Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are invaluable therapeutic options in a variety of dyspeptic diseases. In addition to their well-known risk profile, PPI consumption is related to food and environmental allergies, dysbiosis, osteoporosis, as well as immediate and delayed hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). The latter, although a rare event, around 1-3%, due to the extraordinarily high rate of prescription and consumption of PPIs are related to a substantial risk. In this Position Paper, we provide clinicians with practical evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of HSRs to PPIs. Furthermore, the unmet needs proposed in the document aim to stimulate more in-depth investigations in the topic.
Abstract: Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology’s (EAACI) is updating the Guidelines on Food Allergy Diagnosis. We aimed to undertake a systematic review of the literature with meta-analyses to assess the accuracy of diagnostic tests for IgE-mediated food allergy. Methods: We searched three databases (Cochrane CENTRAL (Trials), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID)) for diagnostic test accuracy studies published between 1 st October 2012 and 30 th June 2021 according to a previously published protocol (CRD42021259186). We independently screened abstracts, extracted data from full-texts, and assessed risk of bias with QUADRAS 2 tool in duplicate. Meta analyses were undertaken for food-test combination where 3 or more studies were available. Results: 149 studies comprising 24,489 patients met the inclusion criteria and were generally heterogeneous. 60.4% of studies were in children ≤12 years of age, 54.3% undertaken in Europe, ≥95% conducted in a specialized pediatric or allergy clinical setting and all included oral food challenge in at least a percentage of enrolled patients, in 21.5% DBPCFC. Skin prick test (SPT) with fresh cow’s milk and raw egg had high sensitivity (90% and 94%) for milk and cooked egg allergies. Specific IgE to individual components had high specificity: Ara h 2 had 92%, Cor a 14 95%, Ana o 3 94%, casein 93%, ovomucoid 92/91% for the diagnosis of peanut, hazelnut, cashew, cow’s milk and raw/cooked egg allergies, respectively. BAT was highly specific for the diagnosis of peanut (90%) and sesame (93%) allergies. Conclusions: SPT and specific IgE to extracts had high sensitivity whereas specific IgE to components and BAT had high specificity to support the diagnosis of individual food allergies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021259186 Funding: European Academy of Allergy (EAACI).
Background Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common chronic diseases worldwide. There are limited prospective long-term data regarding persistency and remission of AR. The objective of this study was to investigate the natural course of pollen-induced AR (pollen-AR) over 20 years, from childhood into early adulthood. Methods Data from 1137 subjects in the Barn/Children Allergi/Allergy Milieu Stockholm Epidemiologic birth cohort (BAMSE) with a completed questionnaire regarding symptoms, asthma, treatment with allergen immunotherapy (AIT) and results of allergen-specific IgE for inhalant allergens at 4, 8, 16 and 24 years were analysed. Pollen-AR was defined as sneezing, runny, itchy, or blocked nose; and itchy or watery eyes when exposed to birch and/or grass pollen in combination with allergen-specific IgE ≥0.35kU A/l to birch and/or grass. Results Approximately 75% of children with pollen-AR at 4 or 8 years had persistent disease up to 24 years, and 30% developed asthma. The probability of persistency was high already at low levels of pollen-specific IgE. The highest rate of remission from pollen-AR was seen between 16 and 24 years (21.5%), however the majority remained sensitized. This period was also when pollen-specific IgE-levels stopped increasing and the average estimated annual incidence of pollen-AR decreased from 1.5% to 0.8% per year. Conclusion Children with pollen-AR are at high risk of persistent disease for at least 20 years. Childhood up to adolescence seems to be the most dynamic period of AR progression. Our findings underline the close cross-sectional and longitudinal relationship between sensitization, AR, and asthma.
