Cow's milk and egg protein threshold dose distributions in children tolerant to beef, baked milk, and baked egg.

BACKGROUND: The use of eliciting doses (EDs) for food allergens is necessary to inform individual dietary advice and food allergen risk-management. The Eliciting Dose 01 (ED01) for milk and egg, calculated from populations of allergic subjects undergoing oral food challenges (OFCs), are 0.2 mg total protein. The respective Eliciting Dose 05 (ED05) is 2.4 mg for milk and 2.3 mg for egg. As about 70% children allergic to such foods may tolerate them when baked, we sought to verify the EDs of that subpopulation of milk and egg-allergic children. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed consecutive OFC for fresh milk and egg between January 2018 and December 2020 in a population of baked food-tolerant children. RESULTS: Among 288 children (median age 56 - IQR 36-92.5 months, 67.1% male) included, 87 (30.2%) returned positive OFC results, 38 with milk and 49 with egg. The most conservative ED01 was 0.3 mg total protein (IQR 0.03-2.9) for milk and 14.4 mg total protein (IQR 3.6-56.9) for egg. The respective ED05 was 4.2 (IQR 0.9-19.6) mg for milk and 87.7 (IQR 43-179) mg for egg. Such thresholds are, respectively, 1.5 (milk ED01), 1.75 (milk ED05), 72 (egg ED01), and 38.35 (egg ED05) times higher than the currently used thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: The subpopulation of children allergic to milk and egg, but tolerant to baked proteins, displays higher reactivity thresholds than the general population of children allergic to milk and egg. Their risk stratification, in both individual and population terms, should consider this difference. In baked milk-tolerant children, milk causes reactions at lower doses than egg in our group of egg-tolerant children. This could be associated with the relative harmlessness of egg compared with milk in the determinism of fatal anaphylactic reactions in children.

Gut Microbiota Profile in Children with IgE-Mediated Cow's Milk Allergy and Cow's Milk Sensitization and Probiotic Intestinal Persistence Evaluation.

Food allergy (FA) and, in particular, IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy is associated with compositional and functional changes of gut microbiota. In this study, we compared the gut microbiota of cow's milk allergic (CMA) infants with that of cow's milk sensitized (CMS) infants and Healthy controls. The effect of the intake of a mixture of Bifidobacterium longum subsp. longum BB536, Bifidobacterium breve M-16V and Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis M-63 on gut microbiota modulation of CMA infants and probiotic persistence was also investigated. Gut microbiota of CMA infants resulted to be characterized by a dysbiotic status with a prevalence of some bacteria as Haemophilus, Klebsiella, Prevotella, Actinobacillus and Streptococcus. Among the three strains administered, B.longum subsp. infantis colonized the gastrointestinal tract and persisted in the gut microbiota of infants with CMA for 60 days. This colonization was associated with perturbations of the gut microbiota, specifically with the increase of Akkermansia and Ruminococcus. Multi-strain probiotic formulations can be studied for their persistence in the intestine by monitoring specific bacterial probes persistence and exploiting microbiota profiling modulation before the evaluation of their therapeutic effects.

SIRM-SIAAIC consensus, an Italian document on management of patients at risk of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media.

Hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to contrast media (CM) can be distinguished in immune-mediated (including allergic reactions) and non-immune-mediated reactions, even if clinical manifestations could be similar. Such manifestations range from mild skin eruptions to severe anaphylaxis, making it important for radiologists to know how to identify and manage them. A panel of experts from the Società Italiana di Radiologia Medica e Interventistica (SIRM) and the Società Italiana di Allergologia, Asma e Immunologia Clinica (SIAAIC) provided a consensus document on the management of patients who must undergo radiological investigations with CM. Consensus topics included: the risk stratification of patients, the identification of the culprit CM and of a safe alternative by an allergy workup, as well as the use of premedication and the correct procedure to safely perform an elective (i.e., scheduled) or urgent examination. The most important recommendations are: (1) in all patients, a thorough medical history must be taken by the prescribing physician and/or the radiologist to identify at-risk patients; (2) in patients with hypersensitivity reactions to CM, the radiologist must consider an alternative, non-contrast imaging study with a comparable diagnostic value, or prescribe a different investigation with another class of CM; (3) if such options are not feasible, the radiologist must address at-risk patients to a reference centre for an allergy evaluation; (4) if timely referral to an allergist is not viable, it is recommended to use a CM other than the responsible one, taking into account cross-reactivity patterns; in the case of patients with histories of severe reactions, the presence of an anesthesiologist is also recommended and a premedication is suggested.

