Search

Background: Precautionary Allergen (“may contain”) Labelling (PAL) is used by industry to communicate potential risk to food-allergic individuals posed by unintended allergen presence (UAP). In 2014, the World Allergy Organization (WAO) highlighted that PAL use was increasing, but often applied inconsistently and without regulation — which reduces its usefulness to consumers with food allergy and those purchasing food for them. WAO proposed the need for a regulated, international framework to underpin application of PAL. In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations convened an expert consultation to address the issue of PAL, the outputs of which are now being considered by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL). Objectives: To summarise the latest data to inform the application of PAL in a more systematic way, for implementation into global food standards. Methods: A non-systematic review of issues surrounding precautionary labelling and food allergens in pre-packaged products. Results: Approximately, 100 countries around the world have legislation on the declaration of allergenic ingredients. Just a few have legislation on UAP. Given the risks that UAP entails, non-regulated PAL creates inconvenience in real life due to its unequal, difficult interpretation by patients. The attempts made so far to rationalize PAL present lights and shadows. Conclusions: At a time when CCFL is considering the results of the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation 2020–2023, we summarise the prospects to develop an effective and homogeneous legislation at a global level, and the areas of uncertainty that might hinder international agreement on a regulated framework for PAL of food allergens.

Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is one of the most common presentations of food allergy in early childhood. Management of CMA involves individualized avoidance of cow's milk and other mammalian milk and foods containing these. Optimal elimination of cow's milk avoidance includes: label reading; information about safe and nutritious substitute foods; appropriate choice of infant formula or a plant-based food; establishing tolerance to baked milk and monitoring nutritional intake and growth. Substitute formulas are divided into soy formula (not hydrolyzed), milk-based extensively hydrolyzed formulas, rice based extensive, and partially hydrolyzed formulas and amino acid-based formulas. The use of other mammalian milks is not recommended for the management of cow's milk allergy due to a high level of cross-reactivity and nutritional concerns. For toddlers who are eating well, children, and adults, a suitable plant-based beverage may be a suitable alternative to a specialized formula, following careful nutritional considerations. Families need to be instructed on finding suitable nutritious foods and how to prepare suitable meals at home. Individuals with CMA also need to know how to identify and treat acute severe reactions.

Background: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is the most common food allergy in infants. The replacement with specialized formulas is an established clinical approach to ensure adequate growth and minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions when breastfeeding is not possible. Still, given the availability of multiple options, such as extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk protein formula (eHF-CM), amino acid formula (AAF), hydrolyzed rice formula (HRF) and soy formulas (SF), there is some uncertainty as to the most suitable choice with respect to health outcomes. Furthermore, the addition of probiotics to a formula has been proposed as a potential approach to maximize benefit. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the World Allergy Organization (WAO) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about the use of milk specialized formulas, with and without probiotics, for individuals with CMA. Methods: WAO formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of all stakeholders and to minimize potential biases from competing interests. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to review by stakeholders. Results: After reviewing the summarized evidence and thoroughly discussing the different management options, the WAO guideline panel suggests: a) using an extensively hydrolyzed (cow's milk) formula or a hydrolyzed rice formula as the first option for managing infants with immunoglobulin E (IgE) and non-IgE-mediated CMA who are not being breastfed. An amino-acid formula or a soy formula could be regarded as second and third options respectively; b) using either a formula without a probiotic or a casein-based extensively hydrolyzed formula containing Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) for infants with either IgE or non-IgE-mediated CMA.The issued recommendations are labeled as “conditional” following the GRADE approach due to the very low certainty about the health effects based on the available evidence. Conclusions: If breastfeeding is not available, clinicians, patients, and their family members might want to discuss all the potential desirable and undesirable consequences of each formula in infants with CMA, integrating them with the patients' and caregivers’ values and preferences, local availability, and cost, before deciding on a treatment option. We also suggest what research is needed to determine with greater certainty which formulas are likely to be the most beneficial, cost-effective, and equitable.

