Evidence‐based approaches to the application of precautionary allergen labelling: Report from two iFAAM workshops

Food allergy is a major public health concern with avoidance of the trigger food(s) being central to management by the patient. Food information legislation mandates the declaration of allergenic ingredients; however, the labelling of the unintentional presence of allergens is less defined. Precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) was introduced by the food industry to help manage and communicate the risk of reaction from the unintended presence of allergens in foods. In its current form, PAL is counterproductive for consumers with food allergies as there is no standardized approach to applying PAL. Foods with a PAL often do not contain the identified food allergen while some products without a PAL contain quantities of common food allergens that are capable of inducing an allergic reaction. Integrated Approaches to Food Allergen and Allergy Risk Management (iFAAM) was an EU‐funded project that aimed to improve the management of food allergens by the food industry for the benefit of people with food allergies. Within iFAAM, a clinically validated tiered risk assessment approach for food allergens was developed. Two cross‐stakeholder iFAAM workshops were held on 13‐14 December 2016 and 19‐20 April 2018. One of the objectives of these workshops was to develop a proposal to make PAL effective for consumers. This paper describes the outcomes from these workshops. This provides the basis for the development of more informative and transparent labelling that will ultimately improve management and well‐being in consumers with food allergy.     

Position paper of the EAACI: food allergy due to immunological cross‐reactions with common inhalant allergens

In older children, adolescents, and adults, a substantial part of all IgE‐mediated food allergies is caused by cross‐reacting allergenic structures shared by inhalants and foods. IgE stimulated by a cross‐reactive inhalant allergen can result in diverse patterns of allergic reactions to various foods. Local, mild, or severe systemic reactions may occur already after the first consumption of a food containing a cross‐reactive allergen. In clinical practice, clinically relevant sensitizations are elucidated by skin prick testing or by the determination of specific IgE in vitro. Component‐resolved diagnosis may help to reach a diagnosis and may predict the risk of a systemic reaction. Allergy needs to be confirmed in cases of unclear history by oral challenge tests. The therapeutic potential of allergen immunotherapy with inhalant allergens in pollen‐related food allergy is not clear, and more placebo‐controlled studies are needed. As we are facing an increasing incidence of pollen allergies, a shift in sensitization patterns and changes in nutritional habits, and the occurrence of new, so far unknown allergies due to cross‐reactions are expected.     

EAACI Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Guidelines. Protecting consumers with food allergies: understanding food consumption,meeting regulations and identifying unmet needs

Individuals suffering from IgE‐mediated food allergy usually have to practise life‐long food allergen avoidance. This document aims to provide an overview of recent evidence‐based recommendations for allergen risk assessment and management in the food industry and discusses unmet needs and expectations of the food allergic consumer in that context. There is a general duty of care on the food industry and obligations in European Union legislation to reduce and manage the presence of allergens alongside other food hazards. Current evidence enables quantification of allergen reference doses used to set‐up reliable food safety management plans for some foods. However, further work is required to include a wider variety of foods and to understand the impact of the food matrix as well as additional factors which affect the progression and severity of symptoms as a function of dose. Major concerns have been raised by patients, carers and patient groups about the use of precautionary ‘may contain’ labelling to address the issue of unintended presence of allergens; these therefore need to be reconsidered. New and improved allergen detection methods should be evaluated for their application in food production. There is an urgent requirement for effective communication between healthcare professionals, patient organizations, food industry representatives and regulators to develop a better approach to protecting consumers with food allergies.     

How do teenagers manage their food allergies?

Background The peak incidence of deaths from anaphylaxis associated with nut allergy occurs in teenagers and young adults. During adolescence, the management of food allergy shifts from being the responsibility of parents to that of the young person. This is a group who therefore need special attention in the clinic. Objective This study aimed to understand the practical challenges that teenagers with food allergy experience using a qualitative approach and generate potential interventions for tackling these. Methods Teenagers aged 1118 years with food allergy completed a questionnaire about their food allergy and underwent a focused, semi‐structured interview with open questions guided by a priori topic areas. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using a thematic approach. Results The study enrolled 18 teenagers with a median age of 15 years (10 females); the most common food allergens were peanuts and tree nuts. Three key themes emerged: avoidance of allergens, preparation for reactions and the treatment of reactions. The majority of teenagers reported eating foods labelled as ‘may contain’ an allergen as they perceive that they are actually very unlikely to contain an allergen. Many of the teenagers only carried their self‐injectable adrenaline when they thought they are particularly at risk of a reaction. Some do not know how to appropriately treat an allergic reaction. More than half believed that educating other students at school about the seriousness of food allergies would make it easier to live with their food allergy. Conclusions A significant number of teenagers demonstrate risk‐taking behaviour in the management of their food allergies. Teenagers also felt it would be helpful for their peers to be educated about food allergy. This novel strategy might help them to avoid trigger foods and enable teenagers to access help more readily if they suffer a reaction. Cite this as: H. Monks, M. H. Gowland, H. MacKenzie, M. Erlewyn‐Lajeunesse, R. King, J. S. Lucas and G. Roberts, Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 2010 (40) 1533–1540.     

