Peanut components measured by ISAC: comparison with ImmunoCap and clinical relevance in peanut allergic children.

BACKGROUND: Specific IgE (sIgE) against the peanut component Arachis hypogaea (Ara h) 2 has been shown to be the most important allergen to discriminate between peanut allergy and peanut tolerance. Several studies determined sIgE cut off values for Ara h 2, determined by singleplex measurements. However, cut off values for Ara h 2 from multiplex arrays are less well defined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between Ara h 2 sIgE determined by singleplex versus multiplex measurements and to assess the diagnostic value of the different peanut components included in Immuno Solid-phase Allergen Chip (ISAC) multiplex analysis in children with a suspected peanut allergy. METHODS: In this retrospective study we analyzed Ara h 2 sIgE values with singleplex Fluorescence Enzyme Immunoassay (FEIA, ImmunoCap) and multiplex microarray (ISAC) measurements in 117 children with a suspected peanut allergy. Also, other peanut components measured by ISAC were analyzed. Double blinded placebo controlled oral food challenges were used as golden standard. RESULTS: Among all studied peanut components FEIA Ara h 2 sIgE showed the highest area under the curve (AUC, 0.922), followed by ISAC Ara h 6 and Ara h 2 sIgE with AUCs of respectively 0.906 and 0.902. Best cut off values to diagnose peanut allergy were 4.40 kU/l for FEIA Ara h 2 sIgE and, 7.43 ISU and 8.13 ISU for respectively Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 sIgE in ISAC microarray. Ara h 2 sIgE determined in FEIA and ISAC showed a good correlation (r = 0.88; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Ara h 6 and Ara h 2 sIgE in multiplex ISAC are both good predictors of clinical peanut allergy in Dutch children, and their performance is comparable to the use of Ara h 2 in singleplex FEIA. The simultaneous measurement of different peanut components using ISAC is an advantage and clinically useful to detect peanut allergic children that are Ara h 2 negative but sensitized to other peanut proteins such as Ara h 6.

Health economic analysis of allergen immunotherapy for the management of allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy: A systematic overview.

BACKGROUND: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing guidelines for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, IgE-mediated food allergy and venom allergy. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook systematic reviews to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions. This study focusses on synthesizing data and gaps in the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions. METHODS: We produced summaries of evidence in each domain, and then, synthesized findings on health economic data identified from four recent systematic reviews on allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy, respectively. The quality of these studies was independently assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for health economic evaluations. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these, 19 studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of AIT in allergic rhinitis, of which seven were based on data from randomized controlled trials with economic evaluations conducted from a health system perspective. This body of evidence suggested that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) would be considered cost-effective using the (English) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). However, the quality of the studies and the general lack of attention to characterizing uncertainty and handling missing data should be taken into account when interpreting these results. For asthma, there were three eligible studies, all of which had significant methodological limitations; these suggested that SLIT, when used in patients with both asthma and allergic rhinitis, may be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £10 726 per QALY. We found one economic modelling study for venom allergy which, despite being based largely on expert opinion and plausible assumptions, suggested that AIT for bee and wasp venom allergy is only likely to be cost-effective for very high-risk groups who may be exposed to multiple exposures to venom/year (eg bee keepers). We found no eligible studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of AIT is limited and of low methodological quality, but suggests that AIT may be cost-effective for people with allergic rhinitis with or without asthma and in high-risk subgroups for venom allergy. We were unable to draw any conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.

The roadmap for allergology in Europe: The subspecialty of allergology as "stop-over" on the way to a full specialty. An EAACI position statement.

The vision of European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) and the Union of European Medical Specialists Section and Board on allergology is to promote and to establish a full specialty of allergology in all European countries. In many European countries, a full specialty does not exist. In those countries, organ-based (sub)specialists or paediatricians and internists with an expertise in allergology may deliver allergy care. There are no generally accepted requirements for the training of subspecialists available. To fill the gap between the need and availability of experienced and accredited physicians who can deliver optimal care to the allergic patients, the EAACI Specialty Committee proposes the minimal requirements for training and certification of subspecialists in allergology. This paper describes the required theoretical knowledge, skills, competences and training facilities (staff and institution). The subspecialist as described in this paper should ideally show the necessary competence in providing good quality care to patients in an environment lacking those full specialists in allergology or tertiary care paediatric subspecialists in allergy.

