Real-world tree nut consumption in peanut-allergic individuals.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with peanut allergy often avoid tree nuts, yet true rates of tree nut allergy in peanut-allergic individuals are as low as 7%. OBJECTIVE: To examine tree nut sensitization patterns in peanut-allergic individuals, patient and family choice regarding tree nut consumption, and factors that influence consumption of tree nuts. METHODS: All patients presenting for peanut allergy evaluation to an outpatient allergy office were included during a 4-month period. In addition to demographic information, sensitization to tree nuts and tree nut consumption were collected. Logistic regression was performed to generate odds ratios with 95% CIs in univariate and multivariate analyses for variables that predict tree nut consumption. RESULTS: A total of 258 individuals with peanut allergy were enrolled. Ninety-five (36.8%) consumed all tree nuts ad libitum, 63 (24.4%) consumed some but not all tree nuts, and 100 (38.8%) consumed no tree nuts. Of the 100 electively avoiding all tree nuts, the most commonly reported reason was fear of cross-contact (50%). Although there was no difference between rates of sensitization between individual tree nuts (P = .056), cashew and pistachio had higher serum specific IgE levels compared with other tree nuts (P < .001). The tree nut most commonly consumed by peanut-allergic individuals was almond (P < .001). Consumption of foods with precautionary labeling was the strongest predictor of tree nut consumption in peanut allergic individuals (P < .001) CONCLUSION: Our data highlight the potential for safe introduction of tree nuts in peanut-allergic individuals and indicate that peanut-allergic individuals who consume foods with precautionary labeling are most likely to consume tree nuts.

Immunologic Adverse Effects of Biologics for the Treatment of Atopy.

The use of biologic agents as therapies for atopic diseases such as asthma and atopic dermatitis has increased greatly in recent years. The biological agents used to treat atopic diseases are for the most part monoclonal antibodies that suppress the immune response and reduce inflammation by targeting particular cytokines or other molecules involved in Th1, Th2, or Th17 immune reactions. Various side effects and rare complications have been reported from these agents. In this review, we discuss mechanisms of various adverse effects for the biologic agents currently in use or in development for atopic and inflammatory diseases. Monoclonal antibodies targeting the Th1 and Th17 pathways have been associated with significant side effects, partially due to their ability to cause significant impairment in immune responses to pathogens because of the immunologic alterations that they produce. Biologicals targeting Th2-mediated inflammation have had fewer reported side effects, though many are new and emerging drugs whose adverse effects may remain to be fully elucidated with more use. Therefore, continued long-term safety monitoring is required. As with all therapies, the risks associated with side effects of biologics must be balanced against the benefits these drugs offer for treating atopic diseases. One of the most apparent benefits is the steroid-sparing effect of well-chosen biologic therapy used to treat severe atopic disease. In contrast with the quite favorable safety profile of currently available biologics that target the Th2-mediated immune response, chronic systemic corticosteroid use is associated with significant side effects, many of which impact the majority of patients who are placed on long-term steroid therapy.