search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
CONTINUING EDUCATION :: ALLERGY


The value of component testing in the diagnosis and management of peanut allergy


By Dr. Lakiea Wright


In 2013, a study demonstrated that food allergies had increased in preva- lence by 50 percent over a 12-year period.1


And there’s one food allergy


that caught the attention of the media and the general public over that same time frame—peanut allergy. The rea- sons for this are complex, but the statistics suggest a dramatic story: Peanut allergy is the number one cause of death related to food-induced anaphylaxis.2


and is rarely outgrown.3


It develops early in life Peanut allergy


is a growing public health problem. In 1999, peanut allergy was estimated to affect 0.4 percent of children and 0.7 percent of adults in the U.S., and by 2010, peanut allergy prevalence had increased to approximately two per- cent among children.3


These statistics are just some of the reasons that peanut allergy has been classified as a significant public health threat—one without any present treat- ment or cure.3


Our understanding of


the phenomenon is growing every day, as evidenced by the revised Amer- ican Academy of Pediatrics-endorsed guidelines that reversed earlier recom- mendations. Instead of delayed intro- duction of peanut, the 2017 guidelines now recommend early introduction at four to six months.3


However, if an


infant is at high risk of developing pea- nut allergy, with a history of eczema or egg allergy, allergy testing is recommended prior to introduction.3 It’s possible that the rise in peanut allergy may be in part due to prior recommendations of delayed intro- duction.2


in their diagnosis repertoire. It’s been shown that adding this testing to a differential diagnosis greatly increases the confidence in the diagnosis.4,5 Additionally, the diagnostic technol- ogy is advancing every day, with pea- nut component testing available to help paint a clearer picture of precisely which peanut components people are sensitized to. One such recent innovation was the addition of several new peanut com- ponents to ImmunoCAP Specific IgE blood testing assays, including Ara h 1, Ara h 2, Ara h 3, Ara h 6, Ara h 8, and Ara h 9. The tests for Ara h 1, 2, 3, and 6 have the potential to help the healthcare provider and patient bet- ter understand the risk of the patient having a systemic reaction. That’s because these components are more likely to cause a systemic reaction in sensitized individuals.6


Ara h 8 and


9, on the other hand, are typically associated with only local reactions (such as an itchy mouth). So how does that translate to patient management? A common practice to determine if a patient is clinically allergic to peanut is an oral food chal- lenge (OFC). Though this is standard practice in food allergy testing,7


it can


be a major source of stress for patients and caregivers.


Regardless of the causes, it is essential that patients and their caregivers receive an accurate diag- nosis as peanut allergy can be life threatening. Healthcare providers such as I use clinical history and physical examination to make that diagnosis as accurate as possible.


The impact of component testing Specific IgE testing is a valuable tool for any healthcare provider to have


14 JULY 2019 MLO-ONLINE.COM


With the use of a peanut component blood test, a sensitization to Ara h 1, 2, 3, and/or 6 may rule out the need of an OFC, due to the heightened risk of systemic reaction. On the other hand, patients not sensitized to these com- ponents may be more at ease before beginning the challenge. This is just one example of how component blood testing can make a huge difference. In addition, if a patient is sensitized


to Ara h 8 (also found in birch tree) and/or a type of protein called pro- filin, these are cross reactive proteins. Sensitization to cross reactive proteins means the patient is at a low risk for a systemic reaction and may actually tolerate eating peanuts. Cross-reactive


proteins are more widely distributed and may be shared between a wide range of allergen sources. For exam- ple, a patient with a primary allergy to birch pollen may also experience a mild and localized peanut reaction because one of the peanut proteins is structurally similar to the protein in birch pollen.


At the end of the day, this kind of specificity in testing can help get to the bottom of what might be causing someone’s allergy symptoms, and that is good news for healthcare providers and patients alike.


REFERENCES


1. Jackson K, et al. Trends in Allergic Condi- tions Among Children: United States, 1997- 2011. National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief. 2013. Retrieved from https://www. cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db121.pdf


2. Du Toit G, et al. Randomized Trial of Pea- nut Consumption in Infants at Risk for Peanut Allergy. The New England Journal of Medicine 2015; 1-11.


3. Togias A, et al. Addendum Guidelines for the Prevention of peanut allergy in the United States: Report of the National institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease- sponsored expert panel. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2017;139,1:29-36.


4. Duran-Tauleria E, et al. The utility of spe- cific immunoglobulin E measurements in primary care. Allergy. 2004;59 (Suppl 78):35-41.


5. Niggemann B, et al. Pediatric allergy diag- nosis in primary care is improved by invitro allergen specific IgE testing. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2008;19:325-331.


6. Sastre, J. Molecular diagnosis in allergy. Clinical & Experimental Allergy. 2010; 2.


7. Boyce JA, et al. Guidelines for the Diag- nosis and Management of Food Allergy in the U.S.: Summary of the NIAID-Sponsored Expert Panel Report. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;126:1105-18.


Dr. Lakiea Wright, serves as Medical Director of U.S. Clinical Affairs at Thermo Fisher Scientific-ImmunoDiagnostics.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72