The field of medicine is witnessing an exponential growth of interest in Artificial Intelligence (AI), which enables new research questions and the analysis of larger and new types of data. Nevertheless, applications that go beyond proof of concepts and deliver clinical value remain rare, especially in the field of allergy and immunology. This narrative review provides a fundamental understanding of the core concepts of AI and critically discusses its limitations and open challenges, such as data availability and bias, along with potential directions to surmount them. We provide a conceptual framework to structure AI applications within this field and discuss forefront case examples. Most of these applications of AI and machine learning in allergy concern supervised learning and unsupervised clustering, with a strong emphasis on diagnosis and subtyping. A perspective is shared on guidelines for good AI practice to guide readers in applying it effectively and safely, along with prospects of field advancement and initiatives to increase clinical impact. We anticipate that AI can further deepen our knowledge of disease mechanisms and contribute to precision medicine in allergy.
Insect venom allergy is the most frequent cause of anaphylaxis in Europe and possibly worldwide. The majority of systemic allergic reactions after insect stings are caused by Hymenoptera and among these, vespid genera induce most of the systemic sting reactions (SSR). Honey bees are the second leading cause of SSR. Depending on the global region, other Hymenoptera such as different ant genera are responsible for SSR. Widely distributed hornets and bumblebees or local vespid or bee genera rarely induce SSR. Hematophagous insects such as mosquitoes and horse flies usually cause (large) local reactions while SSR occasionally occur. This position paper aims to identify either rare or locally important insects causing SSR as well as rarely occurring SSR after stings or bites of widely distributed insects. We summarized relevant venom or saliva allergens and intended to identify possible cross-reactivities between the insect allergens. Moreover, we aimed to locate diagnostic tests for research and routine diagnosis, which are sometimes only regionally available. Finally, we gathered information on disposable immunotherapies. Major allergens of most insects were identified, and cross-reactivity between insects was frequently observed. While some diagnostics and immunotherapies are locally available, standardized skin tests and immunotherapies are generally lacking in rare insect allergy.
Meglumine gadoterate induces immunoglobulin-independent human mast cell activation and MRGPRX2 internalizationTo the Editor,Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) are intravenous drugs used to enhance resolution in magnetic resonance imaging. They can induce immediate hypersensitivity reactions, yet their pathogenic mechanisms remain poorly characterized. This hampers the ability to predict which patients are at risk of developing them.1 In fact, affected patients usually show negative skin-tests and can react upon the first known GBCA exposure, which implies that IgE-independent mechanisms might be driving this inflammatory response.The Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor member X2 (MRGPRX2) has been recently associated with non-IgE mediated immediate hypersensitivity reactions.2 Some drugs, such as fluoroquinolones, vancomycin, neuromuscular blockade agents, icatibant, morphine, leuprolide and iodinated contrast media, have been reported to activate MRGPRX2, which is highly expressed in mast cells (MCs).3To assess the ability of GBCA to induce non-IgE-mediated hypersensitivity reactions, we stimulated the human MC line LAD2 with several commercial GBCA, namely, meglumine gadoterate, gadobutrol, gadoxetate disodium and gadoteridol. Then, we determined cell viability and degranulation by flow cytometry4 (see a detailed material and methods section in this article´s online supplementary ).Of the GBCA tested, only meglumine gadoterate was able to induce significant MC activation (Figure 1A ) without compromising cell viability (Figure 1B ), as compared to unstimulated MCs. We further assessed MRGPRX2 expression on LAD2 cells by flow cytometry, as well as changes in its expression following stimulations with either meglumine gadoterate or vancomycin (a known agonist of MRGPRX2).5 Under basal conditions, LAD2 cells expressed high levels of MRGPRX2 (Figure 1C ). Following incubation with vancomycin, the level of MRGPRX2 expression was reduced, as compared to untreated LAD2 cells. Interestingly, we observed a similar decrease in MRGPRX2 expression levels upon meglumine gadoterate and vancomycin challenges, as compared to controls, suggesting both the signaling and the internalization of this receptor (Figure 1D ).Meglumine gadoterate is an ionic macrocyclic paramagnetic contrast media. It is composed by gadolinium, which together with the