Search

Background: Food allergies are a significant public health issue, and the only effective management option currently available is strict avoidance of all foods containing the allergen. In view of the practical impossibility of limiting risks to zero, quantitative allergen risk assessment and management strategies are needed., Objective: We sought to develop appropriate methods for informing population-based risk assessments and risk management programs to benefit all stakeholders but particularly patients with food allergy., Methods: Individual thresholds for food allergens (maximum tolerable doses and minimum eliciting doses) can ideally be established through double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. If double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge data are not available, data from widely used open food challenges using predefined objective criteria can also provide useful data regarding minimum eliciting doses. For more than 20 years, the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research and the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln have been collecting individual maximum tolerable doses and minimum eliciting doses that produce objective symptoms from published and unpublished clinical data to better refine knowledge regarding the sensitivity of the population to food allergens., Results: In this article we provide in-depth insights into the methodology applied by the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research and Food Allergy Research and Resource Program to derive individual maximum tolerable doses and minimum eliciting doses for objective symptoms from clinical food challenge data. More than 90 examples for determining individual allergic thresholds are presented., Conclusion: With the methodology presented in this article, we aim to stimulate harmonization and transparency in quantitative food allergen risk assessment and risk management programs, encouraging their wider adoption., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hazelnut allergy is birch pollen-driven in Northern/Western Europe and lipid transfer protein-driven in Spain and Italy. Little is known about other regions and other allergens., Objective: Establishing a molecular map of hazelnut allergy across Europe., Methods: In 12 European cities, subjects reporting reactions to hazelnut (n = 731) were evaluated and sensitization to 24 foods, 12 respiratory allergen sources, and latex was tested by using skin prick test and ImmunoCAP. A subset (124 of 731) underwent a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge to hazelnut. Sera of 423 of 731 subjects were analyzed for IgE against 7 hazelnut allergens and cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants by ImmunoCAP., Results: Hazelnut allergy was confirmed in 70% of those undergoing double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges. Birch pollen-driven hazelnut sensitization (Cor a 1) dominated in most cities, except in Reykjavik, Sofia, Athens, and Madrid, where reporting of hazelnut allergy was less frequent anyhow. In Athens, IgE against Cor a 8 dominated and strongly correlated with IgE against walnut, peach, and apple and against Chenopodium, plane tree, and mugwort pollen. Sensitization to seed storage proteins was observed in less than 10%, mainly in children, and correlated with IgE to nuts, seeds, and legumes. IgE to Cor a 12, observed in all cities (10% to 25%), correlated with IgE to nuts, seeds, and pollen., Conclusions: In adulthood, the importance of hazelnut sensitization to storage proteins, oleosin (Cor a 12), and Cor a 8 is diluted by the increased role of birch pollen cross-reactivity with Cor a 1. Cor a 8 sensitization in the Mediterranean is probably driven by diet in combination with pollen exposure. Hazelnut oleosin sensitization is prevalent across Europe; however, the clinical relevance remains to be established., (Copyright © 2015 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Kiwifruit is a common cause of food allergy. Symptoms range from mild to anaphylactic reactions., Objective: We sought to elucidate geographic differences across Europe regarding clinical patterns and sensitization to kiwifruit allergens. Factors associated with the severity of kiwifruit allergy were identified, and the diagnostic performance of specific kiwifruit allergens was investigated., Methods: This study was part of EuroPrevall, a multicenter European study investigating several aspects of food allergy. Three hundred eleven patients with kiwifruit allergy from 12 countries representing 4 climatic regions were included. Specific IgE to 6 allergens (Act d 1, Act d 2, Act d 5, Act d 8, Act d 9, and Act d 10) and kiwifruit extract were tested by using ImmunoCAP., Results: Patients from Iceland were mainly sensitized