Allergo Journal International最新文献

Summary

The “epithelial barrier hypothesis” proposes that genetic predisposition to epithelial barrier damage, exposure to various epithelial barrier–damaging agents and chronic periepithelial inflammation are responsible for the development of allergic and autoimmune diseases. Particularly, the introduction of more than 200,000 new chemicals to our daily lives since the 1960s has played a major role in the pandemic increase of these diseases. The epithelial barrier constitutes the first line of physical, chemical, and immunological defence against external factors. A leaky epithelial barrier initiates the translocation of the microbiome from the surface of affected tissues to interepithelial and even deeper subepithelial areas. In tissues with a defective epithelial barrier, colonization of opportunistic pathogens, decreased microbiota biodiversity, local inflammation, and impaired regeneration and remodelling takes place. A dysregulated immune response against commensals and opportunistic pathogens starts. Migration of inflammatory cells to other tissues and their contribution to tissue injury and inflammation in the affected tissues are key events in the development and exacerbation of many chronic inflammatory diseases. Understanding the underlying factors that affect the integrity of epithelial barriers is essential to find preventive measures or effective treatments to restore its function. The aim of this review is to assess the origins of allergic and autoimmune diseases within the framework of the epithelial barrier hypothesis.

The current management of a primary IgE-mediated peanut allergy consists of the two basic pillars “exposure prophylaxis” with avoidance of the allergen and “emergency therapy” with short-term treatment of an acute allergic reaction after accidental ingestion. Accidental reactions are common despite attempted avoidance. The severity of an allergic or even anaphylactic reaction after accidental ingestion is difficult to assess prior to reaction. In addition, reaction thresholds may vary depending on the accompanying augmentation factor. Therefore, every peanut allergic patient should receive individual dietary counseling as well as instructions for the use of the emergency kit and a structured patient education program (anaphylaxis group training), if necessary. For the first time, since fall 2021 a causal treatment option with a drug for oral immunotherapy will now be available for 4‑ to 17-year-old peanut-allergic children and adolescents. The oral immunotherapy with peanut protein as defatted powder of Arachis hypogaea L., semen (peanuts) leads to desensitization with a good efficacy record and an acceptable safety profile. Other treatment options with different therapeutic approaches are also under development and will probably expand the range for treatment in the coming years.

Background

Storage mites are frequently found in our daily environment. Nevertheless, storage mite allergy is often neglected in allergological diagnostics and possible allergies requiring therapy are thus overlooked.

Methods

Recommendations for action are made based on a literature review from March 2021 to August 2021 in PubMed, Medline, and GoogleScholar.

Results

This review article provides an overview of the species of storage mites, sensitization rates in different countries and occupations, and co-sensitization rates to house dust mite. Recommendations for diagnosis as well as therapy are given. The importance of provocation testing as well as causal therapy by allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is presented.

Conclusion

The position paper gives recommendations for the diagnosis and therapy of allergic rhinitis in case of storage mite allergy. AIT is recommended in symptomatic allergy and proven storage mite allergy. Reliable detection by provocation testing is advised in this persistent allergy. The therapy should be carried out independently of the treatment of a possible house dust mite allergy.

A variety of additives found in foodstuffs have been associated with triggering of a number of clinical pictures. Hypersensitivity reactions of allergic and non-allergic etiology have been widely described, but are reported to be rare overall. This review presents a selection of food additives for which anaphylactic reactions have been described. These include colorants (e.g., tartrazine, carmine, patent blue), preservatives (e.g., sulfites, sodium benzoate), and thickeners/gelling agents (e.g., carboxymethylcellulose, guar, gum arabic). Possible diagnostic procedures (skin test, specific IgE, cellular antigen stimulation test, oral provocation) are presented. For those affected, avoidance of consumption is facilitated by the mandatory declaration (class name, E‑number/designation) required in the European Union. Only sulfur dioxide and sulfites have to be highlighted as food allergens, depending on the concentration. Due to the limited diagnostic procedures available, it cannot be excluded that the frequency of hypersensitivity to food additives is underestimated.

Summary