- Meeting abstracts
- Open Access
Abstracts from the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Meeting 2016
- Guillaume Pouessel1, 2, 3Email author,
- Claire Claverie4,
- Julien Labreuche5,
- Jean-Marie Renaudin3, 6,
- Aimée Dorkenoo4,
- Mireille Eb7,
- Anne Moneret-Vautrin6, 62,
- Antoine Deschildre2, 3, 139,
- Stephane Leteurtre4,
- Linus Grabenhenrich8, 61, 188Email author,
- Margitta Worm8, 60, 116, 350Email author,
- Sabine Dölle8, 60, 116, 350Email author,
- Kathrin Scherer9, 298,
- Isidor Hutteger10,
- Morten Christensen11Email author,
- Carsten Bindslev-Jensen11, 12,
- Charlotte Mortz11, 12,
- Esben Eller12Email author,
- Henrik Fomsgaard Kjaer12,
- Leonor Carneiro-Leão13Email author,
- Jenny Badas13,
- Alice Coimbra13, 176, 134Email author,
- Dikla Pivko Levy14Email author,
- Moshe Ben-Shoshan420,
- Ayelet Rimon14,
- Shira Benor14,
- Nicolette J. T. Arends15Email author,
- Nikki Edelbroek15,
- Hans de Groot16, 122,
- Joyce A. M. Emons15,
- H. Kim A. Brand15,
- Dirk Verhoeven16,
- Leonieke N. van Veen16,
- Nicolette W. de Jong15,
- Geunwoong Noh17Email author,
- Eun Ha Jang18,
- Mariona Pascal19, 163Email author,
- Olga Dominguez20, 138,
- Mònica Piquer20,
- Montserrat Alvaro20,
- Rosa Jimenez-Feijoo20,
- Jaime Lozano20, 138,
- Adriana Machinena20, 138,
- Maria del Mar Folqué20,
- Maria Teresa Giner20, 138,
- Ana María Plaza20, 138,
- Paul Turner21Email author,
- Nandinee Patel21, 144Email author,
- Marta Vazquez-Ortiz21, 144,
- Sarah Lindsley21, 144,
- Lucy Walker22,
- Simon Rosenberg22,
- Adriano Mari23Email author,
- Claudia Alessandri23,
- Ivana Giangrieco24,
- Lisa Tuppo24,
- Chiara Rafaiani23,
- Georg Mitterer25,
- Michela Ciancamerla23,
- Rosetta Ferrara23,
- Maria Livia Bernardi23,
- Danila Zennaro23,
- Maurizio Tamburrini24,
- Maria Antonetta Ciardiello24,
- Christian Harwanegg25,
- Antonio Fernandez26Email author,
- Regina Selb26,
- Philippe Egenmann27,
- Michelle Epstein28,
- Karin Hoffmann-Sommergruber28, 48,
- Frits Koning29,
- Martinus Lovik30,
- E. N. Clare Mills31, 112, 251, 260, 356,
- Javier Moreno32,
- Henk van Loveren33,
- Jean-Michel Wal34,
- Susanne Diesner35, 36,
- Cornelia Bergmayr35,
- Barbara Pfitzner37,
- Vera Elisabeth Assmann35,
- Philipp Starkl28, 35,
- David Endesfelder38,
- Thomas Eiwegger36, 39,
- Zsolt Szepfalusi36,
- Heinz Fehrenbach40,
- Erika Jensen-Jarolim35, 41,
- Anton Hartmann37,
- Isabella Pali-Schöll35, 41,
- Eva Untersmayr35Email author,
- Soren Wille42, 43Email author,
- Peter Meyer42,
- Caroline Klingebiel44Email author,
- Jonas Lidholm45, 110,
- Angelica Ehrenberg45,
- Jonas Östling45,
- Isabelle Cleach46,
- Jean-Louis Mège46, 47,
- Joana Vitte46, 47Email author,
- Roberta Aina48Email author,
- Pawel Dubiela48,
- Sabine Pfeifer48,
- Merima Bublin48,
- Christian Radauer48,
- Piotr Humeniuk48,
- Stefan Kabasser48,
- Riccardo Asero49, 78,
- Gador Bogas50,
- Francisca Gomez50, 322Email author,
- Paloma Campo50,
- Maria Salas50,
- Inmaculada Doña50, 322,
- Esther Barrionuevo50, 322,
- Maria Auxiliadora Guerrero50,
- Cristobalina Mayorga51, 322,
- Ana Prieto50,
- Domingo Barber52,
- Maria Jose Torres50, 322,
- Annette Jamin53,
- Andrea Wangorsch53Email author,
- Barbara Ballmer54,
- Stefan Vieths53, 111,
- Stephan Scheurer53,
- Danijela Apostolovic55Email author,
- Jelena Mihailovic56,
- Maja Krstic55, 56,
- Maria Starkhammar57,
- Tanja Cirkovic Velickovic56,
- Carl Hamsten55,
- Marianne van Hage55,
- Francine C. van Erp58,
- Edward F. Knol58,
- Hannah M. Kansen58Email author,
- Bo Pontoppidan46,
- Yolanda Meijer58,
- Cornelis K. van der Ent58,
- André C. Knulst58, 248,
- Rebekah Sayers59, 112, 356Email author,
- Helen Brown422,
- Adnan Custovic59,
- Angela Simpson59, 112, 251, 260, 358,
- Claire Mills59, 193,
- Juliane Schulz60,
- Network for Online Registration of Anaphylaxis (NORA),
- Jaap Akkerdaas63Email author,
- Muriel Totis64,
- Annabelle Capt64,
- Corinne Herouet-Guicheney64,
- Ronald van Ree63, 105,
- Tushar Banerjee65Email author,
- Antima Banerjee65,
- Mathilde Claude66, 150Email author,
- Grégory Bouchaud66,
- Roberta Lupi66, 99,
- Laure Castan66, 148, 149, 150,
- Olivier Tranquet66, 99Email author,
- Sandra Denery-Papini66,
- Marie Bodinier66,
- Chantal Brossard66,
- Rosella De Poi67, 68Email author,
- Elisa Gritti67,
- Emiliano De Dominicis67,
- Bert Popping67,
- Patrizia Polverino de Laureto68,
- Kati Palosuo69Email author,
- Anna Kaarina Kukkonen69, 265,
- Anna Pelkonen69, 265,
- Mika Mäkelä69, 265,
- Nanju Alice Lee70Email author,
- Johanna Rost70,
- Sridevi Muralidharan70,
- Dianne Campbell71,
- Sam Mehr71,
- Catherine Nock72,
- Joseph Baumert73,
- Steve Taylor73, 246, 247,
- Carla Mastrorilli74, 75, 76, 142Email author,
- Salvatore Tripodi76, 77,
- Carlo Caffarelli74, 76, 142,
- Serena Perna75,
- Andrea Di Rienzo Businco77,
- Ifigenia Sfika77, 78,
- Arianna Dondi79,
- Annamaria Bianchi80,
- Carlotta Povesi Dascola74, 142,
- Giampaolo Ricci81,
- Francesca Cipriani81,
- Nunzia Maiello82,
- Michele Miraglia del Giudice82,
- Tullio Frediani83,
- Simone Frediani83,
- Francesco Macrì83,
- Chiara Pistoletti83,
- Iride Dello Iacono84,
- Maria Francesca Patria85,
- Elena Varin86,
- Diego Peroni87,
- Pasquale Comberiati87,
- Loredana Chini88,
- Viviana Moschese88,
- Sandra Lucarelli83,
- Roberto Bernardini89,
- Giuseppe Pingitore90,
- Umberto Pelosi91,
- Roberta Olcese92,
- Matteo Moretti83,
- Anastasia Cirisano93,
- Diego Faggian94,
- Alessandro Travaglini88,
- Mario Plebani94,
- Maria Carmen Verga84, 95,
- Mauro Calvani96,
- Paolo Giordani97,
- Paolo Maria Matricardi75, 76,
- Noe Ontiveros98,
- Francisco Cabrera-Chavez98Email author,
- Julie Galand1, 2,
- Etienne Beaudouin6,
- The Anaphylaxis Working Group of the French Allergology SocietyThe Anaphylaxis Working Group of the French Allergology Society,
- Florence Pineau99,
- Shinobu Sakai100,
- Kayoko Matsunaga100,
- Reiko Teshima100,
- Colette Larré99,
- Sandra Denery99,
- Sebastian Tschirner75,
- Valérie Trendelenburg75, 137, 138,
- Gabriele Schulz75, 137,
- Bodo Niggemann75, 137, 138, 338,
- Kirsten Beyer75, 137, 138, 194, 338Email author,
- Youcef Bouferkas101, 102,
- Younes Belabbas101,
- Djamel Saidi101, 102,
- Omar Kheroua101, 102,
- Kamel Eddine El Mecherfi101,
- Malika Guendouz102,
- Abir Haddi102Email author,
- Hanane Kaddouri102,
- Luis Amaral13, 124Email author,
- Ana Pereira103,
- Susana Rodrigues104,
- Mareen Datema105,
- Laurian Jongejan105,
- Michael Clausen106, 185, 361,
- Andre Knulst58, 283,
- Nikolaos Papadopoulos107,
- Marek Kowalski108, 192,
- Frédéric de Blay109,
- Aeilko Zwinderman105,
- Karin Hoffman-Sommergruber28,
- Barbara Ballmer-Weber113,
- Montserrat Fernandez-Rivas114,
- Shan Deng115,
- Jia Yin115,
- Charlotte Eisenmann116,
- Maria Nassiri116,
- Rabea Reinert116,
- Johanna P. M. van der Valk117,
- Roy Gerth van Wijk117,
- Yvonne Vergouwe118,
- Ewout W. Steyerberg118,
- Marit Reitsma119,
- Harry J. Wichers119,
- Huub F. J. Savelkoul120,
- Berber Vlieg-Boerstra121,
- Anthony E. J. Dubois123, 133, 134, 326,
- Nicolette W. de Jong117,
- Fabrícia Carolino124, 314Email author,
- Ana Rodolfo124, 176, 314,
- Josefina Cernadas124, 13,
- Dasha Roa-Medellín125,
- Ana Rodriguez-Fernandez125,
- Joaquín Navarro125,
- Vicente Albendiz125,
- María Luisa Baeza125,
- Sonsoles Intente-Herrero125,
- Andrea Mikkelsen126, 127,
- Kirsten Mehlig127,
- Lauren Lissner127,
- Linda Verrill128,
- Stefano Luccioli128,
- Jolanda van Bilsen129,
- Frieke Kuper129,
- André Wolterbeek130,
- Tanja Rouhani Rankouhi129,
- Lars Verschuren129,
- Hilde Cnossen129,
- Prescilla Jeurink131,
- Johan Garssen132, 168, 273,
- Léon Knippels132,
- Jossie Garthoff131,
- Geert Houben129, 245,
- Winfried Leeman129,
- M. Eleonore Pettersson133,
- Afke M. M. Schins134,
- Gerard H. Koppelman133, 134,
- Boudewjin J. Kollen135,
- Svitlana Zubchenko136, 411Email author,
- Sarah Kuntz137,
- Pablo Mérida138Email author,
- Montserrat Álvaro138,
- Monica Piquer138,
- Carmen Riggioni138,
- Juan Heber Castellanos138,
- Rosa Jimenez138,
- Melanie Cap139,
- Elodie Drumez140,
- Stéphanie Lejeune139,
- Caroline Thumerelle139,
- Clémence Mordacq139,
- Véronique Nève141,
- Sonia Ricò142,
- Margherita Varini142,
- Rita Nocerino143Email author,
- Linda Cosenza143,
- Antonio Amoroso143,
- Margherita Di Costanzo143,
- Carmen Di Scala143,
- Giorgio Bedogni153,
- Roberto Berni Canani143,
- Paul J. Turner144,
- Paloma Poza-Guedes145Email author,
- Ruperto González-Pérez145,
- Inmaculada Sánchez-Machín145,
- Victor Matheu-Delgado145,
- Erik Wambre146Email author,
- Anne-Sofie Ballegaard147,
- Charlotte Madsen66, 147Email author,
- Juliane Gregersen147,
- Katrine Lindholm Bøgh147Email author,
- Philippe Aubert149, 151, 152,
- Michel Neunlist149, 151,
- Antoine Magnan148, 149, 150, 152, 153,
- Daniel Lozano-Ojalvo154Email author,
- Alba Pablos-Tanarro154Email author,
- Leticia Pérez-Rodríguez154,
- Elena Molina154,
- Rosina López-Fandiño154,
- Akila Rekima155Email author,
- Patricia Macchiaverni156,
- Mathilde Turfkruyer155,
- Sebastien Holvoet157,
- Lénaïck Dupuis157,
- Nour Baiz158,
- Isabella Annesi-Maesano158,
- Annick Mercenier157,
- Sophie Nutten157,
- Valérie Verhasselt155, 158,
- Ines Mrakovcic-Sutic159Email author,
- Srdan Banac160,
- Ivana Sutic161, 165,
- Zdenka Baricev-Novakovic161, 165,
- Ingrid Sutic162,
- Valentino Pavisic159,
- Rosa Muñoz-Cano163,
- Teodoríkez Jiménez-Rodríguez164,
- Daniel Corbacho163,
- Jordi Roca-Ferrer163,
- Joan Bartra163,
- Aleksandar Bulog161,
- Vladimir Micovic161,
- Lidia Markiewicz166, 167Email author,
- Agata Szymkiewicz166, 167,
- Anna Szyc166, 167Email author,
- Barbara Wróblewska166, 167,
- Bryan M. Harvey167,
- Lucien F. Harthoorn168Email author,
- A. Wesley Burks169,
- Georgios Rentzos170, 171Email author,
- Anna-Lena Bramstång Björk170,
- Ulf Bengtsson171,
- Colin Barber172Email author,
- Chrystyna Kalicinsky172,
- Christine Breynaert173Email author,
- Lieve Coorevits173,
- Cornelia Jansen173,
- Erna Van Hoeyveld173,
- Kristin Verbeke173,
- Anne-Marie Kochuyt173,
- Rik Schrijvers173,
- Diana Deleanu174, 405Email author,
- Adriana Muntean174,
- Maria Konstantakopoulou175, 227Email author,
- Maria Pasioti175,
- Anastasia Papadopoulou175,
- Anna Iliopoulou175, 227Email author,
- Nikolaos Mikos175, 227,
- Evangelia Kompoti175, 227,
- Eunice Dias de Castro176, 314,
- Borja Bartalomé177,
- Kok Loong Ue178Email author,
- Elizabeth Griffiths178,
- Stephen Till178, 179,
- Kate Grimshaw180,
- Graham Roberts180, 181, 182Email author,
- Anna Selby180,
- Indre Butiene183,
- Jose Ignacio Larco184,
- Ruta Dubakiene186,
- Ana Fiandor184,
- Alessandro Fiocchi187,
- Nikos Papadopoulos107, 189,
- Sigurveig Sigurdardottir190, 359Email author,
- Aline Sprikkelman191,
- Anne-Fleur Schoemaker191,
- Paraskevi Xepapadaki189, 266,
- Thomas Keil188, 343,
- Zizi Cojocariu195Email author,
- Beatriz Secades Barbado195,
- Vasti Iancu195,
- Esozia Arroabarren195Email author,
- Marta Goñi Esarte195,
- Miren Arteaga195,
- Mayra Coutinho Andrade196Email author,
- Denise Borges196,
- Jorge Kalil196,
- Pedro Giavina Bianchi196,
- Rosana Camara Agondi196,
- Rinkesh Kumar Gupta197Email author,
- Akanksha Sharma197,
- Kriti Gupta197,
- Mukul Das197,
- Premendra Dwivedi197,
- Rusudan Karseladze198, 199Email author,
- Liana Jorjoliani198, 199Email author,
- Lali Saginadze199,
- Mariam Tskhakaia200,
- Katia Basello201Email author,
- Gabriele Piuri202Email author,
- Attilio Francesco Speciani203,
- Michela Carola Speciani204,
- Carla Camerotto204,
- Francesco Zinno205,
- Olga Pakholchuk206Email author,
- Svitlana Nedelska206,
- Stefano Pattini207Email author,
- Maria Teresa Costantino208,
- Silvia Peveri209,
- Danilo Villalta210,
- Eleonora Savi209,
- Andrea Costanzi201,
- Vera A. Revyakina211Email author,
- Marina A. Kiseleva211,
- Elena D. Kuvshinova211,
- Inna A. Larkova211,
- Anton A. Shekhetov211,
- Diana Silva13Email author,
- André Moreira13, 279,
- José Plácido13,
- Hanneke van der Kleij212Email author,
- Esther van Twuijver212,
- Robbert Sutorius212,
- Pieter-Jan de Kam212,
- Jenny van Odijk213, 385Email author,
- Helen Lindqvist214,
- Elin Lustig214,
- Amyra Ali Azamar Jácome215Email author,
- Karla Leversia Borjas Aguilar215,
- Miguel García Domínguez215,
- David Alejandro Mendoza Hernández215,
- Cristiano Caruso216Email author,
- Cono Casale217,
- Gian Lodovico Rapaccini217,
- Antonino Romano216,
- Italo De Vitis217,
- Renata R. Cocco218Email author,
- Carolina Aranda218,
- Marcia C. Mallozi218,
- Jackeline F. Motta219,
- Lilian Moraes220,
- Antonio Pastorino218,
- Nelson Rosario221,
- Ekaterini Goudouris222,
- Arnaldo Porto223,
- Neusa F. Wandalsen224,
- Emanuel Sarinho225,
- Flavio Sano226,
- Dirceu Solé218,
- Constantinos Pitsios228,
- Maria Petrodimopoulou227,
- Ekaterini Papadopoulou227,
- Maria Passioti227,
- Meropi Kontogianni228,
- Nino Adamia199,
- Ekaterina Khaleva229,
- Ana Prieto del Prado229Email author,
- George Du Toit229, 230,
- Edyta Krzych231Email author,
- Urszula Samolinska-Zawisza231,
- Konrad Furmanczyk231,
- Aneta Tomaszewska231,
- Filip Raciborski231,
- Agnieszka Lipiec231,
- Piotr Samel-Kowalik231,
- Artur Walkiewicz231,
- Jacek Borowicz231,
- Boleslaw Samolinski231,
- Aimee Lou Nano232Email author,
- Marysia Recto232,
- Maria Luisa Somoza233Email author,
- Natalia Blanca López233,
- Diana Pérez Alzate233,
- Francisco Javier Ruano233,
- Maria Isabel Garcimartín233,
- Elisa Haroun233,
- Maria Vázquez de la Torre233,
- Antonia Rojas233,
- Montserrat López Onieva233,
- Gabriela Canto233,
- Alexandra Rodrigues234Email author,
- Andreia Forno234,
- António Jorge Cabral234,
- Rute Gonçalves234,
- Ilya Vorozhko235,
- Tatyana Sentsova235Email author,
- Olga Chernyak235,
- Svetlana Denisova236,
- Lidia Ilènko236,
- Valery Muhortnich236,
- Caroline Zimmermann137,
- Alexander Rohrbach137,
- Faisal R. Bakhsh123Email author,
- Kollen Boudewijn123,
- Anne-Marie Oomkes-Pilon123,
- Dorien Van Ginkle123,
- Mira Šilar237, 287Email author,
- Anja Jeverica238,
- Tina Vesel238, 286, 421Email author,
- Tadej Avčin238, 286,
- Peter Korošec237, 287,
- Johanna van der Valk117Email author,
- Irene Berends117,
- Nicolette Arends239,
- Maurits van Maaren117,
- Harry Wichers119,
- Joyce Emons239,
- Anthony Dubois123,
- Nicolette de Jong117,
- Oksana Matsyura136Email author,
- Lesya Besh136,
- Chung-Hsiung Huang240, 241Email author,
- Tong-Rong Jan241, 335,
- Gary Stiefel242Email author,
- Jean Tratt243,
- Kerrie Kirk242,
- Fabricia Carolino13,
- Stefania Arasi244Email author,
- Lucia Caminiti244,
- Giuseppe Crisafulli244,
- Chiara Fiamingo244,
- Jlenia Fresta244,
- Giovanni Pajno244,
- Ben Remington245Email author,
- Astrid Kruizinga245,
- W. Marty Blom245, 248,
- Joost Westerhout245,
- Sabina Bijlsma245,
- Joe Baumert246, 247,
- Mark Blankestijn58Email author,
- Henny Otten58,
- Rob Klemans58,
- Anouska D. Michelsen-Huisman248,
- Harmieke van Os-Medendorp248, 283Email author,
- Astrid G. Kruizinga245,
- Astrid Versluis248,
- Gert van Duijn130,
- H. Mary-Lene de Zeeuw-Brouwer245,
- Jacqueline J. M. Castenmiller249,
- Hub P. J. M. Noteborn249,
- Geert F. Houben242, 248,
- Kristian Bravin250Email author,
- David Luyt250,
- Bushra Javed112, 113, 251Email author,
- Phil Couch252,
- Christopher Munro252, 260,
- Phil Padfield112, 251, 356,
- Matt Sperrin252,
- Aideen Byrne253, 255Email author,
- Lizalet Oosthuizen253,
- Carina Kelleher253,
- Fiona Ward253,
- Niamh Brosnan254,
- Graham King255,
- Eva Corbet255,
- Josué Alejandro Huertas Guzmán256Email author,
- Montserrat Bosque García256,
- Oscar Asensio256,
- Laura Valdesoiro Navarrete256,
- Helena Larramona256,
- Xavier Domingo Miró256,
- Katarzyna Pyrz257Email author,
- Moira Austin258,
- Yanne Boloh259,
- Philip Couch260,
- Deirdre Galloway261,
- Pilar Hernandez262,
- Jonathan O’B. Hourihane263,
- Fiona Kenna261,
- Barbara Majkowska-Wojciechowska108,
- Lynne Regent258,
- Marina Themisb260,
- Sabine Schnadt264,
- Aida Semic-Jusufagic260,
- Audrey Dunn Galvin257, 419,
- Tiina Kauppila265Email author,
- Mikael Kuitunen265,
- Nikolaos A. Kitsioulis266Email author,
- Nikolaos Douladiris266,
- Sofia Kostoudi266,
- Ioanna Manolaraki266,
- Dimitris Mitsias266,
- Emmanouil Manousakis266,
- Nikolaos G. Papadopoulos59, 266,
- Rebecca Knibb267Email author,
- Jennifer Hammond267,
- Richard Cooke267,
- Jaakko Yrjänä268,
- Anna-Maija Hanni269,
- Päivi Vähäsarja269,
- Oona Mustonen268,
- Teija Dunder268,
- Petri Kulmala268Email author,
- Eva Lasa270Email author,
- Carmen D’Amelio271,
- Sara Martínez270,
- Alejandro Joral270,
- Gabriel Gastaminza271,
- Maria Jose Goikoetxea271,
- David C. A. Candy272,
- Marleen T. J. Van Ampting168Email author,
- Manon M. Oude Nijhuis168,
- Assad M. Butt272,
- Diego G. Peroni274,
- Adam T. Fox275,
- Jan Knol168, 276,
- Louise J. Michaelis277,
- Ines Padua278Email author,
- Patricia Padrao278, 280,
- Pedro Moreira278, 281,
- Renata Barros278,
- Hanan Sharif282,
- Manzoor Ahmed282Email author,
- Nehad Gomaa282,
- Joris Mens284,
- Koen Smit284,
- Frans Timmermans285,
- Tomaž Poredoš286,
- Anja Koren Jeverica286, 287,
- Marjeta Sedmak286,
- Evgen Benedik286,
- Meta Accetto286,
- Mirjana Zupančič286,
- Glauce Yonamine288Email author,
- Gustavo Soldateli288,
- Bruna Aquilante288,
- Antonio Carlos Pastorino288,
- Cleonir Lui de Moraes Beck288,
- Andrea Keiko Gushken288,
- Mayra de Barros Dorna288,
- Cristiane Nunes dos Santos288,
- Ana Paula Moschione Castro288,
- Abdulhadi Al-Qahtani289Email author,
- Rand Arnaout289,
- Agha Rehan Khaliq289,
- Rashid Amin289,
- Farrukh Sheikh289,
- Jorge Alvarez195,
- Marta Anda195,
- Miriam Palacios195,
- Montserrat De Prada195,
- Carmen Ponce195,
- Bianca Balbino290Email author,
- Riccardo Sibilano291,
- Thomas Marichal292,
- Nicolas Gaudenzio291,
- Hajime Karasuyama293,
- Pierre Bruhns290,
- Mindy Tsai291,
- Laurent L. Reber290,
- Stephen J. Galli291,
- Ana Reis Ferreira124, 408,
- Josefina R. Cernadas124, 314,
- Aida del Campo García294Email author,
- Sara Pereiro Fernández294,
- Nerea Sarmiento Carrera294,
- Fernando Bandrés Sánchez-Cruz294,
- José Ramón Fernández Lorenzo294,
- Stephanie Claus295,
- Claudia Pföhler296,
- Franziska Ruëff297,
- Regina Treudler295,
- Mercedes Escarrer Jaume299Email author,
- Agustin Madroñero299,
- Maria Teresa Guerra Perez300,
- Juan Carlos Julia301,
- Charlotte Hands Plovdiv112Email author,
- Lee Gethings302,
- Jim Langridge302,
- Karine Adel-Patient303,
- Hervé Bernard303,
- Ivona Barcievic-Jones112,
- Raditsa Sokolova304Email author,
- Rumyana Yankova304,
- Mariya Ivanovska305Email author,
- Marianna Murdjeva305,
- Tatyana Popova305,
- Svetlan Dermendzhiev306,
- Martin Karjalainen307, 309,
- Ulrike Lehnigk307, 309Email author,
- Duncan Brown308,
- Julie C. Locklear309,
- Julie Locklear309,
- Ioana Maris310Email author,
- Jonathan Hourihane310,
- Cristina Ornelas311Email author,
- Joana Caiado311,
- Manuel Branco Ferreira311, 401,
- Manuel Pereira-Barbosa311, 401,
- Yolanda Puente312Email author,
- Juan Carlos Daza312,
- Francisco Javier Monteseirin313,
- Natalia Ukleja-Sokolowska315, 395Email author,
