Diagnosis and Management of Pollen Food Allergy Syndrome to Nuts.

Oral allergy syndrome or pollen food allergy syndrome (PFAS) represents a common clinical conundrum when the reported trigger food is a tree nut (usually almond or hazelnut) or peanut. The PFAS may give rise to uncertainty about the potential severity of the future reactions, indications for prescribing epinephrine, and the extent of the necessary dietary avoidance. As a food allergy, secondary to cross-reactivity with airborne pollen, PFAS usually manifests toward the end of the first decade of life as contact urticaria of the oropharyngeal mucous membranes. Molecular allergology facilitates diagnosis and risk stratification by establishing the profile of sensitization. Exclusive sensitization to pathogenesis-related proteins family 10 (PR10) and profilins indicates that signs and symptoms are due to PFAS, whereas sensitization to seed storage proteins with or without sensitization to PR10 and profilins may indicate a more severe primary nut allergy phenotype. Management relies on avoidance of the specific nut trigger, advice on the likelihood of more severe local or systemic symptoms, and treatment of reactions according to the severity. Future studies are needed to better delineate the risk of systemic reactions in individuals with nut PFAS and to establish the role of food or pollen allergen immunotherapy for the prevention or moderation of this condition.

Real-World Safety Analysis of Preschool Tree Nut Oral Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Our group previously described preschool peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) in a real-world, multicenter setting, suggesting that this therapy is safe for most preschoolers. OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety and tolerability of tree nut (TN) OIT in preschoolers in the real world. METHODS: As part of a Canada-wide quality improvement project, TN-OIT (cashew/pistachio, walnut/pecan, hazelnut, almond, and macadamia nut) was performed in preschoolers who had (1) a skin prick test wheal diameter greater than or equal to 3 mm or a specific IgE level greater than or equal to 0.35 kU/L and a convincing objective IgE-mediated reaction or (2) no ingestion history and a specific IgE level greater than or equal to 5 kU/L. Dose escalations were performed every 2 to 4 weeks till a maintenance dose of 300 mg of TN protein was reached. Symptoms were recorded and classified using the modified World Allergy Organization Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Reaction Grading System (1, mildest; 5, fatal). RESULTS: Of the 92 patients who started TN-OIT from 2018 to 2021, 79 (85.9%) underwent single-food TN-OIT and 13 (14.1%) underwent multifood TN-OIT to 2 (10.8%) or 3 (3.3%) TNs. Eighty-nine (96.7%) patients reached maintenance, and 4 (4.3%) dropped out. Sixty-five (70.7%) patients experienced reactions during buildup: 35 (38.0%) grade 1 reactions, 30 (32.6%) grade 2 reactions, no grade 3 or 4 reactions, and 2 (2.17%) received epinephrine. CONCLUSIONS: Preschool TN-OIT in a real-world, multicenter setting appears safe and tolerable, with results comparable with our previously reported peanut OIT findings.

Tree nut allergy: a systematic review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Systematic scoping review, focusing on randomized clinical trials of recent research addressing tree nut allergy. RECENT FINDINGS: This review addresses published, unpublished, and re-analyzed studies on tree nut allergy definition, epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy. SUMMARY: The importance of tree nut allergy spans nations, economies, and cultures. While broad themes in epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy are emerging, the next major advance in tree nut allergy will require large, robust studies to deliver results important to patients and families.

Recent advances in the diagnosis and management of tree nut and seed allergy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Tree nut (TN) and seed allergies are frequent, and their prevalence appears to be on the rise. Allergic reactions associated with these foods are more frequently severe, and these allergies tend to persist into adulthood, consequently affecting quality of life. In this review, we summarize recent advances in diagnostic modalities and management strategies for TN/seed-allergic patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Clinical manifestations of TN and seed allergy range from asymptomatic sensitization to severe anaphylactic reactions. The use of emerging diagnostic tools such as component resolved diagnostics (CRD) and the basophil activation test (BAT) can help better predict clinical reactivity, the latter being currently reserved for research settings. Strict avoidance of all TN is generally not required, as most patients can tolerate select TN despite co-sensitization. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a promising alternative treatment instead of complete avoidance of culprit allergens, as it can safely increase the allergy threshold. SUMMARY: Our recent understanding of co-reactivity between various TN and seeds has shaped management opportunities, including select TN introduction and optimization of OIT, two strategies which may improve quality of life. There is a need for better minimally invasive diagnostic methods for TN and seed allergy, with CRD and BAT being promising tools.