Tree nut allergies: Allergen homology,cross‐reactivity,and implications for therapy

Tree nut allergy is a potentially life‐threatening disease that is increasing in prevalence, now affecting 1% of the general population in the United States. While other food allergies often resolve spontaneously, tree nut allergies are outgrown in less than 10% of cases. Due to the likelihood of cross‐sensitization to multiple tree nut allergens, the current treatment guideline is strict avoidance of all nuts once one tree nut allergy has been diagnosed. For example, walnut and pecan are highly cross‐reactive, along with cashew and pistachio, but the extent of clinical, IgE‐mediated cross‐reactivity among other tree nuts remains unclear, therefore making avoidance of all tree nuts a safe approach. There have been recent advances in immunotherapy for food allergies. For instance, there are investigational immunotherapies for milk, egg and peanut allergies, specifically oral immunotherapy, sublingual immunotherapy and epicutaneous immunotherapy. However, there are no large randomized controlled clinical trials for tree nut allergies. Even though there has been less research into tree nut allergy immunotherapies, the evidence of T‐cell cross‐reactivity among tree nuts exists in animal models and in T cells from allergic patients indicates that immunotherapeutic interventions may be possible. Here, we review the literature regarding epidemiology, allergen homology and cross‐reactivity among tree nuts, and explore how current findings can be employed for effective therapy.     

ICON: food allergy

Food allergies can result in life-threatening reactions and diminish quality of life. In the last several decades, the prevalence of food allergies has increased in several regions throughout the world. Although more than 170 foods have been identified as being potentially allergenic, a minority of these foods cause the majority of reactions, and common food allergens vary between geographic regions. Treatment of food allergy involves strict avoidance of the trigger food. Medications manage symptoms of disease, but currently, there is no cure for food allergy. In light of the increasing burden of allergic diseases, the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; World Allergy Organization; and American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology have come together to increase the communication of information about allergies and asthma at a global level. Within the framework of this collaboration, termed the International Collaboration in Asthma, Allergy and Immunology, a series of consensus documents called International Consensus ON (ICON) are being developed to serve as an important resource and support physicians in managing different allergic diseases. An author group was formed to describe the natural history, prevalence, diagnosis, and treatment of food allergies in the context of the global community.     

Precautionary allergen labelling: perspectives from key stakeholder groups

Precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) was introduced by the food industry to help manage and communicate the possibility of reaction from the unintended presence of allergens in foods. However, in its current form, PAL is counterproductive for consumers with food allergies. This review aims to summarize the perspectives of all the key stakeholders (including clinicians, patients, food industry and regulators), with the aim of defining common health protection and risk minimization goals. The lack of agreed reference doses has resulted in inconsistent application of PAL by the food industry and in levels of contamination that prompt withdrawal action by enforcement officers. So there is a poor relationship between the presence or absence of PAL and actual reaction risk. This has led to a loss of trust in PAL, reducing the ability of consumers with food allergies to make informed choices. The result has been reduced avoidance, reduced quality of life and increased risk‐taking by consumers who often ignore PAL. All contributing stakeholders agree that PAL must reflect actual risk. PAL should be transparent and consistent with rules underpinning decision‐making process being communicated clearly to all stakeholders. The use of PAL should indicate the possible, unintended presence of an allergen in a consumed portion of a food product at or above any proposed action level. This will require combined work by all stakeholders to ensure everyone understands the approach and its limitations. Consumers with food allergy then need to be educated to undertake individualized risk assessments in relation to any PAL present.     

