation of CoFAR v3 (≥2 mild symptoms occurring in different systems) resulted in a significant overestimate of 15% when assessing oral immunotherapy efficacy. Applying a data-driven minor modification to CoFAR v3 resulted in a new set of challenge-stop criteria with validity similar to that of PRACTALL but one that is simpler to implement and in which significant gastrointestinal discomfort with observable decreased activity remains a dose-limiting symptom.

CONCLUSION

The use of less objective symptoms to define challenge-stop compromises the reproducibility of the FC as a tool to assess efficacy outcomes in interventional studies, and potentially overestimates the efficacy of the intervention tested.

Extrinsic and Intrinsic Modulators of Anaphylaxis

The severity of anaphylaxis is determined by many factors. The allergenic source as well as the age of the affected individual and the route of allergen exposure encompass the major contributors of the clinical outcome. Moreover, the severity can be modulated further by intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Among these, the genetic predisposition, certain comorbidities such as uncontrolled asthma, and hormonal fluctuations have been proposed as intrinsic and antihypertensive medications or physical activity as extrinsic factors. Recent advances have highlighted immunologic pathways that may exacerbate the response to allergens through receptors on mast cells, basophils, platelets, and other granulocytes. Atopy, platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase deficiency, hereditary alpha tryptasemia, and clonal mast cell disorders are examples associated with genetic alterations that may predispose to severe anaphylaxis. Identifying risk factors that lower the threshold of reactivity or increase the severity of multisystem reactions is important in the management of this patient population.

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.

Will Oral Food Challenges Still Be Part of Allergy Care in 10 Years' Time?

Oral food challenges (OFCs) are currently the definitive diagnostic procedure in food allergy. Their design has evolved over the decades to maximize safety, optimize convenience, and address several specific clinical questions. However, they are a resource-intensive investigation that carry a risk for severe allergic reaction in which fatal outcomes, although rare, have been reported. In this review, we explore the many roles that OFC fulfil in the clinical and research settings. We also discuss progress that has been made in developing alternative diagnostic tools and how far these have reached in offering a viable replacement to OFC in clinical practice. Finally, we discuss the ongoing importance of research OFC to improve the future diagnostic capabilities of novel diagnostic tools.

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.

Treatment for food allergy: Current status and unmet needs

The treatment of food allergy has traditionally relied on avoidance of the offending food(s) and use of emergency medications in the event of accidental exposures. However, this long-standing paradigm is beginning to shift, as a variety of treatment approaches have been and are being developed. This report provides an overview of the past, present, and future landscape of interventional clinical trials for the treatment of food allergy. It focuses on specific issues related to participant characteristics, protocol design, and study end points in the key clinical trials in the literature and examine how differences between studies may impact the clinical significance of the study results. Recommendations are provided for the optimization of future trial designs and focus on specific unmet needs in this rapidly evolving field.

Management of Anaphylaxis During Peanut Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) has emerged as an active management option for peanut allergy, with an FDA-approved product now available for therapy. Allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, can occur during therapy and their management is key in optimizing this treatment and patient outcomes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this manuscript, we will review the rates of allergic reactions and anaphylaxis in seminal peanut oral immunotherapy research studies. We will examine factors that can alter the risk of anaphylaxis and describe various strategies, including adjunct therapies, that have the potential to mitigate anaphylaxis risk based on published evidence.

RECENT FINDINGS

Rates of anaphylaxis and epinephrine administration vary in different research studies, but there is consensus that most POIT-related allergic reactions are mild or moderate and not severe. Certain external factors (for example, tiredness, exercise, viral illness) as well as uncontrolled allergic co-morbidities (asthma, allergic rhinitis) have been shown to increase the risk of anaphylaxis during OIT. The search of biomarkers who may predict who is at risk for severe allergic reactions is ongoing. Adjunct therapies have shown promise, but further studies are required to optimize their use alongside POIT. Our understanding of anaphylaxis during POIT has increased in recent years, resulting in better management strategies. However, future plans will need to involve all stakeholders, including physicians, patients and families, researchers, public health authorities, and the food, hospitality, and catering industries.

Effects of Exercise and Sleep Deprivation on Reaction Severity During Oral Peanut Challenge: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The severity of allergic reactions to foods can vary markedly. Little is known of variations in reaction severity within or between individuals or the effects of cofactors.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the effects of sleep deprivation and exercise and repeat challenges on the severity and patterns of allergic reactions to peanut.

