Faculty Bibliography

Most milk and egg allergic children are non-reactive to modified forms of milk and egg in bakery products such as muffins due to conformational changes in proteins. These baked milk (BM) and baked egg (BE) diets have become commonplace in the management of milk and egg allergy, respectively. Current laboratory and skin test based diagnostic approaches remain limited in their ability to predict BM/BE tolerance, resulting in various approaches to introduce these foods. One approach to introduce BM/BE is to offer a medically supervised oral food challenge (OFC) and then advise dietary introduction of baked products for children who are tolerant. Another approach is adapted from a home-based protocol of graded ingestion of BM or BE originally intended for non-IgE mediated allergy, often referred to as a "ladder." The ladder advises home-ingestion of increasing amounts of BM or BE. For children who are allergic to BM or BE, the ladder is essentially oral immunotherapy (OIT), although not always labeled or recognized as such. Risk assessment and education of patients suitable for home-introduction is essential. A home approach that may be called a ladder can also be used to escalate diets after demonstrated tolerance of baked forms by introducing lesser cooked forms of milk or egg after tolerating BM or BE. A randomized controlled trial provided clear evidence that baked diets can hasten the resolution of IgE-mediated milk allergy. BM/BE foods have an emerging role in the treatment of non-IgE mediated allergy. There is tangential evidence for BM and BE diets in the prevention of IgE-mediated allergy.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:models. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:B cells were analyzed by flow cytometry. Acute and sub-chronic toxicity were evaluated. IL-4 promoter DNA methylation, RNA-Seq, and qPCR analysis were performed to determine the regulatory mechanisms of XPP. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:B cells compared to the untreated group. XPP increased IL-4 promoter methylation. RNA-Seq and RT-PCR experiments revealed that XPP regulated the gene expression of CCND1, DUSP4, SDC1, ETS1, PTPRC, and IL6R, which are related to plasma cell IgE production. All safety testing results were in the normal range. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:XPP successfully protected peanut-allergic mice against peanut anaphylaxis by suppressing IgE production. XPP suppresses murine IgE-producing B cell numbers and inhibits IgE production and associated genes in human plasma cells. XPP may be a potential therapy for IgE-mediated food allergy.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) is a non-immunoglobulin E (IgE) cell mediated food allergy that can cause severe symptoms and is considered an allergic emergency. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To describe FPIES epidemiology and appraise the approach to diagnosis and management. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A review of the relevant articles published in the peer-reviewed journals since the publication of the First International FPIES Consensus Guidelines in 2017. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:FPIES is estimated to affect 0.51-0.9% of children and 0.22% of adults in the United States. It typically presents with protracted, projectile vomiting, which occurs within 1-4 hours of ingesting culprit foods, sometimes followed by diarrhea within 24 hours of ingestion. In ∼15-20% of severe cases, patients go into hypovolemic or distributive shock. In chronic FPIES, infants may have failure to thrive and weight loss. The most common triggers include cow's milk, oat, rice, and avocado, with egg and peanut being more frequently reported. Examples of other common fruit and vegetable triggers include banana, apple, and sweet potato. FPIES can be classified into acute, chronic, adult-onset, or atypical subtypes. FPIES is associated with comorbid atopic conditions of IgE-mediated food allergy, atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergic rhinitis, and eosinophilic esophagitis. The natural history of infantile FPIES is generally favorable, with the exception of fish FPIES. Seafood FPIES in adults has low rates of resolution over 3-5 years. Correctly identifying FPIES can be challenging because there are no specific biomarkers for diagnosis and the constellation of symptoms may mimic those of infectious enteritis or sepsis. Management relies on dietary food avoidance, periodic re-evaluations for tolerance with oral food challenges, and management of acute reactions with rehydration and antiemetic ondansetron. Although the pathophysiology of FPIES remains poorly understood, underlying mechanisms such as cytokine release, leukocyte activation, and impaired gastrointestinal mucosal barrier function may act as cornerstones for further research. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Prevention, laboratory diagnostic testing, and strategies to accelerate tolerance development are urgent unmet needs in FPIES.