chelating agent tetraxetan (also known as DOTA), yields gadoteric acid. The base meglumine and gadoteric acid form the salt meglumine gadoterate (Figure 2A ). Given that MRGPRX2 has affinity for cationic amphiphilic compounds,6 we ascertained the ability of meglumine to induce MC activation. Meglumine itself induced MC degranulation without affecting cell viability, as compared to untreated cells (Figure 2B ), although a reduction in MRGPX2 expression could not be confirmed (data not shown). Interestingly, meglumine caused MC activation at lower concentrations than meglumine gadoterate, according to the half maximal effective concentration (EC50) of both substances (Figure 2C ). The logarithmically transformed EC50 for meglumine gadoterate was 2.04 (R2= 0.75), and for meglumine was about one order of magnitude lower (1.06; R2= 0.71). Considering the EC50 for meglumine and its proportion in meglumine gadoterate (~26%), meglumine could be its main component responsible for MC degranulation.In conclusion, our study demonstrates the ability of meglumine gadoterate to induce MC activation, by an immunoglobulin-independent mechanism that is likely mediated by MRGPRX2. Furthermore, we have delved into the meglumine gadoterate components that are involved in MC activation, and identified meglumine as a potential causative of non-IgE mediated hypersensitivity reactions. These data raise the possibility that immediate hypersensitivity reactions following intravascular administration of ionic iodinated contrast media may be at least partly mediated by meglumine. Further studies should be performed to define clinically relevant interactions between diverse radiological contrast media and MRGPRX2.Authors: Paula H. Ruiz de Azcárate,1#Rodrigo Jiménez-Saiz,1-4 #* Celia López-Sanz,1 Azahara López-Raigada,5Francisco Vega,5 Carlos Blanco,5*# First authors* Corresponding authorsAffiliations: 1Department of Immunology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital Universitario de La Princesa (IIS-Princesa), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), Madrid, Spain.2Department of Immunology and Oncology, Centro Nacional de Biotecnología (CNB)-CSIC, Madrid, Spain.3Faculty of Experimental Sciences, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria (UFV), Madrid, Spain.4Department of Medicine, McMaster Immunology Research Centre (MIRC), Schroeder Allergy and Immunology Research Institute (SAIRI), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.5Department of Allergy, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital Universitario de La Princesa (IIS-Princesa), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), Madrid, Spain.*Co-correspondence to :1) Rodrigo Jiménez-Saiz, Department of Immunology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital Universitario de La Princesa (IIS-Princesa), Diego de León 62, 28006, Madrid, Spain. Email address: [email protected]) Carlos Blanco, Department of Allergy, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital Universitario de La Princesa (IIS-Princesa), Diego de León 62, 28006, Madrid, Spain. Email address: [email protected] Funding information: RJS reports grants by the FSE/FEDER through the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CP20/00043; PI22/00236; Spain), The Nutricia Research Foundation (NRF-2021-13; The Netherlands), New Frontiers in Research Fund (NFRFE-2019-00083; Canada) and SEAIC (BECA20A9; Spain). PHR is supported by the INVESTIGO Program of the Community of Madrid (Spain), which is funded by “Plan de Recuperación, Transformación y Resiliencia” and “NextGenerationEU” of the European Union (09-PIN1-00015.6/2022).Conflict of interest : All the authors have no significant conflicts of interest to declare in relation to this manuscript.References1. Vega F, Lopez-Raigada A, Mugica MV, Blanco C. Fast challenge tests with gadolinium-based contrast agents to search for an alternative contrast media in allergic patients. Allergy.2022;77(10):3151-3153.2. Kolkhir P, Ali H, Babina M, et al. MRGPRX2 in drug allergy: What we know and what we do not know. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022.3. Foer D, Wien M, Karlson EW, Song W, Boyce JA, Brennan PJ. Patient Characteristics Associated With Reactions to Mrgprx2-Activating Drugs in an Electronic Health Record-Linked Biobank. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2022.4. López-Sanz C, Sánchez-Martínez E, Jiménez-Saiz R. Protocol to desensitize human and murine mast cells after polyclonal IgE sensitization. STAR Protocols. 2022;3(4):101755.5. Navines-Ferrer A, Serrano-Candelas E, Lafuente A, Munoz-Cano R, Martin M, Gastaminza G. MRGPRX2-mediated mast cell response to drugs used in perioperative procedures and anaesthesia. Sci Rep.2018;8(1):11628.6. Wolf K, Kühn H, Boehm F, et al. A group of cationic amphiphilic drugs activates MRGPRX2 and induces scratching behavior in mice. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021;148(2):506-522.e508.
