Search

Individuals suffering from IgE-mediated food allergies are obliged to systematically eliminate the culprit allergen from their diet. To support allergic consumers in avoiding food allergens to make informed and safe purchasing choices, the European Union (EU) Food Information Regulation (FIR) imposes a requirement to label the 13 most common allergenic foods (food groups) as ingredients in pre-packed and non-pre-packed foods. The as yet unregulated labelling of unintended presence of allergens has lead to a widespread use of precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) - despite established allergen management in many companies. This PAL significantly hampers making a safe food choice, or renders it largely unfeasible, since it is not possible to estimate the actual extent to which allergens are present in a product. Not only food-allergic consumers, but also the food industry, physicians, dieticians/nutritionists, as well as food regulators and law enforcement officers would benefit from a standardized labelling regulation for unintended presence of allergens. The following position paper highlights the chances of such a regulation on the basis of available data and the analytical methods for detecting allergenic components in the context of effective allergen management. On the basis of evidence-based allergen and allergy-risk assessment, the use of PAL should be restricted to only those allergens that are unavoidable and which represent an unacceptable risk for allergic consumers, e. g., when allergens are present at levels that exceed a clinically meaningful reference dose or in the case of unintended presence of particulate allergens (e. g., nuts or sesame seeds).

Drug hypersensitivity reactions are unpredictable adverse drug reactions. They manifest either within 1-6 h following drug intake (immediate reactions) with mild to life-threatening symptoms of anaphylaxis, or several hours to days later (delayed reactions), primarily as exanthematous eruptions. It is not always possible to detect involvement of the immune system (allergy). Waiving diagnostic tests can result in severe reactions on renewed exposure on the one hand, and to unjustified treatment restrictions on the other. With this guideline, experts from various specialist societies and institutions have formulated recommendations and an algorithm for the diagnosis of allergies. The key principles of diagnosing allergic/hypersensitivity drug reactions are presented. Where possible, the objective is to perform allergy diagnostics within 4 weeks-6 months following the reaction. A clinical classification of symptoms based on the morphology and time course of the reaction is required in order to plan a diagnostic work-up. In the case of typical symptoms of a drug hypersensitivity reaction and unequivocal findings from validated skin and/or laboratory tests, a reaction can be attributed to a trigger with sufficient confidence. However, skin and laboratory tests are often negative or insufficiently reliable. In such cases, controlled provocation testing is required to clarify drug reactions. This method is reliable and safe when attention is paid to indications and contraindications and performed under appropriate medical supervision. The results of the overall assessment are discussed with the patient and documented in an "allergy passport" in order to ensure targeted avoidance in the future and allow the use of alternative drugs where possible.

The continued high prevalence of allergic diseases in Western industrialized nations combined with the limited options for causal therapy make evidence-based primary prevention necessary. The recommendations last published in the S3-guideline on allergy prevention in 2009 have been revised and a consensus reached on the basis of an up-to-date systematic literature search. Evidence was sought for the period between May 2008 and May 2013 in the Cochrane and MEDLINE electronic databases, as well as in the reference lists of recent review articles. In addition, experts were surveyed for their opinions. The relevance of retrieved literature was checked by means of two filter processes: firstly according to title and abstract, and secondly based on the full text of the articles. Included studies were given an evidence grade, and a bias potential (low/high) was specified for study quality. A formal consensus on the revised recommendations was reached by representatives of the relevant specialist societies and (self-help) organizations (nominal group process). Of 3,284 hits, 165 studies (one meta-analysis, 15 systematic reviews, 31 randomized controlled trials, 65 cohort studies, 12 case-control studies and 41 cross-sectional studies) were included and evaluated. Recommendations on the following remain largely unaltered: full breastfeeding for 4 months as a means of allergy prevention (hypoallergenic infant formula in the case of infants at risk); avoidance of overweight; fish consumption (during pregnancy/lactation and in the introduction of solid foods for infants); vaccination according to the recommendations of the German Standing Committee on Vaccination (Ständige Impfkommission, STIKO); avoidance of air pollutants and tobacco exposure and avoidance of indoor conditions conducive to the development of mold. The assertion that a reduction in house-dust mite allergen content as a primary preventive measure is not recommended also remains unchanged. The introduction of solid foods into infant diet should not be delayed. In the case of children at risk cats should not be acquired as domestic pets. Keeping dogs is not associated with an increased risk of allergy. The updated guideline includes a new recommendation to consider the increased risk of asthma following delivery by cesarean section. Additional statements have been formulated on pre- and probiotic agents, psychosocial factors, medications, and various nutritional components. Revising the guideline by using an extensive evidence base has resulted not only in an endorsement of the existing recommendations, but also in modifications and in the addition of new recommendations. The updated guideline enables evidence-based and up-to-date recommendations to be made on allergy prevention., Electronic Supplementary Material: Supplementary material is available for this article at 10.1007/s40629-014-0022-4 and is accessible for authorized users.