Non-immediate Cutaneous Reactions to Beta-Lactams: Approach to Diagnosis.

Non-immediate cutaneous reactions (i.e., occurring at least 1 h after the initial drug administration), particularly maculopapular exanthemas and urticarial eruptions, are common during beta-lactam treatments. A T cell-mediated pathogenic mechanism has been demonstrated in some cutaneous reactions, such as maculopapular exanthema, fixed drug eruption, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, and drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome. In the diagnostic work-up, patch testing is useful, together with delayed-reading intradermal testing. Patch tests are a simple and safe diagnostic tool, which in the case of severe reactions should be used as the first line of investigation. However, patch tests are less sensitive than intradermal tests, which are preferable in subjects with mild reactions. Lymphocyte transformation or activation tests and enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assays can be used as complementary tests. In selected cases of mild or moderate reactions, displaying negative results in the aforesaid allergy tests, a graded challenge with the implicated beta-lactam can be performed.

Cross-reactivity and tolerability of aztreonam and cephalosporins in subjects with a T cell-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins.

BACKGROUND: The few studies performed in adults with T cell-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins have found a rate of cross-reactivity with cephalosporins ranging from 2.8% to 31.2% and an absence of cross-reactivity with aztreonam. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the possibility of using cephalosporins and aztreonam in subjects with documented delayed hypersensitivity to penicillins who especially require them. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of 214 consecutive subjects who had 307 nonimmediate reactions to penicillins (almost exclusively aminopenicillins) and had positive patch test and/or delayed-reading skin test responses to at least 1 penicillin reagent. To assess cross-reactivity with cephalosporins and aztreonam and the tolerability of such alternative ß-lactams, all subjects underwent skin tests with cephalexin, cefaclor, cefadroxil, cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam. Subjects with negative responses were challenged with the alternative ß-lactams concerned. RESULTS: All subjects had negative skin test results to cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam and tolerated challenges. Forty (18.7%) of the 214 subjects had positive skin test responses to at least 1 aminocephalosporin. Of the 174 subjects with negative responses, 170 underwent challenges; 1 reacted to cefaclor. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate a rate of cross-reactivity between aminopenicillins and aminocephalosporins (ie, cephalexin, cefaclor, and cefadroxil) of around 20%, as well as the absence of cross-reactivity between penicillins and cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam in all subjects with T cell-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins, almost exclusively aminopenicillins. Therefore these subjects could be treated with cefuroxime, ceftriaxone, and aztreonam. In those who especially require cephalosporin or aztreonam treatment, however, we recommend pretreatment skin tests because negative responses indicate tolerability.

Cross-Reactivity among Beta-Lactams.

