Alexandra F. Santos

Randomized Trial of Peanut Consumption in Infants at Risk for Peanut Allergy

BACKGROUND The prevalence of peanut allergy among children in Western countries has doubled in the past 10 years, and peanut allergy is becoming apparent in Africa and Asia. We evaluated strategies of peanut consumption and avoidance to determine which strategy is most effective in preventing the development of peanut allergy in infants at high risk for the allergy. METHODS We randomly assigned 640 infants with severe eczema, egg allergy, or both to consume or avoid peanuts until 60 months of age. Participants, who were at least 4 months but younger than 11 months of age at randomization, were assigned to separate study cohorts on the basis of preexisting sensitivity to peanut extract, which was determined with the use of a skin-prick test--one consisting of participants with no measurable wheal after testing and the other consisting of those with a wheal measuring 1 to 4 mm in diameter. The primary outcome, which was assessed independently in each cohort, was the proportion of participants with peanut allergy at 60 months of age. RESULTS Among the 530 infants in the intention-to-treat population who initially had negative results on the skin-prick test, the prevalence of peanut allergy at 60 months of age was 13.7% in the avoidance group and 1.9% in the consumption group (P<0.001). Among the 98 participants in the intention-to-treat population who initially had positive test results, the prevalence of peanut allergy was 35.3% in the avoidance group and 10.6% in the consumption group (P=0.004). There was no significant between-group difference in the incidence of serious adverse events. Increases in levels of peanut-specific IgG4 antibody occurred predominantly in the consumption group; a greater percentage of participants in the avoidance group had elevated titers of peanut-specific IgE antibody. A larger wheal on the skin-prick test and a lower ratio of peanut-specific IgG4:IgE were associated with peanut allergy. CONCLUSIONS The early introduction of peanuts significantly decreased the frequency of the development of peanut allergy among children at high risk for this allergy and modulated immune responses to peanuts. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00329784.).

EAACI food allergy and anaphylaxis guidelines: diagnosis and management of food allergy

Food allergy can result in considerable morbidity, impact negatively on quality of life, and prove costly in terms of medical care. These guidelines have been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunologys (EAACI) Guidelines for Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Group, building on previous EAACI position papers on adverse reaction to foods and three recent systematic reviews on the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of food allergy, and provide evidence‐based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of food allergy. While the primary audience is allergists, this document is relevant for all other healthcare professionals, including primary care physicians, and pediatric and adult specialists, dieticians, pharmacists and paramedics. Our current understanding of the manifestations of food allergy, the role of diagnostic tests, and the effective management of patients of all ages with food allergy is presented. The acute management of non‐life‐threatening reactions is covered in these guidelines, but for guidance on the emergency management of anaphylaxis, readers are referred to the related EAACI Anaphylaxis Guidelines.

Anaphylaxis: guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Anaphylaxis is a clinical emergency, and all healthcare professionals should be familiar with its recognition and acute and ongoing management. These guidelines have been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Taskforce on Anaphylaxis. They aim to provide evidence‐based recommendations for the recognition, risk factor assessment, and the management of patients who are at risk of, are experiencing, or have experienced anaphylaxis. While the primary audience is allergists, these guidelines are also relevant to all other healthcare professionals. The development of these guidelines has been underpinned by two systematic reviews of the literature, both on the epidemiology and on clinical management of anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a potentially life‐threatening condition whose clinical diagnosis is based on recognition of a constellation of presenting features. First‐line treatment for anaphylaxis is intramuscular adrenaline. Useful second‐line interventions may include removing the trigger where possible, calling for help, correct positioning of the patient, high‐flow oxygen, intravenous fluids, inhaled short‐acting bronchodilators, and nebulized adrenaline. Discharge arrangements should involve an assessment of the risk of further reactions, a management plan with an anaphylaxis emergency action plan, and, where appropriate, prescribing an adrenaline auto‐injector. If an adrenaline auto‐injector is prescribed, education on when and how to use the device should be provided. Specialist follow‐up is essential to investigate possible triggers, to perform a comprehensive risk assessment, and to prevent future episodes by developing personalized risk reduction strategies including, where possible, commencing allergen immunotherapy. Training for the patient and all caregivers is essential. There are still many gaps in the evidence base for anaphylaxis.

Effect of Avoidance on Peanut Allergy after Early Peanut Consumption

BACKGROUND In a randomized trial, the early introduction of peanuts in infants at high risk for allergy was shown to prevent peanut allergy. In this follow-up study, we investigated whether the rate of peanut allergy remained low after 12 months of peanut avoidance among participants who had consumed peanuts during the primary trial (peanut-consumption group), as compared with those who had avoided peanuts (peanut-avoidance group). METHODS At the end of the primary trial, we instructed all the participants to avoid peanuts for 12 months. The primary outcome was the percentage of participants with peanut allergy at the end of the 12-month period, when the participants were 72 months of age. RESULTS We enrolled 556 of 628 eligible participants (88.5%) from the primary trial; 550 participants (98.9%) had complete primary-outcome data. The rate of adherence to avoidance in the follow-up study was high (90.4% in the peanut-avoidance group and 69.3% in the peanut-consumption group). Peanut allergy at 72 months was significantly more prevalent among participants in the peanut-avoidance group than among those in the peanut-consumption group (18.6% [52 of 280 participants] vs. 4.8% [13 of 270], P<0.001). Three new cases of allergy developed in each group, but after 12 months of avoidance there was no significant increase in the prevalence of allergy among participants in the consumption group (3.6% [10 of 274 participants] at 60 months and 4.8% [13 of 270] at 72 months, P=0.25). Fewer participants in the peanut-consumption group than in the peanut-avoidance group had high levels of Ara h2 (a component of peanut protein)-specific IgE and peanut-specific IgE; in addition, participants in the peanut-consumption group continued to have a higher level of peanut-specific IgG4 and a higher peanut-specific IgG4:IgE ratio. CONCLUSIONS Among children at high risk for allergy in whom peanuts had been introduced in the first year of life and continued until 5 years of age, a 12-month period of peanut avoidance was not associated with an increase in the prevalence of peanut allergy. Longer-term effects are not known. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; LEAP-On ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01366846.).