The present guideline (S2k) on allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) was established by the German, Austrian and Swiss professional associations for allergy in consensus with the scientific specialist societies and professional associations in the fields of otolaryngology, dermatology and venereology, pediatric and adolescent medicine, pneumology as well as a German patient organization (German Allergy and Asthma Association; Deutscher Allergie- und Asthmabund, DAAB) according to the criteria of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, AWMF). AIT is a therapy with disease-modifying effects. By administering allergen extracts, specific blocking antibodies, toler-ance-inducing cells and mediators are activated. These prevent further exacerbation of the allergen-triggered immune response, block the specific immune response and attenuate the inflammatory response in tissue. Products for SCIT or SLIT cannot be compared at present due to their heterogeneous composition, nor can allergen concentrations given by different manufacturers be compared meaningfully due to the varying methods used to measure their active ingredients. Non-modified allergens are used for SCIT in the form of aqueous or physically adsorbed (depot) extracts, as well as chemically modified allergens (allergoids) as depot extracts. Allergen extracts for SLIT are used in the form of aqueous solutions or tablets. The clinical efficacy of AIT is measured using various scores as primary and secondary study endpoints. The EMA stipulates combined symptom and medication scores as primary endpoint. A harmonization of clinical endpoints, e. g., by using the combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS) recommended by the EAACI, is desirable in the future in order to permit the comparison of results from different studies. The current CONSORT recommendations from the ARIA/GA2LEN group specify standards for the evaluation, presentation and publication of study results. According to the Therapy allergen ordinance (TAV), preparations containing common allergen sources (pollen from grasses, birch, alder, hazel, house dust mites, as well as bee and wasp venom) need a marketing authorization in Germany. During the marketing authorization process, these preparations are examined regarding quality, safety and efficacy. In the opinion of the authors, authorized allergen preparations with documented efficacy and safety, or preparations tradeable under the TAV for which efficacy and safety have already been documented in clinical trials meeting WAO or EMA standards, should be preferentially used. Individual formulations (NPP) enable the prescription of rare allergen sources (e.g., pollen from ash, mugwort or ambrosia, mold Alternaria, animal allergens) for specific immunotherapy. Mixing these allergens with TAV allergens is not permitted. Allergic rhinitis and its associated co-morbidities (e. g., bronchial asthma) generate substantial direct and indirect costs. Treatment options, in particular AIT, are therefore evaluated using cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. From a long-term perspective, AIT is considered to be significantly more cost effective in allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma than pharmacotherapy, but is heavily dependent on patient compliance. Meta-analyses provide unequivocal evidence of the efficacy of SCIT and SLIT for certain allergen sources and age groups. Data from controlled studies differ in terms of scope, quality and dosing regimens and require product-specific evaluation. Therefore, evaluating individual preparations according to clearly defined criteria is recommended. A broad transfer of the efficacy of certain preparations to all preparations administered in the same way is not endorsed. The website of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (www.dgaki.de/leitlinien/s2k-leitlinie-sit; DGAKI: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie) provides tables with specific information on available products for AIT in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The tables contain the number of clinical studies per product in adults and children, the year of market authorization, underlying scoring systems, number of randomized and analyzed subjects and the method of evaluation (ITT, FAS, PP), separately given for grass pollen, birch pollen and house dust mite allergens, and the status of approval for the conduct of clinical studies with these products. Strong evidence of the efficacy of SCIT in pollen allergy-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in adulthood is well-documented in numerous trials and, in childhood and adolescence, in a few trials. Efficacy in house dust mite allergy is documented by a number of controlled trials in adults and few controlled trials in children. Only a few controlled trials, independent of age, are available for mold allergy (in particular Alternaria). With regard to animal dander allergies (primarily to cat allergens), only small studies, some with methodological deficiencies are available. Only a moderate and inconsistent therapeutic effect in atopic dermatitis has been observed in the quite heterogeneous studies conducted to date. SCIT has been well investigated for individual preparations in controlled bronchial asthma as defined by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2007 and intermittent and mild persistent asthma (GINA 2005) and it is recommended as a treatment option, in addition to allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy, provided there is a clear causal link between respiratory symptoms and the relevant allergen. The efficacy of SLIT in grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is extensively documented in adults and children, whilst its efficacy in tree pollen allergy has only been shown in adults. New controlled trials (some with high patient numbers) on house dust mite allergy provide evidence of efficacy of SLIT in adults. Compared with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, there are only few studies on the efficacy of SLIT in allergic asthma. In this context, newer studies show an efficacy for SLIT on asthma symptoms in the subgroup of grass pollen allergic children, adolescents and adults with asthma and efficacy in primary house dust mite allergy-induced asthma in adolescents aged from 14 years and in adults. Aspects of secondary prevention, in particular the reduction of new sensitizations and reduced asthma risk, are important rationales for choosing to initiate treatment early in childhood and adolescence. In this context, those products for which the appropriate effects have been demonstrated should be considered. SCIT or SLIT with pollen or mite allergens can be performed in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis using allergen extracts that have been proven to be effective in at least one double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPC) study. At present, clinical trials are underway for the indication in asthma due to house dust mite allergy, some of the results of which have already been published, whilst others are still awaited (see the DGAKI table "Approved/potentially completed studies" via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit (according to www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu)). When establishing the indication for AIT, factors that favour clinical efficacy should be taken into consideration. Differences between SCIT and SLIT are to be considered primarily in terms of contraindications. In individual cases, AIT may be justifiably indicated despite the presence of contraindications. SCIT injections and the initiation of SLIT are performed by a physician experienced in this type of treatment and who is able to administer emergency treatment in the case of an allergic reaction. Patients must be fully informed about the procedure and risks of possible adverse events, and the details of this process must be documented (see "Treatment information sheet"; available as a handout via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit). Treatment should be performed according to the manufacturer's product information leaflet. In cases where AIT is to be performed or continued by a different physician to the one who established the indication, close cooperation is required in order to ensure that treatment is implemented consistently and at low risk. In general, it is recommended that SCIT and SLIT should only be performed using preparations for which adequate proof of efficacy is available from clinical trials. Treatment adherence among AIT patients is lower than assumed by physicians, irrespective of the form of administration. Clearly, adherence is of vital importance for treatment success. Improving AIT adherence is one of the most important future goals, in order to ensure efficacy of the therapy. Severe, potentially life-threatening systemic reactions during SCIT are possible, but - providing all safety measures are adhered to - these events are very rare. Most adverse events are mild to moderate and can be treated well. Dose-dependent adverse local reactions occur frequently in the mouth and throat in SLIT. Systemic reactions have been described in SLIT, but are seen far less often than with SCIT. In terms of anaphylaxis and other severe systemic reactions, SLIT has a better safety profile than SCIT. The risk and effects of adverse systemic reactions in the setting of AIT can be effectively reduced by training of personnel, adhering to safety standards and prompt use of emergency measures, including early administration of i. m. epinephrine. Details on the acute management of anaphylactic reactions can be found in the current S2 guideline on anaphylaxis issued by the AWMF (S2-AWMF-LL Registry Number 061-025). AIT is undergoing some innovative developments in many areas (e. g., allergen characterization, new administration routes, adjuvants, faster and safer dose escalation protocols), some of which are already being investigated in clinical trials. Cite this as Pfaar O, Bachert C, Bufe A, Buhl R, Ebner C, Eng P, Friedrichs F, Fuchs T, Hamelmann E, Hartwig-Bade D, Hering T, Huttegger I, Jung K, Klimek L, Kopp MV, Merk H, Rabe U, Saloga J, Schmid-Grendelmeier P, Schuster A, Schwerk N, Sitter H, Umpfenbach U, Wedi B, Wöhrl S, Worm M, Kleine-Tebbe J. Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases - S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Pneumology (GPP), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the German Association of ENT Surgeons (BV-HNO), the Professional Federation of Paediatricians and Youth Doctors (BVKJ), the Federal Association of Pulmonologists (BDP) and the German Dermatologists Association (BVDD). Allergo J Int 2014;23:282-319.

