Low dietary adherence after a positive food challenge in food allergic adults.

BACKGROUND: After a positive food challenge (FC), patients receive dietary advice regarding avoidance of the culprit food. We examined the frequency and variables associated with dietary adherence after a positive FC in adults. METHODS: In this prospective daily practice study, adults with a positive FC were included. After every FC, dietary advice was given consisting of three options: (1) strict avoidance, (2) avoidance but products with precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) allowed and (3) (small) amounts allowed. Questionnaires about dietary adherence and associated variables were completed prior to and 6 months after the FC(s). RESULTS: 41 patients (with 58 positive FCs) were included. Overall, patients adhered to the advised diet after 31% of the FCs. After 33 FCs, the advice was strict avoidance, whereof 82% followed a less strict diet. After 16 FCs, the advice was avoidance but products with PAL allowed, whereof 19% followed a less strict and 25% a stricter diet. In 9 FCs with the least strict advice, "(small) amounts allowed'', 67% followed a stricter diet. Three variables were associated with adherence: misremembering dietary advice, impaired health-related quality of life (HRQL) on domain "Emotional impact'' and the need for dietary change after the FC. CONCLUSION: After one third of the positive FCs, patients adhered to the dietary advice. Variables associated with adherence were misremembering dietary advice, impaired HRQL on domain "Emotional impact'' and the need for dietary change after the FC. It seems important that healthcare professionals should more frequently apply adherence-enhancing strategies to improve dietary adherence.

Reintroduction failure after negative food challenges in adults is common and mainly due to atypical symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Reintroduction of a food after negative food challenge (FC) faces many obstacles. There are no studies available about this subject in adults. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the frequency, reasons and risk factors of reintroduction failure in adults. METHODS: In this prospective study, adult patients received standardized follow-up care after negative FCs including a reintroduction scheme and supportive telephone consultations. Data were collected by telephone interview (2 weeks after FC) and questionnaires (at baseline and 6 months after FC(s)): food habits questionnaire, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Adult Form and Food Allergy Independent Measure. Frequency and reasons of reintroduction failure were analysed using descriptive statistics and risk factors with univariate analyses. RESULTS: Eighty patients were included with, in total, 113 negative FCs. Reintroduction failed on short-term (2 weeks after FC) in 20% (95% CI: 13%-28%). Common reasons were symptoms upon ingestion during the reintroduction scheme (50%) and no need to eat the food (23%). On the long-term (5-12 months after FC(s)), reintroduction failure increased to 40% (95% CI: 28%-53%). Common reasons were atypical symptoms after eating the food (59%) and fear for an allergic reaction (24%). Five risk factors for long-term reintroduction failure were found: if culprit food was not one of the 13 EU regulated allergens, reintroduction failure at short-term, atypical symptoms during FC, a lower quality of life and a higher state anxiety. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Reintroduction failure after negative FCs in adults is common, increases over time, and is primarily due to atypical symptoms. This stresses the need for more patient-tailored care before and after negative food challenges.

Sesame oleosins are minor allergens.

BACKGROUND: In daily practice, one-third of sesame allergic patients, confirmed by clinical history or food challenge, do not show any detectable specific IgE using current diagnostics. Currently used sesame extracts are water-based and therefore lacking hydrophobic proteins like oleosins. Oleosins, the stabilizer of lipid droplets in plants, are described as allergens in sesame, peanut and hazelnut. In this study, we examine the role of oleosins in sesame allergy and their potential cross-reactivity between sesame and (pea)nuts. METHODS: Specific IgE and IgG sensitisation to native and heterologously expressed sesame components and oleosins from other nuts, free of seed storage proteins, was assessed by line blot and sera from 17 sesame allergic patients without detectable specific IgE sensitisation to sesame, and compared to 18 sesame allergic and 13 tolerant patients with specific IgE sensitisation to sesame. RESULTS: Sesame allergic patients without sensitisation showed no specific IgE to the tested sesame oleosins or components. Low levels of specific IgE to sesame oleosins were detected in 17% of sesame allergic and 15% of tolerant patients with sIgE sensitisation. Oleosins were recognised by serum IgG from multiple patients confirming immune reactivity and excluding technical issues leading to lack of specific IgE-binding to oleosins. CONCLUSION: Sesame oleosins are minor allergens and appear to have no additonal value in diagnosing sesame allergy in adults based on sIgE and sIgG detection. There is a high need for additional diagnostic tools in those patients to minimize the number of required food challenges.