to Act d 1 (32%), those from western/central and eastern Europe were mainly sensitized to Act d 8 (pathogenesis-related class 10 protein, 58% and 44%, respectively), and those from southern Europe were mainly sensitized to Act d 9 (profilin, 31%) and Act d 10 (nonspecific lipid transfer protein, 22%). Sensitization to Act d 1 and living in Iceland were independently and significantly associated with severe kiwifruit allergy (odds ratio, 3.98 [P = .003] and 5.60 [P < .001], respectively). Using a panel of 6 kiwifruit allergens in ImmunoCAP increased the diagnostic sensitivity to 65% compared with 20% for skin prick tests and 46% ImmunoCAP using kiwi extract., Conclusion: Kiwifruit allergen sensitization patterns differ across Europe. The use of specific kiwifruit allergens improved the diagnostic performance compared with kiwifruit extract. Sensitization to Act d 1 and living in Iceland are strong risk factors for severe kiwifruit allergy., (Copyright © 2012 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Allergic reactions to carrot affect up to 25% of food-allergic subjects. Clinical manifestations of carrot allergy and IgE responses to carrot proteins, however, have never been studied in subjects with carrot allergy confirmed by means of double-blinded, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC)., Objective: The purposes of this investigation were to confirm clinically relevant sensitizations to carrot by means of DBPCFC, to validate current diagnostic methods, and to identify IgE-reactive carrot proteins in patients with true allergy., Methods: DBPCFCs were performed in 26 subjects with histories of allergic reactions to carrot. Patients underwent skin prick tests with carrot extract, fresh carrot, and various pollen extracts. Specific IgE to carrot, celery, birch, and mugwort pollen and to rBet v 1, rBet v 2, and rBet v 6 were measured through use of the CAP method. Carrot allergens were identified by means of immunoblotting and blotting inhibition., Results: Twenty of 26 patients had positive DBPCFC results. The sensitivity of the determination of carrot-specific IgE antibodies through use of the CAP method (> or =0.7 kU/L) was 90%, the sensitivity for skin prick testing with commercial extracts was 26%, and the sensitivity for prick-to-prick tests with raw carrot was 100%. The Bet v 1--related major carrot allergen Dau c 1 was recognized by IgE from 85% of patients; 45% were sensitized to cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants and 20% to carrot profilin. In 1 subject, a Bet v 6--related carrot allergen was recognized. In 4 patients, IgE binding to Dau c 1 was not inhibited or was weakly inhibited by rBet v 1 or birch pollen extract., Conclusion: This study confirmed the allergenicity of carrot by means of DBPCFC. DBPCFC-positive patients had exclusively specific IgE antibodies to birch pollen--related carrot allergens, Dau c 1 being the major allergen. The lack of inhibition of IgE binding to Dau c 1 by birch allergens in a subgroup of patients might indicate an secondary immune response to new epitopes on the food allergen that are not cross-reactive with Bet v 1.

Background: Celery root is a frequent cause of food allergy in pollen-sensitized patients. Because of problems in blinding challenges with fresh vegetables and the risk of anaphylactic reactions, no double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenges (DBPCFCs) with celery have been published so far., Objective: The aim of the study was to confirm the clinical relevance of celery as a food allergen by DBPCFCs and to evaluate current diagnostic procedures in patients with true allergy., Methods: DBPCFCs were performed in 32 patients with a history of an allergic reaction to celery. The patients underwent skin prick tests (SPTs) with celery extracts, crude celery, and different pollen extracts. Specific IgE for celery was determined by using the CAP method., Results: Twenty-two of 32 patients had a positive DBPCFC result. Two patients reacted to placebo, and 8 patients did not respond to the challenge. Of the nonresponders, 4 reacted to an open provocation with celery. The sensitivity of CAP determination for specific IgE (> or =0.7 kU/L) to celery in patients with a positive DBPCFC result was 73%, 48% to 86% for SPTs (> or =3 mm) with commercial extracts, and 96% for prick-to-prick tests with crude celery. The positive predictive value of the SPT and CAP tests was between 87% and 96%, whereas the specificity and negative predictive values were poor., Conclusion: This study confirms the importance of celery as a food allergen for use in DBPCFCs. The SPT and CAP methods proved to be reliable for the diagnosis of a relevant allergy to celery in regard to sensitivity and positive predictive value but not to specificity and negative predictive value.