METHODS

In a randomized crossover study, adults with peanut allergy underwent 3 open peanut challenges in random order: with exercise after each dose, with sleep deprivation preceding challenge, and with no intervention. The primary outcome was eliciting dose, reported elsewhere. Reaction severity was a secondary outcome, evaluated using a weighted log-transformed numerical severity score. Analyses estimated the difference in severity between nonintervention challenge and challenges with exercise or sleep deprivation, adjusting for challenge order and using the highest dose tolerated by each individual across all their challenges. Symptom pattern reproducibility was assessed by comparing symptom sequences using pairwise sequence alignment to obtain a percentage match in symptom pattern.

RESULTS

Eighty-one participants (mean age 25 y) completed at least 1 postbaseline challenge. Sleep deprivation, but not exercise, significantly increased severity score by 48% (95% CI 12%-84%; P = .009) compared with no intervention. A 38% increase in severity was observed between the first and the last postbaseline challenge (95% CI 1%-75%; P = .044). The average pairwise match of symptoms within individuals was 82.4% and across individuals was 78.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel severity score demonstrates that sleep deprivation and repeated challenges increase reaction severity. Understanding factors affecting severity is essential for effective risk management. We also show that symptom patterns in repeat peanut challenges are similar within and between individuals.

Risk factors for severe reactions in food allergy: Rapid evidence review with meta-analysis

This rapid review summarizes the most up to date evidence about the risk factors for severe food-induced allergic reactions. We searched three bibliographic databases for studies published between January 2010 and August 2021. We included 88 studies and synthesized the evidence narratively, undertaking meta-analysis where appropriate. Significant uncertainties remain with respect to the prediction of severe reactions, both anaphylaxis and/or severe anaphylaxis refractory to treatment. Prior anaphylaxis, an asthma diagnosis, IgE sensitization or basophil activation tests are not good predictors. Some molecular allergology markers may be helpful. Hospital presentations for anaphylaxis are highest in young children, yet this age group appears at lower risk of severe outcomes. Risk of severe outcomes is greatest in adolescence and young adulthood, but the contribution of risk taking behaviour in contributing to severe outcomes is unclear. Evidence for an impact of cofactors on severity is lacking, although food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis may be an exception. Some medications such as beta-blockers or ACE inhibitors may increase severity, but appear less important than age as a factor in life-threatening reactions. The relationship between dose of exposure and severity is unclear. Delays in symptom recognition and anaphylaxis treatment have been associated with more severe outcomes. An absence of prior anaphylaxis does not exclude its future risk.

Transitioning peanut oral immunotherapy to clinical practice

Peanut allergy is on the rise in industrialized countries, affecting 1%-4.5% of children and generally persisting into adulthood. It is associated with a risk of severe anaphylaxis and is one of the major causes of food allergy-induced deaths. Health-related quality of life is significantly impaired for patients and affected families due to food restrictions attributable to omnipresent precautionary allergen labeling, constant risk of potentially life-threatening reactions, and limitation of social activities. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has emerged as a valid treatment option for patients with IgE-mediated peanut allergy, with randomized controlled trials and real-life studies showing a high rate of desensitization and a favorable safety profile, especially in young children. Ultimately, the decision to initiate peanut OIT relies on a multidisciplinary shared decision-making process, involving open, personalized and evidence-based discussions with patients and their caregivers.

Participant Characteristics and Safety Outcomes of Peanut Oral Immunotherapy in the RAMSES and ARC011 Trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials (PALISADE [ARC003], ARTEMIS [ARC010]) proving efficacy and safety of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH) used double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs) to screen for eligibility and to evaluate efficacy. In routine clinical practice, individuals with peanut allergy do not always undergo food challenges to confirm diagnosis or determine candidacy for treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To describe PTAH safety/tolerability in participants selected by clinical history and peanut sensitization parameters not undergoing DBPCFC during trails and to compare findings with previously published data.

METHODS

RAMSES (ARC007) was a 6-month, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in children aged 4 to 17 years with physician-confirmed peanut allergy. ARC011 was the subsequent 6-month follow-on maintenance PTAH study. The primary endpoint for RAMSES and ARC011 was frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs). We descriptively compared baseline characteristics and safety outcomes from RAMSES/ARC011 to participants undergoing DBPCFCs in phase 3 PALISADE/ARTEMIS trials.