- Ewa Gawronska-Ukleja315, 395Email author,
- Magdalena Zbikowska-Gotz315, 395,
- Zbigniew Bartuzi315, 395,
- Lukasz Sokolowski316,
- Aine Adams317Email author,
- Bernard Mahon317,
- Karen English317,
- Nelly Gourdon-Dubois318Email author,
- Laetitia Sellam319,
- Bruno Pereira320,
- Elodie Michaud319,
- Khaled Messaoudi321,
- Bertrand Evrard321,
- Jean-Luc Fauquert319,
- Francisca Palomares322Email author,
- Gador Gomez322,
- Maria Jose Rodriguez322,
- Luisa Galindo322,
- Ana Molina322,
- Lorella Paparo143,
- Maurizio Mennini143,
- Rosita Aitoro143,
- Adam Wawrzeńczyk315Email author,
- Michał Przybyszewski315,
- Anna Wawrzeńczyk315,
- Hulya Ercan Sarıcoban323Email author,
- Meltem Ugras324,
- Zerrin Yalvac325,
- Bertine M. J. Flokstra-de Blok326Email author,
- J. L. van der Velde326,
- Andrea Vereda327,
- Clara Ippolito328Email author,
- Amaranta Traversa328,
- Daniela Adriano328,
- Daniela Manila Bianchi328,
- Silvia Gallina328,
- Lucia Decastelli328,
- Melina Makatsori329Email author,
- Anne Miles329,
- Sonja Posega Devetak330Email author,
- Iztok Devetak331,
- Soraya Ainad Tabet102Email author,
- Jeanette Fisker Trandbohus332Email author,
- Pernille Winther333,
- Hans-Jørgen Malling333,
- Kirsten Skamstrup Hansen332, 333, 399, 400,
- Lene Heise Garvey332,
- Chia-Chi Wang334Email author,
- Yin-Hua Cheng334,
- Chun-Wei Tung334,
- Mariola Dietrich167,
- Ingo Marenholz336, 337Email author,
- Birgit Kalb336, 337, 338,
- Sarah Grosche336, 337,
- Katharina Blümchen339,
- Rupert Schlags340,
- Mareike Price341,
- Sylke Rietz342,
- Jorge Esparza-Gordillo336, 337,
- Susanne Lau338,
- Young-Ae Lee336, 337,
- Ali Almontasheri344Email author,
- Mohammad Al Bahkali344,
- Sahar Elshorbagi345,
- Abdullah Alfhaid345,
- Mashary Altamimi345,
- Eman Madbouly345,
- Hassan Al-Dhekri346,
- Rand K. Arnaout344,
- Maria Basagaña347Email author,
- Sira Miquel347,
- Borja Bartolomé348, 365, 389,
- Bettina Brix349,
- Stefanie Rohwer349,
- Sandra Brandhoff349,
- Alena Berger349,
- Waltraud Suer349,
- Alf Weimann349,
- Cristina Bueno351Email author,
- Laura Martín-Pedraza351,
- Sara Abián351,
- Pablo San Segundo-Acosta351,
- Juan Carlos López-Rodríguez351,
- Rodrigo Barderas351,
- Eva Batanero351,
- Javier Cuesta-Herranz352,
- María Teresa Villalba351,
- Magna Correia353, 384Email author,
- Filipe Benito-Garcia353, 384Email author,
- Cristina Arêde353, 384,
- Susana Piedade353, 384,
- Mário Morais-Almeida353, 384,
- James Hindley354Email author,
- Ross Yarham354,
- Anna Kuklinska-Pijanka354,
- David Gillick354,
- Karine Patient303,
- Martin D. Chapman354,
- Katrine L. Bøgh66,
- Ana Miranda355,
- Eugénia Matos355,
- Anna Sokolova355Email author,
- Huan Rao356, 357Email author,
- Ivona Baricevic-Jones356,
- Frances Smith356,
- Wentong Xue357,
- Helga Magnusdottir359, 360,
- Anna G. Vidarsdottir359,
- Sigrun Lund360,
- Anders Blom Jensen362Email author,
- Bjorn R. Ludviksson359,
- Reyna Simon363Email author,
- Robert Elfont363,
- Sean Bennett363,
- Robert Voyksner364,
- Maria de Lurdes Torre355,
- Songül Yürek75Email author,
- Margaretha A. Faber366,
- Annick Bastiaensen366,
- Evelyne Mangodt366,
- Athina van Gasse366Email author,
- Ine Decuyper366, 367,
- Vito Sabato366,
- Margo M. Hagendorens366, 367,
- Chris H. Bridts366,
- Luc S. De Clerck366,
- Didier Ebo366,
- Susanne Schwarz138Email author,
- Mandy Ziegert138,
- Saskia Albroscheit138,
- Christian Schwager368Email author,
- Skadi Kull368,
- Jochen Behrends369,
- Niels Röckendorf370,
- Frauke Schocker368,
- Andreas Frey370,
- Arne Homann368,
- Wolf-Meinhard Becker368,
- Uta Jappe368, 371,
- Nesrine Zaabat372, 373,
- Sylvia Osscini44,
- Chantal Agabriel374,
- Benoît Sterling375,
- Ania Carsin376,
- Valérie Liabeuf377,
- Monica Maćków378Email author,
- Alina Zbróg378,
- Monica Bronkowska378, 379,
- Justine Courtois380Email author,
- Romy Gadisseur381,
- Catherine Bertholet381,
- Pierre Lukas381,
- Etienne Cavalier381,
- Philippe Delahaut382,
- Birgit Quinting383,
- Margareta Brandt Gertmo385Email author,
- Ewa Ternesten Hasseus385,
- Vladyslava Barzylovych386,
- Júlio Oliveira387,
- Luis F. Ensina218,
- Carolina S. Aranda218,
- Leire Dopazo388,
- Rebeca Lopez388,
- Raquel Perez388,
- Laura Santos-Diez388,
- Agurtzane Bilbao388,
- Juan Miguel Garcia388,
- Ignacio García Núñez390Email author,
- María Ángeles Algaba Mármol391,
- María José Barasona Villarejo392,
- José Antonio Bácter Martos391,
- Marina Suárez Vergara390,
- José María Ignacio García390,
- Agata Michalska393,
- Grzegorz Sergiejko393,
- Robert Zacniewski393,
- Ileana-Maria Ghiordanescu394Email author,
- Cristina Deaconu395,
- Mihaela Popescu394,
- Roxana Silvia Bumbacea394,
- Alkerta Ibranji396Email author,
- Elida Nikolla397,
- Gjustina Loloci398,
- Nanna Juel-Berg399Email author,
- Lau Fabricius Larsen399,
- Lars Kjaergaard Poulsen399,
- João Marcelino401Email author,
- Ricardo Prata402,
- Ana Célia Costa401,
- Fátima Duarte401,
- Marta Neto401,
- Jennifer Santos402,
- Luís Câmara Pestana402,
- Daniel Sampaio402,
- Paola Minale403Email author,
- Paola Dignetti404,
- Donatella Bignardi403,
- Irena Nedelea405Email author,
- Florin-Dan Popescu406Email author,
- Mariana Vieru406,
- Florin-Adrian Secureanu407,
- Carmen Saviana Ganea407,
- Miguel Vieira408Email author,
- José Pedro Moreira Silva408,
- Timothy Watts409Email author,
- Sophia Watts410,
- Marta Lomikovska411,
- Marina Peredelskaya412Email author,
- Natalia Nenasheva413,
- Ivana Filipovic414Email author,
- Zorica Zivkovic415,
- Djordje Filipovic416,
- Jennette Higgs417Email author,
- Amena Warner418 and
- Carla Jones418
© The Author(s) 2017
- Published: 30 March 2017
OP01 Fatal anaphylaxis is decreasing in France: analysis of national data, 1979–2011
Guillaume Pouessel1,2,3, Claire Claverie4, Julien Labreuche5, Jean-Marie Renaudin3,6, Aimée Dorkenoo4, Mireille Eb7, Anne Moneret-Vautrin6, Antoine Deschildre2,3, Stephane Leteurtre4
1Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital, Roubaix, France; 2Division of Pulmonology and Allergology, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine and Children’s Hospital, Lille, France; 3Allergy Vigilance Network, Vandoeuvre les Nancy, France; 4Université Lille 2, CHU Lille, EA 2694 - Santé Publique: épidémiologie et qualité des soins, Lille, France; 5Biostatistic Unit, Maison Régionale de la Recherche Clinique, CHRU Lille, Lille, France; 6Department of Allergology, Emile Durkheim Hospital, Epinal, France; 7Centre d’Epidémiologie sur les Causes Médicales de Décès INSERM, CHU de Bicêtre, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
Correspondence: Guillaume Pouessel - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):OP01
Introduction: Incidence of anaphylaxis is increasing. Data regarding anaphylaxis mortality are limited, but conflicting. Our objective was to document anaphylaxis mortality rate (deaths per million population), time trends and specificities according to triggers (iatrogenic, venom, food, unknown), age groups, sex and geographical regions (North and South) in France, between 1979 and 2011.
Methods: Data were obtained (1) from database of the National Mortality Center (CEPIDC) to collect cases in which anaphylaxis was included as a cause of death, sex, age, and geographic region of death, (2) from the database of the National Institute for Economical and Statistical studies (INSEE) to define the referent populations. We used a multivariable log-linear Poisson regression model to assess the impact of time period, age, sex and geographic region on anaphylaxis deaths.
Results: During the period study, 1603 deaths were collected: 1564 in adults and 39 in children (age <18 year). The overall prevalence of anaphylaxis fatalities was 0.84 per million population (95% IC 0.80–0.88), ranging from 0.08 per million (95% IC 0.05–0.10) in pediatric population to 1.12 per million (95% CI 1.06 to 1.17) in adult population. Annual percentage change for case fatality rate was −2.0% (95% CI −2.5 to −1.5; p < 10−4) indicating a decrease in case fatality rate during the study period. Anaphylaxis fatality rate was higher in men (1.08 per million [95% IC 1.00 1.16] than women (0.86 per million [95% IC 0.80–0.92]) (p < 10−4). Triggers of anaphylaxis fatalities were iatrogenic (63%), mostly drugs, venom (14%) and food (0.6%). Unspecified anaphylaxis was frequent (23%). The highest rate was in persons aged >70 years (3.50 per million population per year [95% IC 3.25–3.76]) and the lowest in the pediatric population (p < 10−4). Only venom-induced mortality rate was higher in South of France (0.16 per million [95% IC 0.13–0.19]) compared with the North (0.11 per million [95% IC 0.09–0.13]) (p = 0.004). Only 8 food-induced fatalities were recorded (age <35 years in 7 cases).
Conclusion: Overall anaphylaxis mortality rate is decreasing over the three last decades in France. We confirm that iatrogenic causes are the most frequent causes. Older age and male sex are risk factors of fatal anaphylaxis of any cause except for food-induced anaphylaxis.
OP02 Diagnostic workup after severe anaphylaxis
Linus Grabenhenrich1, Margitta Worm1, Sabine Dölle1, Kathrin Scherer2, Isidor Hutteger3
1Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; 2University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; 3Universitätsklinikum Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria
Correspondence: Linus Grabenhenrich - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):OP02
Introduction: After a severe anaphylactic reaction, a diagnostic workup is recommended to confirm or rule out the elicitor(s) in question. The type of diagnostic chosen is usually based on the elicitor and severity of the reaction and might follow local experiences. We aimed to describe elicitor-specific diagnostic habits in the workup of severe anaphylaxis, comparing European countries.
Methods: The Network for Online Registration of Anaphylaxis (NORA) collected details about elicitors, symptoms and severity, treatment and the diagnostic workup of patients who experienced at least one episode of severe anaphylaxis, as documented within medical records of participating tertiary referral centres.
Results: Between June 2011 and April 2016, the registry collected data for 6465 cases of severe anaphylaxis, 74% of which reported to know the elicitor, with a remaining 20% having only a suspicion and 6% cases of idiopathic anaphylaxis. The allergen was known and confirmed by a diagnostic test in 4410 (92% of known elicitors). Of these, 68% had a reaction to this allergen for the first time, and 32% reported at least one earlier reaction to the same allergen. In first-time reactors (n = 3001) 7% reported that the allergen was confirming by a diagnostic test already before this reaction, for food 14%, insects 3%, drugs 2%, and 80% for SIT-induced anaphylaxis. Of cases with recurrent anaphylaxis (n = 1409), 30% had a test confirming the allergen before the reported reaction, for food 44%, insects 16%, drugs 18%, and 91% for SIT-induced anaphylaxis. Of all diagnostically confirmed cases of food-induced anaphylaxis (n = 1555), 78% were assessed by a skin test (SPT, positive in 93%), 90% by specific IgE (sIgE, 94% positive), 27% tryptase (7% positive), and 13% underwent an oral food challenge (positive in 88%). Patients with anaphylaxis caused by drugs had the following tests (positives of these): SPT 88% (49%), sIgE 31% (46%), tryptase 48% (11%), and provocation 19% (68%). For reactions against insect venom: SPT 79% (84%), sIgE 98% (97%), and tryptase 93 (8%). Irrespective of the elicitor, SPTs were performed more often in Austria, Ireland and Greece (92, 96, and 99%, respectively), and less often in Italy (64%). Tryptase was almost never measured in Ireland, Greece and France, whereas determination of specific IgE was carried out similarly between European countries.
Conclusion: The choice of diagnostic measure depended on the elicitor and varied by country. Especially the assessment of tryptase is handled very differently between allergens in question and countries. These differences may indicate aspects of the diagnostic workup with a certain degree of ambiguity, which might benefit from further harmonization.
OP03 Primary sensitisation versus co-sensitisation to hydrolysed wheat protein
Morten Christensen, Carsten Bindslev-Jensen, Charlotte Mortz
Department of Dermatology and Allergy Centre, Odense Research Center for Anaphylaxis (ORCA), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
Correspondence: Morten J. Christensen - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):OP03
Introduction: Wheat protein is responsible for various phenotypes of allergic diseases. More recently an increased number of immediate type 1 allergic reactions to hydrolyzed wheat proteins (HWP) have been reported.
The aim of this study was to characterize the clinical profile and evaluate patients with a case-history of anaphylaxis related to ingestion of a product containing HWP. Furthermore, to describe patients with other types of wheat allergy co-sensitized for HWP.
Methods: From May 2010 to August 2015 we investigated 56 patients (31 female, 25 male, mean age 39.0 years [1.5–77.2]) sensitized to commercialized HWP, either by specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) (ThermoFischer, Uppsala, Sweden) and/or skin prick test (SPT). Based upon case-history patients were divided into 3 groups: (1) allergic reaction to ingestion of a HWP containing product (n = 9) (2) ingestion of a wheat product; WIA (n = 19), (3) ingestion of a wheat product in combination with exercise; WDEIA (n = 28). All patients were orally challenged with the incriminated food.
Results: The total positive rate of sIgE to HWP was 47/56 (83.9%), SPT 35/42 (83.3%) and BHR 22/42 (52.3%). Fourteen patients were triple positive to commercialized HWP of whom 7/9 patients in the HWP group. In total 9 (16%) patients were identified with a case-history of anaphylaxis related to a HWP containing product. Seven of 9 had a case-history to the same hydrolyzed wheat product (AMO Letbagt®). The average serum level of HWP-sIgE and the SPT were higher in patients with a case-history of HWP, respectively (median 5.3 kU/L ±6.8) (p < 0.05) and (median 6.0 mm ±4.1) (p < 0.05) compared to the WIA and WDEIA groups. A complete negative pattern was determined with specific wheat proteins normally associated with other phenotypes of wheat allergy, omega-5 gliadin (f416), gliadin (f98), High Molecular Weight (Tri a 26) and α-amylase trypsin inhibitor (Tri a 30). Basophil histamine release (BHR) for HWP was extremely positive in 8/9 HWP patients with activity retained to dilutions up to 10−12. The most striking finding was the ultrahigh sensitivity of BHR in diagnosing allergy to HWP. It is, however, interesting, that the HWP patient tolerates ingestion of unmodified wheat.
Conclusion: Reactivity to HWP seems to be confined to patients specifically sensitized to this heterogeneous group of products without concomitant allergy to normal wheat. Irrelevant co-sensitization is also seen in classical wheat allergy.
OP04 Actual adrenalin treatment in a specialised clinical setting, compared to administration as recommended by a built-in algorithm in a severity scoring instrument in food allergy
Esben Eller, Henrik Fomsgaard Kjaer, Charlotte Mortz, Carsten Bindslev-Jensen
Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
Correspondence: Esben Eller - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):OP04
Introduction: One of the most used severity scoring instruments, the Sampson 1–5, includes a built-in algorithm indicating symptoms which necessitate adrenalin administration. These include grade 5 anaphylactic symptoms, but also grade 3 and 4 such as laryngeal “puritus, tightness, or dysphagia” and lower respiratory symptoms such as “wheezing, dyspnea or cyanosis”. Our aim was to compare the recommended adrenalin administration with the actual administration in our clinic in relation to the underlying eliciting symptom.
Methods: Data from 2382 positive food challenges (mean age 11.6 years [range: 0.5–74.1y]) performed between Jan. 2000 and Dec. 2015 at the Allergy Centre, Odense, Denmark were included, and severity of reactions was assessed using the Sampson 1–5 severity instrument. All patients were evaluated by experienced specialists during challenge. Actual medications administered during the challenges, i.e. adrenalin, β2-agonist, corticosteroid, or antihistamine were compared with recommended adrenalin treatment according to the algorithm in Sampson 1–5.
Results: Out of 346 challenges scored as grade 4 anaphylaxis, 296 were terminated due to respiratory symptoms requiring adrenalin according to Sampson 1–5, i.e. “barky cough, hoarseness, difficulty swallowing” (laryngeal, n = 79), “wheezing, dyspnea, cyanosis” (lower resp. n = 181) or both (n = 36). Nine of the 115 patients with laryngeal symptoms were treated with adrenalin, all due to inspiratory stridor. No patients with lower respiratory symptoms received adrenalin, but the majority were treated with β2 agonists (188/217), whereas in 30 challenges, symptoms disappeared without treatment or only antihistamine for concomitant urticaria were used. Patients solely with laryngeal symptoms received β2-agonists in 16 challenges, but the majority of them (54/79) received no treatment or only antihistamine. The 36 patients with both laryngeal and lower respiratory symptoms were treated in same manner as patients with only lower respiratory symptoms, i.e. β2 agonist for their bronchial wheeze or asthma. Grade 5 anaphylaxis was seen in 11 challenges, 1 caused by non-adrenalin recommended “loss of bowel control”. In the remaining 10 cases, 7 patients were treated with adrenalin, either due to “hypotension < 90 mm Hg” (n = 3) or “unconsciousness” (n = 4). Three children fainted, but regained consciousness without administration of adrenalin. Grade 5 anaphylaxis should almost always be treated with adrenalin, whereas adrenalin only was administrated to inspiratory stridor and not to bronchial expiratory wheeze or asthma in grade 4 anaphylaxis. Respiratory signs were instead medicated according to symptoms, i.e. with β2-agonist to relieve bronchoconstriction. All patients were evaluated by experienced specialists, and therefore this practice should be addressed with care in less experienced settings.
Conclusion: Inspiratory stridor was the main cause of adrenalin treatment in grade 4 anaphylaxis, whereas the majority of lower respiratory symptoms were treated with inhalant β2 agonists, thereby overcoming the need for adrenalin. This needs to be considered in future treatment recommendations.
OP05 Do patients know how to use adrenaline auto-injectors?
Leonor Carneiro-Leão†, Jenny Badas†, Luís Amaral, Alice Coimbra
Serviço de Imunoalergologia, Centro Hospitalar de São João, Porto, Portugal
†The first two authors have equal contribution.
