RESUMEN
Food allergy is a global public health problem that until recent years lacked any aetiological treatment supported by academy, industry and regulators. Food immunotherapy (AIT) is an evolving treatment option, supported by clinical practice and industry trial data. Recent AIT meta-analyses have highlighted the difficulty in pooling safety and efficacy data from AIT trials, due to secondary heterogeneity in the study. An EAACI task force (CO-FAITH) initiated by the Paediatric Section was created to focus on AIT efficacy outcomes for milk, egg and peanut allergy rather than in trial results. A systematic search and a narrative review of AIT controlled clinical trials and large case series was conducted. A total of 63 manuscripts met inclusion criteria, corresponding to 23, 21 and 22 studies of milk, egg and peanut AIT, respectively. The most common AIT efficacy outcome was desensitization, mostly defined as tolerating a maintenance phase dose, or reaching a particular dose upon successful exit oral food challenge (OFC). However, a large degree of heterogeneity was identified regarding the dose quantity defining this outcome. Sustained unresponsiveness and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. quality of life) were explored less frequently, and to date have been most rigorously described for peanut AIT versus other allergens. Change in allergen threshold assessed by OFC remains the most common efficacy measure, but OFC methods suffer from heterogeneity and methodological disparity. This review has identified multiple heterogeneous outcomes related to measuring the efficacy of AIT. Efforts to better standardize and harmonize which outcomes, and how to measure them must be carried out to help in the clinical development of safe and efficacious food allergy treatments.
Asunto(s)
Alérgenos , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Humanos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/terapia , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/inmunología , Alérgenos/inmunología , Alérgenos/administración & dosificación , Resultado del Tratamiento , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Comités ConsultivosRESUMEN
This European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guideline provides recommendations for diagnosing IgE-mediated food allergy and was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Food allergy diagnosis starts with an allergy-focused clinical history followed by tests to determine IgE sensitization, such as serum allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) and skin prick test (SPT), and the basophil activation test (BAT), if available. Evidence for IgE sensitization should be sought for any suspected foods. The diagnosis of allergy to some foods, such as peanut and cashew nut, is well supported by SPT and serum sIgE, whereas there are less data and the performance of these tests is poorer for other foods, such as wheat and soya. The measurement of sIgE to allergen components such as Ara h 2 from peanut, Cor a 14 from hazelnut and Ana o 3 from cashew can be useful to further support the diagnosis, especially in pollen-sensitized individuals. BAT to peanut and sesame can be used additionally. The reference standard for food allergy diagnosis is the oral food challenge (OFC). OFC should be performed in equivocal cases. For practical reasons, open challenges are suitable in most cases. Reassessment of food allergic children with allergy tests and/or OFCs periodically over time will enable reintroduction of food into the diet in the case of spontaneous acquisition of oral tolerance.
Asunto(s)
Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Niño , Humanos , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/diagnóstico , Pruebas Cutáneas , Inmunoglobulina E , Alérgenos , PolenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The benefit of daily administration of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Allergen Powder-dnfp (PTAH)-formerly AR101-has been established in clinical trials, but limited data past the first year of treatment are available. This longitudinal analysis aimed to explore the impact of continued PTAH therapeutic maintenance dosing (300 mg/day) on efficacy, safety/tolerability, and food allergy-related quality of life. METHODS: We present a subset analysis of PALISADE-ARC004 participants (aged 4-17 years) who received 300 mg PTAH daily for a total of ~1.5 (Group A, n = 110) or ~2 years (Group B, n = 32). Safety assessments included monitoring the incidence of adverse events (AEs), accidental exposures to food allergens, and adrenaline use. Efficacy was assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC); skin prick testing; peanut-specific antibody assays; and Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire (FAQLQ) and Food Allergy Independent Measure (FAIM) scores. RESULTS: Continued maintenance with PTAH increased participants' ability to tolerate peanut protein: 48.1% of completers in Group A (n = 50/104) and 80.8% in Group B (n = 21/26) tolerated 2000 mg peanut protein at exit DBPCFC without dose-limiting symptoms. Immune biomarkers showed a pattern consistent with treatment-induced desensitization. Among PTAH-continuing participants, the overall and treatment-related exposure-adjusted AE rate decreased throughout the intervention period in both groups. Clinically meaningful improvements in FAQLQ and FAIM scores over time suggest a potential link between increased desensitization as determined by the DBPCFC and improved quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that daily PTAH treatment for peanut allergy beyond 1 year leads to an improved safety/tolerability profile and continued clinical and immunological response.
