Vegan diets from an allergy point of view - Position paper of the DGAKI working group on food allergy.

Vegan diets are currently attracting a great deal of attention. However, avoiding animal-based foods restricts the diet and is associated with risks, the extent and medical implications of which are at present not sufficiently understood. Elimination diets represent the usual therapeutic long-term management in the presence of food allergy. In order to understand the risks of vegan diets and to discuss these critically from the perspective of food allergies, the expertise of a nutritionist/dietitian with expertise in this area is indispensable. This position paper deals with the incentives behind and the benefits of a plant-based diet. The knowledge required to cover macro- and micronutrient dietary requirements is presented. Using the avoidance of cow's milk as an example, the challenges of adequately meeting nutritional needs are identified and (so-called) milk alternatives are evaluated from an allergy and nutritional point of view. Finally, other plant-based (substitute) products are evaluated from the same perspective, as significant protein sources in vegan diets (e.g., legumes, nuts, and seeds) are at the same time potential and potent triggers of allergic reactions. However, the allergic potential of many substitute products cannot be fully assessed at present due to gaps in research. Wheat as the most important trigger for anaphylaxis in adults is also evaluated. Finally, the increase in ultra-processed products in the (vegan) food sector and their potential consequences for the immune system are discussed.

Guideline on management of suspected adverse reactions to ingested histamine: Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA) as well as the Swiss Society for Allergology and Immunology (SGAI) and the Austrian Society for Allergology and Immunology (ÖGAI).

Adverse reactions to food or food ingredients are more often perceived than objectively verifiable. However, reliable laboratory tests are often lacking. As a result, people with perceived adverse reactions to food often follow extensive elimination diets for years and unnecessarily restrict their diet, as in the case of the frequently suspected histamine intolerance. In this condition, laboratory parameters such as the determination of diamine oxidase in serum have been shown to be inconclusive. The lack of symptom reproducibility calls into question the clinical picture of adverse reactions to ingested histamine. In order to approach persons with perceived histamine intolerance and to support them in moving from blanket restrictions, which are often unnecessarily strict, to effective personalized therapeutic strategies, the present guideline of the Working Group on Food Allergy of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in cooperation with the Medical Association of German Allergists (AeDA), the Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA) as well as the Swiss Society of Allergology and Immunology (SGAI) and the Austrian Society of Allergology and Immunology (ÖGAI) recommends a practicable diagnostic and therapeutic approach.

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

Not available.

Non-celiac gluten/wheat sensitivity (NCGS)-a currently undefined disorder without validated diagnostic criteria and of unknown prevalence: Position statement of the task force on food allergy of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI).

Within the last decade, non-celiac gluten/wheat sensitivity (NCGS) has been increasingly discussed not only in the media but also among medical specialties. The existence and the possible triggers of NCGS are controversial. Three international expert meetings which proposed recommendations for NCGS were not independently organized and only partially transparent regarding potential conflicts of interest of the participants. The present position statement reflects the following aspects about NCGS from an allergist's and nutritionist's point of view: (A) Validated diagnostic criteria and/or reliable biomarkers are still required. Currently, this condition is frequently self-diagnosed, of unknown prevalence and non-validated etiology. (B) Gluten has not been reliably identified as an elicitor of NCGS because of high nocebo and placebo effects. Double-blind, placebo-controlled provocation tests are of limited value for the diagnosis of NCGS and should be performed in a modified manner (changed relation of placebo and active substance). (C) Several confounders hamper the assessment of subjective symptoms during gluten-reduced or gluten-free diets. Depending on the selection of food items, e.g., an increased vegetable intake with soluble fibers, diets may induce physiological digestive effects and can modify gastrointestinal transit times independent from the avoidance of gluten. (D) A gluten-free diet is mandatory in celiac disease based on scientific evidence. However, a medically unjustified avoidance of gluten may bear potential disadvantages and risks. (E) Due to a lack of diagnostic criteria, a thorough differential diagnostic work-up is recommended when NCGS is suspected. This includes a careful patient history together with a food-intake and symptom diary, if necessary an allergy diagnostic workup and a reliable exclusion of celiac disease. We recommend such a structured procedure since a medically proven diagnosis is required before considering the avoidance of gluten.

German guideline for the management of adverse reactions to ingested histamine: Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the German Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the German Association of Allergologists (AeDA), and the Swiss Society for Allergology and Immunology (SGAI).

