Similar IgE Binding Patterns in Gulf of Mexico and Southeast Asian Shrimp Species in US Shrimp Allergic PatientsSara Anvari1,2*, Shea Brunner1,2*, Karen Tuano1,2, Brenda Bin Su1,2, Shaymaviswanathan Karnaneed3, Andreas L. Lopata3, Carla M. Davis1,21Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children’s Hospital, Department of Pediatrics, Section of Immunology, Allergy and Retrovirology, Houston, Texas2Baylor College of Medicine, William T. Shearer Center for Human Immunobiology, Houston, Texas3James Cook University, Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, Centre for Molecular Therapeutics, Douglas, QLD, Australia*co-first authors
Background Cow’s milk protein allergy (CMPA) is one of the most common food allergies in infancy. Most infants with CMPA tolerate baked milk from diagnosis and gradually acquire increased tolerance. Nevertheless, parents often display significant anxiety about this condition and a corresponding reluctance to progress with home introduction of dairy due to concerns about possible allergic reactions. Objective: To evaluate the impact on gradual home introduction of foods containing cows milk after a supervised, single low dose exposure to whole milk at time of diagnosis. Methods Infants less than 12 months old, referred with suspected IgE-mediated cow’s milk allergy were recruited to an open-label randomised, controlled trial of intervention - a single dose of fresh cow’s milk, using the validated dose of milk that would elicit reactions in 5% of CMPA subjects - the ED 05 – vs routine care. Both groups implemented graded exposure to CM (using the 12 step MAP Milk Tolerance Induction Ladder), at Home. Parents completed food allergy quality of life and State and Trait Anxiety Inventories (STAI). Main outcome measures were milk ladder position at 6 months and 12 months post randomisation. Results: Sixty patients were recruited, 57 (95%) were followed to 6 months. By 6 months 27/37 (73%) intervention subjects had reached step 6 or above on the milk ladder compared to 10/20 (50%) control subjects (p=0.048). By 6 months 11/37 (30%) intervention subjects had reached step 12 (ie drinking unheated cow’s milk) compared to 2/20 (10%) of the controls (p=0.049). Twelve months post randomisation 31/36(86%) of the intervention group and 15/19(79%) of the control group were on step 6 or above. However, 24/37 (65%) of the intervention group were at step 12 compared to 7/20 (35%) of the control group (p=0.03). Maternal STAIs were significantly associated with their infants’ progress on the milk ladder and with changes in skin prick test and spIgE levels at 6 and 12 months. Conclusion This study demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of introduction of baked milk implemented immediately after diagnosis of cows milk allergy in a very young cohort. A supervised single dose of milk at the ED 05 significantly accelerates this further, probably by giving parents the confidence to proceed. Maternal anxiety generally reflects infants’ progress towards completion of the milk ladder, but pre-existing high levels of maternal anxiety are associated with poorer progress.
Objective: There is a need for the immunogenicity of different boosters after widely used inactivated vaccine regimens. We aimed to determine the effects of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac boosters on the humoral and cellular immunity of individuals who had two doses of CoronaVac vaccination. Methods: The study was conducted in three centers (Koc University Hospital, Istanbul University Cerrahpasa Hospital, and Istanbul University, Istanbul Medical School Hospital) in Istanbul. Individuals who had two doses of CoronaVac and no history of COVID-19 were included. The baseline blood samples were collected three to five months after two doses of CoronaVac. Follow-up samples were taken one and three months after third doses of CoronaVac or one dose of mRNA BNT162b2 boosters. Neutralizing antibody titers were detected by plaque reduction assay. T cell responses were evaluated by Elispot assay and flow cytometry. Results: We found a 3.38-fold increase in neutralizing antibody titers (Geometric Mean Titer [GMT], 78.69) one month after BNT162b2 booster and maintained at the three months (GMT, 80). However, in the CoronaVac group, significantly lower GMTs than BNT162b2 after 1 month and 3 months (21.44 and 28.44, respectively) indicated the weak immunogenicity of the CoronaVac booster (p<0.001). In the ELISpot assay, IL-2 levels after BNT162b2 were higher than baseline and CoronaVac booster (p<0.001) and IFN-γ levels were significantly higher than baseline (P<0.001). The CD8+CD38+CD69+ and CD4+CD38+CD69+ T cells were stimulated significantly at the 3 rd month of the BNT162b2 boosters. Conclusion: The neutralizing antibody levels after three months of the BNT162b2 booster were higher than the antibody levels after CoronaVac. On the other hand, specific T cells might contribute to immune protection. By considering the waning immunity, we suggest a new booster dose with BNT162b2 for the countries that already have two doses of primary CoronaVac regimens.
