Utility of the Basophil Activation Test Using Gly m 4, Gly m 5 and Gly m 6 Molecular Allergens for Characterizing Anaphylactic Reactions to Soy.

There are two major clinically described forms of IgE-dependent soy allergy: (i) a primary dietary form, linked to sensitization against soy storage proteins Gly m 5 and Glym 6, and (ii) a form included in birch-soy syndromes linked to Gly m 4, a PR-10-like allergen. This second form sometimes causes severe systemic reactions, even anaphylaxis, especially on consuming certain forms of soy such as soymilks or smoothies. Skin prick tests and specific IgE assays against soy whole extracts lack sensitivity. Assays of anti-Gly m 4, Gly m 5 and Gly m 6 specific IgEs have been developed to overcome this obstacle, but they unfortunately lack specificity, especially for anti-Gly m 4. We hypothesized that the basophil activation test (BAT) using molecular soy allergens Gly m 4, Gly m 5 and Gly m 6 would both remedy the lack of sensitivity of other tests and offer, through its mechanistic contribution, greater specificity than the assay of anti-Gly m 4 specific IgEs. This would enable the two types of soy allergy to be separately identified. In a characteristic clinical example of PR-10-induced anaphylactic reaction after consuming soymilk, we report preliminary results of Gly m 4-exclusive positivity of BAT supporting our hypothesis. It will be necessary to confirm these results on more patients in subsequent studies, and to specify the place of the BAT in an overall diagnostic strategy. Meanwhile, soy BAT using molecular allergens is a promising diagnostic tool for soy allergy and probably also for follow-up in specific immunotherapies.

Cold Vibration (Buzzy) Versus Anesthetic Patch (EMLA) for Pain Prevention During Cannulation in Children: A Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to assess differences in observed pain-related behaviors during cannulation between a device combining cold and vibration (Buzzy) and the standard care (EMLA patch). METHODS: Patients 18 months to 6 years old, requiring venous access in a pediatric emergency department, received either the Buzzy device or the EMLA patch. Predefined week randomization ensured equal allocation to the 2 intervention groups. Pain during cannulation was measured using the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale. Parent and nurse reports, cannulation success, and venous access times were also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 607 included patients were randomized into the Buzzy group (n = 302) or the EMLA group (n = 305). Observed pain-related behaviors scores, parent-assessed pain scores, and nurse-reported pain ratings were higher with Buzzy. CONCLUSIONS: Pain relief by a combination of cold and vibration during cannulation is not as effective as the standard-care method in children 18 months to 6 years old.

Peanut oral immunotherapy in adolescents: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy is an increasingly common health problem. Current treatment guidelines are based on strict avoidance. However, in the last few years, oral immunotherapy protocols have shown promising results yielding increased tolerance to peanut in allergic children. Adolescence is particularly at risk. METHODS/DESIGN: We have designed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study to investigate the efficacy and safety of peanut oral escalating immunotherapy in a 12- to 18-year-old population with proved allergy to peanut. Patients are selected when the threshold of peanut intake is over 100 mg and 2 cumulated g on the first double-blind, placebo-controlled oral food challenge (DBPCOFC). During the build-up placebo-controlled blinded phase, doses containing peanut or placebo will be administered by gradual up-dosing from 10 mg to 2 g with 2-weekly increments. After this first randomized phase, the desensitized participants will continue to intake native peanut in an unblinded process during 13 or 37 weeks following a second randomization. Adverse events are picked up and managed throughout the entire protocol. The main endpoint is the percentage of patients with negative DBPCOFC at the threshold of 2 g of cumulative peanut at the end of the build-up phase of 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints include: (1) desensitization 6 weeks and 6 months after the end of the maintenance phase; (2) adverse effects during the build-up phase; (3) immunological profile confirming peanut desensitization. Immunologic assays will be carried out at every DBPCOFC and at the middle of the build-up phase to evaluate the peanut immunologic profile modifications. DISCUSSION: This double-blind, placebo-controlled study will be, to our knowledge, the first evaluation of a peanut oral immunotherapy protocol in teenagers in the purpose to reduce severe reactions after unexpected intake and to improve quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT02046083 (23 January 2014).