Cannabis sativa allergy: looking through the fog

IgE‐mediated Cannabis (C. sativa, marihuana) allergy seems to be on the rise. Both active and passive exposure to cannabis allergens may trigger a C. sativa sensitization and/or allergy. The clinical presentation of a C. sativa allergy varies from mild to life‐threatening reactions and often seems to depend on the route of exposure. In addition, sensitization to cannabis allergens can result in various cross‐allergies, mostly for plant foods. This clinical entity, designated as the ‘cannabis‐fruit/vegetable syndrome’, might also imply cross‐reactivity with tobacco, natural latex and plant‐food‐derived alcoholic beverages. Hitherto, these cross‐allergies are predominantly reported in Europe and appear mainly to rely upon cross‐reactivity between nonspecific lipid transfer proteins or thaumatin‐like proteins present in C. sativa and their homologues, ubiquitously distributed throughout plant kingdom. At present, diagnosis of cannabis‐related allergies predominantly rests upon a thorough history completed with skin testing using native extracts from crushed buds and leaves. However, quantification of specific IgE antibodies and basophil activation tests can also be helpful to establish correct diagnosis. In the absence of a cure, treatment comprises absolute avoidance measures. Whether avoidance of further use will halt the extension of related cross‐allergies remains uncertain.     

Current Immunological and Molecular Biological Perspectives on Seafood Allergy: A Comprehensive Review

Seafood is an important component in human diet and nutrition worldwide. However, seafood also constitutes one of the most important groups of foods in the induction of immediate (type I) food hypersensitivity, which significantly impacts the quality of life and healthcare cost. Extensive efforts within the past two decades have revealed the molecular identities and immunological properties of the major fish and shellfish allergens. The major allergen involved in allergy and cross-reactivity among different fish species was identified as parvalbumin while that responsible for shellfish (crustaceans and mollusks) allergy was identified as tropomyosin. The cloning and expression of the recombinant forms of these seafood allergens facilitate the investigation on the detailed mechanisms leading to seafood allergies, mapping of IgE-binding epitopes, and assessment of their allergenicity and stability. Future research focusing on the immunological cross-reactivity and discovery of novel allergens will greatly facilitate the management of seafood allergies and the design of effective and life-long allergen-specific immunotherapies.     

Profilin sensitization detected in the office by skin prick test: a study of prevalence and clinical relevance of profilin as a plant food allergen

Background Profilin, a pan‐allergen present in all eukaryotic cells, is one of the main causes of cross‐sensitization between pollen and plant‐derived foods, but its clinical relevance as a food allergen is still debated. Objective To investigate the prevalence of profilin sensitization in a pollen‐allergic population and its clinical relevance as a food allergen. Methods Two hundred consecutive patients with pollen allergy underwent skin prick tests (SPT) with purified natural date palm profilin (Pho d 2; 50 μg/mL; Alk Abello, Madrid, Spain). Those reporting adverse reactions to foods (confirmed by SPT with either commercial food extracts or fresh foods) underwent SPT with an apple extract containing uniquely Mal d 1 (2 μg/mL; ALK‐Abello), and with a commercial peach extract containing uniquely lipid transfer protein (LTP 30 μg/mL; ALK‐Abello). Results Sixty patients (30%) showed skin reactivity to date palm profilin, Pho d 2. All were sensitized to grass pollen, and most of them reacted to birch, mugwort, ragweed and plantain pollen as well. SPT with pellitory and cypress scored negative in a high proportion of profilin reactors [26/60 (43%) and 33/60 (55%), respectively]. More than one half (34/60 [57%]) of profilin reactors had food allergy; 21 of these were monosensitized to profilin, 11 were sensitized to both profilin and Bet v 1 homologous protein, one to both profilin and LTP, and one to all the three allergens. The large majority of profilin‐allergic patients reported oral allergy syndrome as the only food‐induced symptom and were able to tolerate the offending foods if they were cooked or otherwise processed. Twenty‐eight of 34 reported reactivity to two or more plant‐derived foods. Rosaceae, tree nuts, melon and watermelon, tomato, pineapple, citrus fruits and banana were the more frequently offending foods. Conclusion Profilin should be considered a clinically relevant food allergen. Allergy to melon, watermelon, tomato, banana, pineapple and orange may be considered as a marker of profilin hypersensitivity. This study underlines the clinical importance of being able to diagnose hypersensitivity to single food allergenic proteins by SPT, particularly when the relevant food allergen sources contain several allergens that show different chemical/physical features and, hence, completely different risk profiles.     