Cashew oral immunotherapy for desensitizing cashew-pistachio allergy (NUT CRACKER study).

BACKGROUND: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a treatment option for patients with milk, egg, and peanut allergy, but data on the efficacy and safety of cashew OIT are limited. METHODS: A cohort of 50 cashew-allergic patients aged ≥4 years, who were consecutively enrolled into cashew OIT (target dose 4000 mg protein) between 4/2016 and 12/2019. Fifteen cashew-allergic patients who continued cashew elimination served as observational controls. Co-allergy to pistachio and walnut was determined. Full desensitization rate and associated immunological changes in both groups were compared. Patients fully desensitized to cashew were instructed to consume a dose of 1200 mg cashew protein for 6 months and were then challenged to a full dose. Patients with co-allergy to pistachio or walnut were challenged to the respective nut. RESULTS: Forty-four of 50 OIT-treated patients (88%) compared to 0% in controls tolerated a dose of 4000 mg cashew protein at the end of the study (odds ratio 8.3, 95% CI 3.9-17.7, p < 0.001). An additional three patients were desensitized to 1200 mg cashew protein, and three patients stopped treatment. Three patients (6%) were treated with injectable epinephrine for home reactions. Desensitized patients had decreased SPT, sIgE, basophil reactivity, and increased sIgG4, following treatment. Following cashew desensitization, all pistachio (n = 35) and four of eight walnut co-allergic patients were cross-desensitized to the respective nut. All (n = 44) patients consuming a low cashew dose for ≥6 months following desensitization passed a full-dose cashew OFC. CONCLUSIONS: Cashew OIT desensitizes most cashew-allergic patients and cross-desensitizes to pistachio. Safety is similar to OIT for other foods.

[Management of severe nut allergy in adults]. / Management einer schweren Nussallergie im Erwachsenenalter.

We present a case of walnut allergy in a 24-year-old man. The allergy work up revealed sensitization to walnut including a positive skin prick test and a high value of walnut-specific IgEs. The patient showed an anaphylactic reaction during the double blind placebo-controlled food challenge, to a cumulative dose of 3.723 g of walnut protein. The oral food challenge resulted in counseling regarding strict walnut avoidance and optimization of the emergency management. At follow-up the patient reported that having adhered to the recommended dietary measures resulted in no further allergic reactions.

Moving Past "Avoid All Nuts": Individualizing Management of Children with Peanut/Tree Nut Allergies.

It has been common practice to tell patients with allergy to peanut or tree nuts to avoid all nuts. Evidence that unnecessary avoidance of peanuts and eggs is associated with increased risk for developing anaphylaxis to those foods has changed how allergists view previous recommendations to avoid foods that have not caused a reaction. In the absence of evidence, collaborative decision making between clinicians and families should be used to decide whether to avoid tree nuts and how to safely introduce tree nuts into the diet. This article discusses the options for introducing tree nuts to children with peanut allergy.