Asunto(s)
Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete , Administración Oral , Adolescente , Alérgenos , Arachis/efectos adversos , Niño , Preescolar , Desensibilización Inmunológica/efectos adversos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/etiología , Humanos , Factores Inmunológicos , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/etiología , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/terapia , Calidad de VidaRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Hipersensibilidad al Huevo , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Alérgenos , Animales , Bovinos , Pollos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/efectos adversos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Femenino , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/terapia , Humanos , Inmunoglobulina E , Calidad de VidaRESUMEN
Anaphylaxis is a clinical emergency which all healthcare professionals need to be able to recognize and manage. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Anaphylaxis multidisciplinary Task Force has updated the 2014 guideline. The guideline was developed using the AGREE II framework and the GRADE approach. The evidence was systematically reviewed and recommendations were created by weighing up benefits and harms. The guideline was peer-reviewed by external experts and reviewed in a public consultation. The use of clinical criteria to identify anaphylaxis is suggested with blood sampling for the later measurement of tryptase. The prompt use of intramuscular adrenaline as first-line management is recommended with the availability of adrenaline autoinjectors to patients in the community. Pharmacokinetic data should be provided for adrenaline autoinjector devices. Structured, comprehensive training for people at risk of anaphylaxis is recommended. Simulation training and visual prompts for healthcare professionals are suggested to improve the management of anaphylaxis. It is suggested that school policies reflect anaphylaxis guidelines. The evidence for the management of anaphylaxis remains mostly at a very low level. There is an urgent need to prioritize clinical trials with the potential to improve the management of patients at risk of anaphylaxis.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/etiología , Anafilaxia/terapia , Epinefrina/uso terapéutico , Humanos , TriptasasRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The heterogeneity and lack of validation of existing severity scores for food allergic reactions limit standardization of case management and research advances. We aimed to develop and validate a severity score for food allergic reactions. METHODS: Following a multidisciplinary experts consensus, it was decided to develop a food allergy severity score (FASS) with ordinal (oFASS) and numerical (nFASS) formats. oFASS with 3 and 5 grades were generated through expert consensus, and nFASS by mathematical modeling. Evaluation was performed in the EuroPrevall outpatient clinic cohort (8232 food reactions) by logistic regression with request of emergency care and medications used as outcomes. Discrimination, classification, and calibration were calculated. Bootstrapping internal validation was followed by external validation (logistic regression) in 5 cohorts (3622 food reactions). Correlation of nFASS with the severity classification done by expert allergy clinicians by Best-Worst Scaling of 32 food reactions was calculated. RESULTS: oFASS and nFASS map consistently, with nFASS having greater granularity. With the outcomes emergency care, adrenaline and critical medical treatment, oFASS and nFASS had a good discrimination (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [ROC-AUC]>0.80), classification (sensitivity 0.87-0.92, specificity 0.73-0.78), and calibration. Bootstrapping over ROC-AUC showed negligible biases (1.0 × 10-6 -1.23 × 10-3 ). In external validation, nFASS performed best with higher ROC-AUC. nFASS was strongly correlated (R 0.89) to best-worst scoring of 334 expert clinicians. CONCLUSION: FASS is a validated and reliable method to measure severity of food allergic reactions. The ordinal and numerical versions that map onto each other are suitable for use by different stakeholders in different settings.