The epidemiology of anaphylaxis in Europe: a systematic review

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially fatal, multi‐organ system, allergic reaction caused by the release of chemical mediators from mast cells and basophils. Uncertainty exists around epidemiological measures of incidence and prevalence, risk factors, risk of recurrence, and death due to anaphylaxis. This systematic review aimed to (1) understand and describe the epidemiology of anaphylaxis and (2) describe how these characteristics vary by person, place, and time.

The clinical utility of basophil activation testing in diagnosis and monitoring of allergic disease

The basophil activation test (BAT) has become a pervasive test for allergic response through the development of flow cytometry, discovery of activation markers such as CD63 and unique markers identifying basophil granulocytes. Basophil activation test measures basophil response to allergen cross‐linking IgE on between 150 and 2000 basophil granulocytes in <0.1 ml fresh blood. Dichotomous activation is assessed as the fraction of reacting basophils. In addition to clinical history, skin prick test, and specific IgE determination, BAT can be a part of the diagnostic evaluation of patients with food‐, insect venom‐, and drug allergy and chronic urticaria. It may be helpful in determining the clinically relevant allergen. Basophil sensitivity may be used to monitor patients on allergen immunotherapy, anti‐IgE treatment or in the natural resolution of allergy. Basophil activation test may use fewer resources and be more reproducible than challenge testing. As it is less stressful for the patient and avoids severe allergic reactions, BAT ought to precede challenge testing. An important next step is to standardize BAT and make it available in diagnostic laboratories. The nature of basophil activation as an ex vivo challenge makes it a multifaceted and promising tool for the allergist. In this EAACI task force position paper, we provide an overview of the practical and technical details as well as the clinical utility of BAT in diagnosis and management of allergic diseases.

IgG4 inhibits peanut-induced basophil and mast cell activation in peanut-tolerant children sensitized to peanut major allergens.

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.

Profilins: Mimickers of Allergy or Relevant Allergens?

Profilins are ubiquitous proteins, present in all eukaryotic cells and identified as allergens in pollen, latex and plant foods. The highly conserved structure justifies the cross-reactive nature of IgE antibodies against plant profilins and their designation as pan-allergens. Primary sensitization to profilin seems to arise from pollen sensitization with later development of cross-reactive IgE antibodies against plant food (and possibly latex) profilins. The role of profilin in inducing allergic symptoms needs to be evaluated and raises important issues in allergy diagnosis due to cross-reactivity. IgE cross-reactivity among profilins is associated with multiple pollen sensitization and with various pollen-food syndromes. In respiratory allergy, sensitization to pollen to which the patient has virtually no environmental exposure has been identified as a manifestation of profilin sensitization. As a food allergen, profilin usually elicits mild reactions, such as oral allergy syndrome, is not modified by processing and is especially important in allergy to some fruits, such as melon, watermelon, banana, tomato, citrus fruit and persimmon. Purified natural and recombinant profilins for in vitro and in vivo allergy tests are helpful in the diagnostic work-up. Herein we review the current state of knowledge about the allergen profilin and its implications in the diagnosis and treatment of allergic diseases. We conclude that, although its role in triggering allergic symptoms is still controversial, profilin is undoubtedly a relevant allergen. As a pan-allergen, profilin is associated with multiple pollen sensitization and pollen-food-latex syndromes that the allergist has to be aware of in order to accomplish an accurate diagnosis and successful treatment of allergic diseases.

Management of anaphylaxis: a systematic review

To establish the effectiveness of interventions for the acute and long‐term management of anaphylaxis, seven databases were searched for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi‐randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before–after studies and interrupted time series and – only in relation to adrenaline – case series investigating the effectiveness of interventions in managing anaphylaxis. Fifty‐five studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. We found no robust studies investigating the effectiveness of adrenaline (epinephrine), H1‐antihistamines, systemic glucocorticosteroids or methylxanthines to manage anaphylaxis. There was evidence regarding the optimum route, site and dose of administration of adrenaline from trials studying people with a history of anaphylaxis. This suggested that administration of intramuscular adrenaline into the middle of vastus lateralis muscle is the optimum treatment. Furthermore, fatality register studies have suggested that a failure or delay in administration of adrenaline may increase the risk of death. The main long‐term management interventions studied were anaphylaxis management plans and allergen‐specific immunotherapy. Management plans may reduce the risk of further reactions, but these studies were at high risk of bias. Venom immunotherapy may reduce the incidence of systemic reactions in those with a history of venom‐triggered anaphylaxis.

Distinct parameters of the basophil activation test reflect the severity and threshold of allergic reactions to peanut

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.