Challenges in the implementation of the EAACI AIT guidelines: A situational analysis of current provision of allergen immunotherapy.

PURPOSE: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) has produced Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT). We sought to gauge the preparedness of primary care to participate in the delivery of AIT in Europe. METHODS: We undertook a mixed-methods, situational analysis. This involved a purposeful literature search and two surveys: one to primary care clinicians and the other to a wider group of stakeholders across Europe. RESULTS: The 10 papers identified all pointed out gaps or deficiencies in allergy care provision in primary care. The surveys also highlighted similar concerns, particularly in relation to concerns about lack of knowledge, skills, infrastructural weaknesses, reimbursement policies and communication with specialists as barriers to evidence-based care. Almost all countries (92%) reported the availability of AIT. In spite of that, only 28% and 44% of the countries reported the availability of guidelines for primary care physicians and specialists, respectively. Agreed pathways between specialists and primary care physicians were reported as existing in 32%-48% of countries. Reimbursement appeared to be an important barrier as AIT was only fully reimbursed in 32% of countries. Additionally, 44% of respondents considered accessibility to AIT and 36% stating patient costs were barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Successful working with primary care providers is essential to scaling-up AIT provision in Europe, but to achieve this, the identified barriers must be overcome. Development of primary care interpretation of guidelines to aid patient selection, establishment of disease management pathways and collaboration with specialist groups are required as a matter of urgency.

Challenges in the implementation of EAACI guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: A global perspective on the regulation of allergen products.

Regulatory approaches for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) products and the availability of high-quality AIT products are inherently linked to each other. While allergen products are available in many countries across the globe, their regulation is very heterogeneous. First, we describe the regulatory systems applicable for AIT products in the European Union (EU) and in the United States (US). For Europe, a depiction of the different types of relevant procedures, as well as the committees involved, is provided and the fundamental role of national agencies of the EU member states in this complex and unique network is highlighted. Furthermore, the regulatory agencies from Australia, Canada, Japan, Russia, and Switzerland provided information on the system implemented in their countries for the regulation of allergen products. While AIT products are commonly classified as biological medicinal products, they are made available by varying types of procedures, most commonly either by obtaining a marketing authorization or by being distributed as named patient products. Exemptions from marketing authorizations in exceptional cases, as well as import of allergen products from other countries, are additional tools applied by countries to ensure availability of needed AIT products. Several challenges for AIT products are apparent from this analysis and will require further consideration.

Allergen manufacturing and quality aspects for allergen immunotherapy in Europe and the United States: An analysis from the EAACI AIT Guidelines Project.

Adequate quality is essential for any medicinal product to be eligible for marketing. Quality includes verification of the identity, content and purity of a medicinal product in combination with a specified production process and its control. Allergen products derived from natural sources require particular considerations to ensure adequate quality. Here, we describe key aspects of the documentation on manufacturing and quality aspects for allergen immunotherapy products in the European Union and the United States. In some key parts, requirements in these areas are harmonized while other fields are regulated separately between both regions. Essential differences are found in the use of Reference Preparations, or the requirement to apply standardized assays for potency determination. As the types of products available are different in specific regions, regulatory guidance for such products may also be available in one specific region only, such as for allergoids in the European Union. Region-specific issues and priorities are a result of this. As allergen products derived from natural sources are inherently variable in their qualitative and quantitative composition, these products present special challenges to balance the variability and ensuring batch-to-batch consistency. Advancements in scientific knowledge on specific allergens and their role in allergic disease will consequentially find representation in future regulatory guidelines.

EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) is an allergic disorder of the nose and eyes affecting about a fifth of the general population. Symptoms of AR can be controlled with allergen avoidance measures and pharmacotherapy. However, many patients continue to have ongoing symptoms and an impaired quality of life; pharmacotherapy may also induce some side-effects. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only currently available treatment that targets the underlying pathophysiology, and it may have a disease-modifying effect. Either the subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes may be used. This Guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on AIT for AR and is part of the EAACI presidential project "EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy." It aims to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations and has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis. Its generation has followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included involvement of the full range of stakeholders. In general, broad evidence for the clinical efficacy of AIT for AR exists but a product-specific evaluation of evidence is recommended. In general, SCIT and SLIT are recommended for both seasonal and perennial AR for its short-term benefit. The strongest evidence for long-term benefit is documented for grass AIT (especially for the grass tablets) where long-term benefit is seen. To achieve long-term efficacy, it is recommended that a minimum of 3 years of therapy is used. Many gaps in the evidence base exist, particularly around long-term benefit and use in children.

sIgE Ana o 1, 2 and 3 accurately distinguish tolerant from allergic children sensitized to cashew nuts.