Background. The use of eliciting doses (EDs) for food allergens is necessary to inform individual dietary advice and food allergen risk-management. The Eliciting Dose 01 (ED01) for milk and egg, calculated from populations of allergic subjects undergoing diagnostic Oral Food Challenges (OFCs), are 0.2 mg total protein. The respective Eliciting Dose 05 (ED05) are 2.4 mg for milk and 2.3 mg for egg. As about 70% children allergic to such foods may tolerate them when baked, we sought to verify the EDs of that subpopulation of milk and egg-allergic children. Methods. We retrospectively assessed consecutive diagnostic OFC for fresh milk and egg between January 2018 and December 2020 in a population of baked food-tolerant children. Results. Among 288 children (median age 56 - IQR 36-92.5 months, 67.1% male) included, 87 (30.2%) returned positive OFC results, 38 with milk and 49 with egg. The most conservative ED01 were 0.3 mg total protein (IQR 0.03-2.9) for milk and 14.4 mg total protein (IQR 3.6-56.9) for egg. The respective ED05 were 4.2 (IQR 0.9-19.6) mg for milk and 87.7 (IQR 43-179) mg for egg. Such thresholds are respectively 1.5 (milk ED01), 1.75 (milk ED05), 72 (egg ED01), and 38.35 (egg ED05) times higher than the currently used thresholds. Conclusions The subpopulation of children allergic to milk and egg, but tolerant to baked proteins, displays higher reactivity thresholds than the general population of children allergic to milk and egg. Their risk stratification, in both individual and population terms, should consider this difference. In baked milk-tolerant children, milk causes reactions at lower doses than egg in our group of egg-tolerant children. This could be associated with the relative harmlessness of egg compared to milk in the determinism of fatal anaphylactic reactions in children
Background: Homologous and heterologous SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations yield different spike protein-directed humoral and cellular immune responses. This study aimed to explore their currently unknown interdependencies. Methods: COV-ADAPT is a prospective, observational cohort study of 417 healthcare workers who received vaccination with homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, homologous BNT162b2 or with heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2. We assessed humoral (anti-spike-RBD-IgG, neutralizing antibodies, avidity) and cellular (spike-induced T cell interferon‑γ release) immune responses in blood samples up to 2 weeks before (T1) and 2 to 12 weeks following secondary immunization (T2). Results: Initial vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 resulted in lower anti-spike-RBD-IgG compared to BNT162b2 (70±114 vs. 226±279 BAU/ml, p<0.01) at T1. Booster vaccination with BNT162b2 proved superior to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at T2 (anti-spike-RBD-IgG: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2 2387±1627 and homologous BNT162b2 3202±2184 vs. homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 413±461 BAU/ml, both p<0.001; spike-induced T cell interferon-γ release: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2 5069±6733 and homologous BNT162b2 4880±7570 vs. homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 1152±2243 mIU/ml, both p<0.001). No significant differences were detected between BNT162b2-boostered groups at T2. For ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, no booster effect on T cell activation could be observed. We found associations between anti-spike-RBD-IgG levels (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2 and homologous BNT162b2) and T cell responses (homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/BNT162b2) from T1 to T2. Additionally, anti-spike-RBD-IgG and T cell response were linked at both time points (all groups combined). All regimes yielded neutralizing antibodies and increased antibody avidity at T2. Conclusions: Interdependencies between humoral and cellular immune responses differ between common SARS-CoV-2 vaccination regimes. T cell activation is unlikely to compensate for poor humoral responses.