Asunto(s)
Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Alérgenos , Área Bajo la Curva , Alimentos , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/diagnóstico , Humanos , Curva ROCRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Food anaphylaxis is commonly elicited by unintentional ingestion of foods containing the allergen above the tolerance threshold level of the individual. While labeling the 14 main allergens used as ingredients in food products is mandatory in the EU, there is no legal definition of declaring potential contaminants. Precautionary allergen labeling such as "may contain traces of" is often used. However, this is unsatisfactory for consumers as they get no information if the contamination is below their personal threshold. In discussions with the food industry and technologists, it was suggested to use a voluntary declaration indicating that all declared contaminants are below a threshold of 0.5 mg protein per 100 g of food. This concentration is known to be below the threshold of most patients, and it can be technically guaranteed in most food production. However, it was also important to assess that in case of accidental ingestion of contaminants below this threshold by highly allergic patients, no fatal anaphylactic reaction could occur. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to assess whether a fatal reaction to 5mg of protein or less has been reported, assuming that a maximum portion size of 1kg of a processed food exceeds any meal and thus gives a sufficient safety margin. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until 24 January 2021 for provocation studies and case reports in which one of the 14 major food allergens was reported to elicit fatal or life-threatening anaphylactic reactions and assessed if these occurred below the ingestion of 5mg of protein. A Delphi process was performed to obtain an expert consensus on the results. RESULTS: In the 210 studies included, in our search, no reports of fatal anaphylactic reactions reported below 5 mg protein ingested were identified. However, in provocation studies and case reports, severe reactions below 5 mg were reported for the following allergens: eggs, fish, lupin, milk, nuts, peanuts, soy, and sesame seeds. CONCLUSION: Based on the literature studied for this review, it can be stated that cross-contamination of the 14 major food allergens below 0.5 mg/100 g is likely not to endanger most food allergic patients when a standard portion of food is consumed. We propose to use the statement "this product contains the named allergens in the list of ingredients, it may contain traces of other contaminations (to be named, e.g. nut) at concentrations less than 0.5 mg per 100 g of this product" for a voluntary declaration on processed food packages. This level of avoidance of cross-contaminations can be achieved technically for most processed foods, and the statement would be a clear and helpful message to the consumers. However, it is clearly acknowledged that a voluntary declaration is only a first step to a legally binding solution. For this, further research on threshold levels is encouraged.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Alérgenos/análisis , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/etiología , Anafilaxia/prevención & control , Animales , Huevos , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/diagnóstico , Etiquetado de Alimentos , HumanosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials (PALISADE [ARC003], ARTEMIS [ARC010]) proving efficacy and safety of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH) have 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 and tolerability in participants selected by clinical history and peanut sensitization parameters not undergoing DBPCFCs during trials 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 end point for RAMSES and ARC011 was the frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs). We descriptively compared baseline characteristics and safety outcomes from RAMSES and ARC011 to participants undergoing DBPCFCs in phase 3 PALISADE and ARTEMIS trials. RESULTS: In 506 patients randomized to study treatment, baseline characteristics appeared balanced among groups. Proportion of participants with at least 1 AE was 55% for PTAH vs 33.9% for placebo during initial dose escalation and 98.8% vs 94.0% during updosing, respectively. Most participants with AEs had mild or moderate events. The most common AEs were gastrointestinal. Comparisons to pooled PALISADE and ARTEMIS data revealed 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 seem different from those in phase 3 trials requiring DBPCFC to enter trials.
Asunto(s)
Arachis , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete , Niño , Humanos , Arachis/efectos adversos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/efectos adversos , Alérgenos , Pruebas Cutáneas , Método Doble Ciego , Administración Oral , Factores InmunológicosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Venom-induced anaphylaxis (VIA) is a common, potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity reaction associated with (1) a specific symptom profile, 2) specific cofactors, and 3) specific management. Identifying the differences in phenotypes of anaphylaxis is crucial for future management guidelines and development of a personalized medicine approach. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the phenotype and risk factors of VIA. METHODS: Using data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry (12,874 cases), we identified 3,612 patients with VIA and analyzed their cases in comparison with sex- and age-matched anaphylaxis cases triggered by other elicitors (non-VIA cases [n = 3,605]). RESULTS: VIA more frequently involved more than 3 organ systems and was associated with cardiovascular symptoms. The absence of skin symptoms during anaphylaxis was correlated with baseline serum tryptase level and was associated with an increased risk of a severe reaction. Intramuscular or intravenous epinephrine was administered significantly less often in VIA, in particular, in patients without a history of anaphylaxis. A baseline serum tryptase level within the upper normal range (8-11.5 ng/mL) was more frequently associated with severe anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: Using a large cohort of VIA cases, we have validated that patients with intermediate baseline serum tryptase levels (8-11 ng/mL) and without skin involvement have a higher risk of severe VIA. Patients receiving ß-blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors had a higher risk of developing severe cardiovascular symptoms (including cardiac arrest) in VIA and non-VIA cases. Patients experiencing VIA received epinephrine less frequently than did cases with non-VIA.