Search

Tree nut-allergic individuals are often sensitised towards multiple nuts and seeds. The underlying cause behind a multi-sensitisation for cashew nut, hazelnut, peanut and birch pollen is not always clear. We investigated whether immunoglobulin E antibody (IgE) cross-reactivity between cashew nut, hazelnut and peanut proteins exists in children who are multi-allergic to these foods using a novel IMMULITE®-based inhibition methodology, and investigated which allergens might be responsible. In addition, we explored if an allergy to birch pollen might play a role in this co-sensitisation for cashew nut, hazelnut and peanut. Serum of five children with a confirmed cashew nut allergy and suffering from allergic symptoms after eating peanut and hazelnut were subjected to i

Background: A proportion of patients allergic to birch pollen are also allergic to pit fruit. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of immunotherapy with birch pollen on birch-pollen-related apple allergy. Method: Patients with birch pollen immunotherapy underwent a skin-prick test with birch pollen, apple and rMal d 1, global assessments and nasal challenges with birch pollen, open food challenge with apple and a double-blind, placebo-controlled test with rMal d 1 at the start of and during the immunotherapy. Measurements of specific IgE in response to Bet v 1 and rMal d 1 and IgG4 in response to Bet v 1 and rMal d 1 took place. Results: Six of eight patients demonstrated an improvement of nasal challenge test results and all patients improved on global assessment during the immunotherapy. The median oral dose of apple required to elicit a reaction increased but was not statistically significant. The patients showed a decrease in skin-prick test values in response to birch pollen (1.05 to 0.36), apple (0.78 to 0.25) and rMal d 1 (0.51 to 0.10) with p-values of 0.04, 0.03 and 0.06, respectively and a decrease of specific IgE in response to Bet v 1 (10.66 kU/L to 5.19 kU/L) and rMal d 1 (0.99 to 0.61 kU/L) with p-values of 0.01 and 0.05, respectively. Only the median specific IgG4 value to Bet v 1 increased from 0.05 to 1.85 mg/L (p-value of 0.02) and not to IgG4 rMal d 1 (0.07 to 0.08 kU/L). Conclusion: The beneficial effects of immunotherapy for birch pollen were accompanied by a limited effect on apple allergy.

The prevalence of allergic diseases in children is markedly increasing to epidemic proportions. The aim of this study is to describe the presence and examine associated parental and child characteristics of allergic sensitization and

Background: Allergic sensitisation towards cashew nut often happens without a clear history of eating cashew nut. IgE cross-reactivity between cashew and pistachio nut is well described; however, the ability of cashew nut-specific IgE to cross-react to common tree nut species and other Anacardiaceae, like mango, pink peppercorn, or sumac is largely unknown. Objectives: Cashew nut allergic individuals may cross-react to foods that are phylogenetically related to cashew. We aimed to determine IgE cross-sensitisation and cross-reactivity profiles in cashew nut-sensitised subjects, towards botanically related proteins of other Anacardiaceae family members and related tree nut species. Method: Sera from children with a suspected cashew nut allergy (n = 56) were assessed for IgE sensitisation to common tree nuts, mango, pink peppercorn, and sumac using dot blot

Background: The double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge test (DBPCFC) is the gold standard in cashew nut allergy. This test is costly, time consuming and not without side effects. Analysis of IgE reactivity to cashew nut components may reduce the need for food challenge tests. Methods: In a prospective and multicentre study, children with suspected cashew nut allergy underwent a DBPCFC with cashew nut. Specific IgE to cashew nut and to the components Ana o 1, 2 and 3 were determined. A skin prick test (SPT) with cashew nut extract was performed. The association between the outcome of the food challenge test and specific IgE to Ana o 1, 2 and 3 was assessed with logistic regression analyses, unadjusted and adjusted for other diagnostic variables. Discriminative ability was quantified with a concordance index (c). Results: A total of 173 children (103 boys, 60%) with a median age of 9 years were included. About 79% had a positive challenge test outcome. A steep rise in the risk of a positive challenge was observed for specific IgE to each individual component Ana o 1, 2 and 3 with estimated risks up to approximately 100%. Median values of Ana o 1, 2, 3 were 1.29 kU/l (range 0–100 kU/l), 4.77 kU/l (range 0–100 kU/l) and 8.33 kU/l (range 0–100 kU/l) respectively and varied significantly (p < 0.001). Specific IgE to Ana o 1, 2 and 3 was better distinguished between cashew-allergic and tolerant children (c = 0.87, 0.85 and 0.89, respectively) than specific IgE to cashew nut or SPT (c = 0.76 and 0.83, respectively). Conclusion: The major cashew nut allergens Ana o 1, 2 and 3 are each individually predictive for the outcome of food challenge tests in cashew-allergic children.