Title:Comparative assessment of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines in Europe and the United StatesTo the EditorCOVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at preventing severe disease. Among the rare complications that may compromise vaccine acceptance are allergic reactions.1-3 Recently we demonstrated that anaphylaxis rates associated with COVID-19 vaccines are comparable to those of traditional vaccines.4 Herein, we aimed to comparatively assess the incidence and potential underlying causes of the most common allergic reactions post COVID-19 vaccination in Europe and the United States (US).Allergic reactions data following COVID-19 vaccination reported from week 52/2020 to week 39/2021 were collected from EudraVigilance for the European Economic Area (EEA) and from Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for the US and analyzed for all licensed vaccines. These included mRNA-1273 (Moderna), BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), AD26.COV2.S (Janssen/Johnson & Johnson), and the not yet licensed in the US ChAdOx1-S (Oxford/AstraZeneca). Incidence rates were calculated using the corresponding administered vaccine doses as denominators. Vaccine composition was examined to identify potential allergic triggers.The most common allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccination were anaphylactic reactions, with an overall incidence of 9.91/million doses (EEA: 13.69/million/US: 4.44/million, Fig.1). Anaphylactic shock followed, with much lower rates (overall incidence: 1.36/million, EEA: 2.01/million/US: 0.41/million).The incidence of anaphylactic reactions reported in EudraVigilance varied considerably by vaccine and was 3- to 4-fold higher for BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 compared to VAERS. AD26.COV2.S-associated anaphylaxis did not differ between databases. The very low incidence of anaphylactic shock also varied by vaccine, particularly as captured in EudraVigilance.Considering vaccine platforms, the incidence of anaphylactic reactions post adenovirus-vectored vaccination was higher compared to mRNA-based vaccines (EudraVigilance: 15.62/ vs . 13.36/million, VAERS: 6.79/vs . 4.34/million doses). Anaphylactic shock incidence rates were also higher for vectored compared to mRNA vaccines (EudraVigilance: 3.14/ vs . 1.81/million, VAERS: 1.20/ vs . 0.38).Detailed demographic data and outcomes of anaphylactic reaction and anaphylactic shock cases post-COVID-19 vaccination are presented in Tables S1 and S2, respectively. The vast majority of cases affected females (82% of anaphylactic reaction/75% of anaphylactic shock reports). With regard to age, different patterns are evident. In EudraVigilance, both types of anaphylaxis were more common among working age (18-64 years) and older individuals; in VAERS, anaphylactic reactions were more frequent among subjects aged 30-59 years (69%), while the very rare anaphylactic shock cases were distributed across age groups.Regarding outcome, the vast majority of cases were resolved or resolving (90.0% of anaphylactic reaction/81.7% of anaphylactic shock cases as captured in EudraVigilance, Table S1). The disease course was complicated (life threatening or leading to permanent disability) in 25.5% of anaphylactic reaction and 31.3% of anaphylactic shock cases as captured in VAERS (Table S2). Fatalities from allergic reactions post COVID-19 vaccination were extremely rare and 2- to 6-fold higher for vectored than mRNA vaccines in both databases (Table 1).The cause(s) that may trigger allergic reactions after vaccination remain elusive.2 Potential contributing factors include: i) components of the final pharmaceutical product [i.e., the active ingredient (antigen) and excipients]; ii) impurities or “related materials” unintentionally present in the final formula;1 iii) the packaging material, especially the rubber stopper.2Cross-reactivity has been reported upon exposure between two of the main excipients of mRNA and vectored vaccines (polyethylene glycol 2000 and polysorbate 80, respectively).5 If true, should we anticipate increased anaphylaxis rates following first time or booster vaccination with vaccines of different platforms according to the so-called heterologous vaccination (mix-and-match) approach?Our study revealed differences in anaphylaxis rates as captured in two of the world’s largest pharmacovigilance databases between Europe and the US, as well as between vaccines and vaccine platforms. Understanding the reasons behind true differences could lead to the further optimization of COVID-19 vaccines.
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and other eicosanoid pathway modifiers are among the most ubiquitously used medications in the general population. Their broad anti-inflammatory, antipyretic and analgesic effects are applied against symptoms of respiratory infections, including SARS-CoV-2, as well as in other acute and chronic inflammatory diseases that often coexist with allergy and asthma. However, the current pandemic of COVID-19 also revealed the gaps in our understanding of their mechanism of action, selectivity and interactions not only during viral infections and inflammation, but also in asthma exacerbations, uncontrolled allergic inflammation, and NSAIDs-exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD). In this context, the consensus report summarises currently available knowledge, novel discoveries and controversies regarding the use of NSAIDs in COVID-19, and the role of NSAIDs in asthma and viral asthma exacerbations. We also describe here novel mechanisms of action of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs), outline how to predict responses to LTRA therapy and discuss a potential role of LTRA therapy in COVID-19 treatment. Moreover, we discuss interactions of novel T2 biologicals and other eicosanoid pathway modifiers on the horizon, such as prostaglandin D2 antagonists and cannabinoids, with eicosanoid pathways, in context of viral infections and exacerbations of asthma and allergic diseases. Finally, we identify and summarise the major knowledge gaps and unmet needs in current eicosanoid research.
