This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

No abstract

HydE can be regarded as a safe, low allergenic product to use in children allergic to egg. Although not significant, HydE given for 6 months increased numerically the proportion of patients becoming tolerant to egg. HydE induced a modulation of the immune response towards better tolerance. A longer treatment period and/or a higher dose may improve the clinical outcome and should be evaluated.

Sensitization to one or more non-specific lipid transfer proteins (nsLTPs), initially thought to exist mainly in southern Europe, is becoming accepted as a cause of allergic reactions to plant foods across Europe and beyond. The peach nsLTP allergen Pru p 3 is a dominant sensitizing allergen and peaches a common food trigger, although multiple foods can be involved. A frequent feature of reactions is the requirement for a cofactor (exercise, alcohol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Cannabis sativa) to be present for a food to elicit a reaction. The variability in the food and cofactor triggers makes it essential to include an allergy-focused diet and clinical history in the diagnostic workup. Testing on suspected food triggers should also establish whether sensitization to nsLTP is present, using purified or recombinant nsLTP allergens such as Pru p 3. The avoidance of known trigger foods and advice on cofactors is currently the main management for this condition. Studies on immunotherapy are promising, but it is unknown whether such treatments will be useful in populations where Pru p 3 is not the primary sensitizing allergen. Future research should focus on the mechanisms of cofactors, improving diagnostic accuracy and establishing the efficacy of immunotherapy.

Background: Food allergen immunotherapy (FA-AIT) practice is known to vary globally. This project aims to identify and characterize European centres performing FA-AIT.Methods: An EAACI task force conducted an online survey to gather relevant information regarding FA-AIT practice and setting-specific resources after reviewing the published literature and congress abstracts throughout Europe. | 921RodRíguez del Río et al. | INTRODUC TI ONFood allergy affects millions of patients worldwide 1 and significantly impacts quality of life secondary to severe allergic reactions, economic burden and dietary restrictions. [2][3][4][5][6] Until recently, the standard of care was limited to trigger avoidance and the use of educational tools and rescue medication to minimize the risk associated with accidental exposure. Food allergen immunotherapy (FA-AIT) is an encouraging alternative; however, after decades of research, 7 existing limitations regarding safety, long-term efficacy, and cost-effectiveness fuel debates as to whether it is ready for use in Results:We identified 102 FA-AIT centres in 18 countries; only Spain (n = 39) and France (n = 16) had ≥10 such centres. Overall, most facilities were hospital-based (77.5%), publicly funded (80.4%) and delivered FA-AIT as routine clinical care (80.4%).On average, departments had 3 allergists/paediatric allergists and 2 nurses. Surveyed centres had provided FA-AIT for a median of 9 years [1-24] to a median of 105 patients. The estimated total number of treated patients was 24875, of whom 41.3% received AIT for milk, 34.2% egg, 12.8% peanut and 11.7% other foods.Anaphylaxis to AIT doses requiring over 4-6 h of observation was reported by 70.6% of centres, ICU admissions by 10.8% and eosinophilic esophagitis by 45.1%. Quality of life and sustained unresponsiveness were evaluated in 20.6% and 54.9% of centres, respectively. The main contraindications for food AIT were severe asthma (57%-63%), eosinophilic esophagitis (56%-48%) and age below 5 years (47%-41%). Conclusions:In Europe, FA-AIT is provided mostly in clinical practice. Significant variation is seen in the number of centres per country, facility characteristics and inclusion/exclusion criteria, and in certain aspects of protocols. Potential inequality in access to AIT has been identified as well as the need for education and guidance for treatment standardization.