Adverse food reactions are far more often perceived than objectively verified. In our scientific knowledge on non-allergic adverse reactions including the so called histamine intolerance, there are large deficits. Due to the fact that this disorder is increasingly discussed in the media and the internet, more and more people suspect it to be the trigger of their symptoms. The scientific evidence to support the postulated link between ingestion of histamine and adverse reactions is limited, and a reliable laboratory test for objective diagnosis is lacking. This position paper by the "Food Allergy" Working Group of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in collaboration with the German Association of Allergologists (AeDA), the Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), and the Swiss Society for Allergology and Immunology (SGAI) reviews the data on the clinical picture of adverse reactions to ingested histamine, summarizes important aspects and their consequences, and proposes a practical diagnostic and therapeutic approach.

[Food intolerances caused by enzyme defects and carbohydrate malassimiliations : Lactose intolerance and Co]. / Lebensmittelunverträglichkeiten durch Enzymdefekte und Zuckerverwertungsstörungen : Laktoseintoleranz und Co.

Apart from allergic conditions, carbohydrate malassimiliations (sugar metabolism disorders) are classified within the group of food intolerances. These dose-dependent, yet non-immunological reactions require gastroenterological or internal diagnosis following nutritional therapy. Intolerances to carbohydrates such as lactose (milk sugar) and fructose (fruit sugar) in addition to sugar alcohols (sorbitol, mannitol, lactitol etc.) have been gaining increasing attention in recent decades as they are the cause of a wide range of gastrointestinal symptoms. There are currently various options for both diagnosis and therapy that differ notably in terms of effort, costs, and efficiency. Nutritional change and patient education are the bases of therapy. Non-observance of the trigger will result in increasing complaints and possibly even more infections, e.g., diverticula, rectal disorders, bacterial miscolonization, bile acid malabsorption). For an optimal therapy, the following sugar metabolism disorders have to be differentiated: hypolactasia versus lactose maldigestion, fructose malabsorption versus fructose overload, combined lactose and fructose intolerance, and isolated adverse reactions against sorbitol.For the medical conditions listed above, a three- or four-stage treatment regimen is recommended. Extensive dietary restrictions with regard to the relevant sugar, except for lactose, should not be maintained over a longer period of time.

Food allergies resulting from immunological cross-reactivity with inhalant allergens: Guidelines from the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the German Dermatology Society (DDG), the Association of German Allergologists (AeDA) and the Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA).

A large proportion of immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergies in older children, adolescents and adults are caused by cross-reactive allergenic structures. Primary sensitization is most commonly to inhalant allergens (e.g. Bet v 1, the major birch pollen allergen). IgE can be activated by various cross-reactive allergens and lead to a variety of clinical manifestations. In general, local and mild - in rare cases also severe and systemic - reactions occur directly after consumption of the food containing the cross-reactive allergen (e. g. plant-derived foods containing proteins of the Bet v 1 family). In clinical practice, sensitization to the primary responsible inhalant and/or food allergen can be detected by skin prick tests and/or in vitro detection of specific IgE. Component-based diagnostic methods can support clinical diagnosis. For individual allergens, these methods may be helpful to estimate the risk of systemic reactions. Confirmation of sensitization by oral provocation testing is important particulary in the case of unclear case history. New, as yet unrecognized allergens can also cause cross-reactions. The therapeutic potential of specific immunotherapy (SIT) with inhalant allergens and their effect on pollen-associated food allergies is currently unclear: results vary and placebo-controlled trials will be necessary in the future. Pollen allergies are very common. Altogether allergic sensitization to pollen and cross-reactive food allergens are very common in our latitudes. The actual relevance has to be assessed on an individual basis using the clinical information. Cite this as Worm M, Jappe U, Kleine-Tebbe J, Schäfer C, Reese I, Saloga J, Treudler R, Zuberbier T, Wassmann A, Fuchs T, Dölle S, Raithel M, Ballmer-Weber B, Niggemann B, Werfel T. Food allergies resulting from immunological cross-reactivity with inhalant allergens. Allergo J Int 2014; 23: 1-16 DOI 10.1007/s40629-014-0004-6.

Heterochromatin formation in Drosophila is initiated through active removal of H3K4 methylation by the LSD1 homolog SU(VAR)3-3.

