Addressing common questions on food oral immunotherapy: a practical guide for paediatricians.

Food allergy has been increasing in prevalence in most westernised countries and poses a significant burden to patients and families; dietary and social limitations as well as psychosocial and economic burden affect daily activities, resulting in decreased quality of life. Food oral immunotherapy (food-OIT) has emerged as an active form of treatment, with multiple benefits such as increasing the threshold of reactivity to the allergenic food, decreasing reaction severity on accidental exposures, expanding dietary choices, reducing anxiety and generally improving quality of life. Risks associated with food immunotherapy mostly consist of allergic reactions during therapy. While the therapy is generally considered both safe and effective, patients and families must be informed of the aforementioned risks, understand them, and be willing to accept and hedge these risks as being worthwhile and outweighed by the anticipated benefits through a process of shared decision-making. Food-OIT is a good example of a preference-sensitive care paradigm, given candidates for this therapy must consider multiple trade-offs for what is considered an optional therapy for food allergy compared with avoidance. Additionally, clinicians who discuss OIT should remain increasingly aware of the growing impact of social media on medical decision-making and be prepared to counter misconceptions by providing clear evidence-based information during in-person encounters, on their website, and through printed information that families can take home and review.

Information needs of patients considering oral immunotherapy for food allergy.

While the historic management of food allergy includes avoidance strategies and allergic reaction treatment, oral immunotherapy (OIT) approaches have become more commonly integrated into therapeutic approaches. International guidelines, phase 3 trials and real-world experience have supported the implementation of this procedure. However, OIT is an elective, rarely curative procedure with inherent risks that necessitates an increased degree of health literacy for the patients and families. Families assume the responsibility of amateur healthcare providers to ensure the daily safe administration of the allergenic food. As such, it is incumbent upon physicians to ensure that families are prepared for this role. A thorough educational and shared decision-making approach is necessary during the counselling and consent process to adequately inform the families. Educated discussion about the efficacy and patient-centred effectiveness, therapeutic alternatives and family goals is required to align physician and patient expectations. A frank discussion about the struggles, practical challenges, risks and contraindications can help to develop an understanding of the risk mitigation strategies employed to maintain safety. Physicians should develop a proactive approach to educate families about this, at times, burdensome procedure. This educational approach should encourage ongoing support starting prior to consent through the maintenance visits. By preparing families for their unique management role, physicians can help ensure the safe and successful integration of OIT into the therapeutic offering for the management of food allergies.

Outcomes for clinical trials of food allergy treatments.

OBJECTIVE: Food allergy is a common condition that can have a significant impact on the quality of life of affected individuals and their caregivers. Recent years have witnessed an increased effort to identify new treatments for food allergy. Here, we review the need to identify core outcomes for measurement in clinical trials of food allergy treatments. DATA SOURCES: We reviewed the literature regarding core outcome set development, the important role that these play in prioritizing patient-relevant outcomes, and the potential for core outcomes to accelerate the path to product marketing by allowing prompt and reliable evidence synthesis after trial publication. STUDY SELECTIONS: We reviewed recent clinical trials of food allergy treatments to understand which outcomes have previously been measured, and also reviewed available core outcome set initiatives for other allergic conditions to understand which other outcomes might be explored in future trials. RESULTS: Clinical trials of food allergy treatments have largely focused on outcomes that are relevant to investigators and commercial investors, especially the threshold of reactivity and immunologic changes. Future trials should consider addressing patient-important outcomes and should report the experiences of both adult and child participants and their caregivers. CONCLUSION: There is a pressing need for core outcome set development for food allergy treatment trials.

HEART RATE AND INDIRECT BLOOD PRESSURE RESPONSES TO FOUR DIFFERENT FIELD ANESTHETIC PROTOCOLS IN WILD-BORN CAPTIVE CHIMPANZEES (PAN TROGLODYTES).

Limited data are available on hemodynamic responses to anesthetic protocols in wild-born chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Accordingly, this study characterized the heart rate (HR) and blood pressure responses to four anesthetic protocols in 176 clinically healthy, wild-born chimpanzees undergoing routine health assessments. Animals were anesthetized with medetomidine-ketamine (MK) (n = 101), tiletamine-zolazepam (TZ) (n = 30), tiletamine-zolazepam-medetomidine (TZM) (n = 24), or medetomidine-ketamine (maintained with isoflurane) (MKI) (n = 21). During each procedure, HR, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were regularly recorded. Data were grouped according to anesthetic protocol, and mean HR, SBP, and DBP were calculated. Differences between mean HR, SBP, and DBP for each anesthetic protocol were assessed using the Kruskall-Wallis test and a Dunn multiple comparisons post hoc analysis. To assess the hemodynamic time course response to each anesthetic protocol, group mean data (±95% confidence interval [CI]) were plotted against time postanesthetic induction. Mean HR (beats/min [CI]) was significantly higher in TZ (86 [80-92]) compared to MKI (69 [61-78]) and MK (62 [60-64]) and in TZM (73 [68-78]) compared to MK. The average SBP and DBP values (mm Hg [CI]) were significantly higher in MK (130 [126-134] and 94 [91-97]) compared to TZ (104 [96-112] and 58 [53-93]) and MKI (113 [103-123] and 78 [69-87]) and in TZM (128 [120-135] and 88 [83-93]) compared to TZ. Time course data were markedly different between protocols, with MKI showing the greatest decline over time. Both the anesthetic protocol adopted and the timing of measurement after injection influence hemodynamic recordings in wild-born chimpanzees and need to be considered when monitoring or assessing cardiovascular health.

Immunological cross-reactivity between olive and grass pollen: implication of major and minor allergens.

BACKGROUND: Grasses and olive trees are the most common sources of allergenic pollen worldwide. Although they share some allergens, there are few studies analyzing the in vitro cross-reactivity between them. The aim was to define the cross-reactivity between Olea europaea and Phleum pratense using well-characterized sera of allergic children from Madrid, Spain. METHODS: 66 patients (mean age 10.32+/-4.07 years) were included in the study. All suffered from rhinoconjuntivitis and/or asthma and had a positive skin test and/or specific IgE determination to olive and grass pollen. Serum sIgE to individual allergens was conducted and sIgE against different grass species and olive was also determined by ELISA. Inhibition assays were performed using two serum sources, containing, or not, sIgE to minor allergens. Mass spectrometry analysis was performed in both extracts. RESULTS: 59/66 (89.39%) children had a positive sIgE determination by ELISA to grasses and 57/66 (86.36%) to olive pollen. There was no significant correlation between sIgE levels to grass and olive. Inhibition assays demonstrated no cross-reactivity between P. pratense and olive pollen when using the pool containing mainly sIgE to major allergens, whereas minimal to moderate cross-reactivity was detected when the serum contained high sIgE titers to minor allergens. Proteomic analyses revealed the presence of 42 common proteins in grasses and olive pollens. CONCLUSION: No in vitro cross-reactivity was observed when sIgE was mainly directed to major allergens. In our population, sensitization to olive and grasses is not due to cross-reactivity. The contribution of the major allergens seems to be determinant.