Restaurant staff's knowledge of anaphylaxis and dietary care of people with allergies

Background Deaths caused by food‐induced anaphylactic reactions are increasing, with most caused by food purchased outside the home. Primary prevention by allergen avoidance is desirable, but is easier in the home than when eating out, where the responsibility is shared with restaurant staff. Objective To investigate restaurant staff's knowledge about food allergies. Method A structured telephone questionnaire was administered to a member of staff at 90 table‐service restaurants in Brighton. Results Fifty‐six percent (90/162) restaurants that were contacted agreed to participate. Responders included seven owners, 48 managers, 20 waiters and 15 chefs. Ninety per cent (81/90) reported food hygiene training; 33% (30/90) reported specific food allergy training. Fifty‐six percent (50/90) could name three or more food allergens. Eighty‐one percent reported confidence (very or somewhat) in providing a safe meal to a food‐allergic customer. Answers to true–false questions indicated some frequent misunderstandings: 38% believed an individual experiencing a reaction should drink water to dilute the allergen; 23% thought consuming a small amount of an allergen is safe; 21% reported allergen removal from a finished meal would render it safe; 16% agreed cooking food prevents it causing allergy and 12% were unaware allergy could cause death. Forty‐eight percent expressed interest in further training on food allergy. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance Despite a high confidence level, there are obvious gaps in restaurant staff's knowledge of allergy. Food‐allergic patients need to be aware of this and adapt their behaviour accordingly. Our data challenge the impact of current food allergy training practice for restaurant staff, and support the need for more rigorous and accessible training. Cite this as: S. Bailey, R. Albardiaz, A. J. Frew and H. Smith, Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 2011 (41) 713–717.     

Food allergy and the introduction of solid foods to infants: a consensus document. Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee, American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations based on a critical review of the evidence for the timing of the introduction of solid foods and its possible role in the development of food allergy. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE searches using the following search algorithm: [weaning AND infant AND allergy]/[food allergy AND sensitization]/[dietary prevention AND food allergy OR allergens]/[Jan 1980-Feb 2006]. STUDY SELECTION: Using the authors' clinical experience and research expertise, 52 studies were retrieved that satisfied the following conditions: English language, journal impact factor above 1 or scientific society, expert, or institutional publication, and appraisable using the World Health Organization categories of evidence. RESULTS: Available information suggests that early introduction can increase the risk of food allergy, that avoidance of solids can prevent the development of specific food allergies, that some foods are more allergenic than others, and that some food allergies are more persistent than others. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatricians and allergists should cautiously individualize the introduction of solids into the infants' diet. With assessed risk of allergy, the optimal age for the introduction of selected supplemental foods should be 6 months, dairy products 12 months, hen's egg 24 months, and peanut, tree nuts, fish, and seafood at least 36 months. For all infants, complementary feeding can be introduced from the sixth month, and egg, peanut, tree nuts, fish, and seafood introduction require caution. Foods should be introduced one at a time in small amounts. Mixed foods containing various food allergens should not be given unless tolerance to every ingredient has been assessed.     

Authentication of food allergen quality by physicochemical and immunological methods

Purified allergens are required to detect cross‐contamination with other allergenic foods and to understand allergen interaction with other components of the food matrix. Pure allergens are also used for the diagnosis and treatment of food allergies. For example, serological methods are being developed to improve the quality of diagnosis, and to reduce the need for food challenge tests. In addition, recombinant allergens are being evaluated as candidate vaccines for safe and efficacious specific immunotherapy. Pure allergens are indispensable as reference materials for the calibration and standardization of methods between different laboratories and operators for risk assessment in the food industry. Therefore, there is a need for well‐defined purified food allergens. In this context, a panel of 46 food allergens from plant and animal sources has been purified, from either the food sources or as recombinant forms, within the EU‐funded EuroPrevall project. These allergens have been characterized by a battery of diagnostic tests demonstrating that they constitute an authentic, well‐defined library of comparable quality. The review summarizes the applications, potentials and limitations of key techniques used for the characterization and authentication of these allergen preparations, with a special emphasis on protein purity and identity, folding, post‐translational modifications and immunochemical properties. One key area identified is the development of powerful analytical techniques, such as mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance, to improve the authentication of allergens for routine applications in allergy management. Cite this as: A. I. Sancho, K. Hoffmann‐Sommergruber, S. Alessandri, A. Conti, M. G. Giuffrida, P. Shewry, B. M. Jensen, P. Skov and S. Vieths, Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 2010 (40) 973–986.     

