Kestose Increases the Relative Abundance of Faecalibacterium spp. and Nominally Increases Cow Milk Tolerant Dose in Children with Cow's Milk Allergy - Preliminary Results.

A single-arm study was conducted with 10 children aged 2-12 years with severe cow's milk allergy (CMA) requiring complete allergen elimination. Subjects were administered kestose, a prebiotic, at 1 or 2 g/day for 12 weeks. Results of a subsequent oral food challenge (OFC) showed a statistically significant increase in the total dose of cow's milk ingestion (1.6 ml vs. 2.7 ml, p = 0.041). However, the overall evaluation of the OFC results, TS/Pro (total score of Anaphylaxis Scoring Aichi (ASCA)/cumulative dose of protein), showed no statistically significant improvement, although the values were nominally improved in seven out of 10 subjects. The 16S rDNA analysis of fecal samples collected from the subjects revealed a statistically significant increase in the proportion of Faecalibacterium spp. (3.8 % vs. 6.8%, p = 0.013), a type of intestinal bacterium that has been reported to be associated with food allergy. However, no statistically significant correlation was found between Faecalibacterium spp. abundance and the results of the OFC.

Exercise-Induced Allergic Reactions in Children Desensitized to Hen's Eggs and Cow's Milk by Oral Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Exercise-induced allergic reactions on desensitization (EIARDs) after successful in-hospital rush oral immunotherapy (OIT) for wheat allergy have been reported. However, the incidence rates of EIARDs after rush OIT for egg allergy and milk allergy have not been determined. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of EIARDs and risk factors associated with rush OIT for egg and milk allergy. METHODS: This retrospective chart review, conducted in January 2020, enrolled 64 and 43 patients who underwent rush OIT for egg and milk allergy, respectively (in 2010 to 2014). In particular, 48 and 32 desensitized patients underwent exercise-provocation tests (Ex-P) after allergen administration (4,400 mg boiled egg white and 6,600 mg cow's milk protein, respectively). The EIARDs were determined by Ex-P or a suspicious event even after passing the Ex-P. Specific IgE levels to egg white, cow's milk, ovomucoid, casein, α-lactalbumin, and ß-lactoglobulin were analyzed using ImmunoCAP. RESULTS: At least one episode of EIARD was observed in 10 and 17 patients with egg and milk allergy (21% and 53%), respectively, which persisted for more than 5 years in one patient with egg allergy (2.1%) and 11 patients with milk allergy (34.4%) as of January 2020. We could not find background differences between the EIARD-positive and EIARD-negative groups, except that the egg white-specific IgE/total IgE ratio before rush OIT was significantly higher in patients with egg allergy with EIARD than in those without it. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise-induced allergic reactions on desensitization were more frequent and common in patients with milk allergy. Moreover, EIARDs to milk allergy were more likely to persist than those to egg allergy.

The clinical cross-reactivity and immunological cross-antigenicity of wheat and barley.

BACKGROUND: Some patients with wheat allergy have been reported to show clinical cross-reactivity to barley. However, it is not clear whether the development of barley allergy in patients with wheat allergy is due to cross-antigenicity between wheat and barley. This study aimed to determine the clinical cross-reactivity and immunological cross-antigenicity of wheat and barley. METHODS: The results of barley oral food challenges (OFCs) were compared before and after oral immunotherapy (OIT) for wheat in nine patients with wheat allergy to estimate the clinical cross-reactivity of wheat and barley. Moreover, we performed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) inhibition and immunoblotting inhibition using serum from seven patients allergic to wheat and barley. RESULTS: Nine patients who had positive barley-OFC results performed before OIT for wheat were all negative on barley-OFC performed after OIT. In ELISA inhibition, preincubation of serum from patients allergic to wheat and barley with a high barley extract concentration inhibited binding of IgE to wheat extract by less than 10%. On the other hand, wheat and barley extracts equally inhibited binding to barley sIgE at high concentrations. In the immunoblotting inhibition test, the spots of wheat were inhibited but weakly by barley extracts, and most of the spots of barley were inhibited even by low concentrations of the wheat and barley extract. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that barley allergy associated with wheat allergy is caused by cross-reactivity from wheat. The OIT for wheat is one of the promising options for barley allergy.

Exercise-induced allergic reactions after achievement of desensitization to cow's milk and wheat.

BACKGROUND: We have previously reported that more than half of the patients who achieved desensitization after wheat rush oral immunotherapy (OIT) developed exercise-induced allergic reaction on desensitization (EIARD). However, data on EIARDs after slow OIT are lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the results of exercise provocation tests (EPTs) in patients after slow OIT for cow's milk and wheat allergies. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of 87 EPTs in 74 patients. The EPTs were performed in patients who were desensitized to at least 6,600 mg cow's milk protein or 5,200 mg wheat protein with slow OIT and were identified to be at a high risk of EIARDs. EPTs were performed after ingestion of the maximum desensitization dose. The patients' clinical characteristics and symptoms were analyzed. RESULTS: The EPT results were positive for cow's milk in 49% (21/43) of the patients and for wheat in 48% (15/31) of the patients. There was no significant difference in the clinical characteristics between the EIARD-positive and EIARD-negative groups. The specific IgE (sIgE) levels before OIT and the reduction rates of sIgE before and after OIT did not correlate with the outcomes of the EPTs. Among the EIARD-positive patients, 13 patients (cow's milk, n = 7; wheat, n = 6) underwent a second EPT, and the EIARD disappeared in 8 patients (cow's milk, n = 4; wheat, n = 4). CONCLUSION: EIARDs were observed after slow OIT for cow's milk and wheat. Further research into the predictive factors of EIARDs in these patients is needed to understand its clinical manifestations.

THE CASE OF A 14-YEAR-OLD BOY WHO EXPERIENCED ANAPHYLAXIS DUE TO JELLYFISH (MASTIGIAS PAPUA) INGESTION.

We report a case of jellyfish allergy diagnosed via an oral food challenge. A 14-year-old boy had no history of jellyfish stings and had been eating commercially available jellyfish products twice yearly for the past 5-6 years. Five minutes after eating a commercially available boiled jellyfish product (100g), he experienced nausea, wheezing, and erythema and had visited our hospital. We suspected an anaphylactic reaction and treated him with intramuscular adrenaline injection, corticosteroid and antihistamine infusions, volume resuscitation, and salbutamol sulfate inhalation, which resulted in an improvement of the symptoms. One-month later in our hospital, we administered an oral food challenge of the same boiled jellyfish product bought at the same grocery store to the patient. After ingesting 14g of boiled jellyfish, he experienced erythema, wheezing, nausea, and abdominal pain. Several reports have described anaphylaxis caused by the ingestion of jellyfish, but the allergens in jellyfish have not been analyzed. A skin prick test for poly-gamma-glutamic acid (PGA) which is a component of jellyfish stings was negative. This suggests that he was sensitized to some allergen other than PGA via a route different from that of jellyfish sting. Our skin prick test for several kinds of edible jellyfish suggests that allergenicity may be different for different jellyfish.