BACKGROUND: The double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge test (DBPCFC) is the gold standard in cashew nut allergy. This test is costly, time consuming and not without side effects. Analysis of IgE reactivity to cashew nut components may reduce the need for food challenge tests. METHODS: In a prospective and multicentre study, children with suspected cashew nut allergy underwent a DBPCFC with cashew nut. Specific IgE to cashew nut and to the components Ana o 1, 2 and 3 were determined. A skin prick test (SPT) with cashew nut extract was performed. The association between the outcome of the food challenge test and specific IgE to Ana o 1, 2 and 3 was assessed with logistic regression analyses, unadjusted and adjusted for other diagnostic variables. Discriminative ability was quantified with a concordance index (c). RESULTS: A total of 173 children (103 boys, 60%) with a median age of 9 years were included. About 79% had a positive challenge test outcome. A steep rise in the risk of a positive challenge was observed for specific IgE to each individual component Ana o 1, 2 and 3 with estimated risks up to approximately 100%. Median values of Ana o 1, 2, 3 were 1.29 kU/l (range 0-100 kU/l), 4.77 kU/l (range 0-100 kU/l) and 8.33 kU/l (range 0-100 kU/l) respectively and varied significantly (p < 0.001). Specific IgE to Ana o 1, 2 and 3 was better distinguished between cashew-allergic and tolerant children (c = 0.87, 0.85 and 0.89, respectively) than specific IgE to cashew nut or SPT (c = 0.76 and 0.83, respectively). CONCLUSION: The major cashew nut allergens Ana o 1, 2 and 3 are each individually predictive for the outcome of food challenge tests in cashew-allergic children.

Symptomatic treatment of pollen-related allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in children: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: About 12% of children are affected by allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR). Although the main symptomatic treatments are intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) (daily or on demand) and oral antihistamines, it remains unclear which treatment provides the best relief of symptoms. Therefore, this study examines whether daily use of INCS is superior to on-demand use or to oral antihistamines on demand. METHODS: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial in children (aged 6-18 years) with pollen-related AR. Patients received either INCS daily (fluticasone propionate), INCS on demand (fluticasone propionate) or oral antihistamine on demand (levocetirizine) for 3 months during the grass pollen season. A daily online symptom diary on both nose and eye symptoms was completed. The primary outcome was the percentage of symptom-free days. RESULTS: A total of 150 children were randomized. The percentage symptom-free days was in favour of INCS on demand (30%) compared with INCS daily (22%), that is 8% difference (95% CI -5 to +21%; not significant). The antihistamine on-demand group had 15% symptom-free days, that is 7% difference compared to INCS daily (95% CI -6 to +19%;, not significant). Patients in the INCS on-demand group used on average 61% less fluticasone than patients in the INCS daily group during the study period (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This trial with three parallel treatment groups shows that INCS daily was not superior to INCS on demand or to antihistamine on demand regarding the number of symptom-free days. An on-demand INCS strategy has the advantage of a lower overall corticosteroid exposure and less costs.

Defining pollen exposure times for clinical trials of allergen immunotherapy for pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis - an EAACI position paper.

BACKGROUND: Clinical efficacy of pollen allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been broadly documented in randomized controlled trials. The underlying clinical endpoints are analysed in seasonal time periods predefined based on the background pollen concentration. However, any validated or generally accepted definition from academia or regulatory authorities for this relevant pollen exposure intensity or period of time (season) is currently not available. Therefore, this Task Force initiative of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) aimed to propose definitions based on expert consensus. METHODS: A Task Force of the Immunotherapy and Aerobiology and Pollution Interest Groups of the EAACI reviewed the literature on pollen exposure in the context of defining relevant time intervals for evaluation of efficacy in AIT trials. Underlying principles in measuring pollen exposure and associated methodological problems and limitations were considered to achieve a consensus. RESULTS: The Task Force achieved a comprehensive position in defining pollen exposure times for different pollen types. Definitions are presented for 'pollen season', 'high pollen season' (or 'peak pollen period') and 'high pollen days'. CONCLUSION: This EAACI position paper provides definitions of pollen exposures for different pollen types for use in AIT trials. Their validity as standards remains to be tested in future studies.