Correspondence: Leonor Carneiro-Leão - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):OP05
Introduction: Adrenaline auto-injectors (AAI) are the first line treatment for anaphylaxis in community settings. Two are currently available in Portugal (Anapen® and Epipen®).
Our aim was to evaluate patient’s ability to properly use AAIs; impact of device switching and patients’ preferences.
Methods: Patients who had been prescribed an AAI in our department were invited to demonstrate correct technique of AAI by simulating adrenaline administration using training devices. First, simulation with their prescribed AAI; second, evaluation of device switching, without any previous training, by simulating injection with a different AAI (Epipen® or Anapen®, as well as Emerade®-currently unavailable in Portugal). Finally, they were asked which device they liked the best.
Results: Thirty-two patients were enrolled, 16 (50%) females, with a mean (SD) age of 42.9 (±15.8) years; 18 (56%) with hymenoptera venom allergy and 14 (44%) food allergy. Anapen® was prescribed to 15 (47%) and Epipen® to 17 (53%). Six did not acquire any AAI; 21 (66%) admitted carrying it on a daily basis. Eleven (34%) could not demonstrate successful adrenaline administration with their prescribed AAI, 5 with Anapen® and 6 with Epipen®. Nine (60%) of the 15 patients who were prescribed an Anapen® could not administer adrenaline with an Epipen®; 11 (65%) of the 17 with a prescribed Epipen® were unable to use an Anapen®. Only 2 (6%) were incapable of properly managing an Emerade®. The most common error in patients switching from Epipen® to Anapen® was not removing the needle cap (9 patients). In the group switching Anapen® to Epipen®, the most common misuse was not massaging the injection site (10 patients); 6 tried to remove the orange tip as if it was a cap. The preferred AAI was Emerade® in 20 (63%) and Epipen® in 12 (37%).
Conclusions: Patients at-risk for anaphylaxis are provided with portable auto-injectors, educated and trained on their use. One-third of the patients did not always carry them. More than one-third was unable to successfully demonstrate adrenaline administration with their prescribed AAI. Almost two-thirds failed to simulate injection when switched to the alternative one available in Portugal without any training. Design appears to play a role in a successful switch since 94% of the patients changing from either Anapen® or Epipen® to Emerade® were able to correctly use it. It was also the overall preferred auto-injector. These emergency medical devices should be patient friendly.
OP06 Incidence, clinical features, triggers and management of anaphylaxis in the Pediatric Emergency Department of the Tel Aviv Medical Center
Dikla Pivko Levy1, Moshe Ben-Shoshan2, Ayelet Rimon1, Shira Benor1
1Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel; 2Montreal Children’s Hospital, Montreal QC, Canada
Correspondence: Dikla Pivko Levy - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):OP06
Introduction: Anaphylaxis is a severe, life threatening systemic hypersensitivity reaction. The diagnosis of anaphylaxis is not always easy to make in the pediatric emergency department (ED) setting. Therefore, children are often dangerously underdiagnosed and undertreated. There is sparse information on the incidence and triggers of anaphylaxis in Israel.
Our objective was to assess the true incidence of anaphylaxis treated in the Pediatric ED, to identify triggers associated with anaphylaxis, to describe the management of anaphylactic reactions and identify potential gaps in diagnosis and treatment.
Methods: A retrospective chart review of cases presenting to the Pediatric ED of the Dana-Dweck Children’s hospital, at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center between January 1st 2013 to December 31th 2014, with a diagnosis of anaphylaxis or allergic reaction. The clinical features, causative agents, treatment administered and recommendations at discharge were recorded.
Results: During the study period, there were a total of 56,596 visits to the ED. 437 patients were diagnosed with an allergic or anaphylactic reaction. Of these 59 (13.5%) met the diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis, but only 22 were given the correct diagnosis. The mean age of presentation was 6.9 years, with a male predominance of 66%. Food was the most common causative agent (78%). Specifically, exposure to treenuts (28% (and cow milk (24%) were responsible for a majority of the cases. The majority of children (78% (had known food allergies and presented with breathing difficulties (64%), followed by urticaria (62%). Twenty children (37.7%) were treated with IM adrenaline prior to ED arrival and only fifteen (26%) were treated with IM adrenaline in the ED. Most of the children (86%) were discharged home. Almost 30% were discharged without a prescription to an automated Adrenaline injector.
Conclusion: The rate of anaphylaxis in the study period was 0.1% of all visits to the pediatric ED. Most cases of anaphylaxis were underdiagnosed. As a result, treatment guidelines regarding the use of IM Adrenalin were not always followed and many children were discharged without a prescription for an adrenaline auto-injector.
OP07 Almond allergy in a cohort of Dutch atopic children: results from 189 oral food challenges with almond
Nicolette J. T. Arends1, Nikki Edelbroek1, Hans de Groot2, Joyce A. M. Emons1, H. Kim A. Brand1, Dirk Verhoeven2, Leonieke N. van Veen2, Nicolette W. de Jong1
1Erasmus MC Sophia Children’s Hospital - Kinderhaven, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 2Pediatric Department, Reinier de Graaf Groep, Delft, the Netherlands
Correspondence: Nicolette J. T. Arends - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):OP07
Introduction: Tree nut allergies are common in children, whereas most reported allergic reactions are caused by hazelnut and cashew nut [1,2]. Reactions to these nuts may vary from mild oral allergy symptoms to anaphylaxis. Not much is known about the frequency and severity of almond allergy in children. We therefore evaluated the results of oral food challenges with almond in a large group of Dutch atopic children.
Methods: All open and double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) with almond, performed between 2009 and 2015 in two Dutch outpatient clinics were evaluated retrospectively. Skin prick tests (SPT) with almond were performed in most children. Information about previous reactions, reasons for avoidance of almond and presence of atopic diseases (eczema, asthma, allergic rhinitis) were taken from the medical records.
Results: A total of 189 almond challenges were analyzed. Median age of the children was 7.5 years (range 2.0–17.8 years). Almond was removed from the diet for the following reasons: a previous reaction to almond (3.7%), previous reaction to another nut (30.7%), previous reaction to peanut (22.2%), other food allergies (23.8%), a positive test (sensitization) to almond (12.2%), eczema (3.7%), allergic parents (1.1%) and unknown (2.6%). A positive SPT almond was found in 148 children (78.3%). SPT was negative in 28 children (14.8%) and not performed in 13 children (6.9%). 97/101 DBPCFC’s were negative, 2/101 children had a mild reaction and 2/101 children had a doubtful reaction. 86/88 open challenges were negative, 1 child had a mild reaction and 1 child had a doubtful reaction. Reactions were treated with antihistamine. No correlation was found between the outcome of the challenge and SPT results. Sensitization to birch pollen was found in 109 children (57.7%). Sensitization to almond is frequently found in Dutch atopic children. This study shows that most of these sensitizations appear to be clinically irrelevant. Only 6/189 children (3.2%) had a mild reaction and no anaphylaxis was seen. Sensitization might be explained partly by cross-sensitization with birch pollen.
Conclusion: In a large cohort of Dutch atopic children, almond allergy is extremely rare and allergic reactions are only mild.
McWilliam V, Koplin J, LodgeC, Tang M, Dharmage S, Allen K. The prevalence of tree nut allergy: a systematic review. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2015;15:54.
Grabenhenrich L, et al. Anaphylaxis in children and adolescents: The European Anaphylaxis Registry. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2016;137:1128–37.
OP08 Oral tolerance induction using IFN-gamma in patients with anaphylactic food allergy (AFA), non-IgE-mediated food allergy (NFA) in atopic dermatitis (AD) and both AFA and NFA in AD
Geunwoong Noh1, Eun Ha Jang2
1Department of Allergy, Jeju Halla General Hospital, Jeju, Korea Republic; 2Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hanmaeum General Hospital, Jeju, Korea Republic
Correspondence: Geunwoong Noh - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):OP08
Introduction: Food allergy is assessed generally by IgE-mediated laboratory tests. For NFA, gastrointestinal allergy is mainly considered. However, NFA which appears as eczema in atopic dermatitis is also frequent. In this report, typical three groups for food allergy was presented, patients with anaphylactic food allergy (AFA) as a representative IgE-mediated food allergy, patients with NFA which are presented as eczema in AD and patients who had both AFA and NFA in AD. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) using IFN-gamma was conducted successfully in these three groups. The different diagnostic and therapeutic approaches according to the type of food allergy and the clinical and immunological significance are presented.
Case report: Two patients had AFA. Specific IgE for causative foods like milk or eggs are very high and skin prick test for causative foods is also strong positive. AFA was confirmed by oral food challenges. Patients received OIT using IFN-gamma according to the protocol and finally they got the tolerance for causative foods completely. Five patients had food allergy which symptoms is appearing as eczema as AD. Specific IgE and skin prick test for causative foods were negative. Oral food challenges were performed and the appearance of the symptoms and signs of AD is confirmed and the diagnosis was made as NFA as causes of AD. Patients received OIT using IFN-gamma according to the relevant protocol, successfully. Two patients had NFA in AD and AFA. The some foods caused AD by showing eczematous reaction and the other different food provoked anaphylactic reactions, together. The specific IgE and skin prick test for the causative foods is very high for the food allergens of AFA and those for the foods were negative for NFA in AD. OFC was done for the causative foods of AFA and NFA. Patients received OIT using IFN-gamma by the compatible protocol according to the types of food allergy successfully.
Conclusion: Food allergy may be assessed by differentiation as food allergies of IgE- and non-IgE-mediated type. The diagnostic and therapeutic approaches are different according to the types of food allergy. The immunopathogenesis and clinical approach should be done according to the differential diagnosis.
Consent to publish: Written consent provided for publication of this abstract.
OP09 Predicting fish allergy outcome and assessing tolerance at home in a children’s population
Mariona Pascal1, Olga Dominguez2, Mònica Piquer2, Montserrat Alvaro2, Rosa Jimenez-Feijoo2, Jaime Lozano2, Adriana Machinena2, Maria del Mar Folqué2, Maria Teresa Giner2, Ana María Plaza2
1Immunology Department, CDB Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 2Department of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain
Correspondence: Mariona Pascal - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):OP09
Introduction: Fish allergy is relevant in our pediatric population on a Mediterranean diet. Specific IgE (sIgE) tests aid in diagnosis, but oral food challenge is the gold standard. We sought to: (1) analyze the efficiency of sIgE to Gad c 1 and fish whole extracts to avoid challenge and (2) to evaluate maintenance of tolerance of challenged patients at home.
Methods: Children sensitized to fish and/or Gad c 1 reporting or not clinical history of fish allergy were challenged (masked single blind, 16 g protein for ≤12 year-old children and 22 g for older ones). Clinical history was reviewed and sIgE to Gad c 1, fish extracts (ImmunoCAP, ThermoFisher) and challenge test outcomes were analyzed. Tolerance at home was investigated.
Results: 83 patients (67.5% male, median [range] age at OFC: 8[2–15] years-old) were analyzed. 9.6% were only sensitized. Among those reporting symptoms, 26% were anaphylaxis, 43.4% urticaria, 4.8% atopic dermatitis, 8.4% gastrointestinal symptoms, 2.4% dyspnea. All patients were challenged. A total of 221 challenges were done: 71 canned tuna (CT), 72 fresh tuna (FT), 48 hake and 30 sole. Challenge was positive (OFC+) in 2.2% of patients for CT, 12.5% FT, 47.9% hake and 40% for sole. Gad c 1 sIgE was significantly higher in OFC+ patients for FT, hake and sole (p = .0031, <.0001, .0003, respectively) comparing with OFC-ones. Similarly occurred with sIgE to the corresponding extracts in the case of hake and sole (p = .0014 and .0015, respectively). ROC-curve analysis of Gad c 1 and whole extracts tests provided sIgE cut-offs to predict OFC+: Gad c 1: >37.5 kU/L for OFC with FT (AUC:0.80, LH:6.9), >4.7 kU/L for OFC with sole (AUC:0.91, LH:6.6), >3.5 kU/L for OFC with hake (AUC:0.88, LH:7.1). Tuna extract sIgE >15.5 kU/L for OFC with FT (AUC:0.78, LH:6.4), hake extract sIgE >23.5 kU/L for OFC with hake (AUC:0.83, LH:6.6), sole extract sIgE >1.1 kU/L for OFC with sole (AUC:0.89, LH:7).The follow up of tolerance at home showed that 64 (77.1%) patients were not eating the challenged food at home, 25 (39%) mainly for fear or refusal. A total of 49 reactions, of which 17 (34.7%) anaphylaxis, occurred in 39 patients (7 children with several fish species).
Conclusion: Certain sIgE cut-offs for Gad c 1, tuna, hake and sole extracts may aid in fish allergy diagnosis and predicting OFC outcome in our pediatric population. A significant proportion of children that tolerate fish at challenge, suffer allergic reactions when eating fish at home, some of them severe.
OP10 Development and validation of an app to monitor reactions during Oral ImmunoTherapy (OIT)
Paul Turner1, Nandinee Patel1, Marta Vazquez-Ortiz1, Sarah Lindsley1, Lucy Walker2, Simon Rosenberg2
1Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; 2Illuminatis Ltd, London, United Kingdom
Correspondence: Nandinee Patel - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):OP10
Introduction: Until recently, food allergy management involved complete allergen avoidance, however, data now implies that this may not be required - for example, with regard to extensively heated egg or cow’s milk e.g. in cakes/biscuits. In many countries, oral immunotherapy (OIT) is used as a treatment modality for food allergy, particularly to cow’s milk and increasingly, peanut. However, adverse events are common (occurring in up to 80% of patients). There is a need to develop systems to facilitate safe OIT and allow real-time communication between patients and their treating allergist. Almost 90% of patients/parents now own a smartphone, which can be used to facilitate communication between patients and the clinical team.
Methods: We adapted a digital App called “Tell the Doctor” to allow real-time reporting of symptoms (adverse events, AEs) occurring outside the hospital environment. The App is being tested in an OIT trial in 46 peanut-allergic children. Focus groups were held to collect feedback from study participants, their parents, and members of the study team.
AE reporting was modified to allow rapid and instant alerts to the study team of any significant reactions occurring at home.
Neurological/behavioural changes were separated from cardiovascular symptoms, as there was no evidence that the former are related to the latter.
Study participants were asked to confirm OIT doses taken on a daily basis, thus confirming adherence to study protocol. Patients could also opt-in to a reminder service to prompt them to take both their OIT dose and any asthma preventer medicines by a time of their choosing.
Conclusion: The app facilitates real-time reporting of AEs during OIT studies and was preferred by participants and study team compared to delayed manual paper reporting. We expect electronic reporting to improve the data integrity of OIT-related AEs, and simplify AE reporting, thus improving safety. The advantages of using contemporary/popular communication modalities such as smartphone apps should be considered in the performance of OIT, whether in research or in clinical practice.
Acknowledgements: “Tell the Doctor” App funded by the Nominet Trust.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02149719
Consent to publish: Informed consent was obtained, NHS HRA approval 15/LO/0287.
OP11 Introducing FABER test for allergy diagnosis: food molecule- and extract-based allergenic preparations in the newest and broadest nanotechnology IgE test
Adriano Mari1, Claudia Alessandri1, Ivana Giangrieco2, Lisa Tuppo2, Chiara Rafaiani1, Georg Mitterer3, Michela Ciancamerla1, Rosetta Ferrara1, Maria Livia Bernardi1, Danila Zennaro1, Maurizio Tamburrini2, Maria Antonetta Ciardiello2, Christian Harwanegg3
1Centri Associati di Allergologia Molecolare (CAAM), Rome, Italy; 2Istituto di Bioscienze e Biorisorse, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Naples, Italy; 3MacroarrayDx, Vienna, Austria
Correspondence: Adriano Mari - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):OP11
Introduction: Multiplex tests allow to detect specific IgE to several different preparations at once. They allow patient’s profiling tailoring decisions for interventions. The last ten years have seen the availability of new technologies and when combined can lead to increase diagnostic information from allergy tests.
Our aim was to report about the FABER nanotechnology-based test in food allergy diagnosis.
Methods: FABER 244 IgE test is a new multiplexed in vitro test for specific IgE measurement having 122 molecular allergens and 122 allergenic extracts. Allergenic molecules and extracts, produced in house or obtained from top quality providers in the field, are coupled to chemically activated nanoparticles. Coupling is individually optimized to achieve maximum test performance providing high diagnostic accuracy for each spotted allergenic item. Once coupled they are arrayed to a solid phase matrix to form a one-step comprehensive array based testing solution, using 100 ul of patient serum or plasma.
Results: Extracts from 91 food-borne allergenic sources (fruits, vegetables, eggs, milks, meats, fishes, crustacean, mollusks, snails, mushrooms, anisakis) are arrayed together with 66 allergenic proteins obtained from the same sources. CCD-bearing proteins are included as markers to support test result interpretation, as well as allergenic molecular groups which cross-sectionally belong to food and inhalant sources. Extracts on FABER244 expand the panel overcoming missing of any not yet identified or available allergenic molecule, increasing diagnostic accuracy and comprehensiveness. Test interpretation is supported by CAAM Digital Reporting System (CDRS), a unique online tool available worldwide, allowing visualization on mobile devices of FABER test results. CDRS has been developed for patients to familiarize with the new extended molecule-based results. To be patient-friendly it uses local languages taking advantage of the Allergome platform as the multi-language source. Data on CDRS are shown with tables, graphs, images; comments are generated real time by experts using the Allergome and its external modules, InterAll and ReTiME.
Conclusion: FABER 244 is the most advanced in vitro test for specific IgE detection, including molecules and extracts. It makes available to the molecular allergist an unprecedented quantity of data. The inclusion of allergenic extracts is strategic to confirm or complement results obtained with the single allergenic molecules.
OP13 New developments in the allergenicity assessment of food derived from biotechnology
Antonio Fernandez1, Regina Selb1, Philippe Egenmann2, Michelle Epstein3, Karin Hoffmann-Sommergruber3, Frits Koning4, Martinus Lovik5, Clare Mills6, Javier Moreno7, Henk van Loveren8, Jean-Michel Wal9
1European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy; 2University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; 3Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 4Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, the Netherlands; 5Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway; 6The University of Manchester (UNIMAN), Manchester, United Kingdom; 7Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Madrid, Spain; 8Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 9Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Paris, France
Correspondence: Antonio Fernandez - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):OP13
Introduction: The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and other international bodies (Codex) define approaches for allergenicity assessment of food and feed derived from biotechnology. As an outcome of the allergenicity assessment, risk assessors estimate whether the novel protein is likely to be allergenic and whether the food derived from biotechnology is likely to be more allergenic than that derived from its appropriate comparator(s). Because it is challenging to predict the allergenicity of novel proteins, a weight-of-evidence approach is used to provide the assessor with a cumulative body of evidence to (a) reduce the uncertainty linked to the allergenicity assessment and, (b) enhance the reliability of predictions regarding the allergenic potential of novel protein(s).
Methods: Currently, EFSA is developing supplementary guidance to better define and clarify specific aspects of the allergenicity assessment requirements. In particular, (i) non-IgE-mediated immune adverse reactions to foods; (ii) in vitro protein digestibility; and (iii) endogenous allergenicity, are addressed.
Results: Firstly, celiac disease is a well characterised non-IgE-mediated adverse immune reaction to food, and the food proteins involved, as well as the underlying molecular mechanisms, have been described in detail. Secondly, the outcome of in vitro protein digestibility studies is considered relevant information in the weight-of-evidence approach. To date, the “pepsin resistance test” is commonly accepted for the safety assessment considerations by risk assessors. However, EFSA has previously highlighted its limitations for the allergenicity assessment as well as for its capacity to reflect in vivo digestion conditions. Thirdly, high performance methodologies for protein identification and quantification are available for endogenous allergenicity.
Conclusion: Firstly, based on the current knowledge EFSA is working on defining a strategy to be followed for the assessment of novel proteins’ potential to cause celiac disease. Secondly, EFSA is proactively developing a complementary strategy in order to reduce the resulting uncertainty in the allergenicity assessment. This strategy will be based on state-of-the-art in science, aiming at proposing an enhanced and refined in vitro gastrointestinal digestion test where different physiological conditions will be taken into consideration and more informative read-out procedures will be recommended. Thirdly, high performance methodologies for protein identification and quantification will be proposed as complementary/alternative methods to those based on human sera for the assessment of endogenous allergenicity within the comparative assessment analysis.
OP14 Why mice orally sensitised to OVA using antiacids react anaphylactic or not: possible explanation by colonisation with distinct bacterial strains
Susanne Diesner1,2, Cornelia Bergmayr1, Barbara Pfitzner3, Vera Elisabeth Assmann1, Philipp Starkl1, David Endesfelder4, Thomas Eiwegger2,5, Zsolt Szepfalusi2, Heinz Fehrenbach6, Erika Jensen-Jarolim1,7, Anton Hartmann3, Isabella Pali-Schöll1,7, Eva Untersmayr1
1Department of Pathophysiology and Allergy Research, Center of Pathophysiology, Infectiology and Immunology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 2Department of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 3Research Unit Microbe-Plant Interactions, Research Group Molecular Microbial Ecology, Department of Environmental Sciences, Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany; 4Scientific Computing Research Unit, Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany; 5Division of Immunology and Allergy, Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Program, Department of Pediatrics, Hospital for Sick Children, Research Institute, Physiology and Experimental Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto ON, Canada; 6Priority Area Asthma & Allergy, Research Center Borstel, Airway Research Center North (ARCN), German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Borstel, Germany; 7Messerli Research Institute of the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University Vienna and University of Vienna, Vienna Austria
Correspondence: Eva Untersmayr - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):OP14
Introduction: In an oral mouse food allergy model, concomitant gastric acid suppression is associated with formation of antigen-specific IgE and anaphylaxis. Notably, we repeatedly observed non-responder animals protected from food allergy. Therefore, in this study we aimed to analyse the reasons for this protection.
Methods and Results: Out of 64 BALB/c animals being subjected to the oral ovalbumin (OVA) immunization protocol under gastric acid-suppression, 10 animals (16%) did not show any elevation of OVA-specific IgE or IgG1 titers indicating protection from allergic sensitization. In these animals, allergen challenges confirmed reduced antigen uptake and lack of anaphylactic symptoms, while in the non-protected allergic mouse group high levels of mouse mast cell protease-1 (mMCP-1) and a drop of core body temperature were elicited, indicative for anaphylaxis. Further, significantly lower numbers of CD4+ T cells and regulatory T cells were detected in the non-responders, as well as significantly lower levels of IL-4, IL-5, IL-10 and IL-13 in supernatants from stimulated splenocytes, but comparable levels of IL-22. This was accompanied by significantly increased numbers of total lymphocytes and reduced numbers of monocytes, erythrocytes and hematocrit in the peripheral blood of the non-responders. Comparison of microbiota finally revealed differences regarding the composition of bacterial communities on single bacterial Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) level between protected and allergic mice.