Penicillins and cephalosporins are the major classes of beta-lactam (BL) antibiotics in use today and one of the most frequent causes of hypersensitivity reactions to drugs. Monobactams, carbapenems, oxacephems, and beta-lactamase inhibitors constitute the four minor classes of BLs. This review takes into account mainly the prospective studies which evaluated cross-reactivity among BLs in subjects with a well-demonstrated hypersensitivity to a certain class of BLs by performing allergy tests with alternative BLs and, in case of negative results, administering them. In subjects with either IgE-mediated or T-cell-mediated hypersensitivity, cross-reactivity among BLs, particularly among penicillins and among cephalosporins, as well as between penicillins and cephalosporins, seems to be mainly related to structural similarities among their side-chain determinants. Specifically, in penicillin-allergic subjects, cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins may exceed 30% when they are administered cephalosporins with identical side chains to those of responsible penicillins. In these subjects, a few prospective studies have demonstrated a rate of cross-reactivity between penicillins and both carbapenems and aztreonam lower than 1%. With regard to subjects with an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to cephalosporins, in a single study, about 25% of the 98 subjects with such hypersensitivity had positive results to penicillins, 3% to aztreonam, 2% to imipenem/cilastatin, and 1% to meropenem. The cross-reactivity related to the selective recognition of the BL ring by IgE or T lymphocytes, which entails positive responses to all BLs tested, appears to be exceptional. Some studies concerning cross-reactivity among BLs have found patterns of allergy-test positivity which cannot be explained by either the common BL ring or by similar or identical side chains, thus indicating the possibility of coexisting sensitivities to different BLs because of prior exposures to them.

Tolerability of aztreonam and carbapenems in patients with IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins.

BACKGROUND: Studies performed on samples larger than 100 subjects with a documented IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins have demonstrated a cross-reactivity rate of approximately 1% between penicillins and both imipenem and meropenem, whereas a single study found a cross-reactivity rate of 6.2% with aztreonam in 16 such subjects. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cross-reactivity and tolerability of aztreonam and 3 carbapenems (imipenem-cilastatin, meropenem, and ertapenem) in patients with documented IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to penicillins. METHODS: A total of 212 consecutive subjects with immediate reactions to penicillins and positive results on skin tests to at least 1 penicillin reagent underwent skin tests with aztreonam and carbapenems; subjects with negative results were challenged with escalating doses of aztreonam and carbapenems. RESULTS: All subjects displayed negative skin test results to both aztreonam and carbapenems; 211 accepted challenges and tolerated them. Challenges were not followed by full therapeutic courses. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate the tolerability of both aztreonam and carbapenems in penicillin-allergic subjects. In those who especially require these alternative ß-lactams, however, we recommend pretreatment skin tests, both because rare cases of cross-reactivity have been reported and because negative results indicate tolerability.

IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to cephalosporins: Cross-reactivity and tolerability of alternative cephalosporins.

BACKGROUND: Studies regarding the cross-reactivity and tolerability of alternative cephalosporins in large samples of subjects with an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to cephalosporins are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the possibility of using alternative cephalosporins in subjects with cephalosporin allergy who especially require them. METHODS: One hundred two subjects with immediate reactions to cephalosporins and positive skin test results to the responsible drugs underwent serum specific IgE assays with cefaclor and skin tests with different cephalosporins. Subjects were classified in 4 groups: group A, positive responses to 1 or more of ceftriaxone, cefuroxime, cefotaxime, cefepime, cefodizime, and ceftazidime; group B, positive responses to aminocephalosporins; group C, positive responses to cephalosporins other than those belonging to the aforementioned groups; and group D, positive responses to cephalosporins belonging to 2 different groups. Group A subjects underwent challenges with cefaclor, cefazolin, and ceftibuten; group B participants underwent challenges with cefuroxime axetil, ceftriaxone, cefazolin, and ceftibuten; and group C and D subjects underwent challenges with some of the aforementioned cephalosporins selected on the basis of their patterns of positivity. RESULTS: There were 73 subjects in group A, 13 in group B, 7 in group C, and 9 in group D. Challenges with alternative cephalosporins (ceftibuten in 101, cefazolin in 96, cefaclor in 82, and cefuroxime axetil and ceftriaxone in 22 subjects) were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Cephalosporin hypersensitivity does not seem to be a class hypersensitivity. Subjects with cephalosporin allergy who especially require alternative cephalosporins might be treated with compounds that have side-chain determinants different from those of the responsible cephalosporins and have negative pretreatment skin test responses.