Walnut oral immunotherapy for desensitisation of walnut and additional tree nut allergies (Nut CRACKER): a single-centre, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of oral immunotherapy for tree nut allergy has not been demonstrated to date, and its effectiveness is complicated by the high prevalence of co-allergies to several nuts. This study aimed to investigate the use of walnut oral immunotherapy in the desensitisation of walnut and additional tree nuts in patients who are co-allergic to several nuts. METHODS: In a single-centre, prospective cohort study (the Nut Co-Reactivity ACquiring Knowledge for Elimination Recommendations study) at the Institute of Allergy, Immunology, and Paediatric Pulmonology at the Yitzhak Shamir Medical Centre, we recruited patients aged 4 years or older who were allergic to walnut, with or without co-allergy to pecan, hazelnut, and cashew. The diagnosis of each food allergy was based on a positive skin prick test or specific serum IgE (≥0·35 kUA/L) to the corresponding nut together with a positive oral food challenge, unless an immediate (within 2 h of exposure) reaction in the past year had been documented. Patients with uncontrolled asthma or a medical contraindication to receive adrenaline were excluded. Patients were assigned to walnut oral immunotherapy or the control group (observation and strict dietary exclusion) on the basis of the order of presentation to the clinic. Oral immunotherapy began with a 4-day dose-escalation phase to establish the single highest tolerated dose, which was consumed daily at home for 24 days; subsequent monthly dose escalations were repeated until 4000 mg walnut protein was achieved. Patients who were desensitised to walnut continued to consume 1200 mg walnut protein daily for 6 months as maintenance. The primary outcome was walnut desensitisation (passing an oral food challenge with 4000 mg of walnut protein) at the end of the study, analysed by intention to treat. In patients who were co-allergic to pecan, hazelnut, and cashew, the proportion who achieved cross-desensitisation to these nuts in addition to walnut desensitisation was examined. FINDINGS: 73 patients with a walnut allergy were enrolled between May 15, 2016, and Jan 14, 2018. 49 (89%) of 55 patients in the oral immunotherapy group were desensitised to walnut compared with none of 18 patients in the control group (odds ratio 9·2, 95% CI 4·3-19·5; p<0·0001). Following walnut desensitisation, all patients who were co-allergic to pecan (n=46) were also desensitised to pecan. Additionally, 18 (60%) of 30 patients who were co-allergic to hazelnut or cashew, and 14 (93%) of 15 patients who were co-allergic to hazelnut alone, were either fully desensitised or responded to treatment. 47 (85%) of 55 patients had an adverse reaction (mostly grade 1 or 2) during up-dosing in the clinic; eight patients required intramuscular epinephrine in response to a dose at home. Of 45 patients who had follow-up data for the maintenance phase, all maintained walnut desensitisation and one patient required epinephrine during this period. INTERPRETATION: Walnut oral immunotherapy can induce desensitisation to walnut as well as cross-desensitisation to pecan and hazelnut in patients who have tree nut co-allergies, with a reasonable safety profile. A low daily dose of the allergen maintains desensitisation. FUNDING: None.

Low-Dose Oral Food Challenge with Hazelnut: Efficacy and Tolerability in Children.

BACKGROUND: Hazelnut allergy (HA) is one of the more common food allergies (FAs) in Europe with a prevalence of 0.2%. The gold standard for diagnosing FA is oral food challenge (OFC) with the culprit food. Another purpose of OFC is to identify the "threshold level" of food as the dose that elicits symptoms. In this way it is possible to avoid a strict elimination diet and to determine the minimal quantity of the culprit food tolerated by the patient. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of hazelnut low-dose OFC (H-LDOFC) in children with HA. METHODS: From January 2015 to December 2016, we retrospectively analyzed the charts of patients referred to Allergy Unit of Meyer Children's Hospital, Florence, Italy for a history of HA. Prick by prick (PbP) and specific serum IgE (s-IgE) to hazelnut were performed. We proposed conducting an H-LDOFC to parents of children with HA. The H-LDOFC was considered completed when a cumulative dose of 2.5 g of hazelnut was reached. We divided the patients who underwent the H-LDOFC into an asymptomatic and a symptomatic group. For statistics we used SPSS for Windows version 16.0 and conducted a t test for comparing the averages, considering a p value of < 0.05 significant. RESULTS: Forty-three out of 70 patients (61.4%) with HA underwent an H-LDOFC. The PbP to hazelnut (mean ± SD) was 7.2 ± 2.9 mm and the s-IgE to hazelnut 25.3 ± 32.5 kU/L. Twenty-eight out of the 43 patients (65.1%) who underwent H-LDOFC reached the cumulative dose of 2.5 g of hazelnut. During the H-LDOFC, 20/43 patients (46.5%) had no reactions and 23/43 patients had a total of 55 reactions: 34 (61.8%) oral allergy syndrome, 8 (14.5%) rash, 6 (10.9%) abdominal pain, 2 (3.6%) urticaria, 2 (3.6%) angioedema, and 3 (5.4%) dyspnea. Atopic dermatitis was found to present the only statistically significant difference (p = 0.002) in patients with symptoms compared to asymptomatic patients during H-LDOFC. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this was the first study to assess the efficacy and tolerability of H-LDOFC in a pediatric population. Our study suggests that in children with HA, H-LDOFC is well accepted and safe because adverse reactions are mild and the majority are represented by localized symptoms (oral allergy syndrome) and efficient, especially in terms of improvement of quality of life. For these reasons it could be more extensively used in the treatment of HA.

Cashew Nut Allergy: Clinical Relevance and Allergen Characterisation.