Conclusion: These data clearly indicate that protection from food allergy development was associated with significantly reduced Th2 cytokine levels and IL-10, and increased numbers of blood cells in the periphery after anaphylaxis. Most importantly, analysis of single bacterial OTUs indicated that a distinct microbiota composition was associated with a non-responding phenotype in this mouse model. The data propose that also microbiota might decide on the extent of a food-anaphylactic response.
Acknowledgements: Supported by FWF grants P21884, P21577 and KLI284 of the Austrian science fund FWF. HF is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Cluster of Excellence “Inflammation at Interfaces” EXC 306).
OP17 Allergy to fenugreek – A new food allergy in peanut allergic children in Sweden
Soren Wille1,2, Peter Meyer1
1Department of Pediatrics, Helsingborg Hospital, Helsingborg, Sweden; 2Department of Pediatric Allergy, Skåne Universiy Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
Correspondence: Soren Wille - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):OP17
Introduction: To study an increasing number of peanut allergic children with allergic reactions after having eaten food with curry or other mixed spices. All were sensitized to fenugreek (Trigonella foenum graeceum).
Methods: We have collected and reviewed data from 13 patients during the last 5 years from our outpatient allergy departments. Eleven had reacted to food with curry and 2 to food with fajitas spice mixture. All were sensitized to and regarded as allergic to fenugreek, an ingredient in both curry and the spice mixtures. Five reacted with an anaphylactic reaction. Six reported allergy symptoms such as urticaria, itching in the mouth, abdominal pain, vomiting and asthma.
Results: Mean age for the first reaction, when known, was 9 years. Seven boys and four girls. All 13 children were sIgE-positive to both fenugreek and to peanut as well as one or more of the recombinant peanut allergens Ara h 1, 2 or 3. Seven tested for Ara h 1 were all positive, in six of seven the dominant allergen was Ara h 1. The sIgE-results will be presented in detail. Our patients have not yet had a food provocation test. Fenugreek belongs to the Fabaceae plant family (legumes). The dried seeds are used whole or ground to a yellow powder after roasting, most commonly as a spice in curry and other mixed spices but also as an ingredient in a variety of food. In the literature fenugreek allergy was first described 1993, a case with occupational asthma. We have found only two reports about fenugreek food allergy. In Norway it is recommended to warn peanut allergic patients against food containing fenugreek and lupin. In Sweden there is no such warning either from our pediatric allergy society nor from The Swedish National Food Agency, but fenugreek as well as other peanut cross-reactive allergens are mentioned as a potential risk for allergic reactions. We plan to review of the history of reactions to curry or spices and add sIgE tests in follow up of our peanut allergic patients. The results may change our opinion about which advice to give to peanut allergic patients about fenugreek and mixed spices, eg curry.
Conclusion: For patients with fenugreek allergy and for cautious peanut allergic patients it is a problem that fenugreek is not on the list of ingredients that should be declared according to the food labelling directive from the European Union and The Swedish National Food Agency.
OP18 Pru p 7 is a major peach allergen in patients from Southern France
Caroline Klingebiel1, Jonas Lidholm2, Angelica Ehrenberg2, Jonas Östling2, Isabelle Cleach3, Jean-Louis Mège3,4, Joana Vitte3,4
1Laboratoire Montgrand, LBM Multisite SELDAIX - BIOPLUS, Marseille, France; 2Thermo Fisher Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden; 3Laboratoire d’Immunologie, Hôpital de la Conception, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille, Marseille, France; 4Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France
Correspondence: Caroline Klingebiel - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):OP18
Introduction: To assess frequency and magnitude of IgE sensitization to Pru p 7 sIgE in patients complaining of peach allergy.
Methods: Sera from 117 outpatients (median age 20 years, range 4–74; 44% males) having undergone sIgE work-up for peach extract and commercial component-resolved diagnostics (ImmunoCAP 250, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden) between February 2012 and June 2016 were assayed for sIgE to recombinant Pru p 7. The positivity threshold was set at 0.10 kUA/L.
Results: Of the 117 patient sera analysed, 111 (95%) tested positive to peach extract, 73 of which (66%) displayed sIgE reactivity to rPru p 7. In 45/68 (66%) cases, sIgE reactivity to Pru p 7 was isolated (no detection of sIgE to rPru p 1, rPru p 3, or rPru p 4). Among the 6 peach negative sera, one was found positive to rPru p 7 (0.81 kUA/L). Quantitative analysis showed that levels of sIgE in the study population were higher to Pru p 7 than to peach extract (median 5.5 vs 1.3 kUA/L, range 0.10 to 30.7 vs 0.10 to 52.4, p = 0.003, coefficient of correlation -0.12). 38/111 (32%) sera with detectable sIgE to peach extract did not display sIgE to rPru p 7, and 3 of these sera (peach sIgE 0.18 to 0.20 kUA/L) did not display sIgE to any of rPru p 1, rPru p 3, rPru p 4, or MUXF3. Pru p 7 has been reported as a major allergen in peach allergic patients from Spain and Italy, and Pru p 7 sensitization appears to correlate with a specific clinical presentation in Japanese patients. Here, we bring evidence that Pru p 7 is a major allergen in peach-sensitized patients from Southern France, including those with low sIgE to peach extract and seemingly independent of sIgE reactivity to peach components currently available for diagnostic testing. Significant association with cypress pollinosis and severe peach-induced allergy have been observed in rPru p 7 sensitized patients.
Conclusion: Pru p 7 is needed for comprehensive component-resolved diagnostics of peach allergy in Mediterranean patients. Pru p 7 sensitization may be a prognostic factor of peach allergy severity. From a pathophysiological perspective, Pru p 7 may shed light on the as-yet obscure relationship between peach and cypress pollen allergy in the Mediterranean region.
PD01 Comparison of the lipid-binding capacity and immunoreactivity of Pru p 3 and Mal d 3
Roberta Aina1, Pawel Dubiela1, Sabine Pfeifer1, Merima Bublin1, Christian Radauer1, Piotr Humeniuk1, Stefan Kabasser1, Riccardo Asero2, Karin Hoffmann-Sommergruber1
1Department of Pathophysiology and Allergy Research, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 2Clinica San Carlo, Paderno Dugnano, Italy
Correspondence: Roberta Aina - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD01
Introduction: nsLTPs are pathogenesis-related proteins (PR-14) with antimicrobial activity, and represent important plant food allergens, especially in fruits. Even if nsLTPs from different Rosaceae fruits are highly homologous and cross-reactive, they possess different allergenic potentials, the strongest for Pru p 3 (peach), probably a primary sensitizer. This study aims at investigating the differences between Pru p 3 and Mal d 3 (apple), in relation to lipid-binding capacity and immunoreactivity, and to evaluate how LTP-ligand interaction may affect IgE reactivity.
Methods: Proteins were produced in Pichia pastoris, their expression was monitored in the culture supernatants by SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting with anti-nsLTP antiserum. rLTPs were purified by IEC chromatography and analysed by MALDI-TOF MS. To assess the LTP-ligand binding, ANS displacement assay was performed with 7 different fatty acids (from C12 to C18), either saturated or unsaturated, at different concentrations (10–100 μM). The IgE reactivity of recombinant allergens, alone or in complex with selected ligands, was analysed by ELISA assay using allergic patients’ sera.
Results: Both rLTPs migrate in SDS-PAGE between 10 and 15 kDa. MS analysis confirmed the identity of the purified proteins, providing 9.138 kDa (rPru p 3) and 9.553 kDa (rMal d 3) and were recognized by anti-nsLTP antiserum. ANS assay showed a higher fluorescence in Pru p 3 (+15%) compared to Mal d 3 and some differences in protein/ligands binding. However, both proteins had higher affinity for unsaturated fatty acids (e.g. ~50% fluorescence reduction with 10 μM oleic acid). ELISA test also evidenced higher IgE reactivity for rPru p 3 with respect to rMal d 3, as well as differences between the rLTPs alone and in complex with ligands. Our results suggest that Pru p 3 and Mal d 3 have different IgE reactivity and affinity for the fatty acids tested, but both preferentially bind unsaturated fatty acids. This interaction has an effect on IgE binding, but at different extent for Pru p 3 and Mal d 3. This may be due to specific differences in their lipid-binding region.
Conclusion: Our preliminary data support the hypothesis of a role of specific food matrix components (e.g. fatty acids), in modulating specific IgE responses to different food allergens with antimicrobial activity.
Acknowledgements: Supported by Marie-Curie project CARAMEL 626572, and FWF grants SFB-F4603 and W1248 to KHS, SP and PD, respectively.
PD02 Apple, strawberry, hazelnut and tomato tolerance after one year of sublingual immunotherapy with LTP (Pru p 3) in patients with LTP-Syndrome
Gador Bogas1, Francisca Gomez1, Paloma Campo1, Maria Salas1, Inmaculada Doña1, Esther Barrionuevo1, Maria Auxiliadora Guerrero1, Cristobalina Mayorga2, Ana Prieto1, Domingo Barber3, Maria Jose Torres1
1Allergy Unit, IBIMA-Regional University Hospital of Malaga, Malaga, Spain; 2Research Laboratory, IBIMA-Regional University Hospital of Malaga, Malaga, Spain; 3Institute for Applied Molecular Medicine (IMMA), School of Medicine, Universidad CEU San Pablo, Malaga, Spain
Correspondence: Francisca Gomez - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD02
Introduction: One of the most frequent fruit and vegetable allergies in the Mediterranean area is non-specific-lipid transfer protein (nsLTP) syndrome where patients suffer allergies not only to peach but other plants-food related to nsLTPs. Specific immunotherapy (sIT) brings a new perspective to treat these patients however little is known whether sIT to one allergen can affect allergy to other plant-derived food. The aim was to evaluate the effect of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with Pru p 3 (Pru p 3-SLIT) to other plants-derived-food in allergic patients to vegetable.
Methods: In a group of 36 patients with allergy to peach, 30 (83.3%) had allergies to other plants-food related. Plant-food allergies were evaluated by compatible clinical history, prick-prick to fresh fruit and ImmunoCAPIgE. After one year of treatment with (enriched-Pru p 3-SLIT) we evaluated reactivity to apple, hazelnut, strawberry and tomato by double blind placebo control food challenge (DBPCFC).
Results: In the total group of patients, 12 (33.3%) were allergic to apple, 4 (33.4%) had anaphylaxis, 5 (41.6%) urticaria and/or angioedema and three (25%) OAS. Four (11.1%) were allergic to hazelnut, from these 3 (75%) presented anaphylaxis and 1 (25%) urticaria and/or angioedema. Four (11.1%) to strawberry, all the patients presented OAS. Three (8.3%) were allergic to tomato, presenting anaphylaxis one patient (33.3%) and urticaria and/or angioedema 2 (66.75). Prick-prick with the culprit food was positive in all of the patients (100%). sIgE with apple, strawberry and tomato was positive in all the cases (100%). Hazelnut was positive in three (75%). After one year of SLIT all the patients tolerated tomato with peel and 100 gr of strawberries. Regarding reactivity to apple, 7 (58.3%) tolerated the whole apple with peel. Finally 2 patients (50%) tolerated 15 units of hazelnut. These results showed that a percentage of patients with clinical symptoms to other plants-food related to nsLTP that can tolerate this food after receiving enriched-Pru p 3-SLITduring one year. Enriched-Pru P 3-SLIT could be a good tool to improve the clinical symptoms in patients with LTP-Syndrome.
Conclusion: These data show clinical changes after the first year of treatment with enriched-Pru p 3-SLIT, not only to peach but also to other food allergens as apple, hazelnut, strawberry and tomato.
PD03 Identification and implication of allergenic PR10 protein from walnut in birch pollen associated walnut allergy
Annette Jamin1, Andrea Wangorsch1, Jonas Lidholm2, Barbara Ballmer3, Stefan Vieths1, Stephan Scheurer1
1Molecular Allergology, Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Langen, Germany; 2Thermo Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden; 3Allergy Unit, Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
Correspondence: Andrea Wangorsch - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD03
Introduction: Beside hazelnut, the English walnut (Juglans regia) belongs to the most important allergenic tree nuts across Europe. So far, four walnut allergens (2S albumin, vicilin, nsLTP, 11S globulin) are listed in the official IUIS allergen database. Although an association of allergic reactions to walnut with birch pollen sensitization has been reported, no cross- reactive culprit walnut allergen has been described. The aim of the present study was to identify a Bet v 1-like protein in walnut and to investigate its allergenic properties.
Methods: Using a Bet v 1-homologous cDNA sequence from iron walnut leaves (KJ598787) as template, a cDNA encoding a corresponding protein from Juglans regia kernels (Jug r PR10) was cloned by RT-PCR and 5’RACE. Recombinant® Jug r PR10 protein was expressed in E. coli and purified by a two-step chromatographic procedure. Purity and secondary structure were analyzed by SDS-PAGE and CD spectroscopy. Specific IgE levels to walnut extract, rBet v 1 and rJug r PR10 were measured by ImmunoCAP™ in birch pollen allergics with concomitant allergy to walnut (n = 15), confirmed by a positive open or double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge test. The presence of natural Jug r PR10 in walnut extract was analyzed by IgE immunoblot competition experiments using rJug r PR10 as inhibitor.
Results: Jug r PR10 (KX034087) was 100% identical in amino acid sequence to KJ598787, 67% to Bet v 1.01 and up to 74% to PR10 proteins from fruits, e.g. Mal d 1 (apple), Pru av 1 (cherry) and Pru p 1 (peach). Recombinant Jug r PR10 displayed secondary structures similar to those of Bet v 1. Walnut sensitization was detected in 40% (6/15) and 47% (7/15) of the patients studied, by ImmunoCAP and skin testing, respectively. In contrast, 93% (14/15) were reactive to rJug r PR10 and 100% to Bet v 1. The Bet v 1 and Jug r PR10 specific IgE values correlated strongly (r2 = 0.93), even though lower IgE levels were observed for Jug r PR10 (median 12.9 kUA/L) than for Bet v 1 (median 21.5 kUA/L). The presence of an IgE-reactive PR10 protein in walnut kernels was confirmed by immunoblot inhibition.
Conclusion: According to the established criteria, the PR10 protein from English walnut qualifies as major allergen. Low diagnostic sensitivity of walnut extract for patients with birch pollen associated walnut allergy might be due to small amounts of Jug r PR10 in walnuts. Recombinant Jug r PR10 may therefore become a useful tool for component-resolved diagnosis.
PD04 Peptidomics of α-Gal carrying protein – Stability and allergenic properties
Danijela Apostolovic1, Jelena Mihailovic2, Maja Krstic1,2, Maria Starkhammar3, Tanja Cirkovic Velickovic2, Carl Hamsten1, Marianne van Hage1
1Department of Medicine Solna, Immunology and Allergy Unit, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; 2Center of Excellence for Molecular Food Sciences, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia; 3Department of Internal Medicine, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
Correspondence: Danijela Apostolovic - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD04
Introduction: The mammalian carbohydrate galactose-α1,3-galactose (α-Gal) has shown to cause a novel form of food allergy, red meat allergy, where patients have severe allergic reactions several hours after red meat consumption. The number of diagnosed cases has increased significantly over the past few years and the α-Gal epitope is now an established clinically relevant glycan that should be taken into account in the diagnosis of food allergy. We have previously shown that red meat allergic patients have a selective IgE response to the pure α-Gal glycan that is unrelated to the carrier protein. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of digestion of α-Gal containing glycoproteins using a model system exposing the α-Gal containing protein bovine thyroglobulin to in vitro gastric digestion.
Methods: Bovine thyroglobulin was digested with pepsin. Digestion products were analyzed for stability and allergenic properties by SDS PAGE, immunoblot and ImmunoCAP using sera from ten red meat allergic patients, as well as with a peptidomics approach.
Results: During pepsinolysis of bovine thyroglobulin, a wide range of peptide bands could be observed during the first 10 min. Thereafter 14–17 kDa peptides remained stable during the whole gastric phase. The presence of the α-Gal epitope on the obtained peptides was demonstrated using an anti-α-Gal antibody as well as by IgE reactivity in sera from red meat allergic patients. The α-Gal peptides were able to inhibit at least 40% of the IgE-binding to bovine thyroglobulin (ImmunoCAP). The peptidomics approach showed that these peptides represent mostly internal and C-terminal parts of the protein, where a specific region from Arg1617 until Lys2230 contains complex type of glycans with the most potent IgE-binding α-Galactosyl residues. α-Gal containing food can elicit delayed severe allergic symptoms in red meat allergic patients. Here we show that peptides obtained after pepsinolysis of the model allergen, bovine thyroglobulin, contain α-Gal and remain stable during the whole gastric phase. Furthermore, these peptides contain specific α-Galactosyl recognition patterns and bind IgE from red meat-allergic patients.
Conclusion: The allergic response to α-Gal could depend on the type of α-Galactosyl residues on peptides obtained after gastric digestion, where complex type of glycans seems to have the most intense IgE-binding.
PD05 Allergen-specific IgE and basophil responses to Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 are good predictors of peanut allergy in children
Francine C. van Erp1, Edward F. Knol1, Hannah M. Kansen1, Bo Pontoppidan2, Yolanda Meijer1, Cornelis K. van der Ent1, André C. Knulst1
1University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; 2Thermo Fisher Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden
Correspondence: Hannah M. Kansen - H.M.Kansenfirstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD05
Introduction: Double blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) is the gold standard to diagnose peanut allergy. In children sensitized to peanut, the detection of allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) and/or basophil sensitivity to Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 could be an alternative way to predict clinical peanut allergy and thereby avoid burdensome and expensive challenges in part of the patients.
We aimed to prospectively evaluate the most accurate diagnostic approach in children with suspected peanut allergy using sensitization tests and the Basophil Activation Test (BAT) to peanut components, with focus on Ara h 2 and Ara h 6.
Methods: In this cross sectional prospective diagnostic study (January 2012–May 2015), a total of 83 children (mean age 8.4 years) with suspected peanut allergy underwent diagnostic evaluation for peanut allergy including DBPCFC. The diagnostic value of sensitization tests and the BAT in predicting (severe) peanut allergy was evaluated.
Results: Peanut allergy was confirmed in 48 (58%) children, including 15 (18%) with severe allergy. Ara h 2 and h 6 showed high discriminatory capacity in sIgE and BAT. Ara h 6 had significant higher diagnostic value than Ara h 2 in the BAT. With sIgE to Ara h 2 we could classify 62% of children correctly as tolerant or allergic, when subsequently adding the BAT using Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 we could increase this to 80%.
Conclusion: This study shows that Ara h 2 and h 6 are both strong predictors of peanut allergy. A stepwise approach including sIgE to Ara h 2 and subsequently the BAT to Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 is able to predict peanut allergic status in the majority of children.
PD06 How does thermal processing modulate the allergen profile and IgE reactivity of peanut?
Rebekah Sayers1, Helen Brown2, Adnan Custovic1, Angela Simpson1, Claire Mills1
1University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; 2Campden BRI, Chipping Campden, United Kingdom
Correspondence: Rebekah Sayers - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD06
Introduction: Peanuts are rarely consumed in their native form and are most commonly, fried or roasted, conditions which favour the formation of Maillard reaction products (MRP’s). Quantitative proteomic profiling of these modified proteins will enable MRP formation to be monitored during processing and markers identified. Thermal processing is also thought to modulate the allergenic activity of peanuts by causing protein aggregation and decreasing solubility. The IgE reactivity of thermally processed peanut proteins will be assessed using a panel of peanut-allergic patient serum.
Methods: Raw and processed peanuts were extracted under harsh denaturing conditions and subjected to proteomic profiling using data-dependent acquisition (DDA) on an Orbitrap Elite mass spectrometer. Data was processed using Progenesis-QI and peptides identified using a curated peanut database and a predetermined set of variable Maillard modifications in Peaks. Serum samples from peanut allergic patients were obtained from the Manchester Respiratory, Allergy and Thoracic Surgery (ManARTS) Biobank and IgE reactivity assessed by immunoblotting, inhibition ELISA and histamine release.
Results: Mass spectrometric analysis revealed processing-induced modification of peanut allergens through the formation of Maillard reaction products and reduced solubility through aggregation. Extensive boiling (>2 h) had complex effects on allergen structure, and caused hydrolysis of allergens, and loss of Ara h 2 into the cooking water. Patients could be classified into those who were sensitised to several allergens and reacted towards aggregates, and those sensitised only to Ara h 2. Many of the latter patients were not reactive to boiled peanuts.
Conclusion: This work has identified a number of peptide markers in peanut which are characteristic of different types of thermal processing. It also highlighted the ability of extensively processed protein to retain IgE reactivity in certain sensitised individuals whilst boiled peanuts maybe less reactive in certain patients. Boiled peanuts may provide an alternative for oral immunotherapy with reduced side-effects, especially in patients only reactive to Ara h 2.
PD07 Food induced anaphylaxis – Where did the food products come from and how much is consumed before reactions occur?
Sabine Dölle1, Linus Grabenhenrich2, Juliane Schulz1, Anne Moneret-Vautrin3, Margitta Worm1, Network for Online Registration of Anaphylaxis (NORA)
1Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Comprehensive Allergy Center Charité, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; 2Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; 3The Allergy Vigilance Network, University Hospital Nancy, Nancy, France
Correspondence: Sabine Dölle - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD07
Introduction: Food is one of the most common elicitors of anaphylaxis. Even small amounts of a food allergen can cause severe allergic reactions. Based on data from the NORA network, we aimed to analyze the source and amount of food ingested causing the anaphylactic episode.
Methods: The European data from the Network for Online Registration of Anaphylaxis (NORA) was analyzed, restricted to cases of food-induced anaphylaxis.
Results: 2204 cases of food-induced anaphylaxis were registered between June 2011 and April 2016. The detailed questions for food induced anaphylaxis were answered in 1460 cases. Of these, 843 cases occurred to non-packed foods, and 617 cases to pre-packed foods. For 744 the source of food elicitor was unknown. The origin of non-packed products was known in 72%, mostly from supermarkets (n = 116), buffets (n = 108) and catered foods (n = 105). The origin was known in 78% for pre-packed foods namely cereal bar, peanut puffs or hazelnut spread. The responsible food allergen was listed in the list of ingredients in 89%. The amount of food causing the reaction was documented in 60% of all cases, more often when children were affected. In children, one tea spoon was the most frequently estimated amount, and a plate in adults.
Conclusion: Both, non- and pre-packed foods were frequent sources of allergens causing anaphylaxis. Despite, the allergen was explicitly stated in the list of ingredients in the majority of pre-packed foods, anaphylaxis occurred. Therefore, labelling alone is not sufficient to protect from severe reactions. Patients with food-induced anaphylaxis need detailed counselling about food allergen sources. Additionally, the differences in the amount of food allergen might not be age but rather depending on the major food allergen in this age group (children - peanut and adults - wheat).
Acknowledgements: Network for Online Registration of Anaphylaxis (NORA) participating centers can be found under www.anaphylaxie.net.