Background: Cashew nut, pistachio nut and mango belong to the Anacardiaceae family and are botanically related. Therefore, cashew nut sensitised children are frequently advised to eliminate cashew nuts and pistachio nuts from their diet. The ‘Improvement of Diagnostic mEthods for ALlergy assessment (IDEAL trial number NTR3572) study showed that cashew nut sensitised children were co-sensitised to pistachio nut in 98% of cases and to mango in 21% of cases. The aim of this follow-up study to IDEAL is to assess the clinical relevance of co-sensitisation to pistachio nut and mango in cashew nut sensitised children. Methods: Children were recruited from the study: ‘Improvement of Diagnostic mEthods for ALlergy assessment (IDEAL trial number NTR3572). Inclusion criterion for the IDEAL study was sensitization to cashew nut as demonstrated by either SPT or sIgE, and a clinical history of reactions to cashew nuts or no previous (known) exposure. Sensitized children who were tolerant to cashew nuts were excluded. Inclusion criterion for this IDEAL follow-up study was co-sensitization to pistachio nut, regardless the result of the DBPCFC with cashew nut. In this follow-up study a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge with pistachio nut and an open food challenge with mango were performed. Results: Twenty-nine children (mean age of 11.6 years, 62% male) were included. Pistachio nut sensitisation was clinically relevant in only 34% of cashew-sensitised children and only 31% of cashew challenge positive children. None of the children was challenge positive to mango. Conclusion: Although co-sensitisation between cashew nut and pistachio nut was observed in 98%, pistachio nut sensitisation was only clinically relevant in 34% of the children. Therefore, a challenge test with pistachio nut is recommended in children with cashew nut and pistachio nut sensitisation.

Background: There are several methods to read skin prick test results in type-I allergy testing. A commonly used method is to characterize the wheal size by its 'average diameter'. A more accurate method is to scan the area of the wheal to calculate the actual size. In both methods, skin prick test (SPT) results can be corrected for histamine-sensitivity of the skin by dividing the results of the allergic reaction by the histamine control. The objectives of this study are to compare different techniques of quantifying SPT results, to determine a cut-off value for a positive SPT for histamine equivalent prick -index (HEP) area, and to study the accuracy of predicting cashew nut reactions in double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) tests with the different SPT methods. Methods: Data of 172 children with cashew nut sensitisation were used for the analysis. All patients underwent a DBPCFC with cashew nut. Per patient, the average diameter and scanned area of the wheal size were recorded. In addition, the same data for the histamine-induced wheal were collected for each patient. The accuracy in predicting the outcome of the DBPCFC using four different SPT readings (i.e. average diameter, area, HEP-index diameter, HEP-index area) were compared in a Receiver-Operating Characteristic (ROC) plot. Results: Characterizing the wheal size by the average diameter method is inaccurate compared to scanning method. A wheal average diameter of 3 mm is generally considered as a positive SPT cut-off value and an equivalent HEP-index area cut-off value of 0.4 was calculated. The four SPT methods yielded a comparable area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84, 0.85, 0.83 and 0.83, respectively. The four methods showed comparable accuracy in predicting cashew nut reactions in a DBPCFC. Conclusions: The 'scanned area method' is theoretically more accurate in determining the wheal area than the 'average diameter method' and is recommended in academic research. A HEP-index area of 0.4

Background: Few studies with a limited number of patients have provided indications that cashew-allergic patients may experience severe allergic reactions to minimal amounts of cashew nut. The objectives of this multicentre study were to assess the clinical relevance of cashew nut sensitisation, to study the clinical reaction patterns in double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge tests and to establish the amount of cashew nuts that can elicit an allergic reaction. Methods and Findings: A total of 179 children were included (median age 9.0 years; range 2-17 years) with cashew nut sensitisation and

Here, we summarise the current clinical knowledge on Ara h 6 sensitisation and clinical relevance of this sensitisation pattern using five illustrative clinical cases. The literature search yielded a total of 166 papers, and an additional relevant article was found by ‘snowballing’. A total of ten articles were considered relevant for this review. Most studies included patients with a sensitisation to Ara h 6 and cosensitisation to Ara h 2. Only three studies showed patients with a mono-sensitisation to Ara h 6. This illustrates that Ara h 6 mono-sensitisation has been neglected in literature. We present a case series of five children with sensitisation to peanut component Ara h 6. Only one of these five patients showed Ara h 8 cosensitivity. Three out of the five children had a positive double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), with moderate to strong reactions. Conclusion: A mono-sensitisation to peanut component Ara h 6 is uncommon but can cause severe allergic reactions. Therefore, the determination of sIgE to Ara h 6 is warranted in patients with a suspected peanut allergy, especially in the absence of sensitisation to Ara h 1, 2, 3 and 9.(Table presented.)

One of the purposes to perform an oral food challenge (FC) test is to avoid unnecessary elimination of food allergens. In case of a negative FC test result, the food can be introduced. It is, however, unknown if patients act according to the outcome of the test. This study evaluates the rate of introduction of peanut, hazelnut, cow’s milk or hen’s egg allergens after a negative FC test. We investigated the introduction rate of children (0–18 years) with a negative FC test visiting the Department of Allergology, Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam from 2008 till 2013 and the factors that influence the rate of introduction. Patients were