Can alternative epitope mapping approaches increase the impact of B-cell epitopes in food allergy diagnostics?

In vitro allergy diagnostics are currently based on the detection of specific IgE binding on intact allergens or a mixture thereof. This approach has drawbacks as it may yield false-negative and/or false-positive results. Thus, we reviewed the impact of known B-cell epitopes of food allergens to predict transience or persistence, tolerance or allergy and the severity of an allergic reaction and to examine new epitope mapping strategies meant to improve serum-based allergy diagnostics. Recent epitope mapping approaches have been worthwhile in epitope identification and may increase the specificity of allergy diagnostics by using epitopes predominately recognized by allergic patients in some cases. However, these approaches did not lead to discrimination between clinically relevant and irrelevant epitopes so far, since the polyclonal serum IgE-binding epitope spectrum seems to be too individual, independent of the disease status of the patients. New epitope mapping strategies are necessary to overcome these obstacles. The use of patient-derived monoclonal antibodies instead of patient sera for functional characterization of clinically relevant and irrelevant epitope combinations, distinguished by their ability to induce degranulation, might be a promising approach to gain more insight into the allergic reaction and to improve serum-based allergy diagnostics.

Sensitization to PR-10 proteins is indicative of distinctive sensitization patterns in adults with a suspected food allergy.

BACKGROUND: The extent of co-sensitization within and between food protein families in an adult population is largely unknown. This study aimed to identify the most frequently recognized components in the PR-10 and storage protein family, as well as patterns in (co-)sensitization, in a birch-endemic area. METHODS: Results of ImmunoCAP ISAC, performed during routine care in Dutch adult outpatients suspected of food allergy, were collected. RESULTS: A total of 305 patients were selected, aged 16-79 years (median 32 years). Sensitization to one or more PR-10 proteins was most frequent (74% of all subjects), followed by 35% to storage protein and 15% to nsLTPs. Within the PR-10 family, subjects were most often sensitized to Bet v 1 (73% of 305), Cor a 1.04 (72%) and Mal d 1 (68%). Sensitization to PR-10s from soy, celery and kiwi occurred distinctively less often (< 55% of Bet v 1 sensitized subjects) compared to other food PR-10s (all > 70%). Subjects sensitized to these 'less common PR-10 proteins' were sensitized to more food and inhalant components on the ISAC, compared to subjects sensitized to 'common PR-10 proteins' (median 22 vs 13 out of 112, p < 0.0001). Seven subjects demonstrated sensitization to food PR-10 proteins, without concomitant sensitization to pollen PR-10s. Within the storage proteins, sensitization to multiple peanut allergens was most common (on average 3 out of 4). CONCLUSIONS: Sensitization to PR-10 food proteins could occur without concomitant sensitization to common PR-10 from pollen in a subset of subjects. Less commonly recognized PR-10 proteins appear to be an indication of polysensitization.

Threshold Dose Distribution in Walnut Allergy.

BACKGROUND: In food allergy, eliciting doses (EDs) of foods on a population level can improve risk management and labeling strategies for the food industry and regulatory authorities. Previously, data available for walnut were unsuitable to determine EDs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine EDs for walnut allergic adults and to compare with previously established threshold data for peanut and tree nuts. METHODS: Prospectively, adult subjects with a suspected walnut allergy underwent a low-dose double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Individual no observed and lowest observed adverse effect levels were determined and log-normal, log-logistic, and Weibull models were fit to the data. Estimated ED values were calculated for the ED5, ED10, and ED50, the dose respectively predicted to provoke an allergic reaction in 5%, 10%, and 50% of the walnut allergic population. RESULTS: Fifty-seven subjects were challenged and 33 subjects were confirmed to be walnut allergic. Objective symptoms occurred in 20 of the positive challenges (61%). The cumulative EDs in the distribution models ranged from 3.1 to 4.1 mg for the ED05, from 10.6 to 14.6 mg walnut protein for the ED10, and from 590 to 625 mg of walnut protein for the ED50. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that population EDs for walnut are slightly higher compared with those for peanut and hazelnut allergy. Currently available data indicate that the ED values for hazelnut could be used as a conservative temporary placeholder when implementing risk management strategies for other tree nuts where little or no food challenge data are available.