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/etiología , Anafilaxia/fisiopatología , Anafilaxia/terapia , Venenos de Artrópodos/efectos adversos , Mordeduras y Picaduras de Insectos/complicaciones , Adulto , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Niño , Estudios de Cohortes , Europa (Continente) , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Fenotipo , Sistema de Registros , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Antígenos de Plantas , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Alérgenos , Reacciones Cruzadas , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/terapia , Humanos , Inmunoglobulina E , Lípidos , Proteínas de PlantasRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Sublingual allergen-specific immunotherapy (SLIT) intervention improves the control of grass pollen allergy by maintaining allergen tolerance after cessation. Despite its widespread use, little is known about systemic effects and kinetics associated to SLIT, as well as the influence of the patient sensitization phenotype (Mono- or Poly-sensitized). In this quest, omics sciences could help to gain new insights to understand SLIT effects. METHODS: 47 grass-pollen-allergic patients were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial using GRAZAX® during 2 years. Immunological assays (sIgE, sIgG4, and ISAC) were carried out to 31 patients who finished the trial. Additionally, serum and PBMCs samples were analyzed by metabolomics and transcriptomics, respectively. Based on their sensitization level, 22 patients were allocated in Mono- or Poly-sensitized groups, excluding patients allergic to epithelia. Individuals were compared based on their treatment (Active/Placebo) and sensitization level (Mono/Poly). RESULTS: Kinetics of serological changes agreed with those previously described. At two years of SLIT, there are scarce systemic changes that could be associated to improvement in systemic inflammation. Poly-sensitized patients presented a higher inflammation at inclusion, while Mono-sensitized patients presented a reduced activity of mast cells and phagocytes as an effect of the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The most relevant systemic change detected after two years of SLIT was the desensitization of effector cells, which was only detected in Mono-sensitized patients. This change may be related to the clinical improvement, as previously reported, and, together with the other results, may explain why clinical effect is lost if SLIT is discontinued at this point.
Asunto(s)
Rinitis Alérgica Estacional , Inmunoterapia Sublingual , Alérgenos , Biomarcadores , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Método Doble Ciego , Humanos , Inmunoterapia , Poaceae , Polen , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/diagnóstico , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/terapiaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This systematic review used the GRADE approach to compile evidence to inform the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) anaphylaxis guideline. METHODS: We searched five bibliographic databases from 1946 to 20 April 2020 for studies about the diagnosis, management and prevention of anaphylaxis. We included 50 studies with 18 449 participants: 29 randomized controlled trials, seven controlled clinical trials, seven consecutive case series and seven case-control studies. Findings were summarized narratively because studies were too heterogeneous to conduct meta-analysis. RESULTS: It is unclear whether the NIAID/FAAN criteria or Brighton case definition are valid for immediately diagnosing anaphylaxis due to the very low certainty of evidence. There was also insufficient evidence about the impact of most anaphylaxis management and prevention strategies. Adrenaline is regularly used for first-line emergency management of anaphylaxis but little robust research has assessed its effectiveness. Newer models of adrenaline autoinjectors may slightly increase the proportion of people correctly using the devices and reduce time to administration. Face-to-face training for laypeople may slightly improve anaphylaxis knowledge and competence in using autoinjectors. We searched for but found little or no comparative effectiveness evidence about strategies such as fluid replacement, oxygen, glucocorticosteroids, methylxanthines, bronchodilators, management plans, food labels, drug labels and similar. CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening condition but, due to practical and ethical challenges, there is a paucity of robust evidence about how to diagnose and manage it.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Preparaciones Farmacéuticas , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Anafilaxia/etiología , Broncodilatadores , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Epinefrina , HumanosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy has a rising prevalence in high-income countries, affecting 0.5%-1.4% of children. This study aimed to better understand peanut anaphylaxis in comparison to anaphylaxis to other food triggers in European children and adolescents. METHODS: Data was sourced from the European Anaphylaxis Registry via an online questionnaire, after in-depth review of food-induced anaphylaxis cases in a tertiary paediatric allergy centre. RESULTS: 3514 cases of food anaphylaxis were reported between July 2007 - March 2018, 56% in patients younger than 18 years. Peanut anaphylaxis was recorded in 459 children and adolescents (85% of all peanut anaphylaxis cases). Previous reactions (42% vs. 38%; p = .001), asthma comorbidity (47% vs. 35%; p < .001), relevant cofactors (29% vs. 22%; p = .004) and biphasic reactions (10% vs. 4%; p = .001) were more commonly reported in peanut anaphylaxis. Most cases were labelled as severe anaphylaxis (Ring&Messmer grade III 65% vs. 56% and grade IV 1.1% vs. 0.9%; p = .001). Self-administration of intramuscular adrenaline was low (17% vs. 15%), professional adrenaline administration was higher in non-peanut food anaphylaxis (34% vs. 26%; p = .003). Hospitalization was higher for peanut anaphylaxis (67% vs. 54%; p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: The European Anaphylaxis Registry data confirmed peanut as one of the major causes of severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions in European children, with some characteristic features e.g., presence of asthma comorbidity and increased rate of biphasic reactions. Usage of intramuscular adrenaline as first-line treatment is low and needs to be improved. The Registry, designed as the largest database on anaphylaxis, allows continuous assessment of this condition.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete , Adolescente , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/epidemiología , Anafilaxia/etiología , Arachis , Niño , Epinefrina , Humanos , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/epidemiología , Sistema de RegistrosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: EAACI guidelines emphasize the importance of patient history in diagnosing food allergy (FA) and the need for studies investigating its value using standardized allergy-focused questionnaires. OBJECTIVE: To determine the contribution of reaction characteristics, allergic comorbidities and demographics to prediction of FA in individuals experiencing food-related adverse reactions. METHODS: Adult and school-age participants in the standardized EuroPrevall population surveys, with self-reported FA, were included. Penalized multivariable regression was used to assess the association of patient history determinants with "probable" FA, defined as a food-specific case history supported by relevant IgE sensitization. RESULTS: In adults (N = 844), reproducibility of reaction (OR 1.35 [95% CI 1.29-1.41]), oral allergy symptoms (OAS) (4.46 [4.19-4.75]), allergic rhinitis (AR) comorbidity (2.82 [2.68-2.95]), asthma comorbidity (1.38 [1.30-1.46]) and male sex (1.50 [1.41-1.59]) were positively associated with probable FA. Gastrointestinal symptoms (0.88 [0.85-0.91]) made probable FA less likely. The AUC of a model combining all selected predictors was 0.85 after cross-validation. In children (N = 670), OAS (2.26 [2.09-2.44]) and AR comorbidity (1.47 [CI 1.39-1.55]) contributed most to prediction of probable FA, with a combined cross-validation-based AUC of 0.73. When focusing on plant foods, the dominant source of FA in adults, the pediatric model also included gastrointestinal symptoms (inverse association), and the AUC increased to 0.81. CONCLUSIONS: In both adults and school-age children from the general population, reporting of OAS and of AR comorbidity appear to be the strongest predictors of probable FA. Patient history particularly allows for good discrimination between presence and absence of probable plant FA.
Asunto(s)
Asma , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Adulto , Alérgenos , Niño , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/epidemiología , Humanos , Masculino , Prevalencia , Reproducibilidad de los ResultadosRESUMEN
Older adults, especially men and/or those with diabetes, hypertension, and/or obesity, are prone to severe COVID-19. In some countries, older adults, particularly those residing in nursing homes, have been prioritized to receive COVID-19 vaccines due to high risk of death. In very rare instances, the COVID-19 vaccines can induce anaphylaxis, and the management of anaphylaxis in older people should be considered carefully. An ARIA-EAACI-EuGMS (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma, European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, and European Geriatric Medicine Society) Working Group has proposed some recommendations for older adults receiving the COVID-19 vaccines. Anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines is extremely rare (from 1 per 100,000 to 5 per million injections). Symptoms are similar in younger and older adults but they tend to be more severe in the older patients. Adrenaline is the mainstay treatment and should be readily available. A flowchart is proposed to manage anaphylaxis in the older patients.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , COVID-19 , Anciano , Anafilaxia/etiología , Anafilaxia/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Epinefrina , Humanos , Masculino , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the use of eliciting doses (EDs) to inform allergen risk management. The ED can be estimated from the distribution of threshold doses for allergic subjects undergoing food challenges within a specified population. Estimated ED05 values for cow's milk (the dose expected to cause objective allergic symptoms in 5% of the milk-allergic population) range from 0.5 mg to 13.9 mg cow's milk protein. We undertook a single-dose challenge study to validate a predicted ED05 for cow's milk of 0.5 mg protein. METHODS: Participants were recruited from 4 clinical centres. Predetermined criteria were used to identify patients reacting to 0.5 mg cow's milk protein (approximately 0.015 mL of fresh cow's milk). Children over 1 year underwent formal challenge to cow's milk to confirm clinical reactivity. RESULTS: 172 children (median age 6.0 (IQR 0.7-11) years, 57% male) were included in this analysis. Twelve (7.0%, 95% CI 3.7%-11.9%) children experienced objective symptoms that met the predetermined criteria. One participant had mild anaphylaxis that responded to a single dose of adrenaline, the remainder experienced only mild symptoms with no treatment required. We did not identify any baseline predictors of sensitization that were associated with objective reactivity to the single-dose challenge using 0.5 mg cow's milk protein. CONCLUSIONS: These data support an estimated ED05 for cow's milk of 0.5 mg protein. Values for ED05 above 0.5 mg for cow's milk protein proposed for allergen risk management need to be reviewed.