Cow's milk allergy is rare in exclusively breastfed infants. To support the continuation of breastfeeding an infant after diagnosis with a cow's milk allergy, it is critical to examine the evidence for and against any form of cow's milk elimination diet for lactating mothers. In this narrative review, we highlight the lack of high-quality evidence, hence subsequent controversy, regarding whether the minuscule quantities of cow's milk proteins detectable in human milk cause infant cow's milk allergy symptoms. Current clinical practice recommendations advise a 2–4 week trial of maternal cow's milk dietary elimination for: a) IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy only if the infant is symptomatic on breastfeeding alone; b) non-IgE-mediated associated symptoms only if the history and examination strongly suggest cow's milk allergy; and c) infants with moderate to severe eczema/atopic dermatitis, unresponsive to topical steroids and sensitized to cow's milk protein. There should be a clear plan for home reintroduction of cow's milk into the maternal diet for a period of 1 week to determine that the cow's milk elimination is responsible for resolution of symptoms, and then subsequent reoccurrence of infant symptoms upon maternal cow's milk reintroduction. The evidence base to support the use of maternal cow's milk avoidance for the treatment of a breastfed infant with cow's milk allergy is of limited strength due to a lack of high-quality, adequately powered, randomised controlled trials. It is important to consider the consequences of maternal cow's milk avoidance on reducing immune enhancing factors in breast milk, as well as the potential nutritional and quality of life impacts on the mother. Referral to a dietitian is advised for dietary education, along with calcium and vitamin D supplementation according to local recommendations, and a maternal substitute milk should be advised. However, for most breastfed infants with cow's milk allergy maternal cow's milk dietary elimination will not be required, and active support of the mother to continue breastfeeding is essential.

Background: While several scoring systems for the severity of anaphylactic reactions have been developed, there is a lack of consensus on definition and categorisation of severity of food allergy disease as a whole. Aim: To develop an international consensus on the severity of food allergy (DEfinition of Food Allergy Severity, DEFASE) scoring system, to be used globally. Methods: Phase 1: We conducted a mixed-method systematic review (SR) of 11 databases for published and unpublished literature on severity of food allergy management and set up a panel of international experts. Phase 2: Based on our findings in Phase 1, we drafted statements for a two-round modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) survey. A purposefully selected multidisciplinary international expert panel on food allergy (n = 60) was identified and sent a structured questionnaire, including a set of statements on different domains of food allergy severity related to symptoms, health-related quality of life, and economic impact. Participants were asked to score their agreement on each statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Median scores and percentage agreements were calculated. Consensus was defined a priori as being achieved if 70% or more of panel members rated a statement as “strongly agree” to “agree” after the second round. Based on feedback, 2 additional online voting rounds were conducted. Results: We received responses from 92% of Delphi panel members in round 1 and 85% in round 2. Consensus was achieved on the overall score and in all of the 5 specific key domains as essential components of the DEFASE score. Conclusions: The DEFASE score is the first comprehensive grading of food allergy severity that considers not only the severity of a single reaction, but the whole disease spectrum. An international consensus has been achieved regarding a scoring system for food allergy disease. It offers an evaluation grid, which may help to rate the severity of food allergy. Phase 3 will involve validating the scoring system in research settings, and implementing it in clinical practice.

Background: Children with severe food allergy may present high risk of fatal anaphylaxis and a highly impaired quality of life. Anti IgE-treatment has been shown to be a promising approach as monotherapy for severe allergy to multiple foods. However, very high serum total IgE levels may limit its use.This study aims to assess the efficacy of IgE-selective immunoadsorption (IgE-IA) on total IgE levels and threshold of reactivity to the culprit foods in children with history of severe anaphylaxis due to multiple foods and allergic comorbidities. Methods: In this single-center, prospective, open-label efficacy study we evaluated children with severe asthma, allergy to 2+foods and total IgE levels >2300 kUI/L. To establish the food reactivity threshold, each patient underwent oral food challenges (OFCs) before and after IgE-IA. Results: Five patients (4 males; age, 12.2 ± 5 years, mean ± SD) underwent an average of 3 (range 2–4) sessions of IgE-IA. Each session reduced IgE levels by a mean of 1958.87 kUI/L. After the IgE-IA cycle, serum total IgE dropped from 3948 ± 1652.7 (mean ± SD) to 360.8 ± 71.9 kUI/L (−10.9 folds; p = 0.01). The threshold of reactivity (No Observed Adverse Effect Level, NOAEL) tested at OFCs for the culprit foods (4 baked-milk + 2 baked-egg + 1 lentil + 2 hazelnut + 1 wheat) increased overall from 21.5 (median, IQR 1.5–82.6) protein milligrams to 1115 (837.2–4222.8) milligrams (p