Allergen exposure chambers: harmonizing current concepts and projecting the needs for the future - an EAACI Position Paper.

BACKGROUND: Allergen exposure chambers (AECs) are clinical facilities allowing for controlled exposure of subjects to allergens in an enclosed environment. AECs have contributed towards characterizing the pathophysiology of respiratory allergic diseases and the pharmacological properties of new therapies. In addition, they are complementary to and offer some advantages over traditional multicentre field trials for evaluation of novel therapeutics. To date, AEC studies conducted have been monocentric and have followed protocols unique to each centre. Because there are technical differences among AECs, it may be necessary to define parameters to standardize the AECs so that studies may be extrapolated for driving basic immunological research and for marketing authorization purposes by regulatory authorities. METHODS: For this task force initiative of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), experts from academia and regulatory agencies met with chamber operators to list technical, clinical and regulatory unmet needs as well as the prerequisites for clinical validation. RESULTS: The latter covered the validation process, standardization of challenges and outcomes, intra- and interchamber variability and reproducibility, in addition to comparability with field trials and specifics of paediatric trials and regulatory issues. CONCLUSION: This EAACI Position Paper aims to harmonize current concepts in AECs and to project unmet needs with the intent to enhance progress towards use of these facilities in determining safety and efficacy of new therapeutics in the future.

Use of the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARATkids) in children and adolescents: Validation in Dutch.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis and asthma are common and closely related diseases. Recently, a Portuguese questionnaire has been developed 'The Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test' (CARATkids) that measures disease control of both diseases in children. This study aims to validate the CARATkids in Dutch children and for the first time in adolescents and, in addition, to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted in an outpatient clinic. After translation of the CARATkids from Portuguese to Dutch, patients (6-18 years) with asthma or asthma and allergic rhinitis completed the CARATkids, Asthma Control Test, and visual analog scale questionnaire three times. Baseline characteristics, mean scores, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, cross-sectional and longitudinal validity, discriminative properties, responsiveness, and MCID of the CARATkids were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients were included. In total, 86% and 79%, respectively, completed the questionnaires at the second and third visits. All children had asthma, and 85% had concomitant allergic rhinitis. The internal consistency was good with all expected a priori correlations met. CARATkids scores were higher in patients with uncontrolled asthma and patients with moderate-severe rhinitis compared to better controlled subjects. Patients with a variable asthma control had significantly higher scores during periods of uncontrolled asthma. Also the Guyatt's responsiveness index was good. The MCID was 2.8. CONCLUSIONS: The CARATkids questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool to assess allergic rhinitis and asthma control among Dutch children. The tool can be used in adolescents.

Combining genomewide association study and lung eQTL analysis provides evidence for novel genes associated with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Genomewide association studies (GWASs) of asthma have identified single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that modestly increase the risk for asthma. This could be due to phenotypic heterogeneity of asthma. Bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) is a phenotypic hallmark of asthma. We aim to identify susceptibility genes for asthma combined with BHR and analyse the presence of cis-eQTLs among replicated SNPs. Secondly, we compare the genetic association of SNPs previously associated with (doctor's diagnosed) asthma to our GWAS of asthma with BHR. METHODS: A GWAS was performed in 920 asthmatics with BHR and 980 controls. Top SNPs of our GWAS were analysed in four replication cohorts, and lung cis-eQTL analysis was performed on replicated SNPs. We investigated association of SNPs previously associated with asthma in our data. RESULTS: A total of 368 SNPs were followed up for replication. Six SNPs in genes encoding ABI3BP, NAF1, MICA and the 17q21 locus replicated in one or more cohorts, with one locus (17q21) achieving genomewide significance after meta-analysis. Five of 6 replicated SNPs regulated 35 gene transcripts in whole lung. Eight of 20 asthma-associated SNPs from previous GWAS were significantly associated with asthma and BHR. Three SNPs, in IL-33 and GSDMB, showed larger effect sizes in our data compared to published literature. CONCLUSIONS: Combining GWAS with subsequent lung eQTL analysis revealed disease-associated SNPs regulating lung mRNA expression levels of potential new asthma genes. Adding BHR to the asthma definition does not lead to an overall larger genetic effect size than analysing (doctor's diagnosed) asthma.