PD08 New digestibility model(s) for investigating allergenicity of proteins
Jaap Akkerdaas1, Muriel Totis2, Annabelle Capt2, Corinne Herouet-Guicheney2, Ronald van Ree1
1Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 2Bayer Crop Science, Valbonne, France
Correspondence: Jaap Akkerdaas - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD08
Introduction: Gastric digestion assays have been part of the weight-of-evidence approach for evaluating the allergenic potential of proteins expressed in GM crops since protein stability in such assays was suggested to correlate with the allergenic status of proteins. EFSA has provided guidance that more physiologically relevant digestion assays should be evaluated for their potential to support the allergenicity risk assessment.
Methods: Nine proteins (shrimp and porcine tropomyosin, peanut and green pea albumin, peach and strawberry LTP, fish and bovine collagen, and carp parvalbumin) were subjected to 9 different gastric digestion conditions (pH 1.2/2.5/4.0, with three pepsin/protein ratios [PPR] 10:1/1:1/1:10), followed by duodenal digestion. Samples were taken at different time points and analyzed by SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting (mono-specific polyclonal rabbit antisera).
Results: The idea behind the four protein pairs was to pairwise compare an established strong allergen and a related non-allergen or weak allergen. Originally, we set out to do the same for fish parvalbumins, but purification of the hypothesized weak allergenic version from swordfish/tuna turned out to be extremely difficult due to the low content in the fish muscle (which is probably the more likely explanation of the low allergenicity of these fish). For three of the four pairs (tropomyosins, albumins and LTPs), the allergenic protein presented as the more stable during gastric digestion. The optimal conditions for this were pH1.2 and/or pH2.5 in combination with higher physiological PPRs (10 and/or 1). Gastric digestion at p 4.0 was clearly a less discriminative condition. Surprisingly, in case of the collagens, the allergenic one from fish was more labile than its bovine counterpart. Results from the duodenal digestion showed that, after gastric digestion at pH2.5 and/or 4.0 (less so after pH1.2), all proteins including all established allergens, were completely digested, also if they were resistant to preceding gastric digestion.
Conclusions: Gastric digestion at low (i.e. optimal) pH still remains the more appropriate but not perfect tool to use in building weight of evidence for the risk assessment of novel transgenes for GM crops. More physiological conditions, like higher gastric pH and/or inclusion of duodenal digestion may in fact be misleading with established strong allergens such as Ara h 2, Pru p 3 and Cyp c 1 being readily and completely digested.
PD09 Increased parental anxiety and voluntary allergenic food avoidance (VAFA) in the siblings of the index case (IC) with single or multiple food allergies: exploring the parental response to the interventions for addressing their anxiety and successful introduction of new food
Tushar Banerjee, Antima Banerjee
Darlington Memorial Hospital, Darlington, United Kingdom
Correspondence: Tushar Banerjee - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD09
Introduction: It is known that parental anxiety & VAFA in siblings of an IC may affect the nutrition and quality of life (QOL). There is no evidence to support investigation and challenge for food allergy in the unaffected siblings. This study explores VAFA, parental anxiety and parental response to possible measures for facilitating new food introduction to the unaffected siblings of an IC.
Introduce suspected food in the hospital restaurant conveniently located near A&E and wait for 2 h
Give the suspected food at home during the day time.
See text for description
Number of families
Anxiety score 5 to 10
Anxiety score 0 to 5
1. Continue VAFA
2. Introduce food in Hospital Restaurant
3. Introduce food at home
No allergic reaction was noted during food introduction. Parents reported reduction of AS post introduction. Parents felt less hesitant in introducing new food to the siblings in future.
Conclusion: This study highlights the effect of parental anxiety on VAFA. The novel innovative approach of introducing food within the hospital premises restaurant was perceived by parents as less risky and more reassuring. This option positively influenced parental decision to challenge and avoided unnecessary medicalisation of the problem in the unaffected siblings.
PD10 Aggregation of ovalbumin and allergenicity
Mathilde Claude, Grégory Bouchaud, Roberta Lupi, Laure Castan, Olivier Tranquet, Sandra Denery-Papini, Marie Bodinier, Chantal Brossard
INRA UR 1268 Biopolymers Interactions Assemblies, Nantes, France
Correspondence: Mathilde Claude - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD10
Introduction: Allergen structure is often modified when heating foods. Aggregation is an irreversible modification of proteins with the formation of intermolecular bonds between unfolded proteins. Depending on the balance of attractive and repulsive interactions during heating, aggregates of various morphologies may be generated. This study investigates how different way of aggregating ovalbumin modulates its allergenicity by comparing two morphologies of aggregates obtained under opposite electrostatic conditions.
Methods: An ovalbumin solution was extensively heated (80°C for 6 h) under opposite electrostatic conditions to form small linear and large spherical-agglomerated aggregates. In a murine model of allergy, we compared the Ig production when sensitizing mice with the aggregates and the subsequent elicitation phase upon an oral challenge with native ovalbumin. The reactivity of specific IgE in mice sera was characterized by ELISA, Rat Basophil Leukemia assay and pepscan analysis.
Results: IgE production was significantly lower for the small aggregates than for the large aggregates, whereas IgG1 and IgG2a productions didn’t change. In agreement with the IgE production, both symptoms upon oral challenge and basophil degranulation with native ovalbumin were reduced for mice sensitized with small compared to large aggregates. Pepscan analysis revealed two common linear IgE-epitopes but the aggregates were similarly or differently bound and cross-linked depending on the aggregate that had been used during sensitization. These results showed that small aggregates of ovalbumin formed under repulsive electrostatic conditions displayed a lower allergenic potential than the large aggregates. The way ovalbumin aggregated also modified the IgE repertory.
Conclusion: This work illustrates links between food structure and allergenic potential on parameters from the sensitization phase with some consequences on the elicitation phase of the allergic reaction. For the first time, we show that the physicochemical conditions when heating ovalbumin and consequently the aggregated structure are important parameters to consider in the context of allergy.
PD11 Residual determination of milk and egg allergens in bakery products by LC-MS/MS
Rosella De Poi1,2, Elisa Gritti1, Emiliano De Dominicis1, Bert Popping1, Patrizia Polverino de Laureto2
1R&D Department Italy Mérieux NutriSciences, Resana, Italy; 2Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy
Correspondence: Rosella De Poi - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD11
Introduction: Food allergy is causing adverse health effects arising from specific immune-mediated responses, occurring reproducibly upon oral exposure to a given food. In the absence of a cure, sufferers have to rely on the accurate labeling of food to avoid allergens. Egg and cow’s milk proteins are common triggers of allergic reactions, especially in children. Following a multimethod comparative study about the latest approaches in food analysis using state-of-the-art technology (see our previous work), one specific goal of this study is to develop and validate a LC-MS/MS method for residual determination of cow’s milk and egg allergens in bakery products.
Methods: After sample homogenization, proteins are extracted, denatured and reduced by TCEP. Free thiol moieties are then alkylated and proteins digested by trypsin. The peptide mixtures obtained are then purified by Solid Phase Extraction and analyzed by LC-MS/MS using Sciex Q-Trap 6500 mass spectrometer. For our purpose, a Multiple Reaction Monitoring (MRM) method specific for milk β-lactoglobulin (β-lg) and egg ovalbumin was set up.
The efficacy of the MRM method was assessed by testing a certified material (cake mix, FAPAS) for milk’s presence. The material was previously used for a ring test involving different ELISA kits. As ELISA kits suffer from high kit-to-kit variability (as can be seen in many proficiency testing results) a quantitative comparison with the results obtained from ELISAs was not possible. In LC-MS/MS analysis, quantification by MRM is generally more accurate as it is not reliant upon biological interactions like antibodies.
Conclusion: The LC-MS/MS approach, combined with an efficient extraction method, shows high sensitivity and selectivity under all evaluated conditions, without producing false negatives for neither egg nor milk. The developed method provides a valid alternative to the ELISA kits on the market, bypassing issues associated with antigen-antibody interactions and retaining a low limit of quantification. The method will be validated and considered for accreditation.
PD12 Predictive value of ovomucoid-specific IgE in the diagnosis of egg allergy in Finnish children
Kati Palosuo, Anna Kaarina Kukkonen, Anna Pelkonen, Mika Mäkelä
Helsinki University Hospital, Skin and Allergy Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Correspondence: Kati Palosuo - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD12
Introduction: To calculate optimal cut-off values for egg white and Gal d 1,2,3, and 4 -specific IgE (sIgE) predicting positive oral challenges in 100 Finnish children with suspected egg allergy.
Methods: 100 patients (age 1–19 years, mean 9.2, median 9.6 years) with suspected egg allergy underwent double-blind, placebo-controlled (n = 60) or open (n = 40) food challenges with heated egg white. Serum IgE levels to egg white as well as the components Gal d 1 (ovomucoid), Gal d 2 (ovalbumin), Gal d 3 (conalbumin) and Gal d 4 (lysozyme) were measured by ImmunoCAP.
Component-specific IgE levels can be useful in predicting outcomes of oral food challenges, but optimal cut-off levels vary in different populations. Sensitization is influenced by many factors including age and geography, whereas challenge outcome is influenced by referral base and challenge procedures. Thus, optimal cut-off levels need to be determined for each population separately. Sensitization to Gal d 1, which is relatively stable against heat and enzymatic digestion, predicts clinical reactivity to both raw and heated egg and is considered a risk factor for persistent egg allergy.
Conclusion: Ovomucoid-specific IgE is useful in distinguishing egg-sensitized patients with clinically reactive egg allergy from those tolerant to heated egg. The optimal cut-off point in a Finnish population of 100 children and adolescents was 4.3 kU/L.
PD13 7S and 11S globulins are likely to be allergens in macadamia nuts
Nanju Alice Lee1, Johanna Rost1, Sridevi Muralidharan1, Dianne Campbell2, Sam Mehr2, Catherine Nock3, Joseph Baumert4, Steve Taylor4
1ARC Training Centre for Advanced Technology in Food Manufacture (ATFM), University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; 2Children’s Hospital Westmead, Sydney, Australia; 3Southern Cross University, East Lismore, Australia; 4FARRP, University of Nebraska, Lincoln NE, USA
Correspondence: Nanju Alice Lee - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD13
Introduction: Macadamia nut is reported to cause allergic reactions in sensitized individuals, and the prevalence is expected to increase along with the increase in world production and popularity of macadamia nuts as an ingredient in pre-packaged foods. Despite several reports documenting macadamia nut allergies, the eliciting allergens have never been identified due to a lack of genomic and proteomic data on macadamia nut. Identification and characterization of allergenic proteins are crucial for developing effective component-resolved diagnosis and management/treatment strategies.
We aimed to identify putative allergenic proteins in macadamia nut by combining patient IgE recognition with an allergenomics approach.
Methods: Five serum samples were collected from patients with clinical allergy. Immunoreactive proteins were identified by immunoblotting with the patient sera. A label-free shotgun proteomics approach was used to investigate the proteomic profile of macadamia nut. Briefly, the molecular weight distribution of proteins was determined by 1-dimentional and 2-dimensional gel electrophoresis. Following in-gel digestion with trypsin, proteins were subjected to liquid chromatography coupled tandem mass spectrometry.
Results: The label-free shotgun proteomics was used to predict putative macadamia nut allergens for the first time. The amino acid sequence homologies to 21 known allergens across different plant species were identified, which include lupin, latex, peanut, soy and rice allergens. The immunoblotting of the soluble proteins with the serum IgE revealed five reactive protein bands. The mass spectrometry analysis of the IgE-reactive proteins showed matches to Miamp1 protein, Miamp2, vicilin-like protein, 11S-legumin like protein and lactoylglutathione lyase amongst other proteins.
Conclusion:: The seed storage proteins belonging to 11S and 7S proteins are likely to be biologically active allergens in macadamia nuts.
PD14 Pollen-food syndrome among Italian children: molecular endotypes
Carla Mastrorilli1,2,3, Salvatore Tripodi3,4, Carlo Caffarelli1,3, Serena Perna2, Andrea Di Rienzo Businco4, Ifigenia Sfika4, Riccardo Asero5, Arianna Dondi6, Annamaria Bianchi7, Carlotta Povesi Dascola1, Giampaolo Ricci8, Francesca Cipriani8, Nunzia Maiello9, Michele Miraglia del Giudice9, Tullio Frediani10, Simone Frediani10, Francesco Macrì10, Chiara Pistoletti10, Iride Dello Iacono11, Maria Francesca Patria12, Elena Varin13, Diego Peroni14, Pasquale Comberiati14, Loredana Chini15, Viviana Moschese15, Sandra Lucarelli10, Roberto Bernardini16, Giuseppe Pingitore17, Umberto Pelosi18, Roberta Olcese19, Matteo Moretti10, Anastasia Cirisano20, Diego Faggian21, Alessandro Travaglini15, Mario Plebani21, Maria Carmen Verga11,22, Mauro Calvani23, Paolo Giordani24, Paolo Maria Matricardi2,3
1Pediatric Department, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria, University of Parma, Parma, Italy; 2Department of Pediatric Pneumology and Immunology, Charité Medical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany; 3The Italian Pediatric Allergy Network (I-PAN); 4Pediatric Department and Pediatric Allergology Unit, Sandro Pertini Hospital, Rome, Italy; 5Allergology Service, San Carlo Clinic, Paderno Dugnano, Milan, Italy; 6Pediatric Unit, Department for Mother and Child, Ramazzini Hospital, Carpi, Italy; 7Pediatric Unit, Mazzoni Hospital, Ascoli Piceno, Italy; 8Pediatric Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; 9Pediatric Department, Second University, Naples, Italy; 10Pediatric Department, La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy; 11Pediatric Unit, Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Benevento, Italy; 12Pediatric Highly Intensive Care Unit, Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy; 13Pediatric Intermediate Care Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy; 14Pediatric Section, Department of Life and Reproduction Sciences, University of Verona, Verona, Italy; 15Pediatric Department, Policlinico of Tor Vergata, Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy; 16Pediatric Unit, San Giuseppe Hospital, Empoli, Italy; 17Pediatric Unit, Grassi Hospital, Rome, Italy; 18Pediatric Unit, Santa Barbara Hospital, Iglesias, Italy; 19Pulmonary Disease and Allergy Unit, G. Gaslini Hospital, Genoa, Italy; 20Pediatric Unit, Crotone, Italy; 21Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Padua, Padua, Italy; 22ASL Salerno, Salerno, Italy; 23UOC Pediatria, San Camillo Forlanini, Rome, Italy; 24Department of Statistical Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
Correspondence: Carla Mastrorilli - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD14
Introduction: Pollen food syndrome (PFS) is heterogeneous with regard to triggers, severity, natural history, comorbidities and response to treatment. Our study aims to classify different endotypes of PFS based on IgE sensitization to panallergens.
Methods: We examined 1271 Italian children (age 4–18 years) with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SAR). Foods triggering PFS were acquired by questionnaire. Skin prick tests were performed with commercial pollen extracts. IgE to panallergens: Phl p 12 (profilin), Bet v 1 (PR-10) and Pru p 3 (nsLTP), were tested by ImmunoCAP FEIA. An unsupervised hierarchical agglomerative clustering method was applied within PFS population.
Results: PFS was observed in 300/1271 children (24%). Cluster analysis identified five PFS endotypes linked to panallergen IgE sensitization: (1) Co-sensitization to ≥2 panallergens (“multi-panallergen PFS”); (2–4) sensitization to either profilin, or nsLTP, or PR-10 (“mono-panallergen PFS”); (5) no sensitization to panallergens (“no-panallergen PFS”). These endotypes showed peculiar characteristics: (1) “multi-panallergen PFS”: severe disease with frequent allergic comorbidities and multiple offending foods; (2) “Profilin PFS”: OAS triggered by Cucurbitaceae; (3) “LTP PFS”: living in Southern Italy, OAS triggered by hazelnut and peanut; (4) “PR-10 PFS”: OAS triggered by Rosaceae; (5) “no-panallergen” PFS: mild disease and OAS triggered by kiwifruit.
Conclusions: In a Mediterranean country characterized by multiple pollen exposures, PFS is a complex and frequent complication of childhood SAR, with five distinct endotypes marked by peculiar profiles of IgE sensitization to panallergens. Prospective studies in cohorts of PFS patients are now required to test whether this novel classification may be useful for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in the clinical practice.
PD15 Thermal treatment of bovine caseins could increase their sensitising potential
Noe Ontiveros, Francisco Cabrera-Chavez
University of Sinaloa, Culiacan, Mexico
Correspondence: Francisco Cabrera-Chavez - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD15
Introduction: To evaluate the digestibility as well as the immunogenic and sensitizing potential of thermally treated bovine caseins (TT caseins).
Methods: Caseins were dry heated for 30 or 60 min at 140°C. Native and TT caseins were digested in simulated gastric fluid pH 1.2 (10 U of pepsin activity/µg of test protein). Samples of 200 µl were removed after incubation at 37°C. The reaction was quenched by addition of 70 µl of 200 mM NaHCO3, pH 11, and 70 µl 5× Laemmli buffer. The zero time points were prepared by quenching the pepsin in the solution before adding the test protein. The samples were subjected to SDS-PAGE electrophoresis using 10–20% polyacrylamide Tris-glycine gels. BALB/c mice (n = 6/group) were sensitized intraperitoneally without adjuvants through the administration of native or TT caseins in 250 µl of PBS. Sensitizations were performed at days 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and blood was drawn on day 28. Casein-specific IgG and IgE antibodies were evaluated using ELISA.
Results: There was no effect of incubation of caseins in simulated gastric fluid for 60 min in the absence of pepsin. However, caseins, either native or TT caseins, were very unstable in the presence of pepsin, with a marked loss of full length protein after 0.5 min of incubation. Native and TT caseins were both immunogenic and allergenic at the dose tested (0.05 mg/mouse). Casein-specific IgG and IgE titers were higher in the group of mice sensitized with TT caseins for 30 min than the other groups (p < 0.05). There were no differences between the groups sensitized with native caseins and TT caseins for 60 min (p > 0.05). Specific IgE antibodies in sera from mice sensitized with native casein strongly recognized TT caseins and vice versa (p > 0.05). Extensively heated cow’s milk is an alternative to accelerate tolerance acquisition in some milk allergic cases. This is in line with our digestibility results, an indirect parameter of allergenicity, as TT caseins remains as digestible as native caseins. However, there was no reduction of the sensitizing potential of TT caseins. Although this potential was similar between TT caseins for 60 min and native caseins, longer thermal treatments are not suitable for the study because of the loss of protein solubility.
Conclusion: Thermal treatment of caseins alone does not reduce their allergenic potential highlighting that heat-induced interactions between milk proteins and other milk components are required to reduce their allergenic potential.
PD16 The gaps in anaphylaxis diagnosis and management by French physicians
Guillaume Pouessel1,2, Julie Galand1,2, Julien Labreuche3, Etienne Beaudouin4, Jean-Marie Renaudin4, Anne Moneret-Vautrin4, Antoine Deschildre2, the Anaphylaxis Working Group of the French Allergology Society
1Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital, Roubaix, France; 2Division of Pulmonology and Allergology, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine and Children’s Hospital, Lille, France; 3Biostatistics Unit, Maison Régionale de la Recherche Clinique, CHRU Lille, Lille, France; 4Department of Allergology, Emile Durkheim Hospital, Epinal, France
Correspondence: Guillaume Pouessel - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD16
Introduction: Anaphylaxis is still under-recognized and the treatment is often inadequate with underutilization of adrenaline even by medical personnel.
Our aim was to assess physician’s knowledge regarding diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis in children and to identify the reasons for the gaps.
Methods: Physicians were asked to respond a two-part questionnaire during continuing medical education: 1. A clinical scenario-based questionnaire involving a child experiencing a food-induced anaphylaxis with 5 of 9 true/false questions considered as key questions for an optimal management; 2. Demographic data and questions exploring determinants of an appropriate management.
Results: 318 physicians (GPs, 28%; pediatricians, 23%; allergists, 10%; school-mother and child care doctors, 19%; and junior doctors, 20%) were enrolled. They had private (29%), hospital (31%), or both practice (7%) or others (33%).
Part 1: 70% of participants agreed that the scenario was consistent with anaphylaxis but 24% refused because hemodynamic or respiratory disorders were missing; 31% chose to administer first adrenaline intramuscularly and 30% agreed with both diagnosis and treatment with adrenaline; 74% chose to administer first antihistamine and bronchodilators. Only 50% chose to call immediately the emergency number. Nearly a third estimated that a one-hour observation period was enough. Only 19% had all 5 key responses correct.
Part 2: A correct diagnosis was associated with pediatric specialty (p < 10−4) and hospital practice (p = 0.02); the use of adrenaline in the scenario with a correct diagnosis (p < 10−4), pediatric specialty (p < 10−4), a recent continuing medical education on food allergy (p = 0.005) and experience of adrenaline injection in real life (p = 0.02); all the 5 key responses correct with pediatric specialty (p < 10−4) and a recent continuing medical education (p = 0.04). In case of anaphylaxis in a child, 59% of physicians would immediately inject intramuscularly adrenaline, 22% only after calling an emergency physician, 18% only in case of vital disorders, 3% only in the presence of an emergency physician; 5% would refuse to inject adrenaline themselves (never done or feared side effects).
Conclusion: A large proportion of doctors seem to be unaware of the diagnosis criteria and the recent updated EAACI recommendations on anaphylaxis management. Medical specialty and continuing medical education improve anaphylaxis management.
PD18 Relationship between deamidation intensity and allergenicity of acid hydrolysed wheat proteins preparations: from France to Japan
Olivier Tranquet1, Florence Pineau1, Roberta Lupi1, Shinobu Sakai2, Kayoko Matsunaga2, Reiko Teshima2, Colette Larré1, Sandra Denery1
1UR 1268 Biopolymères, Interactions, Assemblages, INRA, Nantes, France; 2National Institute of Health Sciences, Tokyo, Japan
Correspondence: Olivier Tranquet - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD18
Introduction: Hydrolyzed wheat proteins (HWP) were used as ingredients in food and cosmetics. From the 2000’s severe food allergy to HWP has been reported in individuals elsewhere tolerant to native wheat proteins. Denery et al. demonstrated that deamidation of wheat proteins, a consequence of acid hydrolysis, generate essential neo-epitopes in these particular allergy to wheat . More recently in Japan, an acid-HWP preparation (a-HWP), named GluPearl 19S, elicited severe skin reactions and food allergy in more than 1800 individuals and was likely to contain deamidated gluten proteins . Level of deamidation depends on treatment intensity; a-HWP preparations with either low or high level of deamidation can be found as ingredient . This study aimed at exploring the impact of deamidation level of wheat proteins on the degranulation of basophils sensitized with IgE from patient allergic to a-HWP.
Methods: Impact of the deamidation level of gliadins and a-HWPs upon IgE reactivity of 8 a-HWP allergic patients was determined by ELISA. Impact of deamidation on basophil degranulation was also explored with humanized Rat Basophil Leukemia cells passively sensitized with IgE from patients and subjected to crosslinking with a set of deamidated samples. Finally IgE Repertoire specific to deamidated wheat protein was then explored by inhibition with INRA-DG1, a mouse monoclonal antibody specific for deamidated gliadins.