Epigenetic indexing of chromatin domains by histone lysine methylation requires the balanced coordination of methyltransferase and demethylase activities. Here, we show that SU(VAR)3-3, the Drosophila homolog of the human LSD1 amine oxidase, demethylates H3K4me2 and H3K4me1 and facilitates subsequent H3K9 methylation by SU(VAR)3-9. Su(var)3-3 mutations suppress heterochromatic gene silencing, display elevated levels of H3K4me2, and prevent extension of H3K9me2 at pericentric heterochromatin. SU(VAR)3-3 colocalizes with H3K4me2 in interband regions and is abundant during embryogenesis and in syncytial blastoderm, where it appears concentrated at prospective heterochromatin during cycle 14. In embryos of Su(var)3-3/+ females, H3K4me2 accumulates in primordial germ cells, and the deregulated expansion of H3K4me2 antagonizes heterochromatic H3K9me2 in blastoderm cells. Our data indicate an early developmental function for the SU(VAR)3-3 demethylase in controlling euchromatic and heterochromatic domains and reveal a hierarchy in which SU(VAR)3-3-mediated removal of activating histone marks is a prerequisite for subsequent heterochromatin formation by H3K9 methylation.

Proton or photon irradiation for hemangiomas of the choroid? A retrospective comparison.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare, on a retrospective basis, the results of therapy in patients with uveal hemangioma treated with photon or proton irradiation at a single center. METHODS: From 1993 to 2002 a total of 44 patients were treated. Until 1998 radiotherapy was given with 6 MV photons in standard fractionation of 2.0 Gy 5 times per week. In 1998 proton therapy became available and was used since then. A dose of 20 to 22.5 Cobalt Gray Equivalent (CGE) 68 MeV protons was given on 4 consecutive days. Progressive symptoms or deterioration of vision were the indications for therapy. RESULTS: Of the 44 patients treated, 36 had circumscribed choroidal hemangiomas and 8 had diffuse choroidal hemangiomas (DCH) and Sturge-Weber syndrome. Of the patients, 19 were treated with photons with a total dose in the range of 16 to 30 Gy. A total of 25 patients were irradiated with protons. All patients with DCH but 1 were treated with photons. Stabilization of visual acuity was achieved in 93.2% of all patients. Tumor thickness decreased in 95.4% and retinal detachment resolved in 92.9%. Late effects, although generally mild or moderate, were frequently detected. In all, 40.9% showed radiation-induced optic neuropathy, maximum Grade I. Retinopathy was found in 29.5% of cases, but only 1 patient experienced more than Grade II severity. Retinopathy and radiation-induced optic neuropathy were reversible in some of the patients and in some resolved completely. No differences could be detected between patients with circumscribed choroidal hemangiomas treated with protons and photons. Treatment was less effective in DCH patients (75%). CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy is effective in treating choroidal hemangiomas with respect to visual acuity and tumor thickness but a benefit of proton therapy could not be detected. Side effects are moderate but careful monitoring for side effects should be part of the follow-up procedures.

Cellular binding of hepatitis C virus envelope glycoprotein E2 requires cell surface heparan sulfate.

The conservation of positively charged residues in the N terminus of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) envelope glycoprotein E2 suggests an interaction of the viral envelope with cell surface glycosaminoglycans. Using recombinant envelope glycoprotein E2 and virus-like particles as ligands for cellular binding, we demonstrate that cell surface heparan sulfate proteoglycans (HSPG) play an important role in mediating HCV envelope-target cell interaction. Heparin and liver-derived highly sulfated heparan sulfate but not other soluble glycosaminoglycans inhibited cellular binding and entry of virus-like particles in a dose-dependent manner. Degradation of cell surface heparan sulfate by pretreatment with heparinases resulted in a marked reduction of viral envelope protein binding. Surface plasmon resonance analysis demonstrated a high affinity interaction (KD 5.2 x 10-9 m) of E2 with heparin, a structural homologue of highly sulfated heparan sulfate. Deletion of E2 hypervariable region-1 reduced E2-heparin interaction suggesting that positively charged residues in the N-terminal E2 region play an important role in mediating E2-HSPG binding. In conclusion, our results demonstrate for the first time that cellular binding of HCV envelope requires E2-HSPG interaction. Docking of E2 to cellular HSPG may be the initial step in the interaction between HCV and the cell surface resulting in receptor-mediated entry and initiation of infection.