Asunto(s)
Hipersensibilidad a la Leche , Alérgenos , Animales , Bovinos , Niño , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Leche , Hipersensibilidad a la Leche/diagnósticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Primary hazelnut allergy is a common cause of anaphylaxis in children, as compared to birch-pollen associated hazelnut allergy. Population-based data on hazelnut and concomitant birch-pollen allergy in children are lacking. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of primary and pollen-associated hazelnut allergy and sensitization profiles in school-aged children in Berlin, Germany. METHODS: 1570 newborn children were recruited in Berlin in 2005-2009. The school-age follow-up (2014-2017) was based on a standardized web-based parental questionnaire and clinical evaluation by a physician including skin prick tests, allergen specific immunoglobulin E serum tests and placebo-controlled double-blind oral food challenges, if indicated. RESULTS: 1004 children (63.9% response) participated in the school-age follow-up assessment (52.1% male). For 1.9% (n = 19, 95%-confidence interval 1.1%-2.9%) of children their parents reported hazelnut-allergic symptoms, for half of these to roasted hazelnut indicating primary hazelnut allergy. Symptoms of birch-pollen allergy were reported for 11.6% (n = 116 95%-CI 9.7%-13.7%) of the children. Both birch-pollen allergy and hazelnut allergy associated symptoms affected 0.6% (n = 6, 95%-CI 0.2%-1.3%) of children. Assessment of allergic sensitization was performed in 261 participants and showed that almost 20% of these children were sensitized to hazelnut, being the most frequent of all assessed food allergens, or birch-pollen, the majority to both. CONCLUSIONS: Based on parental reports hazelnut-allergic symptoms were far less common than sensitization to hazelnut. This needs to be considered by physicians to avoid unnecessary changes in diet due to sensitization profiles only, especially when there is a co-sensitization to hazelnut and birch-pollen.
Asunto(s)
Alérgenos/inmunología , Antígenos de Plantas/inmunología , Betula/inmunología , Corylus/inmunología , Hipersensibilidad a la Nuez/epidemiología , Polen/inmunología , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/epidemiología , Niño , Femenino , Alemania/epidemiología , Humanos , Masculino , Hipersensibilidad a la Nuez/diagnóstico , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/diagnóstico , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In allergology, the intradermal approach is generally used to establish an aetiological diagnosis, with limited experience in specific allergen immunotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy with an allergen extract of glutaraldehyde-polymerized Phleum pratense, administered intradermally, in patients with rhinoconjunctivitis sensitized to grass pollen. METHODS: Multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in patients from 12 to 65 years of age with rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis, with or without asthma, due to grass pollen allergy. Patients were divided into three groups and received a total of six doses in a weekly interval, of either placebo; 0.03 or 0.06 µg of protein per dose of P pratense allergoid. The primary objective was to evaluate the combined symptoms and medication consumption score (CSMS). The secondary objectives were symptoms and medication, tolerance to the conjunctival provocation test, specific IgE and IgG4 antibodies and the safety profile according to the WAO scale. RESULTS: The dose of 0.06 µg of protein proved to be effective versus the placebo by significantly reducing CSMS and increasing tolerance to the allergenic extract in the conjunctival provocation test, after the first pollen season. This group showed a significant reduction in specific IgE after the second pollen season relative to the baseline. There were no variations in IgG4 levels. Only one grade 2 systemic reaction was recorded. CONCLUSION & CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Intradermal immunotherapy with P pratense allergoid has been shown to be effective and safe, reducing CSMS, increasing tolerance to the conjunctival provocation test and reducing IgE levels.