The field of food allergy has seen tremendous change over the past 5-10 years with seminal studies redefining our approach to prevention and management and novel testing modalities in the horizon. Early introduction of allergenic foods is now recommended, challenging the previous paradigm of restrictive avoidance. The management of food allergy has shifted from a passive avoidance approach to active interventions that aim to provide protection from accidental exposures, decrease allergic reaction severity and improve the quality of life of food-allergic patients and their families. Additionally, novel diagnostic tools are making their way into the clinical practice with the goal to reduce the need for food challenges and assist physicians in the -- often complex -- diagnostic process. With all the new developments and available choices for diagnosis, prevention and therapy, shared decision-making has become a key part of the medical consultation, enabling patients to make the right choice for them, based on their values and preferences. Communication with patients has also become more complex over time, as patients are seeking advice online and through social media, but the information found online may be outdated, incorrect, or lacking in context. The role of the allergist has evolved to embrace all the above exciting developments and provide patients with the optimal care that fits their needs. In this review, we discuss recent developments, as well as the evolution of the field of food allergy in the next decade.
A consensus protocol for the Basophil Activation Test for multicenter collaboration and External Quality AssuranceAuthors: Pascal, M# 1, Edelman SM#2, Nopp, A#3, Möbs, C4, Geilenkeuser, WJ5, Knol, EF6, Ebo, DG7, Mertens C7, Shamji, MH8, Santos, AF9,10, Patil, S11, Eberlein, B*12, Mayorga, C*13, Hoffmann HJ14*Affiliations1 Immunology Department, Centre de Diagnòstic Biomèdic, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.2 Skin and Allergy Hospital, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland, present address Aimmune Therapeutics, Finland3 Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet, Södersjukhuset, and Sachs´ Children and Youth Hospital, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden4 Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany5 Reference Institute for Bioanalytics, Bonn, Germany6 Center of Translational Immunology and Dermatology/Allergology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.7 Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Immunology-Allergology- Rheumatology, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium8 National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, UK and NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, UK9 Department of Women and Children’s Health (Pediatric Allergy) & Peter Gorer Department of Immunobiology, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom10 Children’s Allergy Service, Evelina London Children’s Hospital, Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital, London, United Kingdom11 Division of Allergy and Immunology, Departments of Medicine and Pediatrics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States12 Department of Dermatology and Allergy Biederstein, School of Medicine, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany13 Allergy Clinical Unit, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga and Allergy Research Group, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga-IBIMA-BIONAND, Malaga, Spain;14 Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Department of Respiratory Diseases and Allergy, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark# shared first authors, * shared senior authorsCOIM Pascal, SM Edelman, A Nopp, C Möbs, EF Knol, SU Patil and C Mayorga have no conflict of interest regarding this work. B Eberlein received methodological and technical support from the company BUEHLMANN Laboratories AG (Schönenbuch, Switzerland) outside the submitted work. Dr Hoffmann reports grant from the Innovation Fund of Denmark, outside the submitted work. Dr Shamji reports grants awarded to institution from the Immune Tolerance Network, UK Medical Research Council, Allergy Therapeuitics, LETI Laboratories, Revolo biotherapeutics and Angany Inc. He has received consulting fees from Bristol Meyers Squibb and lecture fees from Allergy Therapeutics and LETI laboratories, all outside the submitted work. Dr. Santos reports grants from Medical Research Council (MR/M008517/1; MC/PC/18052; MR/T032081/1), Food Allergy Research and Education (FARE), the NIH, Asthma UK (AUK-BC-2015-01), the Immune Tolerance Network/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID, NIH) and the NIHR through the Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) award to Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, during the conduct of the study; speaker or consultancy fees from Thermo Scientific, Nutricia, Infomed, Novartis, Allergy Therapeutics, IgGenix, Stallergenes, Buhlmann, as well as research support from Buhlmann and Thermo Fisher Scientific through a collaboration agreement with King’s College London, outside the submitted work. Dr Geilenkeuser is an employee of Referenizinstitut für Bioanalytik, DE that provided logistic assistance and reagent support for the study.To the editorThe basophil activation test (BAT) has significant potential as a diagnostic tool to better phenotype and manage patients with IgE-mediated allergies, so that only a small proportion of patients need to be challenged. Sample, reagent, laboratory procedure, analysis protocols, and population characteristics can influence BAT performance (1,2). Regulatory approval and clinical implementation require extensive standardization of laboratory protocols, cytometer settings, and results interpretation (3). European national authorities require External Quality Assurance (EQA) of the performance of modern diagnostic laboratories by agencies independent of test suppliers to meet ISO 15189:2012, 15189:2013 and 9001:2015.Based on an online survey among 59 responding European laboratories performing BAT in 2017 (4,5) (Online Supplement; Results of the online survey), a Task Force was launched in 2018 to create the basis for a BAT-EQA. Round Robins (RR) were organized with seven shipments of 2 donors each to 7-10 European centers with overnight courier service from Bonn, DE. To minimize variation, prior to shipment, blood basophils were activated with 1 ul FcεRI antibody/ml of blood and stabilized with 0.2 mL Transfix (Cytomark, UK) per mL of blood to stabilize activated basophils up to 48 hours for staining (6). Fresh blood was included for stimulation and staining at the participating laboratory sites.We met after the third shipment to reach consensus on a protocol for BAT (Online Supplement; Proposed SOP for in house BAT). The threshold set on an unstimulated control sample was determined empirically on an independent data set as equal or greater than 2.5% with ROC curves based on data from patients with hypersensitivity to amoxicillin and patients with peanut allergy, (Online supplement, tables S1 and S2). This proposal did not find universal consensus among the authors.Data analysis started with identification of the relevant region in a scatter plot, followed by identification of basophils with the relevant markers, for instance, using low SSC and CD193 only or CD193 and CD123. Finally, the threshold was set at 2.5% of CD63 expression on resting basophils (Figure 1A). >5% CD63+basophils above that threshold in an activated sample was considered a positive response. This setting was used to obtain the percentage of CD63+ cells in centrally preactivated and locally activated blood samples; however, it was not adopted in all labs. Data from participating labs analyzed with their proprietary and the above standardized analysis compared well (online supplement, figure S4).The first two RR were used to establish coherence between participating laboratories. Data from RR3–RR7 were comparable. The standard deviation of activation measured at all participating centers was 16.8% in preactivated blood (Figure 1B) compared with 49.2% for samples activated and analyzed locally, illustrating the utility of using preactivated blood for EQA. Shipment to Málaga took 48h, and local activation of blood basophils was consistently suboptimal, consistent with a preliminary round robin from 2012, where the clinical outcome was robust up to 24 h. Centrally activated basophils performed as well in Málaga as in other centers.EQA for BAT is critical to facilitate routine implementation of this assay in the field of in vitro allergy diagnostics. The variability of the responses to our survey highlighted the importance and need for multicenter validation. Full validation and standardization of the BAT protocol and analysis is essential and possible for setting the grounds for controlled multicenter research studies as well as EQA. The BAT-EQA Task Force provides a standard operating protocol (Online supplement; Proposed SOP for in house BAT) and reference materials for the test to standardize and enhance the accuracy of BAT for both clinical and research collaborations and EQA.