Results: Intensity of binding of patient IgE onto a-HWP and the degranulation potency were correlated with level of deamidation. Pre-incubation of deamidated gluten with INRA-DG1 mAb inhibited half of its degranulation capacity with patient IgE. These results suggested that the patient IgE repertoire specific for deamidated gluten proteins is likely to be limited to a very few specificities. GluPearl 19S, involved in the Japanese cases, was determined as highly deamidated. It was the most recognized sample among the 5 deamidated glutens tested in this study.
Conclusion: Although differences exist between French and Japanese cases (such as the tolerance of native wheat proteins), this result suggested that Japanese and French cases suffered from the same unconventional allergy to wheat.
Denery-Papini S, et al. Allergy 2012;67;1023–32.
Nakamura R, et al. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2013;160, 259–64.
Tranquet O, et al. J Agric Food Chem. 2015;63:5403–9.
PD19 Hen’s egg allergen in house and bed dust is significantly increased after hen’s egg consumption
Sebastian Tschirner, Valérie Trendelenburg, Gabriele Schulz, Bodo Niggemann, Kirsten Beyer
Department of Pediatric Pneumonology and Immunology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Correspondence: Sebastian Tschirner - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD19
Introduction: Cutaneous exposure to food allergens seems to be an important way of sensitization. It has been shown that household consumption of peanut is a risk factor for the development of peanut allergy. Furthermore, peanut protein was found in house dust. Yet there is only little data on other food allergens; therefore, we wanted to investigate whether hen’s egg (HE) protein could be found in domestic areas.
Methods: 8 households were included in the study. All households were asked to consume a meal of scrambled eggs in their habitual eating areas. Before and 48 h after hen’s egg consumption dust samples were collected in the habitual eating areas and from bed sheets, using a special vacuum cleaner device. HE protein was extracted and HE allergen levels were measured with a commercially available ELISA (limit of detection: 0.05 µg/g). Wilcoxon rank test was used to compare HE levels before and after HE consumption.
Results: HE protein was detectable in all 8 households in the habitual eating areas as well as on bed sheets. At baseline, there was a median of 13.05 µg/g HE protein (range 6.5–13.4 µg/g) in the habitual eating area and a median of 12.9 µg/g HE protein (range 2.0–18.4 µg/g) on the bed sheets. 48 h after consumption of scrambled egg significantly increased levels were measured with a median of 214.0 µg/g HE protein (range 17.0–2409.4 µg/g; p < 0.05) for the eating area and a median of 50.3 µg/g HE protein (range 5.9–247.0 µg/g; p < 0.05) in bed sheets. HE allergens were detectable in the house dust of all households not only in dining areas but also in the bed where HE is usually not consumed, indicating a spreading of food allergens. Furthermore, an increase in protein levels measured after consumption of a HE meal was shown. For infants, who spent most time in bed, house dust containing food allergens could be an important risk factor for food sensitization.
Conclusion: HE allergen was found in house and bed dust with high levels following HE consumption, indicating a potential risk factor for the development of HE sensitization. Nevertheless, further research is necessary to proof whether HE allergens in house and bed dust can cause sensitization and whether there is a correlation between allergen levels and the level of sensitization.
PD20 Native gliadins stimulate the local anaphylactic response in Ussing chamber as studied in murine model of wheat allergy
Youcef Bouferkas, Younes Belabbas, Djamel Saidi, Omar Kheroua, Kamel Eddine El Mecherfi
Laboratory of Physiology of Nutrition and Food Safety, Department of Biology, Faculty of Natural and Life Sciences, University of Oran 1 Ahmed Ben Bella, Oran, Algeria
Correspondence: Youcef Bouferkas - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD20
Introduction: The objective of this study is to investigate the impact of the native gliadins on the intestinal electrophysiological parameters as studied in murine allergy model.
Methods: Two groups of mice (n = 10 per group) were established: the first group (control) was sensitized with aluminum hydroxide (Alum) diluted in PBS, the second was sensitized with 10 µg of native gliadins adsorbed on alum (NG). Intraperitoneal (IP) sensitizations were performed at days 0, 10, 20 and 30. One week after the last boost, the jejunum fragments were withdrawn and used for histological analysis and the evaluation of the local anaphylactic responses in Ussing chamber by an ex vivo challenge allowing the contact of jejunums with sensitizing antigen and the measurement of electrophysiological parameters (short-circuit current (Isc) (µA/cm2) and conductance (G) (mmho/cm2).
Results: Intraperitoneal injection of native gliadins induced significant increase of the short circuit current (Isc µA/cm2) (P < 0.001) and conductance (G) values (P < 0.05). The histological observations of jejunum fragments of sensitized mice show an alteration in intestinal barrier (villous atrophy, Lymphocytes infiltration) compared to the control group. The Isc increase in sensitized mice is probably due to a secretory response and might well reflect local anaphylactic responses. The increase of conductance indicate that immunization alters the tight junctions and increases the paracellular permeability of the intestinal epithelium . Several published studies show that food allergy in mice is characterized by villous atrophy and goblet cell hyperplasia, as well as infiltration of IgE-positive mast cells .
Conclusion: Our results suggest that the native gliadins modify permeability of the intestinal tract in native gliadin mice which confirm the allergenic potential of native gliadins
Terpend K, Blaton MA, Candalh C, et al. Intestinal barrier function and cow’s milk sensitization in guinea pigs fed milk or fermented milk. J Pedia Gastroenterol Nutr. 1999;28:191–8.
Grar H, Dib W, El Mecherfi K E, et al. Supplementation with β-carotene or vitamin E protects against increase in anaphylactic response in β-lactoglobulin-sensitized Balb/c mice: Ex vivo study. European Food Research & Technology 2015;241:393–8.
PD21 Oral administration of royal jelly at different dose protect against increase in anaphylactic response in β-lactoglobulin sensitized Balb/c mice
Malika Guendouz, Abir Haddi, Omar Kheroua, Djamel Saidi, Hanane Kaddouri
LPNSA, Biology, Faculty of Natural and Life Sciences, University of Oran 1 Ahmed Ben Bella, Oran, Algeria
Correspondence: Malika Guendouz - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD21
Introduction: The objective of this work is to check if royal jelly could prevent the allergic response and reduce the clinical manifestations of mice to bovine milk proteins.
Methods: Forty female Balb/c mice at 4 weeks and fed with a standard diet were divided into 5 groups. Four groups received orally royal jelly for 7 days at doses of 0 g/kg (positive control), 0.5, and 1.5 g/kg and are then sensitized intraperitoneally with (β-lactoglobulin) β-Lg adsorbed on Alum. Group 5 received no treatment (negative control). At the end of the experiment, in vivo provocation test (observation of clinical signs 30 min after intraperitoneal injection: 1 mg β-Lg/mouse) and ex vivo provocation test in Ussing chamber by contacting the jejunum with the sensitizing antigen and measurement of electrophysiological parameters: short-circuit current (Isc, μA/cm2) were carried out.
Results: Our results show that the majority of mice pretreated with royal jelly dose showed no clinical signs after challenge compared with positive control mice (CL+). A secretory response reflecting local intestinal anaphylaxis was evident in sensitized mice, as indicated by an increase in Isc (p < 0.001). However, no significant changes in the values of the short circuit current (Isc) were observed after β-Lg challenge in mice that received royal jelly at 0.5, 1 and 1.5 g/kg and immunized with β-Lg. Oral administration of royal jelly at different dose prevents the appearance of clinical signs and the development of anaphylactic local. This effect is probably due to the presence of compound having immunomodulatory activity which may reduce T-cell proliferation, Th2 cytokine production, histamine release from mast cells and antibody IgE and IgG production (Vucevic et al. 2007).
Oral administration of royal jelly decreases the allergic and inflammatory response in mice and can be considered as a preventive strategy against Cow‘s milk allergy (CMA).
Vucevic D, Melliou E, Vasilijic S, Gasic S, Ivanovski P, Chinou I, Colic M (2007) Fatty acids isolated from royal jelly modulate dendritic cell-mediated immune response in vitro. Int Immunopharmacol. 7:1211–20.
POSTER DISCUSSION SESSION 2: Management of food allergy • Diagnosis and treatment • Epidemiology • Therapeutic options
PD22 Sting reactions in beekeepers: characteristics and management
Luis Amaral1, Ana Pereira2, Alice Coimbra1
1Serviço de Imunoalergologia, Centro Hospitalar de São João E.P.E., Porto, Portugal; 2CINTESIS, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
Correspondence: Luis Amaral - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD22
Introduction: Our objective was to describe what Portuguese beekeepers do after being stung. The secondary aim was to evaluate their knowledge on adrenaline auto-injectors (AAI), bee venom immunotherapy (VIT), and the medical specialty of Immunoallergology.
Methods: Cross-sectional study using a structured questionnaire including beekeepers present in an apiculture meeting. Data on demographic characteristics, number of stings, reaction description and conduct when stung (treatment, admission to ER) were collected. Awareness of AAI, VIT and the medical specialty of Immunoallergology was also questioned.
Results: A total of 114 beekeepers were included; 91 (80%) male with a median (interquartile range, IQR) age of 40 (17) years. The median (IQR) time of beekeeping was 3 (7.3) years. Nighty-nine (87%) were amateur beekeepers. All had been stung in the last 12 months; 45 (40%) had systemic reactions (11 anaphylaxis) and 41 had local reactions, including 22 large local reactions. Only 19 (42%) of those with systemic reactions went to the ER. Nine out of the 11 who had anaphylaxis went to the ER, but only one was treated with adrenaline. On discharge, an AAI was prescribed to one beekeeper, 4 reported to already have AAI and solely 2 were referred to an Allergist. Twenty-five (22%) used alternative treatments on the sting site, namely, metal, lemon or grape, ammonia, alcohol, vinegar and urine. Forty-one (36%) were aware of the existence of AAI, 35 (30%) of VIT and 32 (28%) of the medical specialty of Immunoallergology. Beekeepers with systemic reactions have demonstrated a better knowledge of AAI and VIT, p < 0.01 and p = 0.03, respectively. Awareness of AAI, VIT and Immunoalergology was not significantly different between gender, age and education groups.
Conclusions: This group of Portuguese beekeepers showed insufficient knowledge on proper management of sting reactions. Approximately one fifth used alternative treatments. Adrenaline underuse, underprescription, as well as an inefficient referral to a specialist, was evident in the ER. There is a rise in beekeeping in Portugal and so it is imperative to promote education on the risks, sting prevention measures and correct treatment of stings. The increasing awareness of the medical specialty of Immunoallergology and the existence of bee venom immunotherapy should assure a prompt referral in case of systemic reactions which is crucial in this population.
PD23 Are atopy patch tests useful to identify food sensitisation in eosinophilic esophagitis?
Luis Amaral1, Leonor Carneiro-Leão1, Susana Rodrigues2, Alice Coimbra1
1Serviço de Imunoalergologia, Centro Hospitalar de São João E.P.E., Porto, Portugal; 2Serviço de Gastrenterologia, Centro Hospitalar de São João E.P.E, Porto, Portugal
Correspondence: Luis Amaral - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD23
Introduction: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an inflammatory disease of the esophagus characterized by symptoms related to esophageal dysfunction, eosinophilic recruitment and infiltration of the esophageal epithelium. A combined mechanism of IgE dependent/cellular mediated hypersensitivity reactions to foods is thought to contribute to disease pathogenesis.
Our aim was to assess food sensitization in EoE patients with atopy patch tests (APT); A secondary aim was to find any relation between the results of APT, skin prick tests (SPT) and/or specific IgE (sIgE) with response to the six-food elimination diet (SFED).
Methods: A longitudinal study of adult patients diagnosed with EoE was carried out. Patch tests were performed with 9 foods: cow’s milk, hen’s egg, wheat, soy, peanut, walnut and hazelnut were applied undiluted, 1/10 dilution and 1 drop of allergen extract; shrimp and cod were applied raw, cooked and 1 drop of allergen extract. The APT were delivered using 8 mm Finn Chambers®. Occlusion time was 48 h and the results were read 20 min and 24 h after removal. Endoscopy results, SPT, sIgE, medical management and patients’ responses were collected.
Results: Twelve patients agreed to participate, 3 were female with a median (interquartile range, IQR) age of 23 (9) years age, 8 with allergic rhinitis and 2 asthma; 8 were sensitized to aeroallergens, 6 to house dust mites and 4 to pollens. Seven patients had positive food SPT and/or sIgE (3 cow’s milk, 2 wheat and 2 LTPs). Ten patients presented clinical and histological improvement with the SFED and in 8 symptoms and eosinophils recurred on food reintroduction (6 with cow’s milk and 3 with wheat). Only 2 patients presented positive APT: 1 to undiluted hazelnut, who was previously sensitized to LTP; and the other to undiluted soy, which was not clinically relevant since the patient frequently eats soy without any immediate symptoms or worsening of EoE.
Conclusions: Standardization on food APT is lacking. In this series, we did not observe any clinical utility for identifying food sensitivity with atopy patch tests in adult patients with Eosinophilic esophagitis.
PD24 How well can hazelnut allergens distinguish between mild and severe hazelnut allergy?
Mareen Datema1, Laurian Jongejan1, Ronald van Ree1, Michael Clausen2, Andre Knulst3, Nikolaos Papadopoulos4, Marek Kowalski5, Frédéric de Blay6, Aeilko Zwinderman1, Jonas Lidholm7, Stefan Vieths8, Karin Hoffman-Sommergruber9, Clare Mills10, Barbara Ballmer-Weber11, Montserrat Fernandez-Rivas12
1Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 2Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland; 3University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; 4Centre for Paediatrics and Child Health, Institute of Human Development, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; 5Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland; 6University Hospital of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France; 7Phadia AB, Upsala, Sweden; 8Paul-Ehrlich-Insitut, Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedicines, Langen, Germany; 9Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 10Manchester Institute of Biotechnology, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; 11University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland; 12Hospital Clinico San Carlos, IdISSC, Madrid, Spain
Correspondence: Mareen Datema - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD24
Introduction: Component-resolved diagnosis (CRD) has been shown to improve hazelnut allergy diagnosis. Some allergens have been associated with severity of hazelnut allergy, however few studies have reported the classification accuracy of the markers in discriminating between mild and severe subjects, especially in adults.
to analyze the association between sensitization to single hazelnut allergens and clinical symptom severity;
to evaluate their ability to discriminate between mild and severe hazelnut allergy.
Methods: Subjects (n = 731) from 12 European cities reporting reactions to hazelnut (83.6% adults) were included. In all subjects, sensitization against hazelnut extract and in 423/731, IgE against seven single components (rCor a 1, rCor a 2, rCor a 8, nCor a 9. nCor a 11, nCor a 12, rCor a 14) and CCD was measured. Additionally 124/731 underwent a DBPCFC of which 86 were reactive. Symptoms to hazelnut were categorized into mild, moderate and severe symptoms. Associations between sensitization to hazelnut and severity were analyzed using multinomial regression analyses. The discriminative ability of hazelnut allergens was evaluated by Receiving operating curve (ROC) analysis.
Results: Cor a 9 and Cor a 14 were both positively related with severe symptoms (OR 2.89[1.31–6.34] and OR 4.67[1.76–12.37] respectively) and Cor a 11 and Cor a 12 showed a positive trend in severity. Cor a 1 and 2 were negatively associated with severity (OR 0.36 [0.20–0.64]) and 0.50 [0.24–1.04], respectively). ROC analysis showed a poor to moderate ability to discriminate between reported mild and severe hazelnut with AUCs ranging from 0.50–0.62. However, AUCs for Cor a 9, Cor a 11 and Cor a 14 was significantly better in children, the DBPCFC group and using the combination of these allergens (AUC 0.70–0.86). Sensitivities for Cor a 9 and Cor a 14 were low (24%). Around 75% of the severe subjects with confirmed hazelnut allergy was not sensitized to these allergens.
Conclusion: Sensitization to Cor a 9 and Cor a 14 is associated with severity of hazelnut allergy however, the classification power was moderate in our adult dominated population. Unidentified allergens might elicit the severe symptoms but further research is needed to identify these allergens and to confirm their clinical relevance.
PD25 The clinical utility of basophil activation testing in diagnosis of mugwort pollen-associated peach allergy
Shan Deng, Jia Yin
Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
Correspondence: Shan Deng - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD25
Introduction: Our aim was to assess the performance of basophil activation testing (BAT) as a diagnostic marker for mugwort pollen-associated peach allergy.
Methods: Peach allergic (n = 89), peach-sensitized but tolerant (n = 52) and non-peach-sensitized nonallergic (n = 10) patients underwent sIgE to peach and its components. BAT was performed using flow cytometry.
Results: The patients with peach allergy had higher IgE levels for peach and Pru p 3 than peach sensitized population (P < 0.01). By stimulation with peach extract, BAT in peach-allergic patients showed a significant dose-dependent upregulation of CD63 compared with peach sensitized but tolerant and non-peach-sensitized nonallergic patients. While stimulated with Pru p 3, BAT could also discriminate between peach allergy and tolerance. Receiver operating characteristic curves showed basophil reactivity had larger area under the curve than IgE to peach (AUC 0.744, 95% CI 0.550–0.937, P = 0.039) and Pru p 3 (AUC 0.865, 95% CI 0.705–1.000, P = 0.002); while BAT stimulated with Pru p 3 had the largest area at 0.981 and stimulation with peach extract (100 ng/ml) at 0.942. Previous studies concerning pollen-associated food allergy have compared between healthy controls and food allergic patients, without addressing the possible effect of immunologic cross-reactivity on the performances of BAT. In this study, we performed a comparative analysis with peach-sensitized but tolerant patients. BAT stimulated with the major allergen is better than that with the crude allergen extract in discriminating between peach allergy and tolerance.
Conclusion: BAT stimulated with Pru p 3 is superior to other diagnostic tests in diagnosis of mugwort pollen-associated peach allergy.
PD26 Usefulness of serum-levels of histamine, tryptase, Cys-LTs and 9α11β-PGF2 during oral food challenge
Charlotte Eisenmann, Maria Nassiri, Rabea Reinert, Sabine Dölle, Margitta Worm
Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Allergie-Centrum-Charité, Charité-Universiätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Correspondence: Charlotte Eisenmann - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD26
Introduction: Food Allergy (FA) is a common disease and it is estimated prevalence world-wide ranges between 2–10% with an increasing trend. Peanuts and tree nuts are frequent causes of FA and may albeit rare result in fatal reactions. The diagnosis of FA is based on the personal history, in vivo skin-testing (e.g. SPT), in vitro IgE-testing and oral challenges. The double-blind placebo controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) is the gold standard for diagnosing and categorizing FA. DBPCFC’s are time consuming and bear a risk for the patient. Moreover, sometimes the interpretation of test reactions is difficult. The aim of this study was to analyze mast cell mediators like histamine, tryptase, cys-LTs and 9α11β-PGF2 in serum samples from patients who underwent oral food challenges (OFC) and correlate these parameters with the reaction-severity.
Methods: 32 patients from the Allergy-Center with a history of FA to peanuts or tree nuts were recruited. 40 OFCs were performed. Reaction severity was determined by using the grading according to Ring&Messmer. Severe reactions were observed in 23 cases (grade = 2 in 10 patients, grade = 3 in 13 patients). Blood samples were collected before OFC (T1), 5–10 min after the reaction (T2) and 2 h post-onset (T3). Histamine (LDN, Nordhorn, Germany), cys-LTs (LTC4, LTD4, LTE4) and 9α11β-PGF2 (both Cayman Chemical, Ann Arbor, USA) were determined by ELiSA. Tryptase was kindly measured by Thermo Fisher Scientific, Freiburg, Germany.
Results: We observed a significant increase of tryptase, cyc-LTs and 9α11β-PGF2 after food provocation but not histamine in sera from patients with positive OFC. Tryptase levels correlated significantly with the severity of the reaction and a positive tendency of this correlation was also observed for histamine- and 9α11β-PGF2-levels, but not cys-LTs values.
Conclusion: The studied markers differ in their reliability. Histamine does not support evidence for a positive OFC. By contrast, tryptase but also 9α11β-PGF2 (alone or combined) may be used as supportive markers for diagnosing FA. Whether the total increase of the markers helps to predict severity in a given patient will need to be assessed in future studies.
PD27 sIgE Ana o 1, 2 and 3 accurately distinguish tolerant from allergic children sensitised to cashew nuts
Johanna P. M. van der Valk1, Roy Gerth van Wijk1, Yvonne Vergouwe2, Ewout W. Steyerberg2, Marit Reitsma3, Harry J. Wichers3, Huub F. J. Savelkoul4, Berber Vlieg-Boerstra5, Hans de Groot6, Anthony E. J. Dubois7, Nicolette W. de Jong1
1Department of Internal Medicine, Allergology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 2Center for Medical Decision Making, Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 3Wageningen UR Food & Biobased Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands; 4Laboratory of Cell Biology and Immunology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands; 5Department of Paediatrics, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis (OLVG), Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 6Department of Pediatric Allergology, Diaconessenhuis Voorburg, RdGG, Delft, the Netherlands; 7Department of Pediatric Pulmonology and Pediatric Allergology, University Medical Centre Groningen, GRIAC Research Institute, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
Correspondence: Johanna P.M. van der Valk - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD27
Introduction: The double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge test (DBPCFC) is the gold standard in cashew nut allergy. This test is costly, time-consuming and not without side effects. Analysis of IgE-reactivity to cashew nut components may reduce the need for food challenge tests.
Methods: In a prospective and multicentre study, children with suspected cashew nut allergy underwent a DBPCFC with cashew nut. Specific IgE to total cashew nut and to the components Ana o 1, 2 and 3 were determined. A skin prick test (SPT) with cashew nut extract was performed. The association between the outcome of the food challenge test and specific IgE to Ana o 1, 2 and 3 was assessed with logistic regression analyses, unadjusted and adjusted for other diagnostic variables. Discriminative ability was quantified with a concordance index (c).
Results: 173 children (103 boys, 60%) with a median age of 9 years were included. 79% had a positive challenge test outcome. A steep rise in the risk of a positive challenge was observed for specific IgE to each individual component Ana o 1, 2 and 3 with estimated risks up to approximately 100%. Specific IgE to Ana o 1, 2 and 3 better distinguished between cashew-allergic and tolerant children (c = 0.87, 0.85 and 0.89 respectively), than specific IgE to cashew nut or SPT (c = 0.76 and 0.83 respectively). In the multivariable models inclusion of sIgE to Ana o 1, 2 or 3 increased the c-index of history and gender from 0.67 to 0.89 maximally, with increases up to 0.92 and 0.93, respectively when also specific IgE to cashew nut or both IgE and SPT were added.
Conclusion: The major cashew nut allergens Ana o 1, 2 and 3 are each individually predictive for the outcome of food challenge tests in cashew-allergic children.