RESULTS

In 506 patients randomized to study treatment, baseline characteristics appeared balanced between groups. Proportion of participants with ≥1 AE was 55% for PTAH versus 33.9% for placebo during initial dose escalation and 98.8% versus 94.0%, respectively, during updosing. Most participants with AEs had mild/moderate events. The most common AEs were gastrointestinal. Comparisons to pooled PALISADE and ARTEMIS data showed higher baseline median peanut-specific immunoglobulin E and skin prick test values for RAMSES participants. Safety outcomes during trial periods were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Safety data from clinically selected children with peanut allergy receiving PTAH do not appear different from those in phase 3 trials requiring DBPCFC to enter trials.

Risk factors for reactions and adverse effects during oral immunotherapy

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) involves the potential for a variety of adverse events, which range from serious systemic reactions that require epinephrine to minimal oral reactions that require no treatment. This chapter describes common types of reactions seen in the course of OIT, reviews the frequency of and risk factors for different types of events as reported in recent literature (with a focus on real-world reports from private practice), and discusses treatment strategies for these adverse events. As the availability of OIT expands, it is paramount to ensure that allergists who offer OIT have a robust understanding of these reactions and mechanisms, with the overarching goal being the safety and tolerability of the therapy for the individual patient.

Allergen immunotherapy and/or biologicals for IgE-mediated food allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

There is substantial interest in immunotherapy and biologicals in IgE‐mediated food allergy.

Methods

We searched six databases for randomized controlled trials about immunotherapy alone or with biologicals (to April 2021) or biological monotherapy (to September 2021) in food allergy confirmed by oral food challenge. We pooled the data using random‐effects meta‐analysis.

Results

We included 36 trials about immunotherapy with 2126 mainly child participants. Oral immunotherapy increased tolerance whilst on therapy for peanut (RR 9.9, 95% CI 4.5.–21.4, high certainty); cow's milk (RR 5.7, 1.9–16.7, moderate certainty) and hen's egg allergy (RR 8.9, 4.4–18, moderate certainty). The number needed to treat to increase tolerance to a single dose of 300 mg or 1000 mg peanut protein was 2.

Oral immunotherapy did not increase adverse reactions (RR 1.1, 1.0–1.2, low certainty) or severe reactions in peanut allergy (RR 1,6, 0.7–3.5, low certainty), but may increase (mild) adverse reactions in cow's milk (RR 3.9, 2.1–7.5, low certainty) and hen's egg allergy (RR 7.0, 2.4–19.8, moderate certainty). Epicutaneous immunotherapy increased tolerance whilst on therapy for peanut (RR 2.6, 1.8–3.8, moderate certainty). Results were unclear for other allergies and administration routes.

There were too few trials of biologicals alone (3) or with immunotherapy (1) to draw conclusions.

Conclusions

Oral immunotherapy improves tolerance whilst on therapy and is probably safe in peanut, cow's milk and hen's egg allergy. More research is needed about quality of life, cost and biologicals.

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.

Peanut cross-contamination in randomly selected baked goods

BACKGROUND

The current standard of care for managing peanut allergy includes avoidance of peanut and use of injectable epinephrine; however, strict avoidance is difficult and accidental ingestion is common with potentially serious consequences. Despite vigilance and efforts to minimize the risk of accidental exposure, peanut protein cross-contamination continues to occur in a variety of foods, including baked goods.

OBJECTIVE

To assess and quantify the presence of peanut protein contamination in certain baked goods.

METHODS

Randomly selected baked goods were collected from bakeries in the New York and Miami metropolitan areas that sold a variety of ethnic cuisines. A second set of samples from the same bakeries was collected at least 1 week after to evaluate between-batch variability. Samples were sent to the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program to analyze peanut contamination by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Consumption estimates were based on 2003 to 2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey survey data.

RESULTS

Of 154 samples from 18 bakeries, 4 (2.6%) had detectable peanut contamination with peanut protein levels ranging from 0.1 mg/100 g to 650 mg/100 g. Consumption estimates for single occasion ingestion of a contaminated item ranged from 0.07 mg to 832 mg of peanut protein.