No difference in health-related quality of life, after a food challenge with cashew nut in children participating in a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies showed that health-related quality of life (HRQL) significantly improved after the food challenge, with greater improvements in HRQL after a negative outcome than after a positive outcome. It is currently unknown whether this also occurs in patients undergoing DBPCFCs with cashew nut in the context of a clinical trial. METHODS: Quality of life was studied in children enrolled in a cashew nut study using Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaires (FAQLQs). Children, teenagers and parents of the children completed the questionnaires before the challenge test and 6 months after the DBPCFC with cashew nut. The difference in the change in HRQL between the children with a positive and negative DBPCFC outcome was studied by Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: In total, 112 children (67 boys, median age of 9 years) were included. The children, teenagers and parents of the children completed 143 sets of questionnaires in total. There were no significant differences in baseline total and domain scores compared to the follow-up scores in the FAQLQ-CF, FAQLQ-TF and FAQLQ-PF. In children, the delta FAIM score in the negative DBPCFC tested group was significantly better than the delta FAIM score in the positive challenged group (p = 0.026). There were no significant differences in the changes in the scores of the FAQLQ-CF and FAQLQ-PF in the children with a positive challenge outcome, compared to the children with a negative challenge result. However, there was a significant difference in the change in score between the latter groups in the domain 'accidental exposure' of the FAQLQ-TF (p = 0.049). CONCLUSION: This study showed no difference in the change in HRQL scores after a DBPCFC with cashew nut in children participating in a clinical trial. The utility of HRQL as an outcome for clinical trials in food allergy may be limited if participant baseline HRQL is relatively unimpaired.

Occupational anaphylaxis--an EAACI task force consensus statement.

Anaphylaxis is a systemic allergic reaction, potentially life-threatening that can be due to nonoccupational or, less commonly, to occupational triggers. Occupational anaphylaxis (OcAn) could be defined as anaphylaxis arising out of triggers and conditions attributable to a particular work environment. Hymenoptera stings and natural rubber latex are the commonest triggers of OcAn. Other triggers include food, medications, insect/mammal/snake bites, and chemicals. The underlying mechanisms of anaphylactic reactions due to occupational exposure are usually IgE-mediated and less frequently non-IgE-mediated allergy or nonallergic. Some aspects of work-related allergen exposure, such as route and frequency of exposure, type of allergens, and cofactors may explain the variability of symptoms in contrast to the nonoccupational setting. When assessing OcAn, both confirmation of the diagnosis of anaphylactic reaction and identification of the trigger are required. Prevention of further episodes is important and is based on removal from further exposure. Workers with a history of OcAn should immediately be provided with a written emergency management plan and an adrenaline auto-injector and educated to its use. Immunotherapy is recommended only for OcAn due to Hymenoptera stings.

Clinical contraindications to allergen immunotherapy: an EAACI position paper.

Clinical indications for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in respiratory and Hymenoptera venom allergy are well established; however, clinical contraindications to AIT are not always well documented. There are some discrepancies when classifying clinical contraindications for different forms of AIT as 'absolute' or 'relative'. EAACI Task Force on 'Contraindications to AIT' was created to evaluate and review current literature on clinical contraindications, and to update recommendations for both sublingual and subcutaneous AIT for respiratory and venom immunotherapy. An extensive review of the literature was performed on the use of AIT in asthma, autoimmune disorders, malignant neoplasias, cardiovascular diseases, acquired immunodeficiencies and other chronic diseases (including mental disorders), in patients treated with ß-blockers, ACE inhibitors or monoamine oxidase inhibitors, in children under 5 years of age, during pregnancy and in patients with poor compliance. Each topic was addressed by the following three questions: (1) Are there any negative effects of AIT on this concomitant condition/disease? (2) Are more frequent or more severe AIT-related side-effects expected? and (3) Is AIT expected to be less efficacious? The evidence, for the evaluation of these clinical conditions as contraindications, was limited, and most of the conclusions were based on case reports. Based on an extended literature research, recommendations for each medical condition assessed are provided. The final decision on the administration of AIT should be based on individual evaluation of any medical condition and a risk/benefit assessment for each patient.

Failure of introduction of food allergens after negative oral food challenge tests in children.

