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

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.

Mast Cells and Basophils in IgE-Independent Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening or even fatal systemic hypersensitivity reaction. The incidence of anaphylaxis has risen at an alarming rate in the past decades in the majority of countries. Generally, the most common causes of severe or fatal anaphylaxis are medication, foods and Hymenoptera venoms. Anaphylactic reactions are characterized by the activation of mast cells and basophils and the release of mediators. These cells express a variety of receptors that enable them to respond to a wide range of stimulants. Most studies of anaphylaxis focus on IgE-dependent reactions. The mast cell has long been regarded as the main effector cell involved in IgE-mediated anaphylaxis. This paper reviews IgE-independent anaphylaxis, with special emphasis on mast cells, basophils, anaphylactic mediators, risk factors, triggers, and management.

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.

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.

Intestinal protein uptake and IgE-mediated food allergy

Food allergy is affecting 5-8% of young children and 2-4% of adults and seems to be increasing in prevalence. The cause of the increase in food allergy is largely unknown but proposed to be influenced by both environmental and lifestyle factors. Changes in intestinal barrier functions and increased uptake of dietary proteins have been suggested to have a great impact on food allergy. In this review, we aim to give an overview of the gastrointestinal digestion and intestinal barrier function and provide a more detailed description of intestinal protein uptake, including the various routes of epithelial transport, how it may be affected by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors, and the relation to food allergy. Further, we give an overview of in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo techniques available for evaluation of intestinal protein uptake and gut permeability in general. Proteins are digested by gastric, pancreatic and integral brush border enzymes in order to allow for sufficient nutritional uptake. Absorption and transport of dietary proteins across the epithelial layer is known to be dependent on the physicochemical properties of the proteins and their digestion fragments themselves, such as size, solubility and aggregation status. It is believed, that the greater an amount of intact protein or larger peptide fragments that is transported through the epithelial layer, and thus encountered by the mucosal immune system in the gut, the greater is the risk of inducing an adverse allergic response. Proteins may be absorbed across the epithelial barrier by means of various mechanisms, and studies have shown that a transcellular facilitated transport route unique for food allergic individuals are at play for transport of allergens, and that upon mediator release from mast cells an enhanced allergen transport via the paracellular route occurs. This is in contrast to healthy individuals where transcytosis through the enterocytes is the main route of protein uptake. Thus, knowledge on factors affecting intestinal barrier functions and methods for the determination of their impact on protein uptake may be useful in future allergenicity assessments and for development of future preventive and treatment strategies.

New Mechanistic Advances in FcεRI-Mast Cell-Mediated Allergic Signaling

Mast cells originate from the CD34⁺/CD117⁺ hematopoietic progenitors in the bone marrow, migrate into circulation, and ultimately mature and reside in peripheral tissues. Microbiota/metabolites and certain immune cells (e.g., Treg cells) play a key role in maintaining immune tolerance. Cross-linking of allergen-specific IgE on mast cells activates the high-affinity membrane-bound receptor FcεRI, thereby initiating an intracellular signal cascade, leading to degranulation and release of pro-inflammatory mediators. The intracellular signal transduction is intricately regulated by various kinases, transcription factors, and cytokines. Importantly, multiple signal components in the FcεRI-mast cell–mediated allergic cascade can be targeted for therapeutic purposes. Pharmacological interventions that include therapeutic antibodies against IgE, FcεRI, and cytokines as well as inhibitors/activators of several key intracellular signaling molecues have been used to inhibit allergic reactions. Other factors that are not part of the signal pathway but can enhance an individual’s susceptibility to allergen stimulation are referred to as cofactors. Herein, we provide a mechanistic overview of the FcεRI-mast cell–mediated allergic signaling. This will broaden our scope and visions on specific preventive and therapeutic strategies for the clinical management of mast cell–associated hypersensitivity reactions.

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.

Fatal Food Anaphylaxis: Distinguishing Fact From Fiction

Although there is a general perception that the prevalence of food allergy is increasing, data supporting this are limited. Food is the least common cause of fatal anaphylaxis, and fortunately, it is a very rare event; however, it is also unpredictable. There is widespread consensus that severe reactions cannot be predicted in a clinically meaningful way. Certain food triggers are more frequently associated with fatal anaphylaxis than others. In observational studies, peanut and tree nuts account for at least 30% to 50% of fatalities, with seafood and cow's milk also associated with fatal reactions. Fatal food-induced anaphylaxis is most likely to occur during adolescence and young adulthood, although the reasons for this are unclear. International guidelines agree that intramuscular (IM) epinephrine is the treatment of choice for managing food-triggered anaphylaxis and has a good safety profile when given by the IM route. However, fatalities still occur despite the timely administration of epinephrine. Food-allergic individuals must navigate a world that requires daily vigilance for allergens and preparedness for allergic reactions. Although the actual risk of fatal reactions is minimal, it is not zero, and severe reactions are unpredictable. Clinicians need to help patients better understand the very low but real risk of fatal reaction and enable them to lead as normal a life as possible through appropriate education, safety netting, and risk reduction.