Background: Allergy to cow's milk is the most common food allergy in infants and it is usually outgrown by 5 years of age. In some individuals it persists beyond early childhood. Oral immunotherapy (OIT, oral desensitization, specific oral tolerance induction) has been proposed as a promising therapeutic strategy for persistent IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy. We previously published the systematic review of OIT for cow's milk allergy (CMA) in 2010 as part of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines. Objective: To systematically synthesize the currently available evidence about OIT for IgE-mediated CMA and to inform the updated 2022 WAO guidelines. Methods: We searched the electronic databases including PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the websites of selected allergy organizations. We included all studies irrespective of the language of the original publication. The last search was conducted in February 2021. We registered the protocol on Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/AH2DT). Results: We identified 2147 unique records published between 2010 and 2021, including 13 randomized trials and 109 observational studies addressing cow's milk OIT. We found low-certainty evidence that OIT with unheated cow's milk, compared to elimination diet alone, increased the likelihood of being able to consume ≥150 ml of cow's milk in controlled settings (risk ratio (RR): 12.3, 95% CI: 5.9 to 26.0; risk difference (RD): 25 more per 100, 95% CI 11 to 56) as well as accidently ingest a small amount (≥5 ml) of cow's milk (RR: 8.7, 95% CI: 4.7 to 16.1; RD: 25 more per 100, 95% CI 12 to 50). However, 2–8 weeks after discontinuation of a successful OIT, tolerance of cow's milk persisted in only 36% (range: 20%–91%) of patients. OIT increased the frequency of anaphylaxis (rate ratio: 60.0, 95% CI 15 to 244; rate difference 5 more anaphylactic reactions per 1 person per year, 95% CI: 4 to 6; moderate evidence) and the frequency of epinephrine use (rate ratio: 35.2, 95% CI: 9 to 136.5; rate difference 268 more events per 100 person-years, 95% CI: 203 to 333; high certainty). OIT also increased the risk of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 6.9, 95% CI 1.6–30.9; RD 28 more per 100, CI 3 to 100) and respiratory symptoms (RR 49.0, 95% CI 3.12–770.6; RD 77 more per 100, CI 62 to 92), compared with avoidance diet alone. Single-arm observational studies showed that on average 6.9% of OIT patients (95% CI: 3.8%–10%) developed eosinophilic esophagitis (very low certainty evidence). We found 1 trial and 2 small case series of OIT with baked milk. Conclusions: Moderate certainty evidence shows that OIT with unheated cow's milk in patients with IgE-mediated CMA is associated with an increased probability of being able to drink milk and, at the same time, an increased risk of serious adverse effects.

Food allergy affects approximately 2–4% of children and adults. This guideline provides recommendations for managing food allergy from the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN). A multidisciplinary international Task Force developed the guideline using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II framework and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. We reviewed the latest available evidence as of April 2021 (161 studies) and created recommendations by balancing benefits, harms, feasibility, and patient and clinician experiences. We suggest that people diagnosed with food allergy avoid triggering allergens (low certainty evidence). We suggest that infants with cow's milk allergy who need a breastmilk alternative use either hypoallergenic extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk formula or an amino acid-based formula (moderate certainty). For selected children with peanut allergy, we recommend oral immunotherapy (high certainty), though epicutaneous immunotherapy might be considered depending on individual preferences and availability (moderate certainty). We suggest considering oral immunotherapy for children with persistent severe hen's egg or cow's milk allergy (moderate certainty). There are significant gaps in evidence about safety and effectiveness of the various strategies. Research is needed to determine the best approaches to education, how to predict the risk of severe reactions, whether immunotherapy is cost-effective and whether biological therapies are effective alone or combined with allergen immunotherapy.

Background: The prevalence of cow's milk allergy (CMA) is approximately 2–4.5% in infants and less than 0.5% in adults. Most children outgrow cow's milk allergy in early childhood, particularly that to the baked milk products. Immunotherapy with unheated cow's milk has been used as a treatment option for those who have not yet outgrown CMA, but the benefits must be balanced with the adverse effects. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the World Allergy Organization (WAO) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about the use of oral and epicutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of IgE-mediated CMA. Methods: WAO formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of all stakeholders and to minimize potential biases from competing interests. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to public comment. Results: After a careful review of the summarized evidence and thorough discussions the WAO guideline panel suggests: a) using oral immunotherapy with unheated cow's milk in those individuals with confirmed IgE-mediated CMA who value the ability to consume controlled quantities of milk more than avoiding the large adverse effects of therapy, b) not using oral immunotherapy with unheated cow's milk in those who value avoiding large adverse effects of therapy more than the ability to consume controlled quantities of milk, c) using omalizumab in those starting oral immunotherapy with unheated cow's milk, d) not using oral immunotherapy with baked cow's milk in those who do not tolerate both unheated and baked milk, and e) not using epicutaneous immunotherapy outside of a research setting. The recommendations are labeled “conditional” due to the low certainty about the health effects based on the available evidence. Conclusions: Clinicians, patients, and their family members might want to discuss all the potential desirable and undesirable effects of oral immunotherapy for IgE-mediated CMA and integrate them with the patients' values and preferences before deciding on a treatment option. More robust research is needed to determine with greater certainty which interventions are likely to be the most beneficial with the least harms, and to develop safer, low-cost, and equitable treatments.

