Search

Background: Food hypersensitivity (FHS) management requires daily risk assessments of all food and drinks consumed to prevent unpleasant and potentially fatal adverse reactions. Most research has focussed on food allergy in children and families. Little is known about the impact on adults or those with other FHS, such as food intolerance or coeliac disease. This study assessed differences in practices and risk assessment behaviours when eating out for adults with FHS. Methods: Adult UK residents (N = 930; 820 females, 90 males; 95% White; mean age 50 years [±16.6SD]), with food allergy (18%), food intolerance (23%) coeliac disease (44%) or multiple FHS (15%) completed an online survey. Results: Adults checked information to identify foods causing a reaction always or most of the time when eating out. However, adults with food intolerance reported checking significantly less often than adults with other FHS (all ps < 0.001). Adults reporting more severe FHS, medical rather than self‐diagnosis of FHS, previous anaphylaxis, had called an ambulance or been in hospital due to a reaction checked information significantly more often (all ps < 0.001), but were also less confident in the information provided (all ps < 0.05). Adults with allergy, coeliac disease or multiple FHS were also less confident in written and verbal information provided than those with food intolerance (p < 0.01). The type of FHS, greater perceived severity of FHS and having a medical diagnosis consistently predicted risk assessment behaviours when eating out (all ps < 0.001). Conclusion: Clinicians, patients and the food industry should be aware that the type of FHS, patient‐perceived severity and past experience of reactions affect risk assessment behaviours when eating out. This should be considered when providing clinical advice and emergency plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: House dust mite (HDM) is the most common sensitising allergen in asthma. Ethnic minority groups (EMGs) in the UK are more likely to live in deprived conditionings with a greater exposure to HDM and other aero‐allergens. Aim: To compare the ethnicity‐based patterns of sensitisation to aero‐allergens and the impact of ethnicity on clinical outcomes in patients with difficult‐to‐treat asthma (DTA). Methods: Data of patients with DTA were extracted from the registry of the Birmingham Regional Severe Asthma Service (BRSAS), which have a catchment population of 7.3million from Central England. Patients from White and EMG backgrounds were compared in terms of the prevalence of atopy, total serum immunoglobulin E (IgE), specific serum IgE (ssIgE) and asthma related clinical outcomes. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to explore ethnicity‐based risk factors for HDM sensitisation. Results: A total of 1272 patients [White 1016 (79.9%), EMG 256 (20.1%) EMG] with a median age of 51 years (range 16–97) were included in the analysis. Patients from EMG were more likely (64%) to reside in the worst scale of index of multiple deprivation (IMD) than the White patients (25.5%), p < 0.0001. Positive HDM sensitisation was more prevalent in the EMG than in the White group [142/216 (66%) versus 375/842 (45%), p < 0.0001]. The median HDM ssIgE level was higher in the EMG than in the White group [3.0 KUA/L (IQR 0.06, 11.5) versus 0.1 (0.01, 3.0), p < 0.000001]. The odds ratio for positive sensitisation to HDM conveyed by the EMG status was 2.61 (95%CI, 1.8–3.8), p < 0.0001. Compared to the White group, the EMG had higher median total serum IgE [326 KU/L (115, 971) versus 114 (29.8, 434.8), p < 0.000001], higher blood eosinophil count (0.36 × 109(0.18, 0.62) versus 0.23 (0.1,0.47), p < 0.000001), were marginally more atopic (79.2% vs. 75.6%, p = 0.098) and were less likely to being on maintenance oral corticosteroids (22% vs. 39.7%, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: In this DTA cohort, positive HDM sensitisation was greater amongst the EMG than the White patients. The EMG status was a significant risk factor for HDM sensitisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]