Impact of individual molecular components in determining primary sensitization to latex

Allergy to natural rubber latex emerged as one of the main allergies at the beginning among some professional groups and the general population. Sensitization and development of latex allergy have been attributed to exposure to products containing residual latex proteins. The prevailing cross-reactivity of latex proteins with other food allergens is of great concern. Numerous purified allergens are currently available, which greatly help in patient management, thus determining their specific profile. We conducted a multicenter study to investigate changes, from the ROC analysis, in the characteristics of patients with latex allergy by measuring its major protein components. Sensitization to latex proteins is crucial because it highlights the cross reactivity to inhalants (pollen) and food (fruit). It is very essential in an accurate and specific clinical setting.     

Dietary management of peanut and tree nut allergy: what exactly should patients avoid?

Peanut and tree nut allergies are the commonest cause of life‐threatening food‐allergic reactions and significantly affect quality of life in children and their families. Dietary nut avoidance and provision of emergency medication is currently the mainstay of treatment. Nut avoidance has consequences on both quality of life and nutrition. We review the terminology that may cause confusion and lead to unnecessary dietary restrictions. In peanut or tree nut‐allergic children, introduction of specific nuts to which the child is not allergic may improve quality of life and should be considered in patients with multiple foods allergies, vegan or ethnic‐specific diets, in whom nuts are an important source of protein. Nut‐allergic consumers do not just need to avoid foods containing nuts as an ingredient, but also contend with pre‐packed foods which frequently have precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) referring to possible nut contamination. Although the published rate of peanut contamination in ‘snack’ foods with PAL (see Box  1 ) ranges from 0.9–32.4%, peanut contamination in non‐snack items with PAL is far less common. We propose that in some peanut‐allergic patients (depending on history of reactivity to trace levels of peanut, reaction severity, other medical conditions, willingness to always carry adrenaline, etc.), consideration may be given to allow the consumption of non‐snack foods containing PAL following discussion with the patient's (and their family's) specialist. More work is needed to provide consumers with clearer information on the risk of potential nut contamination in pre‐packed food. We also draw attention to the change in legislation in December 2014 that require mandatory disclosure of allergens in non‐pre‐packed foods.     

Food processing and occupational respiratory allergy‐ An EAACI position paper

Occupational exposure to foods is responsible for up to 25% of cases of occupational asthma and rhinitis. Animal and vegetable high‐molecular‐weight proteins present in aerosolized foods during food processing, additives, preservatives, antioxidants, and food contaminants are the main inhalant allergen sources. Most agents typically cause IgE‐mediated allergic reactions, causing a distinct form of food allergy (Class 3 food allergy). The allergenicity of a food protein, allergen exposure levels, and atopy are important risk factors. Diagnosis relies on a thorough medical and occupational history, functional assessment, assessment of sensitization, including component‐resolved diagnostics where appropriate, and in selected cases specific inhalation tests. Exposure assessment, including allergen determination, is a cornerstone for establishing preventive measures. Management includes allergen exposure avoidance or reduction (second best option), pharmacological treatment, assessment of impairment, and worker's compensation. Further studies are needed to identify and characterize major food allergens and define occupational exposure limits, evaluate the relative contribution of respiratory versus cutaneous sensitization to food antigens, evaluate the role of raw versus cooked food in influencing risk, and define the absolute or relative contraindication of patients with ingestion‐related food allergy, pollinosis, or oral allergy syndrome continuing to work with exposure to aerosolized food allergens.     

Development of a preliminary questionnaire to assess parental response to children's food allergies.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy affects up to 8% of children. Unintentional exposure may result in minor to potentially fatal episodes. Management of allergies depends on strict allergen avoidance and emergency preparedness. The demands of allergy management and concerns for the child's safety may place parents at risk of developing emotional distress or difficulties in coping. OBJECTIVE: To develop a brief condition-specific measure to evaluate parental adjustment to and coping with children's food allergy. METHODS: A total of 221 parents of children 18 year or younger with food allergy were recruited from a private allergy practice and local food allergy support groups. Parents completed an 18-item questionnaire, the Food Allergy Parent Questionnaire (FAPQ), that assessed parental coping with a child's food allergy and questions related to their child's food allergy diagnosis and course. RESULTS: Factor analysis of the items on the FAPQ suggested 4 factors that accounted for 53.6% of the variance: parental anxiety/distress, psychosocial impact of allergies, parental coping/competence, and family support. Medical variables (greater number of food allergies, positive history of anaphylaxis) were associated with higher scores on the anxiety/distress and psychosocial impact subscales. Internal consistency was good for the anxiety/distress and psychosocial impact subscales (Cronbach alpha = .80 and .77, respectively) but lower for the parental coping/competence and family support subscales (alpha = .57 and .32, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although further psychometric data for the FAPQ is needed, preliminary findings suggest that the measure may be useful in screening for parental anxiety, perceived impact of food allergies, level of family support, and coping skills.     