PD28 Non-ionic iodinated contrast media-induced anaphylaxis – Case series
Fabrícia Carolino, Ana Rodolfo, Josefina Cernadas
Serviço de Imunoalergologia, Centro Hospitalar São João, E.P.E., Porto, Portugal
Correspondence: Fabrícia Carolino - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD28
Introduction: To assess the prevalence and describe the cases of anaphylaxis to iodinated contrast media (ICM), evaluated in our Drug Allergy Unit (DAU) in the last 6 years.
Methods: Retrospective analysis of medical records of patients assessed in our DAU for suspected hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to ICM between Jan/10 and Dec/15 (n = 54). Skin prick tests (SPT) were performed with potassium iodate (PI), iodopovidone, and a panel of available non-ionic ICM (iohexol, ioversol, iobitridol, iopromide, iomeprol, iodixanol, amidotrizoate, meglumine); intradermal tests (IDT) were also performed with ICM diluted 1/100–1/10, and undiluted (not in all cases).
Results: Eighteen (33.3%) patients presented with anaphylaxis (10 females, median age 65.5 years, interquartile range 43.0–72.0 years). The clinical manifestations were respiratory (n = 15, 83.3%), mucocutaneous (n = 12, 66.7%), cardiovascular (n = 11, 61.1%) and gastrointestinal (n = 5, 27.8%). No fatal outcomes occurred. Suspect ICM were iobitridol (n = 4, 22.2%), iopromide (n = 3, 16.7%), ioversol (n = 2, 11.1%), iomeprol (n = 1, 5.6%), iohexol (n = 1, 5.6%), and unknown in 7 (38.9%) cases. SPT with iodopovidone and PI were all negative. One patient (anaphylactic shock to iopromide) had a positive SPT (iopromide). In IDT, 4 patients had positive test results to ICM at 1/10 (including the suspect): (1) iopromide and iomeprol; (2) ioversol, iobitridol, iodixanol and amidotrizoate; (3) iobitridol and iopromide; (4) iohexol. The patient with anaphylactic shock to iopromide reacted at 1/100. Other 8 patients had positive IDT only to undiluted solution, with at least 1 of the ICM tested (including the suspect); 6 of these patients were tested to other undiluted ICM with negative results. Skin testing with a panel of ICM is recommended by the ENDA group in these patients, not only to confirm the culprit drug but to assess cross-reactivity and find safe alternatives. The ENDA position paper (2013) makes a weak recommendation to avoid undiluted ICM for skin tests as it may be irritative. Six of eight patients with a positive IDT to the undiluted suspected ICM had a negative test to at least two other undiluted ICM.
Conclusion: In this study we report 30% of ICM HSR fulfilling anaphylaxis criteria, and 70% of these patients had a positive diagnostic work-up. The authors raise the question of whether the IDT should routinely be performed including an undiluted solution, since some potentially allergic patients may be missed otherwise.
PD29 Allergy to lipid transfer protein in pediatric population at the third level hospital in Madrid
Dasha Roa-Medellín, Ana Rodriguez-Fernandez, Joaquín Navarro, Vicente Albendiz, María Luisa Baeza, Sonsoles Intente-Herrero
Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
Correspondence: Dasha Roa-Medellín - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD29
Introduction: Lipid transfer protein (LTP) Syndrome is a primary food allergy with high prevalence in South Europe population. Its clinical characteristics and prevalence are not well established in the paediatric population.
Methods: A retrospective-descriptive study from Jan 2013 to Dec 2015 of children with sensitization to Specific IgE to Pru p 3 and clinical manifestation in a third-level paediatric hospital was conducted. It was aimed to study and compare the clinical patterns of sensitization.
Results: Eighty-three allergic children with sensitization to Pru p 3 were found. Forty-nine male (59%) and thirty-four females: (41%) were assisted. The average age of first reaction: media: 5.3 years +/−3.6 STD. The history of atopic diseases were: rhinitis 39%, asthma 14% with a broad spectrum of pollen sensitization (Grass pollen: 55.4%, Olea 49.3%, plane tree 25%, Cypress 24%, mugwort 21%) and atopic dermatitis: 32%. The first food trigger involved were peach 36.2% (35), peanut 15.2% (14) walnut 12.2% (11), others fruits 11.2% (10), other legumes 9.2% (8) and other nuts 6.2% (5). The most common first clinical manifestation found was: urticarial 44.2% (43), following of oral allergy syndrome: 15.2% (14), anaphylaxis: 14.2% (13) and cutaneous rash: 12.3% (11), The exercise was a cofactor in a 3% of the population and NSAIDs were not involved. All patients were positive skin prick test and high levels of IgE specific levels to pru p3 median; 8.5 (14.58) IQR.
Conclusion: Severe plant food unrelated independent of peach are involved in LTP Syndrome. Grass and olea pollen are the main aeroallergen in our population. Peach and peanut are the main food elicitors. Urticarial symptoms are the most common clinical manifestation.
PD30 Long term impact of cow’s milk allergy on children and their families – A 7-year follow-up
Andrea Mikkelsen1,2, Kirsten Mehlig2, Lauren Lissner2
1Primary Care Research and Development Centre, Gothenburg, Sweden; 2Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Section of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
Correspondence: Andrea Mikkelsen - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD30
Introduction: Despite outgrown CMA, we have previously found that many families continue to experience nutritional related problems at a six-month follow-up . Some may develop other food allergies or atopic diseases follow ing the atopic march, and some may fail to progress to unrestricted diet.
Our aims were to assess impact on nutrition related issues at a 7 year follow-up in relation to the development of CMA over time.
Methods: Families of children with CMA, who participated in the validation of the Food hypersensitivity famiLy ImPact questionnaire (FLIP), were re-approached 7 years later for follow-up and administered the FLIP.
Results: Of the original families (n = 94), at 7-year follow-up 84% (n = 79) agreed to participate. The children had a mean age 8.5 years (r = −11 years) and n = 30 (38%) were girls. The majority (n = 49.62%) no longer needed to follow a cow’s milk free diet. The remaining children (n = 0) were still following a special diet due to CMA exclusively (n = 7.9%) or in combination with other food allergy (n = 9.11%) and other food allergy excluding CMA (n = 14.18%). Most children were healthy (n = 67) but n = 8 (10%) had developed other atopic diseases or other non-atopic diseases (n = 3). These findings are in line with those from others . A mixed linear model for the FLIP Nutrition subscale across three time points (baseline, 6-month and 7-year follow-up respectively) in relation to allergy status at 7-year follow-up (i.e. outgrown vs. persistent) showed only a marginally significant improvement in nutrition related issues for the group outgrown CMA (p = 0.07) at 7-year follow-up. For the group with persistent CMA there was no difference in the experienced impact. Despite outgrown CMA, n = 13 children in the group outgrown CMA had a restricted consumption of dairy due to fear of reactions (n = 4) or dislike of milk as a drink (n = 6), or both as a drink and when contained in food (n = 3). The latter group were still consuming non-dairy special products.
Conclusions: There is only a small improvement in nutrition related issues despite outgrown CMA at 7-year follow-up. Many families continue to serve a restricted diet despite outgrown CMA. Nutritional counselling should be considered to all families with children with persistent as well as outgrown CMA in order to ensure optimal nutritional intake, development of eating behaviour and progression to unrestricted diet preventing unnecessary limitations in daily life.
Acknowledgements: Financial support: FoU VG-region post-doctoral scholarship.
Mikkelsen A, et al. Monitoring the impact of cow’s milk allergy on children and their families with the FLIP questionnaire—a six-month follow-up study. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2015.
Spergel JM. Natural history of cow’s milk allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;131(3):813–4.
PD31 Perception of allergen exposure risks in US adults with self-reported food allergies
Linda Verrill, Stefano Luccioli
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA, College Park MD, USA
Correspondence: Stefano Luccioli - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD31
Introduction: Self-reported food allergies (srFA) have increased in US adults over the past decade. Information on how this population perceives allergen exposure risks is lacking. We sought to identify adults with srFA and assess responses to questions about allergen advisory statements and thresholds.
Methods: We analyzed FDA 2016 Food Safety Survey data in 4619 adults to identify survey respondents with srFA, including reported doctor-diagnosed cases (ddFA). Respondents were asked about knowledge of thresholds or reaction risks and about consumption of products with certain advisory statements or trace allergen amounts.
Results: Weighted prevalence of srFA among survey respondents was 13.5% with ddFA representing 8.0%. The most common foods associated with srfA and ddFA were shellfish, milk, fruits, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, fish and egg. Prior anaphylaxis history was reported in 24.8% of respondents. With regards to allergen exposure risk, only 33.2% of srFA respondents were aware of the concept of threshold levels, yet 59.0% reported belief that a level existed below which allergic reaction would not occur. 43.7, 39.0 and 48.8% of respondents reported having consumed or likely to consume products with advisory statements of “may contain”, “made with same equipment” or “produced in same facility” respectively, and 38.2% of respondents reported that they would consume products with trace amounts of the food allergen if there were assurances that allergen amount would not trigger reaction. No significant differences in responses were noted between srFA respondents with or without ddFA except ddFA respondents were more likely to view trace allergen amounts as posing higher risk for severe reactions. Respondents with prior anaphylaxis, shellfish or fish allergy were more likely to avoid products with one or more advisory statements while those with peanut, tree nut, milk or wheat allergy were more likely to have consumed these products. Survey data of adults with self-reported food allergies reveal different perceptions of thresholds and individual exposure risks. More education on understanding allergen exposure risks is needed for this population.
Conclusion: Survey data suggest that only one third of srFA respondents understand what allergen thresholds represent, yet over 40% report consuming foods with certain advisory statements. Differences in risk perception may depend on having a ddFA, a prior history of anaphylaxis or on type of food allergen.
PD32 Tolerable dose during oral immunotherapy using IFN-gamma for anaphylactic food allergy: desensitisation and tolerance
Geunwoong Noh1, Eun Ha Jang2
1Department of Allergy, Jeju Halla General Hospital, Jeju, Korea Republic; 2Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hanmaeum General Hospital, Jeju, Korea Republic
Correspondence: Geunwoong Noh - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD32
Introduction: Oral immunotherapy using IFN-gamma (OIT) for anaphylactic IgE-mediated food allergy (AFA) has been done more than 10 years successfully. In this study, a tolerable dose was introduced during tolerance induction with interferon gamma, and its effectiveness and theoretical meaning was evaluated.
Methods: The study population comprised 30 AFA patients. Blood samples were taken for analysis, including complete blood count with differential counts of eosinophils, serum total IgE levels, and specific IgE for allergenic foods. Skin prick tests were conducted with the allergens. Oral food challenges were performed to diagnose AFA. Fifteen patients received OIT, 5 received classic OIT without tolerable dose, 5 received OIT without interferon gamma, and 5 were not treated (controls).
Results: Patients treated with OIT using IFN-gamma became tolerant to the allergenic food with and without introducing tolerable dose. The tolerable dose was introduced successfully in OIT using IFN-gamma. It was meaningless to introduce tolerable dose in OIT without IFN-gamma. Following the introduction of tolerable dose, the systemic reaction to oral intake subsided, but the local skin reaction to contact with the allergenic food persisted. Tolerable dose was successfully introduced during the oral immunotherapy using IFN-gamma. Conventional oral immunotherapy without using IFN-gamma, the concept of tolerable dose is meaningless because the therapeutic dose is the same or less than the tolerable dose. However, using IFN-gamma, therapeutic dose is escalated much more than that without using IFN-gamma. From the successful introduction of tolerable dose, the nature of tolerance induction was unveiled. Also, the exact meaning of desensitization and tolerance is clarified. By introducing tolerable dose, doctor and patient can confirm the progress of getting tolerance.
Conclusion: Introduction of tolerable dose improved the protocol for OTI using interferon gamma for AFA. In food allergy, the concept of tolerance and desensitization is clearly defined. Tolerance is the result of desensitization to allergens. The local skin reaction and systemic reaction to oral intake were dissociated following OIT for AFA.
PD33 Risk-benefit assessment of nutritional immune interventions during early life
Jolanda van Bilsen1, Frieke Kuper1, André Wolterbeek2, Tanja Rouhani Rankouhi1, Lars Verschuren1, Hilde Cnossen1, Prescilla Jeurink3, Johan Garssen4, Léon Knippels4, Jossie Garthoff3, Geert Houben1, Winfried Leeman1
1TNO, Zeist, the Netherlands; 2Triskelion, Zeist, the Netherlands; 3Nutricia Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands; 4Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht, the Netherlands
Correspondence: Jolanda van Bilsen - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD33
Introduction: The immune health status is strongly determined during early life stages. Many immune-related diseases are thought to find their origin in adverse shifts in immune balances during pregnancy or the first 2–3 years of life, including atopic diseases. Therefore, immune health interventions during these stages of life may be most effective in reducing the loss of health, loss of quality of life and costs to society due to immune-related diseases and disorders. Several starting points for immune health interventions have been identified and are being developed into prophylactic or therapeutic approaches, particularly targeted at the early life stages. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on which parameters should be addressed to assess the safety and/or efficacy of the interventions and how all the available data should be interpreted at the end. Hence, it would be extremely helpful to address this issue by developing a pragmatic, flexible and science-based risk-benefit assessment.
Methods: We adapted the risk-benefit approach , to develop a framework for risk-benefit assessment of immune health interventions during early life stages. As case studies, we collected all available in vitro/vivo/silico and human data on galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS) and fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS).
Results: The severity of hazard and beneficial effects observed and the incidence at which such an effect may be considered acceptable, were used to weigh the risk and beneficial effects. Dose response relationships can be converted to 50% effect doses which, combined with the severity of the effect underlying the dose response curve and concurrent acceptable incidence of this effect, can be used for weighing benefit and risk. In the FOS/GOS case study, several prerequisites of (pre-)clinical data were identified. This risk-benefit framework enables us to evaluate all intervention data available and forms the basis to derive the optimal dose levels of intake.
Conclusion: This novel approach enables risk assessors to take the multitude of different types of data available covering toxicity and efficacy studies at early life stages into account, by ranking and weighing all available data. Ultimately, this assessment will help to determine optimal beneficial and safe dose levels of nutritional immune interventions during early life.
Renwick AG, Flynn A, Fletcher RJ, Müller DJG, Tuijtelaars S, Verhagen H. Risk-benefit 726 analysis of micronutrient. Food Chem Toxicol. 2004;42:1903–22.
PD34 FABER 244 IgE test in food allergy. Diagnostic accuracy for LTP proteins
Claudia Alessandri1, Maria Antonetta Ciardiello2, Lisa Tuppo2, Ivana Giangrieco2, Danila Zennaro1, Rosetta Ferrara1, Maria Livia Bernardi1, Georg Mitterer3, Chiara Rafaiani1, Michela Ciancamerla1, Maurizio Tamburrini2, Christian Harwanegg3, Adriano Mari1
1Centri Associati di Allergologia Molecolare - CAAM, Rome, Italy; 2Istituto di Bioscienze e Biorisorse, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Naples, Italy; 3MacroarrayDx, Vienna, Austria
Correspondence: Adriano Mari - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD34
Introduction: FABER 244 is a new in vitro multiplex test for specific IgE detection using 122 molecular allergens and 122 allergenic extracts, coupled to chemically activated nanoparticles. Allergenic preparations, either produced in house or obtained from commercial providers, are individually coupled to nanobeads by means of optimized protocols to achieve maximum test performance.
Aim was to measure the diagnostic accuracy of FABER 244-122-122 01 by comparing with the ImmunoCAP ISAC 112 (TFS, Sweden) in patients allergic to LTP proteins shared by both tests.
Methods: A real life study as been set by analyzing the clinical records, and the FABER and ISAC test results from 94 consecutive patients referred to CAAM from March 2015 to August 2016. Data were extracted from the electronic medical record InterAll. The diagnostic accuracy measurement and test comparison were performed on 3 LTP proteins (Cor a 8, Jug r 3, Pru p 3) adopting the patients’ symptoms as gold standard and MedCalc as software for statistical analysis. ISAC test Limit of Detection (LoD) was set to 0.3 ISU whereas FABER LoD was set to 0.01 FIU. In the overall analysis attention has been put on additional information coming from non-shared LTPs, Tri a 14 and Ara h 9 for ISAC, and Act d 10, Pun g 1, Sola l 6, Tri a 7 k-LTP, Zea m 14 plus peanut and wheat extracts available on FABER.
Results: Both tests appear to be accurate and well aligned to each other for all three analyzed LTP proteins. In terms of sensitivity FABER performs better than ISAC on Cor a 8 (100 vs 73%), same as ISAC on Jug r 3 (100% both) and FABER better than ISAC on Pru p 3 (96 vs 91%). In terms of specificity FABER performs better than ISAC on Cor a 8 (96 vs 94%), same as ISAC on Jug r 3 (96%), whilst ISAC performs better on Pru p 3 (97 vs 92%). IgE detection by ISAC Ara h 9 and Tri a 14 was compensated by the peanut and wheat extracts, whereas info on additional food LTPs could be obtained from the FABER extended panel including 25 extracts from plant-derived foods bearing LTPs.
Conclusions: FABER test is a new in vitro test for specific IgE detection, including molecules and extracts. Considering the food allergen group belonging to the LTP, FABER appears to be accurate and in good agreement with ISAC results. The specific advantage of FABER relies on the chance of testing patients to a broader panel of LTP as well as to a large number of extracts, complementing the results on single allergenic molecules.
PD35 Greater severity of reaction in high versus low fat matrix peanut challenges
M. Eleonore Pettersson1,2, Afke M. M. Schins1,2, Gerard H. Koppelman1,2, Boudewjin J. Kollen3, Anthony E. J. Dubois1,2
1Department of Pediatric Pulmonology and Pediatric Allergology, Beatrix Children’s Hospital, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 2GRIAC Research Institute, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 3Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
Correspondence: M. Eleonore Pettersson - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD35
Introduction: Previous studies have shown that the qualities of the matrix containing an allergenic food may impact the severity of reactions during DBPCFCs. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of the matrix fat content during DBPCFCs to peanut and its effect on the severity of the reaction and eliciting dose.
Methods: Data was collected from the food challenge unit database at the University Medical Center Groningen (November 2002–May 2014), where DBPCFCs were performed as part of routine clinical care. All children during this period with a positive DBPCFC to peanut were included in the analysis. The food challenges were included if they were performed with the two most frequently used recipes (n = 11 excluded). The recipes used were peanut in cookies and peanut in gingerbread, with a fat content of 23.9% and 5.9% respectively. In children with multiple DBPCFCs, only the first test was included (n = 37 tests excluded). 14 cases were excluded due to missing data. For the severity of reaction during the DBPCFC a previously published scoring system was used, with a severity index ranging from 0 to 12. The influence of the matrix on the severity of reaction and eliciting dose was analyzed by linear regression analysis, with correction for possible confounders. A variable was considered a confounder if it changed the beta coefficient by more than 10%. The alpha significance level was set at 0.05.
Results: 210 children were included in the analysis, 141 children were challenged with peanut in cookies (high fat) and 69 children with peanut in gingerbread (low fat). Children challenged with peanut in cookies had more severe reactions during the DBPCFC (β = 0.15, 95% CI 1.49–0.06, p = 0.03), compared to children challenged with peanut in gingerbread. However, there was no significant difference in eliciting dose (β = 0.03, 95% CI-31.91-51.11, p = 0.65). These results were not confounded by age, gender, sIgE, severity of the most severe previous accidental reaction, history of atopic dermatitis, asthma or allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.
Conclusion: Children receiving a high fat matrix peanut challenge have more severe reactions than children receiving this test in a low fat matrix. This supports the role of the food matrix as an augmentation factor which may enhance the severity of both diagnostic as well as accidental reactions. It also raises the possibility that matrix effects during oral immunotherapy with peanut could be a cause of adverse events during such treatment.
PD36 The probability of distribution Alfa-gal associated allergy in Ukraine
Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine
Correspondence: Svitlana Zubchenko - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD36
Introduction: Annually number of reports about anaphylaxis caused by food products increases. The development of IgE-mediated reactions to food that is well tolerated in the past, now, sometimes is a true diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for the patient and the doctor. An example of such allergies is delayed allergy to red meat that is associated with the formation of IgE antibody to the oligosaccharide galactose-alfa-1,3-galactose (Alfa-gal). During evolution human body formulated the immunological tolerance to Alfa-gal production through IgG. Factor launch IgE-mediated process are tick bites, which linked the spread of geographical features of this type of food allergy (FA). Proved that serious manifestations of anaphylaxis occur in conditions of consumption of fatty meat or large quantities of meat. Determined that Alfa-gal epitope transmitted through the milk that gives grounds to say about later reaction to this product. It is believed that the alternative cause of sensitization to Alfa-gal infection are different types of parasites.
The aim of our study was to determine the probability of distribution associated Alfa-gal allergy among Ukrainian patients.
Results: We conducted a comparative assessment of different components of the ticks saliva, on which was identified allergic reactions to Alfa-gal in the USA (Amblyomma americanum), Australia (Ixodes holocyclus) and Europe (Ixodes ricinus). The same ingredients not found in these types of ticks, but each of them has a specific immunotropic action. In particular, I. ricinus, prevalence of which in Ukraine in recent years increased by 14–18% containing biological substances that intensified alternative pathway of complement activation, Th2-response, inhibited proliferation of B lymphocytes.
Conclusion: Ukraine has a high probability of spreading Alfa-gal associated FA. The arguments are the same: rising prevalence of I. ricinus, Ukrainian traditional consumption of fatty foods and dairy products, high prevalence of parasitic invasions. There is a necessity of component diagnostics Alfa-gal, which today is not performed. In this case the only way to diagnose is carefully collected history.
PD37 Natural history of hen’s egg allergy in early childhood
Sarah Kuntz, Valérie Trendelenburg, Bodo Niggemann, Kirsten Beyer
Department of Pediatric Pneumology and Immunology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Correspondence: Sarah Kuntz - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD37
Introduction: Hen’s egg (HE) allergy is the most common food allergy in early childhood. Although there is a good prognosis, reported data on the development of clinical tolerance vary between studies. The aim of our study was to analyze the natural history of HE allergy among children with challenge proven HE allergy.
Methods: Data of children undergoing double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) in our center were prospectively recorded. Children who had a DBPCFC with raw HE between 01/2010 and 06/2014 were further evaluated. When data on repeated DBPCFC with either raw or baked egg of the children were not available in our data bank, parents were questioned by telephone with a standardized questionnaire whether their child tolerates raw and/or baked HE in their diet.