Background: Recently, for the first time, allergy to celery was confirmed by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). Api g 1, Api g 4, cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCD), and a 60 kDa allergen have been described as celery allergens., Objective: To get insights in IgE responses of patients with a positive DBPCFC to celery tuber (celeriac) compared with patients with a negative challenge test., Methods: Specific IgE to native and heated celery tuber and to recombinant Api g 1, the major celery allergen, were determined by enzyme allergosorbent test and immunoblotting. IgE binding to Api g 1, Api g 4, and CCD was confirmed by inhibition experiments that used recombinant Api g 1, recombinant Api g 4, pure N-glycans, and extracts of celeriac, lychee fruit, and pollens of birch, mugwort, and timothy grass as inhibitors., Results: Immunoblotting with sera from 22 patients with a positive DBPCFC to celeriac confirmed the presence of known allergenic structures: The major allergen Api g 1 (16 kDa) was recognized by IgE from 13 of 22 patients (59%). Another major allergen was CCD, determined by IgE reactivity in 12 of 22 patients (55%). Celery profilin, Api g 4, was recognized by IgE from 5 of 22 patients (23%)., Conclusion: Our DBPCFC-positive patients exclusively presented IgE to known celery allergens, although the prevalences were slightly different than were previously reported. No obvious differences were found in patients with positive IgE antibody but negative challenge test. IgE binding to all 3 structures in celeriac extract was inhibited by birch pollen extract, whereas mugwort pollen extract could only inhibit IgE reactivity to Api g 4 and CCD. Inhibition experiments with a purified carbohydrate moiety clearly showed that the IgE epitope mannose-xylose-fucose-glycan (Manalpha1-6[Xylbeta1-2]Manbeta1-4GlcNAcbeta1-4[ Fucalpha1-3]GlcNAc) or a closely related structure is present in celeriac extract and is important in patients with clinical allergy to celery.

Background: Tree nuts are a common cause of food allergy in Europe. However, few studies deal with real food allergy to hazelnuts in subjects believed to be allergic to this food., Objective: We sought to select subjects with a history of allergic reactions on ingestion of hazelnut and determine how many of these have true allergy by means of the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC)., Methods: Eighty-six subjects with a history of symptoms after hazelnut ingestion were recruited from 3 allergy centers (Milan, Zurich, and Copenhagen). All subjects underwent skin prick tests (SPTs) with aeroallergens and hazelnut, as well as having their specific hazelnut IgE levels determined. Diagnosis of clinical relevant food allergy was made on the basis of the DBPCFC., Results: Sixty-seven (77.9%) of 86 subjects had a positive DBPCFC result; 8 were placebo responders, and 11 were nonresponders. Of the 11 nonresponders, 4 had positive open-challenge test results. Of the DBPCFC-positive subjects, 87% also had positive skin test responses to birch pollen extract. Specific IgE determination for hazelnut (positive CAP response >/=0.7 kU/L [ie, class 2]) showed a sensitivity of 0.75, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.92, a specificity of 0.16, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.05. Skin tests with commercial hazelnut extract produced a sensitivity of 0.89, a PPV of 0.92, a specificity of 0.05, and an NPV of 0.05. Skin tests with natural food produced a sensitivity of 0.88, a PPV of 0.94, a specificity of 0.27, and an NPV of 0.15., Conclusion: This study shows that hazelnut is an allergenic source that can cause real food allergy, as confirmed by DBPCFC. Skin and IgE tests demonstrated reasonable sensitivity and PPV but a very low specificity and NPV, thus implying that these should not be used to validate the diagnosis of food allergy to hazelnut.