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.

Digital technology for anaphylaxis management impact on patient behaviour: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Epinephrine is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. Patients at risk should always carry an epinephrine autoinjector (EAI). Several EAI gaps have been identified. We sought to evaluate satisfaction using a medical device (digital technology comprising an EAI smart case connected to a mobile APP) with functions that overcome most of the EAI limitations and to determine whether patient behaviour and anaphylaxis management improve with its use.

METHODS

This was a randomized, open-label, crossover clinical trial in a tertiary hospital involving patients with history of anaphylaxis carrying an EAI. The study was conducted in two three-month periods, one with and one without the medical device. The primary endpoint was satisfaction with the medical device. Usability, adherence, anxiety and anaphylaxis episodes were evaluated as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were included (mean age 38.1 years, 74% female), and 95 completed the trial. The satisfaction visual analogue scale (VAS) after using the medical device was higher than before its use (89.1 [95% CI, 60.2-99.1] vs 56.3 [95% CI, 48.1-81.4]; P < .0001). The adherence VAS improved from 59.7 (95% CI, 54.0-65.3) to 88.6 (95% CI, 84.2-92.9) (P < .0001). Overall, 90% patients found the medical device easy to use. Patients' anxiety decreased from 52.2% to 29.3% (P < .001). Seven episodes of anaphylaxis occurred during the study, all in patients without the medical device (P = .025). Eighty-eight per cent of patients felt more involved in the management of anaphylaxis when using the medical device.

CONCLUSION

This is the first clinical trial evaluating digital technology for EAIs, showing a change of behaviour in patients at risk of anaphylaxis, increasing satisfaction, improving adherence, and reducing anxiety, with good usability.

Developments allergy in 2019 through the eyes of Clinical and Experimental Allergy, Part II clinical allergy

In the second of two linked articles, we describe the development in clinical as described by Clinical & Experimental Allergy and other journals in 2019. Epidemiology, clinical allergy, asthma and rhinitis are all covered. In this article, we described the development in the field of allergy as described by Clinical and Experimental Allergy in 2019. Epidemiology, clinical allergy, asthma and rhinitis are all covered.

GRADE-ing the Benefit/Risk Equation in Food Immunotherapy

Purpose of Review

We reviewed the existing evidence base to desensitisation for food allergy, applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to discuss whether desensitisation is likely to become part of routine treatment for patients with food allergy.

Recent Findings

Desensitisation for food allergy to peanut, egg and cow’s milk is efficacious, but whether such interventions are cost-effective is less clear, due to the issues over a sustained desensitisation effect and the increase in allergic reactions occurring in patients on treatment. Few studies have assessed the change in health-related quality of life associated with treatment, and most have not considered discordance between parent-reported changes in health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes compared to those of the patients themselves; none to date have controlled for the improvement in HRQL occurring after initial challenge which will confound outcomes.

Summary

The lack of longer-term safety and cost-effectiveness data, as well as an absence of current consensus in the reporting of patient-relevant outcomes, must be addressed in order to be able to recommend the introduction of desensitisation as a routine treatment in healthcare systems.

Food-Induced Anaphylaxis: Role of Hidden Allergens and Cofactors

Food anaphylaxis is on the increase, with those who have an allergy to peanuts, tree nuts, milk, and seafood at the highest risk of developing such a reaction. However, the diet in many societies is increasingly varied, much of the food consumed is prepared outside the home, and meals are often composed of many different ingredients. Anaphylaxis may occur to a composite food, and it may be unclear whether the reaction is due to contamination or to a culprit allergen present in an added ingredient. Composite foods can contain many allergic proteins present in small amounts, which do not always have to be labeled, unless they feature in European or US labeling regulations. These "hidden" allergens include mustard, celery, spices, lupine, pea, natural food colourings, and preservatives, but can occasionally include allergenic material from contaminants such as cereal mites. Hidden allergens can provoke severe reactions to seemingly unconnected foods which might then lead to a diagnosis of idiopathic anaphylaxis. The same problem can arise with two well-known types of food allergy; wheat-dependant exercise induced anaphylaxis and allergy to non-specific Lipid Transfer Protein allergens, both of which might only manifest when linked to a cofactor such as exercise. Many of these risk factors for food anaphylaxis have a common link; the public's engagement with popular concepts of health and fitness. This includes the development of a food and exercise culture involving the promotion and marketing of foods for their health-giving properties i.e., meat substitutes, wheat substitutes, supplements and alternative, or "natural" remedies for common ailments. Some of these foods have been reported as the cause of severe allergic reactions, but because they are often viewed as benign unlikely causes of severe allergic reactions, could be considered to be hidden allergens. The best resource to elicit the likelihood of a hidden allergen provoking an allergic reaction is to take a detailed history of the allergic reaction, presence of co-factors, foods suspected, type of food and where it was consumed. A good knowledge of commonly used ingredients, and list of potential hidden allergen suspects are essential tools for the food allergy detective.