A large proportion of immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergies in older children, adolescents and adults are caused by cross-reactive allergenic structures. Primary sensitization is most commonly to inhalant allergens (e.g. Bet v 1, the major birch pollen allergen). IgE can be activated by various cross-reactive allergens and lead to a variety of clinical manifestations. In general, local and mild - in rare cases also severe and systemic - reactions occur directly after consumption of the food containing the cross-reactive allergen (e. g. plant-derived foods containing proteins of the Bet v 1 family). In clinical practice, sensitization to the primary responsible inhalant and/or food allergen can be detected by skin prick tests and/or in vitro detection of specific IgE. Component-based diagnostic methods can support clinical diagnosis. For individual allergens, these methods may be helpful to estimate the risk of systemic reactions. Confirmation of sensitization by oral provocation testing is important particulary in the case of unclear case history. New, as yet unrecognized allergens can also cause cross-reactions. The therapeutic potential of specific immunotherapy (SIT) with inhalant allergens and their effect on pollen-associated food allergies is currently unclear: results vary and placebo-controlled trials will be necessary in the future. Pollen allergies are very common. Altogether allergic sensitization to pollen and cross-reactive food allergens are very common in our latitudes. The actual relevance has to be assessed on an individual basis using the clinical information. Cite this as Worm M, Jappe U, Kleine-Tebbe J, Schäfer C, Reese I, Saloga J, Treudler R, Zuberbier T, Wassmann A, Fuchs T, Dölle S, Raithel M, Ballmer-Weber B, Niggemann B, Werfel T. Food allergies resulting from immunological cross-reactivity with inhalant allergens. Allergo J Int 2014; 23: 1-16 DOI 10.1007/s40629-014-0004-6 .