BACKGROUND:Patients exquisitely sensitive to cashew/pistachio are at risk for allergic reactions to citrus seeds and pectin. OBJECTIVE:In this study, we sought to evaluate whether pectin is contaminated with citrus seeds, to identify a culprit antigen in citrus seeds, and to assess for cross-reactivity among allergens in citrus seeds, citrus pectin, and cashew or pistachio. METHODS:Proteins from orange seed coats, orange seed endosperms, lemon seeds, grapefruit seeds, citrus pectin, apple pectin, and grapefruit pectin were extracted. Protein concentrations in all extracts were determined and visualized using sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis technique. Immunoglobulin E-binding capacity was determined with Western blot analyses and tandem mass spectrometry for the identification of the culprit allergen in citrus seeds and pectin. RESULTS:In subjects with citrus seed, pectin, and cashew allergies, there was strong immunoglobulin E-reactivity to bands between 17 to 28 kDa and 28 to 38 kDa. The tandem mass spectrometry analysis of these bands indicated the presence of citrin as the culprit allergen. Citrin and Ana o 2 are both 11S globulins belonging to the cupin superfamily, and significant homology was found between these proteins. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Citrus pectin may be contaminated with citrus seeds. Citrin, a newly identified allergen in citrus seeds, seems to be the culprit antigen in citrus seeds and contaminated citrus pectin. Citrin is highly homologous with Ana o 2 in cashew and Pis v 2 in pistachio, suggesting potential for cross-reactivity and providing an explanation for co-allergenicity of cashew or pistachio, citrus seeds, and citrus pectin.

BACKGROUND:Epinephrine is the first-line treatment for severe allergic reactions, and rapid treatment is associated with lower rates of hospitalization and death. Current treatment options (epinephrine auto-injectors and manual intramuscular injection) are considered cumbersome, and most patients/caregivers fail to use them, even during severe reactions. An intranasal epinephrine delivery device, neffy, has been designed to provide an additional option for patients/caregivers. OBJECTIVE:We sought to assess the comparative pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of neffy 2.0 mg, EpiPen 0.3 mg, and manual intramuscular injection 0.3 mg. METHODS:This was a phase 1, randomized, 6-treatment, 6-period, 2-part crossover study in 59 healthy subjects. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters following single and repeat doses of epinephrine were assessed before dosing and at various postdose intervals. RESULTS:The pharmacokinetic profile of neffy was bracketed by approved injection products, with a mean peak plasma level of 481 pg/mL, which fell between EpiPen (753 pg/mL) and epinephrine manual intramuscular injection (339 pg/mL). When dosed both once and twice, neffy resulted in more pronounced increases in pharmacodynamic parameters relative to EpiPen or manual injection. CONCLUSIONS:neffy's pharmacokinetic profile was bracketed by approved injection products, with pharmacodynamic responses that were comparable to or better than approved injection products. neffy is expected to be a safe and effective option, particularly for patients/caregivers who are reluctant to carry and use injection devices.

Guidelines and recommendations for the diagnosis and management of cow's milk allergy (CMA) in childhood are based on scientific review of the available evidence. While this approach is the most rigorous, guidelines may not fully address all scenarios encountered by clinicians. Many symptoms of CMA overlap with other common childhood illnesses and are subjectively reported by the caregivers of the infant, as is the interpretation of the dietary interventions. Additionally, many healthcare professionals and caregivers do not follow the recommendations to perform an oral food challenge or reintroduction of cow's milk after a diagnostic elimination diet because (1) the infant is doing well and (2) the carer's fear of symptoms relapsing with this procedure. As a result, CMA in infants may be either under-diagnosed leading to reduced quality of life for families or over-diagnosed, resulting in unnecessary long-term elimination diets and increasing the risk for nutritional deficiencies. This paper discusses some of these controversial topics, focusing on misdiagnosis and mismanagement in clinical practice. The lack of objective diagnostic criteria can hamper the diagnosis and management of CMA in daily practice.