Results: 110 children with a positive DBPCFC to HE could be included (41 girls and 69 boys with a median age of 1.4 years (0.4 to 9.8 years) at the first DBPCFC with raw HE). After a median period of 34 months (9 to 96 months), 54/110 children (49%) tolerated raw HE (45 had a second DBPCFC to raw HE without reaction, 9 reported complete tolerance in the interview). Of the remaining 56 children without known tolerance to raw HE (still allergic n = 40, unknown n = 12), more than half (54%, n = 30) could tolerate heated HE after a median period of 26 months (20 had a negative DBPCFC to heated HE, 10 reported tolerance to heated HE in the telephone interview). Altogether 29/69 of the boys (42%) developed clinical tolerance to raw HE within a median period of 36 months (9 to 96 months), while 25/41 of the girls (61%) tolerated raw HE already after a median period of 26 months (11 to 66 months). Tolerance development to raw HE in this study was slightly longer than reported from the EuroPrevall birth cohort. This might be explained that re-challenges were not scheduled on yearly basis as in EuroPrevall but on request of the child’s physician.
Conclusion: Around half of the children with challenge proven HE allergy develop tolerance to raw HE within a median period of 3 years and even more to heated HE. Girls seem to have better chances to develop tolerance to HE in a shorter period of time than boys, but larger trials are necessary to confirm these observation.
PD39 Comparing safety profile of boiled egg oral inmunotherapy as an alternative to raw egg
Pablo Mérida, Adriana Machinena, Montserrat Álvaro, Jaime Lozano, Monica Piquer, Carmen Riggioni, Juan Heber Castellanos, Maria Teresa Giner, Rosa Jimenez, Olga Dominguez, Ana Maria Plaza
Department of Pediatric Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Sant Joan de Déu Hospital, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Correspondence: Pablo Mérida - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD39
Introduction: Improving safety of egg oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a source of concern. Our group has previously published data regarding safety in a protocol to raw egg (RE)-OIT, reporting adverse reactions in 7.6% of doses and adrenaline use in 26%. To evaluate the safety of boiled egg (BE)-OIT in egg allergic children and compare it with previous data on RE-OIT.
Methods: Medical records of children following the protocol from January 2015 to July 2016 were reviewed. Retrospective data were collected for demographics, adverse events at oral food challenge (OFC) and during induction phase. Specific-IgE (s-IgE) and skin prick test (SPT) were expressed with median and range (min-max). Written informed consent was signed. Open OFC with BE was performed, confirming allergy. Anaphylaxis was defined following EAACI position paper criteria.
Results: 21 patients were enrolled, 76.2% boys, median age 9 years (5–15). At OFC: All had adverse reactions and 9/21 presented anaphylaxis. Total IgE 1141 kU/L (97–3814), ovalbumin-sIgE 3.19 kU/L (0–667), ovomucoid-sIgE 4.47 kU/L (0.89–1480), egg white-sIgE 6.6 kU/L (0–1350); ovalbumin SPT 7.9 mm (2.8–14.7), ovomucoid 9.7 mm (4.2–16.9), egg white 10.4 mm (4–15.6). OIT induction phase: 57.1% (12/21) had adverse events: 42.8% gastrointestinal, 28.5% respiratory and 19% cutaneous. 61.9% (13/21) completed induction reaching at least 5.6 gr of BE (700 mg of protein). 3 patients were excluded for not reaching this dose. 1309 doses were administered and 28 reactions occurred (2.14% of OIT doses). 7/18 had anaphylaxis, 2 patients required adrenaline use (10.5%), 5 withdrew during induction phase (4 due to anaphylaxis and 1 for poor adherence). Egg OIT is still an experimental treatment and aims to modify clinical reactivity in persistently egg-allergic children. BE-OIT enhances children’s diet by including baked and various quantities of fully cooked egg thus improving families quality of life. However, complete tolerance to raw-egg is not attempted. Initial parameters at OFC were comparable to previous RE-OIT group. Adverse events are still a source of concern even with the modified BE-protocol.
Conclusions: Gastrointestinal symptoms were the most frequent adverse reactions and anaphylaxis the most common cause of withdrawal. Within similar populations, BE-OIT showed an improvement in safety profile with fewer adverse reactions and less use of adrenaline; proving to be a better OIT alternative for egg allergic children.
Consent to publish: Written informed consent was obtained.
PD40 Food allergy has no impact on asthma morbidity except if associated to atopic dermatitis
Melanie Cap1, Elodie Drumez2, Stéphanie Lejeune1, Caroline Thumerelle1, Clémence Mordacq1, Véronique Nève3, Antoine Deschildre1
1Pediatric Pulmonology and Allergy Department, Hôpital Jeanne de Flandre, CHU Lille, Lille, France; 2Biostatistics Department, CHU Lille, Lille, France; 3Pediatric Pulmonary Function Testing Unit, Hôpital Jeanne de Flandre, CHU Lille, Lille, France
Correspondence: Antoine Deschildre - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD40
Introduction: Food allergy (FA) is often associated to asthma. We aimed to investigate the impact of FA on asthma control. Exacerbations, maintenance treatment, and lung function were also evaluated.
Methods: Longitudinal prospective study conducted between August 2015 and March 2016. Allergic asthmatic Children, ≥7 years old, with or without confirmed FA, were included during a scheduled visit. Asthma and FA characteristics were recorded. Asthma control was defined according to GINA criteria. Asthma Control Test (ACT) or pediatric-ACT, asthma exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroids courses (OCC), hospitalisations in the previous year, GINA maintenance treatment level and ICS dose, lung function (FEV1, FEV1/FVC, FeNO) were compared between children with FA and those without.
Results: 212 asthmatic children (mean age: 11.5 years), were included; 57 of them had FA (27%) (nuts = 26, peanut = 23, egg = 11, milk = 3, other = 20, multiple FA = 41). History of life threatening asthma was not different between the 2 groups (p = 0.4). History of food anaphylaxis was documented in 39 patients. 31 children (15%) were treated with Omalizumab, 10 of them with FA. Good control was observed in 38 children with FA (67%), and 94 children without FA (61%) (p = 0.42); there was no difference for ACT or pACT score (p = 0.26), exacerbation rate [mean: 1.2 (+/−2.04) if FA vs 2,22 (+/−3.65) if asthma only (p = 0.1)], OCC (p = 0.08), hospitalisations (p = 0.41), GINA treatment level (p = 0.17), ICS dose (p = 0.16). FEV1/FVC (mean: 84% if FA vs 83%; p = 0.12) and FeNO (median: 42 ppb if FA vs 24 ppb (p = 0.55)] were not different. The type of food allergen, the number of FA, the severity of food reaction had no effect on asthma control. The subgroup of patients with “asthma-atopic dermatitis-FA” (A-DA-FA) had a higher number of exacerbations (p = 0.009) and daily ICS (p = 0.017) compared to patients with asthma, FA and no AD. We did not observe that FA was associated to worse asthma control or morbidity as previously reported [1,2]. Regular follow-up in a tertiary care centre may explain the results. However, we observed that children with FA and AD had a more severe asthma than those with FA but no AD.
Conclusion: Our study does not provide evidence for increase asthma morbidity in children with any FA. The association of A-DA-FA characterized a specific phenotype.
Johnson J, et al. PloS One. 2015;10:e0124675
Friedlander JL, et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2013;1:479–84.
PD41 Skin prick test and development of tolerance in children with egg allergy
Carla Mastrorilli, Sonia Ricò, Margherita Varini, Carlotta Povesi Dascola, Carlo Caffarelli
Pediatric Clinic, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Parma, Parma, Italy
Correspondence: Carla Mastrorilli - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD41
Introduction: The aim of our study was to examine whether the loss of positive skin prick test (SPT) reactions to egg white or egg yolk predicted the development of spontaneous clinical tolerance in children with egg allergy.
Methods: We recruited children with egg allergy, as positive oral food challenge with egg (OFC) or suggestive history and positive SPT reactions to yolk egg and/or egg white. All children underwent SPTs with egg white and yolk extracts. Children whose SPT results to both egg white and egg yolk became negative during follow-up were included in group 1, those with persistent positive SPT results in group 2. The acquisition of tolerance to hen’s egg was ascertained by open OFC in both groups with escalating doses every 20 min of hard-boiled egg. The adverse reactions were considered immediate when they appeared within 2 h and delayed after 2 h. In case of negative TPO, the egg was administered at home for 4 days, with control of any adverse reactions. In case of unclear symptoms to TPO, it was performed a double-blind test, placebo-controlled trial.
Results: Seventy-five egg-allergic children (44 males), aged 3–78 months, were enrolled. Among them 23 were assigned to group 1 (negative SPT to yolk and egg white) and 52 in group 2 (positive SPT for yolk and/or egg white). In group 1, a child (4.3%) experienced positive OFC, in group 2, 13 children (25%) did not pass OFC (p < 0.03). In all cases manifestations were immediate, most frequently cutaneous (78%). Persistence of positive SPT was significantly associated with allergic symptoms (atopic dermatitis, oculorhinitis, other food allergies). There was no correlation between persistence of positive SPT, age at first or last egg reaction time interval between the last clinical response and OFC, time interval between the first and last SPT performance, type of symptoms. The diagnostic accuracy of SPT showed best results for sensitivity (0.92) and negative predictive value (0.95).
Conclusion: Children with egg allergy are more likely to tolerate the egg in case of negative SPT, compared to subjects with persistently positive SPT. So, loss of positive SPT may be a predictive marker of tolerance and reduce the need for OFC. However, 1 of 23 children with negative SPT had reactions during OFC (4%). Larger population studies are therefore needed to examine possible mild reactions at OFC in case of negative SPT.
PD42 Extensively hydrolyzed casein formula containing lactobacillus rhamnosus GG prevents the occurrence of other allergic manifestations in subjects with cow’s milk allergy: 3-year randomised controlled trial
Rita Nocerino, Linda Cosenza, Antonio Amoroso, Margherita Di Costanzo, Carmen Di Scala, Giorgio Bedogni, Roberto Berni Canani
University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples, Italy
Correspondence: Rita Nocerino - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD42
Introduction: Children with cow’s milk allergy (CMA) have an increased risk to develop other allergic manifestations. We performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test whether the early administration of an extensively hydrolyzed casein formula (EHCF) containing L.rhamnosus GG (LGG) can reduce the 3-year incidence of other allergic manifestations in these patients.
Methods: A parallel-arm RCT was performed in children aged 1 to 12 months with IgE-mediated CMA. Patients were allocated to one of two groups of dietary interventions: EHCF (Nutramigen®, Mead Johnson, Evansville, IN, USA) and EHCF+LGG (Nutramigen LGG®, Mead Johnson, Evansville, IN, USA). All subjects were evaluated during a 36 months follow-up. Other allergic manifestations (atopic eczema, allergic urticaria, asthma and oculorhinitis) were diagnosed using standard criteria by pediatricians blinded to group assignment. Tolerance acquisition was evaluated every 12 month by the result of oral challenge.
Results: 220 subjects (147 male, 67%) with a mean (SD) age of 5.7 (3) months were randomized, 110 to EHCF and 110 to EHCF+LGG. Binomial regression using intention-to-treat analysis revealed that the absolute risk difference (ARD) for the occurrence of at least one allergic manifestation over 36 months was −0.22 (95% CI −0.35 to −9%, p < 0.001) for EHCF+LGG vs. EHCF. The ARD for the occurrence of atopic eczema was −0.13 (95% CI −0.25 to −1%, p < 0.05), −0.14 (95% CI −0.25 to −2%, p < 0.001) for allergic urticaria, −0.11 (95% CI −0.22 to 0%, p > 0.05) for asthma, and −0.17 (95% CI −0.29 to −6%, p < 0.01) for oculorhinitis in EHCF+LGG vs. EHCF group. Binomial regression for repeated measures using per-protocol-analysis with Bonferroni’s correction for 3 comparisons (contrasts) revealed that the ARD for the acquisition of cow’s milk tolerance was 0.20 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.35, p < 0.01) at 12 months, 0.24 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.41, p < 0.01 at 24 months and 0.27 at 36 months (95% CI 0.11 to 0.43, p < 0.001) for the EHCF+LGG vs. the EHCF group.
Conclusion: Compared to EHCF, EHCF+LGG reduces the incidence of other allergic manifestations in children with IgE-mediated CMA. Moreover, the use of this hypoallergenic formula increases the rate of tolerance acquisition at 12, 24 and 36 months.
PD43 How common is soya allergy in peanut-allergic children?
Nandinee Patel, Marta Vazquez-Ortiz, Sarah Lindsley, Paul J. Turner
Section of Paediatrics, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom
Correspondence: Nandinee Patel - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD43
Introduction: The prevalence of peanut allergy is around 2% in children. Current guidance from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) requires any medication containing soya-based products (including soya oil) to state that the product is contra-indicated in peanut-allergic individuals, since both are legumes. While clinical allergy to soya in peanut-allergic individuals is considered to be uncommon, only limited published data are available to substantiate this. We therefore sought to determine the rate of soya allergy in children with challenge-proven peanut allergy.
Methods: We performed open food challenges to soya (total 4.0 g protein) in children with peanut allergy proven through double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). All challenges were conducted according to PRACTALL consensus criteria. Where a participant experienced any symptoms during the soya challenge, DBPCFC to soya was undertaken to exclude placebo reactors. Local ethical and regulatory approval was granted, and informed consent was obtained. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02149719.
Results: 38 children (median age 13.5 years, range 8–17 years, M:F 1.3:1) with peanut allergy (confirmed by DBPCFC) participated in this study. Over half had a history of previous anaphylaxis to peanut, and 24% developed anaphylaxis during DBPCFC to peanut. Skin prick test to peanut extract ranged from 5 to 22 mm (median 10 mm), with a median peanut-specific IgE of 46 kU/L. SPT to soya extract was negative in 31/38 children; in the remaining 7 children, SPT varied from 2 to 4 mm. 37/38 (97%) tolerated the open challenge to soya; 1 child experienced oral pruritus which was reproduced during DBPCFC—interestingly, this child tolerated an open challenge to unroasted soya protein. One child developed oral symptoms to roasted but not unroasted soya; this child was also sensitised to birch pollen. There was no evidence of systemic soya allergy in this cohort of peanut-allergic children at challenge.
Conclusion: Co-allergy to soya is uncommon in peanut-allergic children. These data suggest that the EMA requirement for labelling of medicines containing low levels of soya as contraindicated in peanut-allergic individuals is unwarranted.
PD44 The beta-phenotype: clinical and serological data of a new low-risk cow’s milk allergy phenotype
Paloma Poza-Guedes, Ruperto González-Pérez, Inmaculada Sánchez-Machín, Victor Matheu-Delgado
Hospital del Tórax, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
Correspondence: Paloma Poza-Guedes - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD44
Introduction: Cow’s milk (CM) allergy is a rising problem worldwide. Poor prognostic risk factors such as casein sensitization are well described. Nowadays we have not yet clear clinical markers to differentiate in early stages patients with good prognosis. We analyze the clinical characteristics of patients who present only mild gastrointestinal symptoms.
Methods: We selected pediatric patients who refered only mild gastrointestinal symptoms after CM intake in the last 2 years. Skin prick test (SPT) with commercial extracts were performed with whole CM, casein (CAS), alphalactoalbumin (ALA) and betalactoglobulin (BLG). Measurement of total IgE and specific IgE against milk proteins in patients sera were performed (ImmunoCAP, Sweden). Families have been asked about their tolerance with both whole CM and dairy products. All patients performed an open challenge with CM to confirm clinic. Celiac disease and lactose intolerance was ruled out.
Results: From a total of 645 pediatric patients referring food adverse reaction, in 96 patients (4.3 ± 3 y.o.) have been confirmed mild gastrointestinal symptons after CM intake. The most prevalent symptom was abdominal cramps (n = 72), followed by abdominal bloating (47), mild chronic diarrhea (n = 38) or feed refusal (n = 21). A positive SPT to CM was achieved only in 35 patients (36.4%), with positive BLG in only 21 cases. Milk sIgE showed low rates generally, but BLG sIgE seems like the most prominent. It was noted that in a third of cases sIgE to CM was negative and in almost 25% only BLG showed positive sIgE. All patients identify CM such as the triggering food, although almost a third were still tolerating yogurt. Thus in the remaining patients we performed a subsequent open challenge test with yogurt, showing good tolerance nearly 80% of them. Interestingly only after 1 year, more than a half of patients reached whole CM tolerance. The broad dietary restriction in patients with CM allergy involves important limitations in everyday life. The identification of different clinical phenotypes may have relevant implications for the clinical management, and a potential better short-term prognosis.
Conclusion: We describe a new CM allergy phenotype characterized by mild abdominal symptoms and lower CM sIgE, showing BLG sIgE as a key biologic marker in our population. The identification of this syndrome may be clinically relevant in the management and prognosis of CM allergic patients.
PD45 Mechanistic characteristics of peanut allergic children undergoing oral food challenge and oral immunotherapy
Benaroya Research Instiute, Seattle WA, USA
Correspondence: Erik Wambre - firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD45
Introduction: Peanut OIT can dramatically improve the quality of life for allergic children but the molecular and immunological changes that occur during treatment are poorly understood.
Methods: Whole blood samples were collected pre- and post-oral food challenge to peanut at baseline and at 6 months from 15 peanut allergic patients participating in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of peanut Oral Immunotherapy (POIT). Basophil activation test (BAT) using CD203c expression was performed after stimulation with different concentration of peanut extract. Peanut-reactive CD4+ T cell response were monitored using the CD154-based assay following stimulation with pool of Ara h 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 peanut component. Sorted peanut-reactive CD4+ T cells were then run on the Fluidigm 96.96 dynamic array chip to assess changes in gene expression.
Results: Positive reactions to the BAT and presence of peanut-reactive effector TH2A cells lacking CD27 expression reflect the status of sensitization to peanut, proved by Oral food challenge. Oral food challenge to peanut drastically increase the frequencies of peanut-reactive CD4+ T cells before POIT but at a lower extent in the active group post treatment. Changes in the frequency, phenotype and molecular signature of peanut reactive T cells are predictive of early clinical responses induced by POIT. Our results also confirmed that allergen-specific TH2 cells exhibit an “exhausted”phenotype and are preferentially targeted by allergen immunotherapy.
Conclusion: These results reveal novel immunological and transcriptional signatures as surrogate markers of successful immunotherapy.
PD46 Development of a food allergy skin sensitisation model in naive Brown Norway rats
Anne-Sofie Ballegaard, Charlotte Madsen, Juliane Gregersen, Katrine Lindholm Bøgh
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Søborg, Denmark
Correspondence: Katrine Lindholm Bøgh - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD46
Introduction: Allergic sensitisation to foods may occur in infancy without prior oral exposure to the offending food. This has led to the assumption that food allergy sensitisation may occur through alternative routes, such as via the skin. Recently, concerns have been raised regarding the safety of use of cosmetic and personal care products containing hydrolysed wheat proteins. The aim of this study was to develop a skin sensitisation model in naïve Brown Norway (BN) rats.
Methods: A high IgE-responder BN rat strain bred on a gluten-free diet for several generations were used as an animal model and two different products, unmodified gluten and acid hydrolysed gluten were used as model proteins. Rat abdominal skin was shaved, lightly scratched with sandpaper and exposed to one of the products. The animal model was optimised for duration of skin exposure, the amount of product applied as well as for the post-immunisation regime. Skin conditions were evaluated by histology and water evaporation. At different time points sera were collected and analysed for the level, avidity and cross-reactivity of specific antibodies by different ELISAs. The antibody specificity was evaluated by immunoblotting and the functionality was examined by an ear swelling test.
Results: Both products were able to induce a specific immune response and sensitise through the slightly damaged skin without any use of adjuvant. This was evident before any post-immunisations. The sensitisation response depended on the duration of the skin application as well as on the amount of products applied to the skin. Differences in dose-response relationship were seen between products. The results confirm previous studies showing that acid hydrolysis induced new epitopes while maintaining original epitopes. Antibody avidity differed greatly between the products and showed that the shared epitopes induced antibodies with highest avidity. Oral and i.p. post-immunisation induced different outcomes, with a surprisingly higher response after oral compared to i.p. post-immunisations. The aim of the study, developing an animal model for studying food allergy skin sensitisation, was fulfilled. The model was able to detect differences in the induced response between the two products and further indicated homing of skin immune cells to the gut.
Conclusion: In BN rats non-tolerant to gluten, unmodified and acid hydrolysed gluten has sensitising capacity through the skin.
PD47 The nature of wheat gliadins modifies the immune response in a mice model of food allergy
Grégory Bouchaud1, Laure Castan1,2,3,4, Mathilde Claude1,4, Philippe Aubert3,5,7, Michel Neunlist3,5,7, Antoine Magnan2,3,4,6,7, Marie Bodinier1
1INRA, UR1268 BIA, Nantes, France; 2INSERM, UMR1087, Institut du Thorax, Nantes, France; 3CNRS, UMR6291, Nantes, France; 4Université de Nantes, France; 5INSERM UMR913, Institut des Maladies de l’Appareil Digestif (IMAD), Faculté de Médecine, Nantes, France; 6Service de Pneumologie, Institut du Thorax, CHU de Nantes, Nantes, France; 7DHU2020 Médecine Personnalisée des Maladies Chroniques, Nantes, Nantes, France
Correspondence: Grégory Bouchaud - Gregory.firstname.lastname@example.org
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD47
Introduction: Food allergies result from a complex immune response involving both innate and adaptive immune cells. Major proteins of wheat flour, gliadins, appear as important allergens and have a special role in wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis. Allergen characteristics can influence the allergic response. In this context, chemically modified gliadins by industrial processes impact immune mechanisms orchestrating allergic reaction in an undefined manner. Our study investigates immune reaction development during food allergy with gliadins under native, deamidated or hydrolyzed forms.
Methods: Mice were sensitized with native (NG), deamidated (DG) or hydrolyzed gliadin (HG). Subsequently, mice were challenged by oral gavage with the corresponding allergens. Then, organs were collected at different time points and analyzed for immune and physiological parameters such as gastro-intestinal functions, cytokine secretion or allergenspecific IgE.
Results: Preliminary data clearly show an increase of specific IgE and IgG1 level in serum after challenge when mice were sensitized with DG compared with NG and a level comparable to un-sensitized mice with HG. This was accompanied with an increase of intestinal permeability and histological score reflecting intestinal integrity. Moreover, a more pronounced Th2-polarization together with a decrease in regulatory immunosuppressive response was observed in lymph nodes from mice sensitized with DG compared with NG sensitized mice.
Conclusion: Altogether, our data tend to demonstrate that industrial processes such as deamidation or hydrolysis impact food allergenicity through immune modulation and help us to develop tools to define how they can influence this reaction and encourage or decrease allergic reactions.
PD48 Orally administered hydrolysed ovalbumin as an immunotherapeutic agent in a mouse model of egg allergy
Daniel Lozano-Ojalvo, Alba Pablos-Tanarro, Leticia Pérez-Rodríguez, Elena Molina, Rosina López-Fandiño
Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias de la Alimentación (CIAL, CSIC-UAM), Madrid, Spain
Correspondence: Daniel Lozano-Ojalvo - email@example.com
Clinical and Translational Allergy 2017, 7(Suppl 1):PD48
Introduction: At present, the main treatment for egg allergic patients is based on food avoidance,