Perspectives in precautionary allergen labelling of prepackaged foods after the FAO/WHO consultation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the perspectives regarding precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) of prepackaged foods following the consultation conducted by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the WHO. RECENT FINDINGS: The FAO/WHO consultation provided a comprehensive assessment of the current status and practices of PAL implementation worldwide. One of the key findings highlighted by the Expert Committee was the need for improvement in existing PAL systems. It was noted that many countries lacked uniformity in PAL practices, leading to inconsistencies in labelling and potentially misleading information for consumers. Furthermore, the consultation emphasized the importance of PAL being risk-based, taking into account both the amount and frequency of unintended allergen presence (UAP) in food products. SUMMARY: The FAO/WHO consultation shed light on various perspectives and challenges associated with PAL of prepackaged foods. Key findings emphasized the need for improvement in existing PAL systems, including the adoption of a risk-based approach, standardized regulations, and enhanced transparency. Moving forward, collaborative efforts between regulatory agencies, food manufacturers, and consumer advocacy groups will be essential in developing effective PAL strategies that prioritize consumer safety and well being.

Local Anesthetic Hypersensitivity Reactions in Pediatric Patients: Recognition and Management.

Local anesthetics (LAs) are commonly used in all medical specialties, particularly in association with surgery, obstetrics, dentistry, and emergency departments. Most individuals, starting from young children, are exposed to LAs during life. LA hardly induces adverse events when used in recommended doses and with proper injection techniques. However, immediate anaphylactic reactions to LA injections may be a rare but life-threatening manifestation. A comprehensive report of the event and performing a specialist examination are crucial to prevent further episodes. The diagnosis should be based on history, medical records, skin and challenge tests.

Botanical Impurities in the Supply Chain: A New Allergenic Risk Exacerbated by Geopolitical Challenges.

BACKGROUND: The supply chains of food raw materials have recently been heavily influenced by geopolitical events. Products that came from, or transited through, areas currently in conflict are now preferentially supplied from alternative areas. These changes may entail risks for food safety. METHODS: We review the potential allergenicity of botanical impurities, specifically vegetable contaminants, with particular attention to the contamination of vegetable oils. We delve into the diverse types of botanical impurities, their sources, and the associated allergenic potential. Our analysis encompasses an evaluation of the regulatory framework governing botanical impurities in food labeling. RESULTS: Unintended plant-derived contaminants may manifest in raw materials during various stages of food production, processing, or storage, posing a risk of allergic reactions for individuals with established food allergies. Issues may arise from natural occurrence, cross-contamination in the supply chain, and contamination at during production. The food and food service industries are responsible for providing and preparing foods that are safe for people with food allergies: we address the challenges inherent in risk assessment of botanical impurities. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of botanical impurities emerges as a significant risk factor for food allergies in the 2020s. We advocate for regulatory authorities to fortify labeling requirements and develop robust risk assessment tools. These measures are necessary to enhance consumer awareness regarding the potential risks posed by these contaminants.

Evaluation and Updated Classification of Acute Hypersensitivity Reactions to Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs): NSAID-Exacerbated or -Induced Food Allergy.

