Ara h 2-specific IgE is superior to whole peanut extract-based serology or skin prick test for diagnosis of peanut allergy in infancy.

BACKGROUND: Screening of high-risk infants for peanut allergy (PA) before introduction is now recommended in the United States, but the optimal approach is not clear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the diagnostic test characteristics of peanut skin prick test (SPT), peanut-specific IgE (sIgE), and sIgE to peanut components in a screening population of infants before known peanut exposure. METHODS: Infants aged 4 to 11 months with (1) no history of peanut ingestion, testing, or reaction and (2) (a) moderate-severe eczema, (b) history of food allergy, and/or (c) first-degree relative with a history of PA received peanut SPT, peanut-sIgE and component-IgE testing, and, depending on SPT wheal size, oral food challenge or observed feeding. Receiver-operator characteristic areas under the curve (AUCs) were compared, and diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 321 subjects completed the enrollment visit (median age, 7.2 months; 58% males), and 37 (11%) were found to have PA. Overall, Ara h 2-sIgE at a cutoff point of 0.1 kUa/L discriminated between allergic and nonallergic best (AUC, 0.96; sensitivity, 94%; specificity, 98%), compared with peanut-sIgE at 0.1 kUa/L (AUC, 0.89; sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 78%) or 0.35 kUa/L (AUC, 0.91; sensitivity, 97%; specificity, 86%), or SPT at wheal size 3 mm (AUC, 0.90; sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 88%) or 8 mm (AUC, 0.87; sensitivity, 73%; specificity, 99%). Ara h 1-sIgE and Ara h 3-sIgE did not add to prediction of PA when included in a model with Ara h 2-sIgE, and Ara h 8-sIgE discriminated poorly (AUC, 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of only Ara h 2-sIgE should be considered if screening of high-risk infants is performed before peanut introduction.

Emerging therapies for food allergy.

Food allergy is a common condition for which there are currently no approved treatments except avoidance of the allergenic food and treatment of accidental reactions. There are several potential treatments that are under active investigation in animal and human studies, but it is not yet clear what the best approach may be. Here, we review approaches that are currently in clinical trials, including oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous immunotherapy, immunotherapy combined with anti-IgE, and Chinese herbal medicine as well as approaches that are in preclinical or early clinical investigation, including modified protein immunotherapy, adjuvants, DNA vaccines, and helminth administration. We discuss the importance of fully exploring the risks and benefits of any treatment before it is taken to general clinical practice and the need for clarity about the goals of treatment.