Prodromes predict attacks of Hereditary Angioedema: results of a prospective StudyTo the Editor,Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) is a lifetime disease characterized by repetitive bouts of tissue edema.1 Early signs, symptoms and perceptions (prodromes) are manifested by subjective and objective signals, preceding attacks by several hours.2-3 Using an new HAE-specific instrument, we have recently shown that patients can identify prodromes and able to predict oncoming attacks.4 However, that study was retrospective, which might have been affected by recall bias.In the present study a cohort of 48 HAE patients prospectively reported four events of prodromes followed by attack, attacks not preceded by a prodrome and incidents with only a prodrome. Pre-defined domains (clusters of body locations) and scalable dimensions (pain, severity, impairment and functionality), time of onset and termination were assessed in each episode.3-4 (Statistical methods are described in the supplementary data ). The study was approved by the ethics committees of Tel-Aviv University, Sheba Medical Center and Barzilai Medical center. All patients signed an informed-consent form. Mean age was 35.25 years (SD ±16.4), Median 30.0 (age range 10-70) and 27 (56.25%) were females. Mean age of onset was 8.3 years and age at diagnosis 10.9 years (2.7 years diagnostic gap) (Table S1 ).We received reports on 119 prodromes and 192 attacks. The majority experienced a prodrome before at least one of their attacks, and 64% affirmed that they can predict an oncoming attack by having a prodrome.(Table S1) .Significant differences were found between prodromes and attacks across all dimensions of the predefined clusters of body locations. Statistical analysis verified that prodromes could be discriminated from attacks for all parameters. (Table 1) Positive correlations were found between the same attributes of prodromes and attacks, most notably in the abdominal and extremity clusters (Table S2, Fig S1A-E) . Mean duration of prodromes was significantly shorter than attacks, and prodromes overlapped the attack in 24.3% of cases. The predictive power analysis indicates that individuals who experience a prodrome had higher risk for having an attack in the same region. Sensitivity of the prodrome as a predictor of attack was 95% to 99%, and specificity 18% to 64%. (Table 2).HAE prodromes represents a continuity of pathophysiologic events, initiated by the activation of the bradykinin-forming cascade and ending with a breach in vascular endothelial integrity.2, 5(Fig S2 ) In this study we aimed to capture the critical elements of prodromes and their association with consequent attacks and evaluate their predictive power as an early warning sign.2-4 The HAE-EPA instrument reliably captures patient’s experience by using the same metrics, and the prospective design better reflects patients’ experience in real-time, which may have been missed in our previous study.The study shades light on the predictive value of prodromes as forecasters of attacks.2-4 It affirms that patients can clearly distinguish prodromes from attacks. The positive correlations support our basic assumption that prodromes could predict attack location and severity, which is particularly germane in the abdomen. In most cases a high intensity attack was predated by a high intensity prodrome. This substantiate our observation on inter-personal differences between subjects4 Mean disease duration of the cohort (27 years) may surmise that the study subjects were experienced patients, who could recognize early pre-attack cues.Treating oncoming attack at the prodromal stage may enhance resolution of attacks.6, 7 Therefore; experienced patients can use prodromes as an efficient strategy in managing attacks by employing early interventions. Such approach can apply in other diseases with relapsing-remitting pattern and advance the concept of prodrome-triggered intervention.8In conclusion , the study ascertained that HAE patients can distinguish prodromes from attacks and a prodrome may predict attack in the same location. Having a prodrome increase the likelihood of subsequent attack, alerting the patients and assisting in early initiation of therapy.Table 1: Within-subject differences between prodrome and attacks
The incidence of food allergy (FA) has continued to rise over the last several decades, posing significant burdens on health and quality of life. Significant strides into the advancement of FA diagnosis, prevention, and treatment have been made in recent years. In an effort to lower reliance on resource-intensive food challenges, the field has continued work toward the development of highly sensitive and specific assays capable of high-throughput analysis to assist in the diagnosis FA. In looking toward early infancy as a critical period in the development of allergy or acquisition of tolerance, evidence has increasingly suggested that early intervention via the early introduction of food allergens and maintenance of skin barrier function may decrease the risk of FA. As such, largescale investigations are underway evaluating infant feeding and the impact of emollient and steroid use in infants with dry skin for the prevention of allergy. On the other end of the spectrum, the past few years have been witness to an explosive increase in clinical trials of novel and innovative therapeutic strategies aimed at the treatment of FA in those whom the disease has already manifested. A milestone in the field, 2020 marked the approval of the first drug, oral peanut allergen, for the indication of peanut allergy. With a foundation of promising data supporting the safety and efficacy of single- and multi-allergen oral immunotherapy, current efforts have turned toward the use of probiotics, biologic agents, and modified allergens to optimize and improve upon existing paradigms. Through these advancements, the field hopes to gain footing in the ongoing battle against FA.
