OSLO, Norway—Both lupin and Fenugreek can lead to serious cross-reactions in patients with peanut allergy, in contrast to other legumes such as soya and peas, according to new research conducted at the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science.

The most common causes of food allergy are peanuts, nuts (tree nut), soya, milk, fish, shellfish, flour and eggs, but a total of over 170 different foods have been found to result in allergic reactions. In addition, there are the allergies that arise as a result of cross reactions to other types of food. Allergenic substances that are hidden in processed foods therefore pose a particular problem for people allergic to foods.

While there are no treatments available yet for food allergies, the researchers have established two mouse models for food allergy to the legumes lupin and Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum). These models have been used to test whether legumes such as soya, peanuts, Fenugreek and lupin can trigger allergic reactions in mice that are already allergic to lupin and Fenugreek, respectively. It is important to establish good animal models for food allergies because the development of an allergic immune response depends on a complicated interaction between types of cells in several different organs.

Lupin and Fenugreek are examples of so-called “new” and “hidden” allergens which have been introduced to Norway, for instance in ready-made meals, over the last 10 to 15 years. Lupin was introduced as a supplement to wheat flour in various bakery products because of its ability to promote good baking. Fenugreek is used as an ingredient in foods such as curry, chutney and spiced tea and is well known in Asian dishes.

Packaging often does not show whether Fenugreek is an ingredient, as the consumer information merely says “spices”. Both lupin and Fenugreek can lead to serious cross-reactions in patients with peanut allergy, in contrast to other legumes such as soya and peas.

The established mice models can be used to try out new treatments, for example vaccines against food allergies. New foods that are to be released onto the market will also be able to be tested to see if they can cause allergies.

Don’t let watery eyes and a runny nose keep you from a spring workout

What it does: Provides a peer-reviewed directory of more than 600,000 restaurants across the U.S. Includes menus (including gluten-free), allergen lists, certifications, nutritional info and more.

What’s hot: This website is built by a dad with five kids, three of whom have food allergies. Start by beginning a search in the left navigation bar, type in your allergies and a name of a restaurant, address or city. The five-star rating system is based on a restaurant’s allergy friendliness (not how good the food is). Read user reviews, get a map, directions and more. Even restaurant-goers without food allergies will find this site handy for the menus alone. It is also available as an iPhone and Android app.

By LIZ RAPPAPORT (abstracted from a Wall Street Journal article)

The new awareness is partly because the number of children with severe food allergies has increased sharply. About six million school-age kids in the U.S., or one out of every 13, has serious food allergies, according to the latest medical research published in 2011 in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ official journal – having risin 18% from 1997 through 2008, according to the CDC. Scientists have been unable to explain the increase. Some theorize that greater attention to cleanliness has made people more sensitive to allergens. More…

Odwalla has notified the FDA of these consumer reports and is working with FDA to investigate the cause of these allergic reactions. This beverage contains no peanut or tree nut ingredients, and the production facility where it is produced does not make any peanut-containing products. While we have found no evidence of peanuts or tree nuts in the product at this point, in an abundance of caution to safeguard consumers, Odwalla is recalling this product while continuing to investigate the cause of the reactions.

More details….

An advisory from two leading allergists, Robert Wood of the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center and Scott Sicherer of Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York, urges clinicians to use caution when ordering allergy tests and to avoid making a diagnosis based solely on test results.

In an article, published in the January 2012 issue of Pediatrics, two leading allergists warn that blood tests, an increasingly popular diagnostic tool in recent years, and skin-prick testing, an older weapon in the allergist’s arsenal, should never be used as standalone diagnostic strategies. These tests, researchers say, should be used only to confirm suspicion and never to look for allergies in an asymptomatic patient.

Test results should be interpreted in the context of a patient’s symptoms and medical history. If a food allergy is suspected, the patient should undergo a food challenge – the gold standard for diagnosis which involves consuming small doses of the suspected allergen under medical supervision.

Unlike food challenges, which directly measure an actual allergic reaction, skin tests and blood tests are proxies that detect the presence of IgE antibodies, immune-system chemicals released in response to allergens. Skin testing involves pricking the skin with small amounts of an allergen and observing if and how the skin reacts. A large hive-like wheal at the injection site signals that the patient’s immune system has created antibodies to the allergen. Blood tests, on the other hand, measure the levels of specific IgE antibodies circulating in the blood.

These tests can tell whether someone is sensitive to a particular substance but cannot reliably predict if a patient will have an actual allergic reaction, nor can they foretell how severe the reaction might be, the scientists say. Many people who have positive skin tests or measurably elevated IgE antibodies do not have allergies. For example, past research has found that up to 8 percent of children have a positive skin or blood test for peanut allergies, but only 1 percent of them have clinical symptoms.