Cashew plant (Anacardium occidentale L.) is the most relevant species of the Anacardium genus. It presents high economic value since it is widely used in human nutrition and in several industrial applications. Cashew nut is a well-appreciated food (belongs to the tree nut group), being widely consumed as snacks and in processed foods by the majority of world's population. However, cashew nut is also classified as a potent allergenic food known to be responsible for triggering severe and systemic immune reactions (e.g. anaphylaxis) in sensitised/allergic individuals that often demand epinephrine treatment and hospitalisation. So far, three groups of allergenic proteins have been identified and characterised in cashew nut: Ana o 1 and Ana o 2 (cupin superfamily) and Ana o 3 (prolamin superfamily), which are all classified as major allergens. The prevalence of cashew nut allergy seems to be rising in industrialised countries with the increasing consumption of this nut. There is still no cure for cashew nut allergy, as well as for other food allergies; thus, the allergic patients are advised to eliminate it from their diets. Accordingly, when carefully choosing processed foods that are commercially available, the allergic consumers have to rely on proper food labelling. In this sense, the control of labelling compliance is much needed, which has prompted the development of proficient analytical methods for allergen analysis. In the recent years, significant research advances in cashew nut allergy have been accomplished, which are highlighted and discussed in this review.

Tree nut allergies: Allergen homology, cross-reactivity, and implications for therapy.

Tree nut allergy is a potentially life-threatening disease that is increasing in prevalence, now affecting 1% of the general population in the United States. While other food allergies often resolve spontaneously, tree nut allergies are outgrown in less than 10% of cases. Due to the likelihood of cross-sensitization to multiple tree nut allergens, the current treatment guideline is strict avoidance of all nuts once one tree nut allergy has been diagnosed. For example, walnut and pecan are highly cross-reactive, along with cashew and pistachio, but the extent of clinical, IgE-mediated cross-reactivity among other tree nuts remains unclear, therefore making avoidance of all tree nuts a safe approach. There have been recent advances in immunotherapy for food allergies. For instance, there are investigational immunotherapies for milk, egg and peanut allergies, specifically oral immunotherapy, sublingual immunotherapy and epicutaneous immunotherapy. However, there are no large randomized controlled clinical trials for tree nut allergies. Even though there has been less research into tree nut allergy immunotherapies, the evidence of T-cell cross-reactivity among tree nuts exists in animal models and in T cells from allergic patients indicates that immunotherapeutic interventions may be possible. Here, we review the literature regarding epidemiology, allergen homology and cross-reactivity among tree nuts, and explore how current findings can be employed for effective therapy.

One Child's Food Fight: A Case Study of Oral Immunotherapy Treatment for Food Allergies.

The prevalence of food allergy has risen dramatically in the last two decades. Primary care providers encounter food-allergic children on a daily basis. Although the standard of care has traditionally been strict avoidance of the allergen and advisement to carry an epinephrine autoinjector in case of an accidental exposure resulting in a severe reaction, food allergy research has progressed in the past decade concerning various immunotherapies that may provide an alternate treatment strategy. Oral immunotherapy (OIT), performed under the supervision of an allergist, is the most widely studied of these therapies. In the past, OIT has been available in the realm of clinical trials, but it is now being offered by a small but increasing number of allergists in private practice throughout the United States. Pediatric primary care clinicians should be aware of both the risks and possible benefits of this treatment, because they are likely to encounter patients who may inquire about OIT in their practices. In this case report, use of OIT will be reviewed in the treatment of a food-allergic child.

Food Allergen Sensitisation Patterns in Omani Patients with Allergic Manifestations.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between food allergen sensitisation patterns and allergic manifestations in Omani patients and highlight the importance of specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) testing. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients referred due to allergic manifestations to the Sultan Qaboos University Hospital (SQUH), Muscat, Oman, from November 2012 to November 2016. Specific IgE blood testing was performed to determine sensitisation to common foods known to cause allergic reactions. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients were referred to SQUH over the study period, with 35.4% presenting with one allergic manifestation, 48.8% with 2-3 and 15.9% presenting with more than three manifestations. There was a family history of allergies in 70.7% of patients. Eosinophil counts and total and specific IgE levels were elevated in 18.9%, 54.9% and 73.2% of patients, respectively. Patients demonstrated sensitisation to cow milk (47.6%), wheat (41.5%), chicken eggs (34.8%), mixed tree nuts (34.1%), lentils (33.5%), peanuts (32.9%), soy (32.3%), shrimp (23.2%) and fish (15.2%). Overall, 19.5% were sensitised to a single allergen, 14% were sensitised to 2-3 and 39.6% were sensitised to more than three allergens. Almost one-third (29.3%) of patients suffered from food-induced anaphylaxis, of which 85.4% were prescribed self-injectable adrenaline. CONCLUSION: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study is the first to describe food allergen sensitisation patterns among Omani patients with allergic manifestations. In conjunction with clinical symptoms, the correct interpretation of specific IgE levels is important to diagnose food allergies and make safe decisions about reintroducing foods.

