Search

Background: Peanut, tree nut, and sesame allergies are responsible for most life-threatening food-induced allergic reactions. Rates of coexistent allergy between these foods have been from mostly retrospective studies that include only a limited number of tree nuts or were not based on oral food challenges., Objective: The Pronuts study is a multicenter European study (London, Geneva, and Valencia) assessing the challenge-proven rate of coexistent peanut, tree nut, and/or sesame seed allergy., Methods: Children aged 0 to 16 years with at least 1 confirmed nut or sesame seed allergy underwent sequential diagnostic food challenges to all other nuts and sesame seed., Results: Overall, the rate of coexistent peanut, tree nut, and sesame seed allergy was 60.7% (n = 74/122; 95% CI, 51.4% to 69.4%). Peanut allergy was more common in London, cashew and pistachio nut allergies were more common in Geneva, and walnut and pecan allergies were more common in Valencia. Strong correlations were found between cashew-pistachio, walnut-pecan, and walnut-pecan-hazelnut-macadamia clusters. Age (>36 months) and center (Valencia > Geneva > London) were associated with an increased odds of multiple nut allergies. By pursuing the diagnostic protocol to demonstrate tolerance to other nuts, participants were able to introduce a median of 9 nuts., Conclusion: We found a higher rate of coexistent nut and sesame seed allergies than previously reported. Performing sequential food challenges was labor intensive and could result in severe allergic reactions; however, it reduced dietary restrictions. Age was a significant predictor of multiple nut allergies, and thus the secondary spread of nut allergies occurred in older children., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: The basophil activation test (BAT) using flow cytometry has supplanted traditional methods of measuring basophil degranulation using histamine and other mediator release, and can be used for clinical applications as well as to explore the immune mechanisms of effector cell response to allergen. This review discusses the advancements made in clinical, diagnostic and laboratory research of allergy utilizing an ever-evolving BAT., Recent Findings: Being an in vitro surrogate of the allergic reaction that happens in vivo in the sick patient, the BAT can be used to support the diagnosis of various allergic conditions, such as food, drug, respiratory and insect venom allergies, and the assessment of clinical response to allergen-specific immunotherapy and other immunomodulatory treatments. The BAT can also be used for research purposes to explore the mechanisms of allergy and tolerance at the level of the basophil, for instance by manipulating IgE and IgG and their receptors and by studying intracellular signalling cascade in response to allergen. This review covers the applications of the BAT to the clinical management of allergic patients and the increased understanding of the mechanisms of immune response to allergens as well as technological advancements made in recent years.

Various in vitro tests assess different aspects of the underlying immune mechanism of IgE-mediated food allergy. Some can be used for diagnostic purposes; specific IgE to allergen extracts is widely available; specific IgE to allergen components is used in most specialist centers, and the basophil activation test is becoming increasingly used clinically. IgE to allergen peptides, T-cell assays, allergen-specific/total IgE ratios, and allergen-specific IgG4/IgE ratios are currently reserved for research. Different factors can modulate the likelihood of IgE-mediated food allergy of a given allergy test result, namely, the patients' age, ethnicity, previous allergic reaction to the identified food, concomitant atopic conditions, and geographical location, and need to be taken into account when interpreting the allergy test results in the clinic. The importance of the specific food, the clinical resources available, and patient preferences are additional aspects that need to be considered when deciding whether an oral food challenge is required to reach an accurate diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been used to treat allergic disease since the early 1900s. Despite numerous clinical trials and meta-analyses proving AIT efficacious, it remains underused and is estimated to be used in less than 10% of patients with allergic rhinitis or asthma worldwide. In addition, there are large differences between regions, which are not only due to socioeconomic status. There is practically no controversy about the use of AIT in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma, but for atopic dermatitis or food allergy, the indications for AIT are not well defined. The elaboration of a wider consensus is of utmost importance because AIT is the only treatment that can change the course of allergic disease by preventing the development of asthma and new allergen sensitizations and by inducing allergen-specific immune tolerance. Safer and more effective AIT strategies are being continuously developed both through elaboration of new allergen preparations and adjuvants and alternate routes