UNLABELLED: One of the purposes to perform an oral food challenge (FC) test is to avoid unnecessary elimination of food allergens. In case of a negative FC test result, the food can be introduced. It is, however, unknown if patients act according to the outcome of the test. This study evaluates the rate of introduction of peanut, hazelnut, cow's milk or hen's egg allergens after a negative FC test. We investigated the introduction rate of children (0-18 years) with a negative FC test visiting the Department of Allergology, Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam from 2008 till 2013 and the factors that influence the rate of introduction. Patients were asked to complete a comprehensive questionnaire about their FC test. In total, 157 (38% girls, mean age during challenge 6.9 years) participated in the study. Of these FC tests, 104 (56%) were followed by a successful introduction, 30 (16%) by a partly introduction (traces or processed foods) and 52 (28%) by a failed introduction. Peanut and hazelnut showed a statistically significant lower successful introduction rate. Age, gender, symptoms during FC test, dietary advice and time period to introduction significantly influenced the rate of introduction. One fourth of the children with failure of introducing foods experienced symptoms during the introduction. CONCLUSION: More than one quarter of all children with a negative FC test result did not introduce the food. The FC test in its current form does not achieve its objective for this group of children.

Systematic review on cashew nut allergy.

Recent studies on cashew nut allergy suggest that the prevalence of cashew nut allergy is increasing. Cashew nut consumption by allergic patients can cause severe reactions, including anaphylaxis. This review summarizes current knowledge on cashew nut allergy to facilitate timely clinical recognition and to promote awareness of this emerging food allergy amongst clinicians. The goal of this study is to present a systematic review focused on the clinical aspects of allergy to cashew nut including the characteristics of cashew nut, the prevalence, allergenic components, cross-reactivity, diagnosis and management of cashew nut allergy. The literature search yielded 255 articles of which 40 met our selection criteria and were considered to be relevant for this review. The 40 articles included one prospective study, six retrospective studies and seven case reports. The remaining 26 papers were not directly related to cashew nut allergy. The literature suggests that the prevalence of cashew nut allergy is increasing, although the level of evidence for this is low. A minimal amount of cashew nut allergen may cause a severe allergic reaction, suggesting high potency comparable with other tree nuts and peanuts. Cashew allergy is clearly an underestimated important healthcare problem, especially in children.

EAACI Position Paper on assessment of cough in the workplace.

Cough is a nonspecific and relatively common symptom that can present difficulties in diagnosis and management, particularly when it is reported to be associated with the workplace. The present consensus document, prepared by a taskforce of the Interest Group on Occupational Allergy of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology by means of a nonsystematic review of the current literature, is intended to provide a definition and classification of work-related chronic cough (WRCC) to assist the daily practice of physicians facing with this symptom. The review demonstrates that several upper and lower airway work-related diseases may present with chronic cough; hence, the possible link with the workplace should always be considered. Due to the broad spectrum of underlying diseases, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary to achieve a definite diagnosis. Nevertheless, more epidemiological studies are necessary to estimate the real prevalence and risk factors for WRCC, the role of exposure to environmental and occupational sensitizers and irritants in its pathogenesis and the interaction with both upper and lower airways. Finally, the best management option should be evaluated in order to achieve the best outcome without adverse social and financial consequences for the worker.

EAACI position paper: irritant-induced asthma.

The term irritant-induced (occupational) asthma (IIA) has been used to denote various clinical forms of asthma related to irritant exposure at work. The causal relationship between irritant exposure(s) and the development of asthma can be substantiated by the temporal association between the onset of asthma symptoms and a single or multiple high-level exposure(s) to irritants, whereas this relationship can only be inferred from epidemiological data for workers chronically exposed to moderate levels of irritants. Accordingly, the following clinical phenotypes should be distinguished within the wide spectrum of irritant-related asthma: (i) definite IIA, that is acute-onset IIA characterized by the rapid onset of asthma within a few hours after a single exposure to very high levels of irritant substances; (ii) probable IIA, that is asthma that develops in workers with multiple symptomatic high-level exposures to irritants; and (iii) possible IIA, that is asthma occurring with a delayed-onset after chronic exposure to moderate levels of irritants. This document prepared by a panel of experts summarizes our current knowledge on the diagnostic approach, epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management of the various phenotypes of IIA.