Fast gadolinium-based contrast agent challenge test searching for an alternative contrast mediaTo the Editor,Gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) are used in contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to GBCA are scarce, with an incidence of 0.07% and a recurrence rate of 30%, being urticaria the most common presentation (91%), with 0.52/10000 of severe reactions reported1. Recommendation of an alternative GBCA without checking tolerance is dangerous, due to high cross-reactivity between them2. Moreover, premedication is not enough1, showing an overall rate of breakthrough reactions of 39%3.Allergy studies to achieve a safe recommendation in HSR to GBCA have been performed. Negative predictive value of skin-tests to GBCA has been estimated in 84%1. Therefore, more than 10% of patients could react using an alternative negative skin-tested GBCA, and thus, good tolerance to GBCA should be confirmed through a drug challenge-test (DCT)4. These tests are usually performed at graded administrations, and with observation periods between doses1,5. However, since GBCA is usually given as a bolus during radiologic exams, DCT at slow rates cannot be extrapolated to further administrations. Trying to avoid this limitation, we study the tolerance of an alternative GBCA, by means of a fast DCT, approaching the infusion rates used in clinical practice.In accordance with the safety warnings to avoid linear GBCA, we have only used the macrocyclic drugs gadobutrol (Gb) and gadoteric acid (Ga). After obtaining signed informed consent from the patients, skin pricktests (SPT) with undiluted macrocyclic GBCA commercial solutions were done. When SPT at 20 min yielded negative results, intradermal tests (IDT) with 1:10 dilutions were performed, with subsequent readings at both 20 min and 24 hours.A fast DCT with negative skin-tested GBCA was then performed, following our methodology to study HSR to iodinated contrast media, previously described elsewhere6. Doses were 0.2 mg/kg for Ga and 0.1 mg/kg for Gb. First, one third of the total dose of Ga was administered at a rate of 120 cc/hour and, immediately after, the remaining 2/3 at 80 cc/hour. In case of Gb, infusion rates were half those of Ga, i.e., 1/3 at 60 cc/hour and 2/3 at 40 cc/hour. Total infusion time was 8 minutes for both of them. Well-tolerated GBCA was finally recommended for subsequent examinations, and its tolerance was recorded if it was used later.Study results of sixteen patients that were enrolled are summarized in Table 1. They were 12 women and 4 men, with median age of 45.5 years (range 28-73). Adverse reactions to GBCA were immediate in 13 patients (12 urticaria or exanthema, and 1 anaphylaxis), and delayed exanthema in the remaining 3. Gb was involved in 11 reactions, and unknown GBCA in the other 5. Most of the patients (14/16) had been previously exposed to GBCA.Median delay to perform the allergy study was 10 months (range 2-72 months). All skin-tests were negative, except in one patient who showed an immediate positive SPT to Gb, which had been the GBCA involved in the adverse reaction. In our study, we have estimated a negative predictive value of skintests to GBCA of 89%. DCT were negative in 14 patients (12 with Ga, and 2 with Gb). Finally, 15 out of 16 patients had an alternative GBCA, avoiding the use of premedication. In fact, tolerance has been confirmed in 7 of them in subsequent examinations.Safety of our protocol has been confirmed because our 2 positive DCT showed only mild reactions (delayed exanthema and immediate urticarial, both with Ga), and also by including a patient with previous anaphylaxis to GBCA.Here we present a prospective protocol to identify a safe alternative GBCA, including DCT at high infusion rates. Further studies will be necessary on this item/to check this.