Since the World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines were published 10 years ago, new evidence has accumulated about the diagnosis, therapy, and specific immunotherapy for cow's milk allergy (CMA). For this reason, WAO has felt the need to update the guidelines.We introduce here this update. The new DRACMA guidelines aim to comprehensively address the guidance on diagnosis and therapy of both IgE non-IgE-mediated forms of cow's milk allergy in children and adults. They will be divided into 18 chapters, each of which will be dedicated to an aspect. The focus will be on the meta-analyzes and recommendations that will be expressed for the 3 most relevant clinical aspects: (a) the diagnostic identification of the condition; (b) the choice of the replacement formula in case of CMA in infancy when the mother is not able to breastfeed, and (c) the use of specific immunotherapy for cow's milk protein allergy.

Background and aims: The term “Food Allergy” refers to a complex global health problem with a wide spectrum of severity. However, a uniform definition of severe food allergy is currently missing. This systematic review is the preliminary step towards a state-of-the-art synopsis of the current evidence relating to the severity of IgE-mediated food allergy; it will inform attempts to develop a consensus to define food allergy severity by clinicians and other stakeholders. Methods: We undertook a mixed-methods systematic review, which involved searching 11 international biomedical databases for published studies from inception to 31 December 2019. Studies were independently screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised by established instruments. The substantial heterogeneity of included studies precluded meta-analyses and, therefore, narrative synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data was performed. Results: We found 23 studies providing eligible primary data on symptom-specific severity of food allergic reactions, and 31 previously published symptom-severity scoring systems referred to food allergic reactions. There were seven studies which assessed quality-of-life measures in patients (and family members) with different food allergy severity and two studies that investigated the economic burden of food allergy severity. Overall, the quality and the global rating of all included studies were judged as being moderate. Conclusions: There is heterogeneity among severity scoring systems used and even outcomes considered in the context of severity of food allergy. No score has been validated. Our results will be used to inform the development of an international consensus to define the severity of food allergy. Systematic review registration: A protocol was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database with the registration number CRD42020183103 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails).

Background and aims: The term “Food Allergy” refers to a complex global health problem with a wide spectrum of severity. However, a uniform definition of severe food allergy is currently missing. This systematic review is the preliminary step towards a state-of-the-art synopsis of the current evidence relating to the severity of IgE-mediated food allergy; it will inform attempts to develop a consensus to define food allergy severity by clinicians and other stakeholders. Methods: We will undertake a systematic review, which will involve searching international biomedical databases for published studies. Studies will be independently screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised by established instruments. Data will be descriptively and, if possible and applicable, quantitatively synthesised. Ethics and dissemination: This study does not require any specific ethical approval since it is a systematic review. We plan to report results from this systematic review in a peer reviewed journal. These results will be used to inform the development of an international consensus to define severe food allergy. Author's potential conflicts of interest are clearly stated. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020183103.

Food allergy (FA) is currently a significant health care problem in the developing world. Widely varying study populations and methodologies, the use of surrogate markers such as self report or hospitalization rates due to anaphylaxis rather than objective methods, limits robust estimation of FA prevalence in low income settings. Also, allergy is under-recognized as a clinical specialty in the developing world which compromises the chance for accurate diagnosis. In this review, most published data on food allergens from developing or low income countries are displayed. The diagnostic challenges and limitations of treatment options are discussed. It seems that FA is an under-appreciated health care issue in the developing world, and accurate determination of its burden in low-income settings represents an important unmet need. Multicenter surveillance studies, using standardized methodologies, are, therefore, needed to reveal the true extent of the problem and provide epidemiological clues for prevention. Preventive strategies should be tailored to fit local circumstances in different geographic regions. In addition, studying the gene environment interactions and impact of early life microbiota on the expression of FA in developing communities would be worthwhile. Efforts and resources should be directed toward public health education and training of health care providers dealing with food allergic patients. Keywords: Food allergy, Developing countries, Low income, Allergens, Diagnosis, Treatment, Unmet needs