CONCLUSION

In this study, unintended peanut protein was present in a small, but not insignificant, proportion of baked goods, with the potential to trigger a reaction in individuals with peanut allergy. Some products contained high levels of unintended peanut protein. The current data support the potential for accidental exposure to peanut protein with its associated risk.

Oral immunotherapy for food allergy in children: is it worth it?

INTRODUCTION

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is effective at inducing desensitization in food-allergic individuals, and is a valid therapeutic option for those allergic to peanut, cow's milk and egg. However, there is a high rate of dose-related adverse events, and at least one fatality to OIT has been reported.

AREAS COVERED

We provide an update on the broader framework of issues which will impact on the availability and uptake of OIT.

EXPERT OPINION

The need for standardized products remains controversial. A licensed product exists for peanut-OIT, but OIT can also be safely achieved using peanut-containing foods at much lower cost. For other allergens, OIT can only be done with non-pharma products - something which has been done safely for over 2 decades. There is a need to develop personalized protocols for OIT, particularly for the 20% of patients unable to tolerate standard OIT. Cost-effectiveness is dependent on improved quality of life, but evidence for this is currently lacking, and is a key evidence gap. OIT is likely to be cost-effective, particularly if noncommercial products are used. There may be a trade-off: in patients with lower reaction thresholds, a commercial product may be needed for initial updosing, until a level of desensitization is achieved when they can be switched to natural food products.

Allergy-related outcomes and sleep-related disorders in adults: a cross-sectional study based on NHANES 2005-2006

Background

Epidemiological evidence between the sleep disorders and allergy-related outcomes is limited.

Objectives

The purpose of the present study was to estimate the relationship between sleep disorders and allergy-related outcomes in adults.

Methods

We built logistic regression models to examine the associations between sleep disorders and allergy-related outcomes in adult participants using the 2005–2006 NHANES database. Allergy-related outcomes included sIgE levels, asthma, hay fever, sneezing, wheezing, and eczema. Sleep disorders included sleep latency, sleep length, sleep problems, OSA symptoms, and daytime sleepiness. A t-test was used for between-group comparisons.

Results

Participants with OSA symptoms had 2.72 × higher odds of experiencing hay fever and 1.54 × higher odds of having eczema compared to Non-OSA symptoms participants. Participants with insufficient sleep (≤ 6 h/night) had 1.27 × higher odds of developing allergic sensitisation compared to participants with adequate sleep (7–8 h/night). Sneezing was positively associated with sleep problems (OR: 1.706; 95% CI 1.386, 2.099), OSA symptoms (OR: 1.297; 95% CI 1.049, 1.605), and daytime sleepiness (OR: 1.569; 95% CI 1.205, 2.04).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest a positive association between allergy-related outcomes and sleep disorders. In particular, OSA symptoms, daytime sleepiness, and sleep problems are strongly associated with allergic conditions.

Graphical Abstract

Food allergen ladders: A need for standardization

INTRODUCTION

The process of gradually reintroducing food allergens into an individual's diet is referred to as food allergen "ladders". There remain many questions regarding the foods chosen, structure and composition of the ladder, and medical and safety considerations. The COVID-19 pandemic has propelled us into an era where medicine is increasingly practiced via online platforms, highlighting the need for standardized food allergen ladder approaches for successful and safe introduction of food allergens.

METHODS

We performed a search of currently published food allergen ladders and obtained published information and clinical expertise to summarize current knowledge and suggest future standardized approaches for using food allergen ladders.

RESULTS

There are currently a limited number of published milk, egg, wheat, and soy ladders. We suggest the following points should be considered when developing food ladders: (1) Food allergen: dose, time, and temperature of heating of the food allergen, simplicity of the ladder and recipes, the possible role of the wheat matrix, and testing for allergenic protein levels to standardize doses; (2) Nutritional factors: health and nutritional value of the foods in the ladder, taste, texture, and cultural appropriateness of foods should be considered; and (3) Medical aspects: consideration of which patients are safe to undergo ladders outside of the clinical setting, other safety aspects and risk factors for severe reactions, number of days suggested per steps, and availability and provision of rescue medication. Written instructions and recipes should be provided to families who wish to use food allergen ladders.

DISCUSSION

Food allergen ladders used for gradual reintroduction of food allergens into a food allergic individual's diet are increasingly being used internationally. Standardization regarding the foods included in the ladder and medical considerations are required to practice patient-centered care, best assist patients and families, and ensure safety.