Similar IgE Binding Patterns in Gulf of Mexico and Southeast Asian Shrimp Species in US Shrimp Allergic PatientsSara Anvari1,2*, Shea Brunner1,2*, Karen Tuano1,2, Brenda Bin Su1,2, Shaymaviswanathan Karnaneed3, Andreas L. Lopata3, Carla M. Davis1,21Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children’s Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, Section of Immunology, Allergy and Retrovirology, Houston, Texas2Baylor College of Medicine, William T. Shearer Center for Human Immunobiology, Houston, Texas3James Cook University, Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, Centre for Molecular Therapeutics, Douglas, QLD, Australia*co-first authors
Background Cow’s milk protein allergy (CMPA) is one of the most common food allergies in infancy. Most infants with CMPA tolerate baked milk from diagnosis and gradually acquire increased tolerance. Nevertheless, parents often display significant anxiety about this condition and a corresponding reluctance to progress with home introduction of dairy due to concerns about possible allergic reactions. Objective: To evaluate the impact on gradual home introduction of foods containing cows milk after a supervised, single low dose exposure to whole milk at time of diagnosis. Methods Infants less than 12 months old, referred with suspected IgE-mediated cow’s milk allergy were recruited to an open-label randomised, controlled trial of intervention - a single dose of fresh cow’s milk, using the validated dose of milk that would elicit reactions in 5% of CMPA subjects - the ED 05 – vs routine care. Both groups implemented graded exposure to CM (using the 12 step MAP Milk Tolerance Induction Ladder), at Home. Parents completed food allergy quality of life and State and Trait Anxiety Inventories (STAI). Main outcome measures were milk ladder position at 6 months and 12 months post randomisation. Results: Sixty patients were recruited, 57 (95%) were followed to 6 months. By 6 months 27/37 (73%) intervention subjects had reached step 6 or above on the milk ladder compared to 10/20 (50%) control subjects (p=0.048). By 6 months 11/37 (30%) intervention subjects had reached step 12 (ie drinking unheated cow’s milk) compared to 2/20 (10%) of the controls (p=0.049). Twelve months post randomisation 31/36(86%) of the intervention group and 15/19(79%) of the control group were on step 6 or above. However, 24/37 (65%) of the intervention group were at step 12 compared to 7/20 (35%) of the control group (p=0.03). Maternal STAIs were significantly associated with their infants’ progress on the milk ladder and with changes in skin prick test and spIgE levels at 6 and 12 months. Conclusion This study demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of introduction of baked milk implemented immediately after diagnosis of cows milk allergy in a very young cohort. A supervised single dose of milk at the ED 05 significantly accelerates this further, probably by giving parents the confidence to proceed. Maternal anxiety generally reflects infants’ progress towards completion of the milk ladder, but pre-existing high levels of maternal anxiety are associated with poorer progress.
Most patients presenting with allergies are first seen by primary care health professionals. The perceived knowledge gaps and educational needs were recently assessed in response to which the LOGOGRAM Task Force was established with the remit of constructing pragmatic flow-diagrams for common allergic conditions in line with an earlier EAACI proposal to develop simplified pathways for the diagnosis and management of allergic diseases in primary care. To address the lack of accessible and pragmatic guidance, we designed flow-diagrams for five major clinical allergy conditions: asthma, anaphylaxis, food allergy, drug allergy and urticaria. Existing established allergy guidelines were collected and iteratively distilled to produce five pragmatic and accessible tools to aid diagnosis and management of these common allergic problems. Ultimately, they should now be validated prospectively in primary care settings.