BACKGROUND: There are hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) to foods in which nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) act as aggravating factors (NSAID-exacerbated food allergy [NEFA]) or cofactors (NSAID-induced food allergy [NIFA]), often misdiagnosed as HRs to NSAIDs. Urticarial/angioedematous and/or anaphylactic reactions to two or more chemically unrelated NSAIDs do not meet current classification criteria. However, they may be considered part of a cross-reactive type of acute HR, which is NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema with or without respiratory or systemic symptoms of anaphylaxis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patients reporting acute HRs to NSAIDs and classify them according to updated criteria. METHODS: We prospectively studied 414 patients with suspected HRs to NSAIDs. For all whom met these criteria, NEFA/NIFA was diagnosed: (1) mild reactions to (NEFA) or tolerance of (NIFA) the suspected foods without taking NSAIDs; (2) cutaneous and/or anaphylactic reactions to the combination foods plus NSAIDs; (3) positive allergy tests to the suspected foods; and (4) negative drug challenges (DCs) with the NSAIDs involved. RESULTS: A total of 252 patients were given the diagnosis of NSAID hypersensitivity (60.9%), 108 of whom had NSAID-induced urticaria/angioedema with or without respiratory or systemic symptoms of anaphylaxis. We excluded NSAID hypersensitivity in 162 patients (39.1%) who tolerated DCs with the suspected NSAIDs, nine of whom received a diagnosis of NEFA, and 66 of NIFA. Pru p 3 was implicated in 67 of those 75 patients who received a diagnosis of NEFA or NIFA. CONCLUSIONS: NEFA and NIFA account for about 18% of patients reporting HRs to NSAIDs, in which Pru p 3 is the main responsible food allergen. Therefore, patients with cutaneous and/or anaphylactic reactions to NSAIDs should be carefully questioned about all foods ingested within 4 hours before or after NSAID exposure, and targeted food allergy tests should be considered in the diagnostic workup of these patients. If testing is positive, DCs with the suspected NSAIDs should also be considered.

Diagnosing multiple drug hypersensitivity in children.

BACKGROUND: Multiple drug hypersensitivity (MDH) has been defined as a hypersensitivity to two or more chemically different drugs. Two types of MDH have been reported: the first one, which develops to different drugs administered simultaneously and the second type, in which sensitizations develop sequentially. In children, studies which diagnose MDH on the basis of positive allergologic tests to 2 or more chemically different drugs are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study evaluating children with histories of MDH by skin tests, patch tests, serum-specific IgE assays, and drug provocation tests. RESULTS: A MDH was diagnosed in 7 (2.5%) of the 279 children evaluated who completed the study. The responsible drugs were ß-lactams (penicillins and cephalosporins) in 5 episodes, ibuprofen and anticonvulsants in 3, and erythromycin, fentanyl, methylprednisolone, and cotrimoxazole in 1. Sensitivity to 2 chemically different drugs was diagnosed in 6 children and to 3 drugs in 1 child. Two of the 7 children presented the first type of MDH, whereas 5 displayed the second one. CONCLUSIONS: MDH can occur in children, even to drugs other than antibiotics. It is crucial to evaluate children with histories of MDH using both in vivo and in vitro allergologic tests, including challenges. In fact, such approach allows the physician to confirm the diagnosis of MDH in a small percentage of children with histories of MDH, as well as to rule it out in the great majority of them.

The Combined Use of Chronological and Morphological Criteria in the Evaluation of Immediate Penicillin Reactions: Evidence From a Large Study.

BACKGROUND: Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins are often labeled on the basis of a similar set of symptoms, but a key feature of these reactions that can be reproduced in diagnostic testing may be the timing of a reaction in relation to the dose administration. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the timing of a reaction in response to the last dose of a penicillin would predict the results of diagnostic testing. METHODS: We evaluated 1074 patients by performing skin tests, serum specific IgE assays (ImmunoCAP), and challenges. Patients who were evaluated by us more than 6 months after their reactions and found negative were reevaluated within 2 to 4 weeks. RESULTS: Patients who had reacted within 1 hour after the first dose, within 1 hour after subsequent doses, more than 1 hour to within 6 hours after the first dose, or more than 1 hour to within 6 hours after subsequent doses were classified as group A (758 individuals), B (92), C (67), or D (157), respectively. Penicillin hypersensitivity was diagnosed in 707 patients (65.8%) by skin tests (407 patients, 57.6%), ImmunoCAP (47, 6.6%), both tests (232, 32.8%), or challenges (21, 3%). A conversion to allergy-test positivity occurred in 7 of 10 patients with anaphylactic reactions and in 1 of 28 patients with other reactions who were reevaluated after negative challenges. The rate of penicillin-allergic patients in groups A, B, C, and D was 85%, 35.9%, 35.8%, and 3.8%, respectively. Only 1 of 107 patients reporting cutaneous reactions lasting more than 1 day had positive results to allergy tests. CONCLUSIONS: IgE-mediated hypersensitivity can be diagnosed by skin tests in about 70% of subjects who react within 1 hour (eg, patients from groups A and B). This hypersensitivity can be lost over time, as demonstrated by the negativization of allergy tests in follow-up studies. In subjects with anaphylactic reactions, however, it is advisable to not consider this phenomenon definitive. In fact, a conversion to allergy test positivity can be observed in up to 20% of such subjects retested after negative challenges.

IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to cephalosporins: cross-reactivity and tolerability of penicillins, monobactams, and carbapenems.

BACKGROUND: There have been few studies regarding the cross-reactivity and tolerability of penicillins, aztreonam, and carbapenems in large samples of subjects with cephalosporin allergy. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the possibility of using penicillins, monobactams, and carbapenems in subjects with cephalosporin allergy who especially require them. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study of 98 consecutive subjects who had 106 immediate reactions (mostly anaphylactic shock) to cephalosporins and had positive skin test results for these drugs. To assess the cross-reactivity with penicillins, monobactams, and carbapenems and the tolerability of such alternative ß-lactams, all subjects underwent skin tests and serum-specific IgE assays with penicillin reagents, as well as skin tests with aztreonam, imipenem/cilastatin, and meropenem. Subjects with negative test results were challenged with meropenem, imipenem/cilastatin, aztreonam, and amoxicillin. RESULTS: Positive allergologic test results to penicillins were displayed by 25 (25.5%) subjects, including 1 with positive results to all reagents tested and another with a positive result to aztreonam. Another subject had positive results to both ceftazidime and aztreonam. A reaction to cephalosporins with side-chain structures similar or identical to those of penicillins was a significant predictor of cross-reactivity because of an increased 3-fold risk of positive results on allergologic tests with penicillin determinants. Challenges with alternative ß-lactams were tolerated, with the exception of 1 urticarial reaction to imipenem/cilastatin. CONCLUSIONS: About 25% of subjects with cephalosporin allergy had positive results to penicillins, 3.1% to aztreonam, 2% to imipenem/cilastatin, and 1% to meropenem. In those who especially require alternative ß-lactams, pretreatment skin tests are advisable because negative results indicate tolerability of the ß-lactam concerned.

ß-Lactam Allergy and Cross-Reactivity: A Clinician's Guide to Selecting an Alternative Antibiotic.

ß-Lactams which include penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems, and monobactams are the most common antibiotic classes reported to cause allergic reactions to drugs. This review is mainly about published studies assessing the cross-reactivity among ß-lactams in penicillin- or cephalosporin-allergic subjects by carrying out diagnostic tests with alternative ß-lactams and, if appropriate, graded challenges. Several studies demonstrated that cross-reactivity connected with the ß-lactam ring, causing positive responses to allergy tests with all ß-lactams, is infrequent in subjects with an IgE-mediated allergy and anecdotal in those with a T-cell-mediated allergy. Identities or similarities of ß-lactam side-chain structures are mainly responsible for cross-reactivity among these antibiotics. For example, in aminopenicillin-allergic subjects, cross-reactivity with aminocephalosporins could possibly be over 30%. On the other hand, in a few prospective studies of penicillin-allergic individuals, less than 1% of cases show a cross-reactivity between penicillins and both aztreonam and carbapenems. Particular patterns of allergy-test positivity observed in some studies that assessed cross-reactivity among ß-lactams seem to indicate that prior exposures may be responsible for coexisting sensitivities. Therefore, pre-treatment skin tests with the related ß-lactams are suggested before administering them via graded challenges to ß-lactam-allergic patients who need alternative ß-lactams.