BSACI guideline for the diagnosis and management of peanut and tree nut allergy.

Peanut nut and tree nut allergy are characterised by IgE mediated reactions to nut proteins. Nut allergy is a global disease. Limited epidemiological data suggest varying prevalence in different geographical areas. Primary nut allergy affects over 2% of children and 0.5% of adults in the UK. Infants with severe eczema and/or egg allergy have a higher risk of peanut allergy. Primary nut allergy presents most commonly in the first five years of life, often after the first known ingestion with typical rapid onset IgE-mediated symptoms. The clinical diagnosis of primary nut allergy can be made by the combination of a typical clinical presentation and evidence of nut specifc IgE shown by a positive skin prick test (SPT) or specific IgE (sIgE) test. Pollen food syndrome is a distinct disorder, usually mild, with oral/pharyngeal symptoms, in the context of hay fever or pollen sensitisation, which can be triggered by nuts. It can usually be distinguish clinically from primary nut allergy. The magnitude of a SPT or sIgE relates to the probability of clinical allergy, but does not relate to clinical severity. SPT of ≥ 8 mm or sIgE ≥ 15 KU/L to peanut is highly predictive of clinical allergy. Cut off values are not available for tree nuts. Test results must be interpreted in the context of the clinical history. Diagnostic food challenges are usually not necessary but may be used to confirm or refute a conflicting history and test result. As nut allergy is likely to be a long-lived disease, nut avoidance advice is the cornerstone of management. Patients should be provided with a comprehensive management plan including avoidance advice, patient specific emergency medication and an emergency treatment plan and training in administration of emergency medication. Regular re-training is required.

B-FAHF-2 plus oral immunotherapy (OIT) is safer and more effective than OIT alone in a murine model of concurrent peanut/tree nut allergy.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent sensitization to peanut (PN) and tree nuts (TN), the most dangerous food allergies, is common. Current oral immunotherapy (OIT) is not fully satisfactory. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the herbal formula B-FAHF-2 (BF2) ameliorates PN/TN OIT adverse reactions and enhances persistence of a tolerant state. METHODS: Concurrently sensitized PN-, walnut- (WN) and cashew (CSH)-allergic mice received 1-day PN/WN/CSH rush OIT plus 3 weeks of maintenance dosing, with or without 3 weeks prior and 3 weeks BF2 co-treatment. Anaphylactic symptom scores, core body temperatures, plasma histamine levels, basophil numbers, antigen-specific IgE, cytokine levels, and IL-4, INF-γ and Foxp3 gene promoter DNA methylation status, and their correlation with final challenge symptom scores were determined. RESULTS: BF2+OIT-treated mice experienced significantly fewer and less severe adverse reactions than OIT-only-treated mice (P<.01) during the 1-day rush OIT build-up dose phase. Both OIT-only and BF2+OIT mice showed significant desensitization (P<.01 and .001, respectively) at 1 week post-therapy challenge, being greater in BF2+OIT mice. All sham-treated and 91% of OIT-treated mice experienced anaphylaxis whereas only 21% of BF2+OIT-treated mice exhibited reactions during 5-6 weeks of dose escalation single PN and TN challenges. Greater and more persistent protection in BF2+OIT mice was associated with significantly lower plasma histamine and IgE levels, increased IFN-γ/IL-4 and IL-10/IL-4 ratios, DNA remethylation at the IL-4 promoter and demethylation at IFN-γ and Foxp3 promoters. Final challenge symptom scores were inversely correlated with IL-4 DNA methylation levels (P<.0002) and positively correlated with IFN-γ and Foxp3 gene promoter methylation levels (P<.0011) (P<.0165). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Combined BF2/OIT therapy was safer and produced longer post-treatment protection and more tolerance-prone immunological and epigenetic modifications than OIT alone. BF2/OIT may provide an additional OIT option for patients with concurrent PN/TN and other food allergies.