of administration. A number of guidelines, consensus documents, or both are available on both the international and national levels. The international community of allergy specialists recognizes the need to develop a comprehensive consensus report to harmonize, disseminate, and implement the best AIT practice. Consequently, the International Collaboration in Asthma, Allergy and Immunology, formed by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; and the World Allergy Organization, has decided to issue an international consensus on AIT., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Most children with detectable peanut-specific IgE (P-sIgE) are not allergic to peanut. We addressed 2 non-mutually exclusive hypotheses for the discrepancy between allergy and sensitization: (1) differences in P-sIgE levels between children with peanut allergy (PA) and peanut-sensitized but tolerant (PS) children and (2) the presence of an IgE inhibitor, such as peanut-specific IgG4 (P-sIgG4), in PS patients., Methods: Two hundred twenty-eight children (108 patients with PA, 77 PS patients, and 43 nonsensitized nonallergic subjects) were studied. Levels of specific IgE and IgG4 to peanut and its components were determined. IgE-stripped basophils or a mast cell line were used in passive sensitization activation and inhibition assays. Plasma of PS subjects and patients submitted to peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) were depleted of IgG4 and retested in inhibition assays., Results: Basophils and mast cells sensitized with plasma from patients with PA but not PS patients showed dose-dependent activation in response to peanut. Levels of sIgE to peanut and its components could only partially explain differences in clinical reactivity between patients with PA and PS patients. P-sIgG4 levels (P = .023) and P-sIgG4/P-sIgE (P < .001), Ara h 1-sIgG4/Ara h 1-sIgE (P = .050), Ara h 2-sIgG4/Ara h 2-sIgE (P = .004), and Ara h 3-sIgG4/Ara h 3-sIgE (P = .016) ratios were greater in PS children compared with those in children with PA. Peanut-induced activation was inhibited in the presence of plasma from PS children with detectable P-sIgG4 levels and POIT but not from nonsensitized nonallergic children. Depletion of IgG4 from plasma of children with PS (and POIT) sensitized to Ara h 1 to Ara h 3 partially restored peanut-induced mast cell activation (P = .007)., Conclusions: Differences in sIgE levels and allergen specificity could not justify the clinical phenotype in all children with PA and PS children. Blocking IgG4 antibodies provide an additional explanation for the absence of clinical reactivity in PS patients sensitized to major peanut allergens., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The management of peanut allergy relies on allergen avoidance and epinephrine autoinjector for rescue treatment in patients at risk of anaphylaxis. Biomarkers of severity and threshold of allergic reactions to peanut could significantly improve the care for patients with peanut allergy., Objective: We sought to assess the utility of the basophil activation test (BAT) to predict the severity and threshold of reactivity to peanut during oral food challenges (OFCs)., Methods: The severity of the allergic reaction and the threshold dose during OFCs to peanut were determined. Skin prick tests, measurements of specific IgE to peanut and its components, and BATs to peanut were performed on the day of the challenge., Results: Of the 124 children submitted to OFCs to peanut, 52 (median age, 5 years) reacted with clinical symptoms that ranged from mild oral symptoms to anaphylaxis. Severe reactions occurred in 41% of cases, and 57% reacted to 0.1 g or less of peanut protein. The ratio of the percentage of CD63(+) basophils after stimulation with peanut and after stimulation with anti-IgE (CD63 peanut/anti-IgE) was independently associated with severity (P = .001), whereas the basophil allergen threshold sensitivity CD-sens (1/EC₅₀ × 100, where EC₅₀ is half maximal effective concentration) value was independently associated with the threshold (P = .020) of allergic reactions to peanut during OFCs. Patients with CD63 peanut/anti-IgE levels of 1.3 or greater had an increased risk of severe reactions (relative risk, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.8-6.2). Patients with a CD-sens value of 84 or greater had an increased risk of reacting to 0.1 g or less of peanut protein (relative risk, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.8)., Conclusions: Basophil reactivity is associated with severity and basophil sensitivity is associated with the threshold of allergic reactions to peanut. CD63 peanut/anti-IgE and CD-sens values can be used to estimate the severity and threshold of allergic reactions during OFCs., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This is a commentary on a Cochrane review, published in the issue of EBCH, first published as: Choo KJL, Simons FER, Sheikh A. Glucocorticoids for the treatment of anaphylaxis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD007596. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007596.pub3., (Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)