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

Food allergy-A holistic approach to dietary management. A joint EAACI Research & Outreach Committee and INDANA review

Following a diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy, to secure the best outcome, the patient should receive individualized advice tailored to their specific needs, which considers the type and presentation of the food involved, level of exclusion required, risk of cross-contamination and any variance required for age, ethnicity, financial issues, and lifestyle. Issues such as food labels "may contain" statements, and variation in the threshold of reaction and impact of cofactors should also be considered. Most important is the need to ensure that the diagnosis is robust, especially given the nutritional, psychological, and socioeconomic issues that can affect an individual with a diagnosis of food allergy. Unnecessary exclusion of one or more foods that have not triggered allergic reactions, especially in individuals with allergic comorbidities, can result in severe IgE-mediated reactions on re-exposure. Given that food allergies may change over time, the diagnosis should be reviewed, to determine whether resolution is likely, or new-food triggers are reported. Regular assessment is vital, especially during childhood, to ensure reintroduction occurs at an appropriate time, thus enabling increased diversity of the diet and improvement in the quality of life. For some, an IgE-mediated food allergy may necessitate the life-long exclusion of foods, and for others, a food habitually eaten suddenly triggers an allergic reaction in adult life. People of all ages, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds deserve individual advice on the management of their food allergy to support a healthy diet and improve quality of life.

Food-Induced Anaphylaxis: Data From the European Anaphylaxis Registry

BACKGROUND

Food is one of the most common elicitors of anaphylaxis, with an increasing incidence over recent years.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize elicitor-specific phenotypes and identify factors enhancing the risk or severity of food-induced anaphylaxis (FIA).

METHODS

We analyzed data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry applying an age- and sex-matched analysis of associations (Cramer's V) for single food triggers and calculated odds ratios (ORs) for severe FIA.

RESULTS

We identified 3,427 cases of confirmed FIA showing an age-dependent elicitor ranking (for children: peanut, cow's milk, cashew, and hen's egg; and for adults: wheat flour, shellfish, hazelnut, and soy). The age- and sex-matched analysis revealed defined symptom patterns for wheat and cashew. Wheat-induced anaphylaxis was more frequently associated with cardiovascular symptoms (75.7%; Cramer's V = 0.28) and cashew-induced anaphylaxis with gastrointestinal symptoms (73.9%; Cramer's V = 0.20). Furthermore, concomitant atopic dermatitis was slightly associated with anaphylaxis to hen's egg (Cramer's V = 0.19) and exercise was strongly associated with anaphylaxis to wheat (Cramer's V = 0.56). Additional factors influencing the severity were alcohol intake in wheat anaphylaxis (OR = 3.23; CI, 1.31-8.83) and exercise in peanut anaphylaxis (OR = 1.78; CI, 1.09-2.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that FIA is age-dependent. In adults, the range of elicitors inducing FIA is broader. For some elicitors, the severity of FIA seems to be related to the elicitor. These data require confirmation in future studies considering a clear differentiation between augmentation and risk factors in FIA.

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.

Grading the severity of anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite no global consensus on a definition of anaphylaxis, there is increasing recognition that just as allergic reactions lie on a spectrum of severity, the same is for anaphylaxis. A variety of severity scores exist in the literature. We review the approaches taken to develop these scores, and their relative advantages and disadvantages.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been four recent comparisons of published severity scores. All have highlighted the heterogeneity between scoring systems, and the lack of transferability from one approach to another. Notably, only one score has been developed using a data-driven approach, and none has undergone formal and comprehensive validation.

SUMMARY

It is unclear whether a single severity score is achievable, or indeed desirable. If the aim is to guide management of acute reactions, then assignment of severity is not only unnecessary but might delay treatment and cause harm. Severity scores are needed in the research setting, but require an approach which can discriminate between reactions of similar but nonidentical severity (particularly, nonanaphylaxis reactions). Any approach should be fit for purpose, informed by patient and clinician experience, and ideally be data-driven to minimize subjective bias and facilitate objective validation.