Bronchial challenges with aerosolized food in asthmatic,food-allergic children

BACKGROUND: Allergic asthma is usually considered to be provoked by aeroallergens. However, we have recently recognized a group of children with food allergies who also develop asthma when exposed to the aerosolized form of the food. METHODS: Between 1997 and 1999 we prospectively identified children with an immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy who develop asthma on inhalational exposure to the relevant food allergen while it is being cooked. Subjects were exposed for 20 min to the aerosolized form of the allergen and the symptoms and the lung function were monitored. Aerosolization was achieved by cooking the food in a small room. Where possible challenges were double-blinded. RESULTS: We identified 12 children with an IgE-mediated food allergy who developed asthma on inhalational exposure to food. The implicated foods were fish, chickpea, milk, egg or buckwheat. Nine out of the 12 children consented to undergo a bronchial food challenge. Five challenges were positive with objective clinical features of asthma. Additionally, two children developed late-phase symptoms with a decrease in lung function. Positive reactions were seen with fish, chickpea and buckwheat. There were no reactions to the seven placebo challenges. CONCLUSIONS: We have presented a prospective series of children with food allergy who developed symptoms of asthma with exposure to aerosolized food allergens. Our data demonstrates that, as in the case of other aeroallergens, inhaled food allergens can produce both early- and late-phase asthmatic responses. This highlights the importance of considering foods as aeroallergens in children with coexistent food allergy and allergic asthma. For these children, dietary avoidance alone may not be sufficient and further environmental measures may be required to limit exposure to aerosolized food.     

Animal models of allergen‐specific immunotherapy in food allergy: Overview and opportunities

Food allergy is an adverse reaction to otherwise harmless proteins in food. The disease is a major health problem of growing concern, affecting approximately 5%‐8% of young children and 2%‐4% of adults. No accepted strategy exists for prevention and treatment of food allergy, and strict avoidance of the offending food is presently the only viable management option. Living with food avoidance may have a huge impact on the quality of life of food allergic patients, with daily fear of serious or even fatal reactions. The urgent need for safe and efficient food allergy treatment options has led to massive research efforts to develop and improve strategies for food allergy immunotherapeutic approaches. A first step in developing new and improved strategies of immunotherapy often involves the use of animal models. In present review, we provide an overview of animal studies of allergen‐specific immunotherapy highlighting opportunities and challenges for each approach. The presented models, almost exclusively performed in mice, assess therapeutic efficacy and immunological outcomes following oral, intraperitoneal, subcutaneous, epicutaneous, and sublingual administration of native allergens, or preparations of hydrolyzed allergen, T‐cell‐directed peptides, or allergen with immunomodulatory adjuvants. Recently, approaches using immune cell therapy have demonstrated efficacy. Current models mainly assess anaphylaxis as the primary clinical outcome. With the increased appreciation that food allergy is a heterogeneous disease presenting different phenotypes, there is a continued need to develop new disease‐relevant therapeutic models of food allergy.     

Influence of a multidisciplinary paediatric allergy clinic on parental knowledge and rate of subsequent allergic reactions

BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated that families of children with food allergy have significant deficiencies in their knowledge of how to avoid allergen exposure and how to manage allergic reactions. This study aims to assess the impact of a multidisciplinary paediatric allergy clinic consultation on parental knowledge of food allergy and to determine the rate of subsequent allergic reactions. METHODS: Sixty-two subjects (<17 years) referred with food allergy were prospectively enrolled. Parental knowledge was assessed by questionnaire and EpiPen trainer. Families saw a paediatric allergist, clinical nurse specialist and dietician. Knowledge was reassessed after 3 months and rate of allergic reactions after 1 year. RESULTS: After one visit to the paediatric allergy clinic, there was a significant improvement in parental knowledge of allergen avoidance (26.9%, P < 0.001), managing allergic reactions (185.4%, P < 0.0001) and EpiPen usage (83.3%, P < 0.001). Additionally, there was a significant reduction in allergic reactions (P < 0.001). Children with egg, milk or multiple food allergies were more likely to suffer subsequent reactions. CONCLUSIONS: A single visit to a multidisciplinary allergy clinic considerably improves families' abilities to manage allergic reactions to foods with an accompanying reduction in allergic reactions. Young children with egg, milk or multiple food allergies were at greatest risk of further reactions.