Undiagnosed allergies can be dangerous, even fatal, but over-reliance on blood and skin tests can lead to a misdiagnosis, ill-advised food restrictions or unnecessary avoidance of environmental exposures, such as pets

In addition, the researchers caution, physicians should be careful when comparing results from different tests and laboratories because commercial tests vary in sensitivity. Also, laboratories may interpret tests results differently making an apples-to-apples comparison challenging.

In their report, the scientists say, skin and blood tests can and should be used to:

– Confirm a suspected allergic trigger after observing clinical reactions suggestive of an allergy. For example, children with moderate to severe asthma should be tested for allergies to common household or environmental triggers including pollen, molds, pet dander, cockroach, mice or dust mites.

– Monitor the course of established food allergies via periodic testing. Levels of antibodies can help determine whether someone is still allergic, and progressively decreasing levels of antibodies can signify allergy resolution or outgrowing the allergy.

– Confirm an allergy to insect venom following a sting that causes anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction marked by difficulty breathing, lightheadedness, dizziness and hives.

– Determine vaccine allergies (skin tests only).

Conversely, skin and blood tests should NOT be used:

– As general screens to look for allergies in symptom-free children.

– In children with history of allergic reactions to specific foods. In this case, the test will add no diagnostic value, the experts say.

– To test for drug allergies. Generally, blood and skin tests do not detect antibodies to medications.

Nearly 3 percent of Americans (7.5 million) and at least 6 percent of young children have at least one food allergy, according to the latest estimates from the National Institutes of Health.

SAN ANTONIO — In just four to six short weeks, cedar allergy season will be upon us. This month, local doctors are looking for volunteers to test new medications for sneezing and watery eyes.
Up to 20 percent of the people who live in South Texas have some degree of cedar allergy. There’s now a way to get tested and treated and get paid to do it.

Juan Carlos Amer, 25, has noticed a pattern. Every winter he gets the same nagging symptoms.

“I sneeze a lot,” Amer explained. “My throat itches and my eyes get really watery.”

The Texas Hill Country is home to millions of cedar trees releasing billions of grains of pollen, creating misery when the north wind blows.

“Cedar allergy is one of the most intense allergies known,” said lung specialist Dr. Charles Andrews.

Diagnostics Research Group in San Antonio is looking for hundreds of volunteers who have had cedar allergy symptoms for at least two years. They’ll be tested with skin pricks on the forearm for 20 different allergies, including cedar. Then they’ll help test one of three new medications, either nasal sprays or pills, to see if there is a better way to control the symptoms.

“It takes a large number of volunteers,” Andrews said. “And it takes volunteers who will follow the rules, who will keep their diaries and let us know what kind of symptoms they’re having.”

Patients have to make four to eight visits and can earn up to $575 for their trouble.

The cedar usually starts blowing into our area in late December or early January.

By Robin A. Weiss and Peter Hale | June 1, 2011| The Scientist

[NOTE: From time to time we come across an interesting piece that adds perspective to the topic at hand. The June 1, 2011 issue of the publication The Scientist features the topic of vaccines and we wanted to bring some of their content to your attention. We hope that you find it interesting and informative.]

The Scientist magazine recently focused on novel approaches to vaccines. Vaccines are “miracles” that have saved millions of human lives—more than any other medical intervention—by activating the body’s natural defenses to prevent infection. Likewise, veterinary vaccines protect our livestock and pets. Vaccines were originally produced to prevent infectious diseases, and this goal continues to be important. Today, however, there are also interesting developments in the use of vaccines to control noninfectious conditions, such as some types of cancer and Alzheimer’s disease, or, as discussed in this issue, cocaine addiction.

Humankind has benefited from more than 200 years of successful vaccine use. (See time line.) One hundred years ago, parents worried most about their children contracting diphtheria, and 50 years ago they worried about polio; today, the most serious childhood infections have largely disappeared from the developed world. Moreover, the World Health Organization officially declared the global eradication of smallpox in 1980. In addition, vaccines are now available to combat adult diseases such as cervical cancer and shingles. Yet there are three major 21st century scourges that still cry out for efficacious vaccines: HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

Prevention is better than cure

Since ancient times, people have realized that you could only catch certain diseases once. If you recovered, you became immune for the rest of your life. In the 17th century, variolation—scratching a small amount of a patient’s smallpox scab into the skin of uninfected individuals, inducing a mild form of the disease followed by protective immunity—was introduced to Europe from China by way of Turkey. Although around 1-2 percent of variolated people contracted the disease and died, the odds were still favorable during a raging epidemic. In 1796, Edward Jenner took note of the folk observation that milkmaids had smooth complexions: they did not get smallpox. (In the nursery rhyme that begins “Where are you going, my pretty maid?/ I’m going a-milking, sir, she said,” the girl claimed that “My face is my fortune” because it was free of pockmarks.) Jenner successfully used the relatively harmless cowpox as a vaccine (from the Latin vacca, “cow”) in place of smallpox.