Safety of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Allergen Powder-dnfp in Children and Teenagers With Peanut Allergy: A Pooled Summary of Phase 3 and Extension Trials

BACKGROUND

Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH; previously known as AR101) is a daily oral immunotherapy approved to mitigate allergic reactions following accidental peanut exposure in peanut-allergic individuals aged 4-17 years.

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively summarize the PTAH safety profile for up to ∼2 years of treatment.

METHODS

Safety and adverse event (AE) data from participants aged 4-17 years from three controlled, phase 3 and two open-label extension trials were pooled and assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 944 individuals receiving ≥1 PTAH dose, median exposure was ∼49 weeks; most participants experienced ≥1 treatment-related AE (TRAE; n=853; 90.4%). A total of 829 participants experienced TRAEs with a maximum severity of mild (n=497; 52.6%) or moderate (n=332; 35.2%); 24 participants (2.5%) experienced TRAEs graded as severe. Overall, 80 (9.5%) participants discontinued due to AEs; most experienced gastrointestinal symptoms and discontinued during the first 6 months. When adjusted for exposure, AEs and TRAEs occurred at a rate of 76.4 and 58.7 events/participant-year of exposure (PYE), respectively, during updosing; AEs and TRAEs decreased to 23.0 and 14.2, respectively, during 300-mg maintenance. Overall, exposure-adjusted rates of systemic allergic reactions were 0.12 events/PYE (mild), 0.11 events/PYE (moderate), and 0.01 events/PYE (severe [anaphylaxis]).

CONCLUSION

The safety profile of PTAH was consistent across trials, manageable, and improved over time. AEs were predominantly mild to moderate and all grades declined in frequency with continued treatment. These data can be used to facilitate shared decision-making discussions with patients and families considering treatment with PTAH.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

During treatment with PTAH, the majority of children and teenagers experienced allergic symptoms that decreased in frequency and severity over time. These symptoms were consistent across PTAH trials, comparable with other allergen immunotherapies, and are familiar to allergists who practice allergen immunotherapy.

Anaphylaxis viewed by experts: unmet needs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of the review is to identify unmet needs in the management of anaphylaxis, covering aspects such as epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Redefinition of clinical diagnostic criteria may allow a better identification of anaphylaxis. International diagnostic coding system improvement will be major step for future policies and epidemiological studies. Digital health can aid in managing anaphylaxis.

SUMMARY

Anaphylaxis is a medical emergency; current data show that frequently identification of the reaction, acute and long-term management, are not optimal. Therefore, there is a need to implement strategies to improve the situation. This review has identified unmet needs in anaphylaxis regarding aspects such as epidemiology, severity scoring, definition and diagnostic criteria, anaphylaxis in infants and toddlers, cofactors, biomarkers, long-term management, undertreatment and availability of epinephrine autoinjectors. Strategies focused on education, legislation, digital health and research are proposed.

Peanut Can Be Used as a Reference Allergen for Hazard Characterization in Food Allergen Risk Management: A Rapid Evidence Assessment and Meta-Analysis

Regional and national legislation mandates the disclosure of “priority” allergens when present as an ingredient in foods, but this does not extend to the unintended presence of allergens due to shared production facilities. This has resulted in a proliferation of precautionary allergen (“may contain”) labels (PAL) that are frequently ignored by food-allergic consumers. Attempts have been made to improve allergen risk management to better inform the use of PAL, but a lack of consensus has led to variety of regulatory approaches and nonuniformity in the use of PAL by food businesses. One potential solution would be to establish internationally agreed “reference doses,” below which no PAL would be needed. However, if reference doses are to be used to inform the need for PAL, then it is essential to characterize the hazard associated with these low-level exposures. For peanut, there are now published data relating to over 3000 double-blind, placebo-controlled challenges in allergic individuals, but a similar level of evidence is lacking for other priority allergens. We present the results of a rapid evidence assessment and meta-analysis for the risk of anaphylaxis to a low-level allergen exposure for priority allergens. On the basis of this analysis, we propose that peanut can and should be considered an exemplar allergen for the hazard characterization at a low-level allergen exposure.

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.