Background There is substantial interest in allergen-specific immunotherapy in food allergy. We systematically reviewed its efficacy and safety. Methods We searched six bibliographic databases from 1946 to 30 April 2021 for randomised controlled trials about immunotherapy alone or with biologicals in IgE-mediated food allergy confirmed by oral food challenge. We pooled the data using random-effects meta-analysis. Results We included 36 trials with 2,126 participants, mainly children. Oral immunotherapy increased tolerance whilst on therapy for peanut (RR 9.9, 95% CI 4.5. to 21.4, high certainty); cow’s milk (RR 5.7, 1.9 to 16.7, moderate certainty) and hen’s egg allergy (RR 8.9, 4.4 to 18, moderate certainty). The number needed to treat to increase tolerance to a single dose of 300mg or 1000mg peanut protein was 2. In peanut allergy, oral immunotherapy did not increase adverse reactions (RR 1.1, 1.0 to 1.2, low certainty) or severe reactions (RR 1,6, 0.7 to 3.5, low certainty). It may increase adverse reactions in cow’s milk (RR 3.9, 2.1 to 7.5, low certainty) and hen’s egg allergy (RR 7.0, 2.4 to 19.8, moderate certainty), but reactions tended to be mild and gastrointestinal. Epicutaneous immunotherapy increased tolerance whilst on therapy for peanut (RR 2.6, 1.8 to 3.8, moderate certainty). Results were unclear for other allergies and administration routes. Conclusions Oral immunotherapy improves tolerance whilst on therapy and is probably safe in peanut, cow’s milk and hen’s egg allergy. However, our review found little about whether this improves quality of life, is sustained or cost-effective.
Predicting reaction threshold and severity are important to improve the management of food allergy, however the determinants of, and relationship between, these parameters are significant knowledge gaps. Identifying robust predictors could enable the reliable risk-stratification of food-allergic individuals. In this series of young people with CM-allergy undergoing DBPCFC – the largest reported in the literature – we did identify any baseline marker which predicted the occurrence of anaphylaxis at challenge, consistent with existing data. 1 There is one report of IgE-sensitisation being predictive of severity in CM-allergy, 5 however the authors included non-reactive patients in their analysis which significantly skewed the analyses, resulting in misleading conclusions. 6 IgE-sensitisation in our cohort, particularly to casein, was predictive of LOAEL. Including an assessment of casein IgE may therefore be of clinical utility when evaluating patients with CM-allergy in the clinical setting.
Most patients presenting with allergies are first seen by primary care health professionals. The perceived knowledge gaps and educational needs were recently assessed in response to which the LOGOGRAM Task Force was established with the remit of constructing pragmatic flow-diagrams for common allergic conditions in line with an earlier EAACI proposal to develop simplified pathways for the diagnosis and management of allergic diseases in primary care. To address the lack of accessible and pragmatic guidance, we designed flow-diagrams for five major clinical allergy conditions: asthma, anaphylaxis, food allergy, drug allergy and urticaria. Existing established allergy guidelines were collected and iteratively distilled to produce five pragmatic and accessible tools to aid diagnosis and management of these common allergic problems. Ultimately, they should now be validated prospectively in primary care settings.
Background It has been hypothesized that epigenomic modifications such as genomic methylation changes are an intermediate step linking environmental exposures with allergic disease development. Associations between individual DNA methylation CpG sites and allergic diseases have been reported, but they have not been assessed regarding their joint predictive capability. Methods Data were obtained from 240 children of the German LISA cohort. Blood-based DNA methylation was measured at six and ten years. Aeroallergen sensitization, at least RAST class 1, was measured in blood at six, ten and 15 years. We calculated six methylation risk scores (MRS) for allergy-related phenotypes based on available publications and assessed their performance both cross-sectionally and prospectively. Dose-response associations between aeroallergen sensitization and MRS, their correlation and mapping of common hits were evaluated. Results All six atopy-related MRS were highly correlated (r>0.86) and seven CpGs were included in more than one MRS. Cross-sectionally, we observed an 80% increased risk for aeroallergen sensitization at six years with an increased risk score by one standard deviation (best MRS: relative risk = 1.81, 95% confidence interval = [1.43; 2.27]). Significant associations were also seen at ten years and in prospective models, though the effect of the latter was attenuated when only including participants not sensitized at baseline. A clear dose-response relationship with RAST classes of aeroallergen sensitization could be established cross-sectionally, but not prospectively. Conclusion We found good classification and prediction capabilities of calculated allergy-related MRS, particularly cross-sectionally for the allergy prevalence, underlining the relevance of altered gene-regulation in allergic diseases.
World Health Organization Global Air Quality Guideline Recommendations: Executive SummaryAnna Goshua1, Cezmi Akdis2, Kari C. Nadeau3,4 1Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA2Swiss Institute of Allergy and Asthma Research (SIAF), University Zurich, Davos, Switzerland3Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA4Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USACorresponding Author: Kari C. Nadeau, Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Email: firstname.lastname@example.orgConflict of Interest: Dr Cezmi Akdis reports research grants from Allergopharma, Idorsia, Swiss National Science Foundation, Christine Kühne-Center for Allergy Research and Education, European Commission’s Horison’s 2020 Framework Programme “Cure”, Novartis Research Institutes, Astra Zeneca, research grants and advisory board from Glaxo Smith-Kline, Sanofi/Regeneron, Scibase, Novartis, and is Editor-in-Chief of Allergy. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.Text Word Count: 1243Abstract Word Count: 147Figure/Table Count: 2Reference Count: 9