Asunto(s)
Alérgenos/administración & dosificación , Conjuntivitis Alérgica/terapia , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Phleum/inmunología , Proteínas de Plantas/administración & dosificación , Polen/inmunología , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/terapia , Adolescente , Adulto , Alérgenos/inmunología , Biomarcadores/sangre , Conjuntivitis Alérgica/diagnóstico , Conjuntivitis Alérgica/inmunología , Método Doble Ciego , Esquema de Medicación , Femenino , Humanos , Tolerancia Inmunológica/efectos de los fármacos , Inmunoglobulina E/sangre , Inmunoglobulina G/sangre , Inyecciones Intradérmicas , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Proteínas de Plantas/inmunología , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/diagnóstico , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/inmunología , España , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Allergy to Peanuts ImPacting Emotions And Life (APPEAL-1) was a recent European multi-country questionnaire survey that highlighted the negative impacts of peanut allergy (PA) on quality of life. A follow-on qualitative study, APPEAL-2, further assessed the burden of PA and associated coping strategies through semi-structured interviews. OBJECTIVE: To gain qualitative insight on the strategies used to cope with and manage PA and the impact of these strategies on the quality of life of children, teenagers and caregivers. METHODS: This cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in eight European countries: the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Denmark and the Netherlands. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with children (aged 8-12 years) and teenagers (aged 13-17 years) with self-/proxy-reported moderate or severe PA and with parents/caregivers of children or teenagers (aged 4-17 years) with moderate or severe PA. Data were analysed using thematic analysis; data saturation was assessed. Two conceptual models were developed to illustrate the impacts of PA and coping strategies used to manage them for (a) individuals with PA and (b) parents/caregivers of children with PA. RESULTS: 107 participants were interviewed: 24 children, 39 teenagers and 44 caregivers. The conceptual models illustrated themes related to coping and control, driven by the fear of PA reactions, and the associated emotional, social, relationship and work impacts. Factors moderating these impacts included social attitudes and support, child-caregiver relationship and coping strategies used. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The APPEAL-2 results substantiate the findings of APPEAL-1; the results also suggest that the severity of experience with PA may not correlate with perception of its overall burden and show variable impacts by country.
Asunto(s)
Adaptación Psicológica , Conducta del Adolescente , Cuidadores/psicología , Conducta Infantil , Costo de Enfermedad , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/psicología , Calidad de Vida , Adolescente , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Niño , Preescolar , Estudios Transversales , Emociones , Europa (Continente) , Femenino , Humanos , Relaciones Interpersonales , Entrevistas como Asunto , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/terapia , Investigación Cualitativa , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Conducta SocialRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy (PA) is a common, potentially life-threatening and typically lifelong condition with a significant burden of illness. However, information is lacking on how persons with PA (PwPA) and their caregivers perceive the psychosocial impact of living with PA. The Allergy to Peanuts imPacting Emotions And Life 1 (APPEAL-1) survey, conducted across Europe, investigated the experience and impact of living with PA. Here, we report data evaluating the psychosocial impact of PA on PwPA and their caregivers. METHODS: Allergy to Peanuts imPacting Emotions And Life study 1 was an online survey conducted in eight European countries. Representatives of eight patient advocacy groups and five healthcare-research specialists developed the survey. Eligible respondent groups included the following: adults diagnosed with PA (self-report); parent/nonparent caregivers (proxy-report for a child with PA); and parent/nonparent caregivers (self-report of PA impact on themselves). RESULTS: Of 1846 total study respondents, 419 were adults with PA (self-report); 546 were parents/caregivers (proxy-report); and 881 were parents/caregivers (self-report). Most respondents reported lifestyle restrictions regarding food (84%-93%) and additional domains including parties and socializing, holiday activities and destinations, and taking public transport (53%-89%). Approximately 40% rated themselves as "very" frustrated and "very" stressed. Two-thirds (65%) felt socially isolated; 43% were bullied. Less than half felt confident in knowing when to use an adrenaline autoinjector. Several intercountry differences were observed such as high levels of uncertainty and stress in respondents from Ireland, highest rates of anxiety in respondents from Germany, and social exclusion and isolation most common in respondents from France. CONCLUSIONS: Peanut allergy imposes an adverse psychosocial impact on patients and caregivers, leading to frustration, stress and isolation. Attention to the impact of PA is needed in research and clinical practice to improve PA healthcare and public education programmes.