The diagnosis and management of allergic reactions in patients sensitized to non-specific lipid transfer proteins

Sensitization to one or more non-specific lipid transfer proteins (nsLTPs), initially thought to exist mainly in southern Europe, is becoming accepted as a cause of allergic reactions to plant foods across Europe and beyond. The peach nsLTP allergen Pru p 3 is a dominant sensitizing allergen and peaches a common food trigger, although multiple foods can be involved. A frequent feature of reactions is the requirement for a cofactor (exercise, alcohol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Cannabis sativa) to be present for a food to elicit a reaction. The variability in the food and cofactor triggers makes it essential to include an allergy-focused diet and clinical history in the diagnostic workup. Testing on suspected food triggers should also establish whether sensitization to nsLTP is present, using purified or recombinant nsLTP allergens such as Pru p 3. The avoidance of known trigger foods and advice on cofactors is currently the main management for this condition. Studies on immunotherapy are promising, but it is unknown whether such treatments will be useful in populations where Pru p 3 is not the primary sensitizing allergen. Future research should focus on the mechanisms of cofactors, improving diagnostic accuracy and establishing the efficacy of immunotherapy.

Improving Severity Scoring of Food-Induced Allergic Reactions: A Global "Best-Worst Scaling" Exercise

BACKGROUND

There is no current consensus on assigning severity to food-induced allergic reactions, for example, to assess the efficacy of allergen immunotherapy. Existing severity scores lack the capability to discriminate between non-anaphylaxis reactions of different severities. Attempts are ongoing to develop a more discriminatory score, which should ideally be data-driven and validated in multiple cohorts.

OBJECTIVE

To undertake an exercise using best-worst scaling (BWS) to define a potential gold standard against which severity scoring of food-induced allergic reactions can be refined.

METHODS

We undertook a global survey to better understand how health care professionals rate the severity of food-induced allergic reactions, using BWS methodology. Respondents were given a number of patient case vignettes describing real-world allergic reactions and asked to select the pair that, in their opinion, reflected the maximum difference in severity. Responses were then modeled and a preference score (representing severity) determined for each scenario. Scenarios were also scored using existing published scoring systems and the scores compared with the BWS score using Spearman r correlation and Cohen kappa. Given the differences in definitions of anaphylaxis globally, we also evaluated differences in BWS ranking depending on the geographical location of respondents.

RESULTS

We received 334 complete responses, 183 (55%) from Europe and 65 (20%) from North America. Perception of severity of some reactions appeared to be affected by geographical location. The comparison of BWS ranking with current grading systems identified significant issues that varied from one grading system to another, such as prominence to some symptoms (eg, vomiting) that skew grading when using scoring systems not designed for food allergy. In general, current scoring systems poorly discriminate against more mild symptoms and often overestimate their severity.

CONCLUSIONS

These data provide a methodology free of user scale bias to help define a potential, consensus-driven gold standard that can be used to guide and validate the development of improved grading systems to score food-induced allergic symptoms and highlight areas for education where there is the potential to miscategorize severity.

Update of the S2k guideline on the management of IgE-mediated food allergies

Not available.

Latest Developments in the Management of Nut Allergies

Purpose of review

In this review, we sought to describe the most recent advances in the dietary and medical management of peanut and tree nut allergy, including selective introduction and immunotherapy.

Recent findings

Dietary updates include changes to labeling laws, improved information sources, and new apps for buying foods in shops and overseas to better protect individuals with nut allergies. There are still issues in the management of nut allergies in schools, such as parents having to resort to packed lunches instead of school meals and patients experiencing bullying. Air travel also poses concern, but additional resources are now available to travelers, and recent evidence suggest limited airborne exposure to nuts. The medical management of anaphylaxis is use of epinephrine; however, this remains underutilized. Needle length and administration devices have been recently debated considering the risk of bone penetration vs subcutaneous administration, and autoinjectors seem to deliver higher peak concentrations than syringes. Selective nut introduction has gained momentum in the last 5 years, demonstrating improved quality of life but with the need for motivated parents for continued consumption and available resources for challenges. Immunotherapy to nuts is also a rapidly developing field, with the balance of efficacy and safety being important considerations in the differing modes of administration.

Summary

The management of nut allergies is a rapidly developing field, and dietary and medical management have progressed significantly in the last 5 years. Future research directions include improving safety and efficacy of food immunotherapy and examining patients’ goals for therapy and treatment outcomes.

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.