Background: Lipid Transfer Protein (LTP) is often diagnosed using a combination of clinical history, skin tests and laboratory tests. The peach LTP allergen Pru p 3 is considered a reliable marker of sensitisation to LTP but does not discriminate between allergy and sensitisation alone. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the results of adult patients referred for a suspected food allergy to the Allergy Unit at the Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust (RBHT) London (UK), between 2012-2022 who were sensitised to Pru p 3. Those with a final diagnosis of LTP allergy, were compared to those sensitized to Pru p 3 but not diagnosed with LTP allergy. Results: Of 285 patients with a positive Pru p 3, 157 (55%) were diagnosed with LTP allergy. LTP allergic patients were more likely to have a higher level of Pru p 3, a lower level of total IgE and a positive skin prick test to peach extract (p<0.001). The ratio of Pru p 3 to total IgE was the most accurate diagnostic marker of LTP allergy in those sensitized to Pru p 3, with a ROC AUC of 0.880. A diagnosis of LTP allergy was significantly associated with sensitisation to the LTP in peanut (Ara h 9, p<0.001), and hazelnut (Cor a 8, p<0.001). Conclusion: Although a range of allergy tests may contribute to the diagnostic workup, the Pru p 3 sIgE:total IgE ratio could be a more effective way of discriminating between sensitization to Pru p 3 and true LTP allergy.

Background: The use of allergy tests to guide dietary exclusions for disease control in children with atopic dermatitis (AD) is controversial. We undertook a consensus exercise on how to interpret skin prick test (SPT) results and dietary history for cow’s milk, hen’s egg, wheat and soya in children <2 years old with AD. Methods: Fourteen clinicians from general practice, paediatrics, paediatric dermatology, paediatric allergy and paediatric dietetics from UK and Ireland took part in an online modified Delphi study. Over three rounds, participants gave their anonymous opinions and received individualised and group feedback. The findings were discussed in an online workshop. Results: Of 14 symptoms, 12 were identified as relevant to immediate and 7 to delayed allergy. Regarding SPTs, there was consensus over which allergens to use for wheat and soya but not cow’s milk or hen’s egg; for all study foods, wheal size was determined as 0-1 mm negative, ≥5mm sensitised , but between 2-4 mm categorisation varied by food. During the final workshop, consensus was reached on dietary advice should be given according to SPT results and dietary history. Conclusion: We attained consensus on how SPTs combined with dietary history for four common food allergens should be interpreted in young children under two years of age with AD. These pragmatic recommendations may support clinician education, consistency of decision-making and future research.

Abstract: Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology’s (EAACI) is updating the Guidelines on Food Allergy Diagnosis. We aimed to undertake a systematic review of the literature with meta-analyses to assess the accuracy of diagnostic tests for IgE-mediated food allergy. Methods: We searched three databases (Cochrane CENTRAL (Trials), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID)) for diagnostic test accuracy studies published between 1 st October 2012 and 30 th June 2021 according to a previously published protocol (CRD42021259186). We independently screened abstracts, extracted data from full-texts, and assessed risk of bias with QUADRAS 2 tool in duplicate. Meta analyses were undertaken for food-test combination where 3 or more studies were available. Results: 149 studies comprising 24,489 patients met the inclusion criteria and were generally heterogeneous. 60.4% of studies were in children ≤12 years of age, 54.3% undertaken in Europe, ≥95% conducted in a specialized pediatric or allergy clinical setting and all included oral food challenge in at least a percentage of enrolled patients, in 21.5% DBPCFC. Skin prick test (SPT) with fresh cow’s milk and raw egg had high sensitivity (90% and 94%) for milk and cooked egg allergies. Specific IgE to individual components had high specificity: Ara h 2 had 92%, Cor a 14 95%, Ana o 3 94%, casein 93%, ovomucoid 92/91% for the diagnosis of peanut, hazelnut, cashew, cow’s milk and raw/cooked egg allergies, respectively. BAT was highly specific for the diagnosis of peanut (90%) and sesame (93%) allergies. Conclusions: SPT and specific IgE to extracts had high sensitivity whereas specific IgE to components and BAT had high specificity to support the diagnosis of individual food allergies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021259186 Funding: European Academy of Allergy (EAACI).

Background: Guidelines for management of patients with allergic conditions are available, but the added value of nurses, allied health care professionals (AHPs) and general practitioners (GPs), in the management of allergic disease has not been fully clarified. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) appointed a task force to explore this issue. Aim: To investigate the added value of nurses, AHPs and GPs in management of allergic diseases, in an integrated model of care. Methods: A search was made of peer-reviewed literature published between 2010 and December 2020 (Cochrane Library, PubMed, and CINAHL) on the involvement of the various specific health care providers (HCPs) in the management of allergic diseases. Results: Facilitative models of care for patients with allergies can be achieved if HCP collaborate in the diagnosis and management. Working in multidisciplinary teams (MDT) can increase patients’ understanding of the disease, adherence to treatment, self-care capabilities, and ultimately improve quality of life. The MDT competencies and procedures can be improved and enhanced in a climate of mutual respect and shared values, and with inclusion of patients in the planning of care. Patient-centered communication among HCPs and emphasis on the added value of each profession can create an effective integrated model of care for patients with allergic diseases. Conclusion: Nurses, AHPs, and GPs, both individually and in collaboration, can contribute to the improvement of the management of patients with allergic disease. The interaction between the HCPs and the patients themselves can ensure maximum support for people with allergies.

Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of updating the guidelines on the diagnosis and management of food allergy. The existing guidelines are based on a systematic review of the literature until 30th September 2012. Therefore, a new systematic review must be undertaken to inform the new guidelines. This systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of index tests to support the diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy. Methods: The databases Cochrane CENTRAL (Trials), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) will be searched for diagnostic test accuracy studies from 1st October 2012 to 30th June 2021. Inclusion and exclusion criteria will be used to select appropriate studies. Data from these studies will be extracted and tabulated, and then reviewed for risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. All evaluation will be done in duplicate. Studies with a high risk of bias and low applicability will be excluded. Meta-analysis will be performed if there are three or more studies of the same index test and food. Results: A protocol for the systematic review and meta-analyses is presented and was registered using Prospero prior to commencing the literature search. Discussion: Oral food challenges are the reference standard for diagnosis but involve considerable risks and resources. This protocol for systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of various tests to diagnose food allergy, which can be useful in both clinical and research settings.

Immune modulation is a key therapeutic tool for allergic diseases and asthma. It can be achieved in an antigen-specific way via allergen immunotherapy (AIT) or in endotype-driven approach using biologicals that target the major pathways of the type 2 (T2) immune response: IgE, IL-5 and IL-4/IL-13. COVID-19 vaccine provides an excellent opportunity to tackle the global pandemics and is currently being applied in an accelerated rhythm worldwide. It works as well through immune modulation. Thus, as there is an obvious interference between these treatment modalities recommendations on how they should be applied in sequence are expected. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) gathered an outstanding expert panel under its Research and Outreach Committee (ROC). This expert panel was called to evaluate the evidence and formulate recommendation on the administration of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with allergic diseases and asthma receiving AIT or biologicals. The panel also formulated recommendations for COVID-19 vaccine in association with biologicals targeting the type 1 or type 3 immune response. In formulating recommendations, the panel evaluated the mechanisms of COVID-19 infection, of COVID-19 vaccine, of AIT and of biologicals and considered the data published for other anti-infectious vaccines administered concurrently with AIT or biologicals.