Vaccines: Some Key Developments & Pioneers

Although we understand the immune system better today, we still do not have sufficient insight into the reasons why certain vaccines work poorly or not at all, or why some of the most successful ones (e.g., the vaccine against yellow fever) protect for a lifetime. Rather than targeting the pathogen itself, some vaccines protect against the byproducts of infection, such as the toxins produced by diphtheria and tetanus bacteria. In the 90 years since the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine—made from bovine TB—was developed to fight the Mycobacterium that causes human tuberculosis, there has unfortunately been little progress in developing a new vaccine. But promising results are beginning to emerge for a vaccine that may offer partial protection against the malaria parasite. HIV has managed to evade researchers’ best efforts towards an efficacious vaccine: the virus rapidly changes its outer coat, and protects itself with a “glycan shield” or sugary carapace. Moreover, HIV invades and subverts the immune system itself. Gene Shearer and Adriano Basso resurrect an approach to HIV immunization based on using human antigens in addition to viral antigens. But a pathogen’s immune-evasion strategy is not always the biggest barrier to vaccine development. As Brad Spellberg discusses, investment in the development of fungal vaccines has been hindered by the lack of demand in the developed world and by a perceived lack of profitability.

Therapeutic vaccines

Although vaccines were originally designed as a method of preventing disease, we now realize that stimulating the immune system after diseases have taken hold may also help patients. Therapeutic (rather than prophylactic) vaccines have been designed to make cancer cells look more foreign so that immune cells will destroy them. But because cancer cells originate from our own cells, there is danger that such an approach could backfire, with the body rejecting its own tissues in an autoimmune reaction. Paradoxically, the very immune reaction responsible for transplant and graft rejection may help to spawn a new kind of vaccine, as Shearer and Basso explain in their article. Therapeutic vaccines are also being attempted for conditions like addiction. Although molecules of nicotine and cocaine are too small to elicit immune reactions by themselves, Thomas Kosten writes about the development of a vaccine against cocaine that couples an immune-stimulating protein to the small addictive molecule.

The future of vaccines

Despite the enormous number of lives saved by immunization, a vocal minority holds the view that these measures are harmful. Parents who withhold vaccination from their children usually see no ill effect, because they benefit from the vast majority of vaccinated children providing “herd immunity,” making the disease agents much rarer. Sadly, though, because of the unjustified scare about a vaccine-autism link—a claim which is not evidence-based and which has been rejected by public-health authorities—we have witnessed a rise in measles infections, which can have debilitating complications. One of the greatest challenges of the modern era is to convince parents in Western countries of the essential benefits of vaccines. With the exception of a few brave individuals, the scientific community as a whole has not risen to this challenge.

If only this vocal minority could appreciate the enormous impact vaccines have had in the past and their untapped potential for the future. For example, there is the challenge of developing an efficacious multivalent influenza vaccine that would avert pandemic influenza. Rino Rappuoli outlines the extraordinary challenges inherent in developing “universal” vaccines, protective against all strains of rapidly replicating viruses such as influenza and HIV. These viruses mutate key proteins at a furious rate, reconfigure their shapes, and recombine with each other, constantly evolving to make it harder for the immune system and vaccinologists to find a highly conserved Achilles’ heel. Further problems concern the huge cost of manufacturing, the growing complexity of vaccine design, the fear of liability on the part of pharmaceutical companies, and the funding and logistics of rollout in countries where vaccines are most needed. Yet given determination, these challenges can be surmounted.

Robin A. Weiss is a professor of viral oncology at University College London. Peter Hale is the founder of the Foundation for Vaccine Research, Washington, DC.

When fungal spores touch a moist patch of earth, they germinate and push hair-like hyphae deep into the soil, sucking up enough nutrients to feed the growing cells of the filaments. When a pathogenic fungal spore lands on human tissue under the right conditions, it too germinates and burrows deep into susceptible organs or multiplies like yeast, coating a tissue’s surface as it buds new offspring, colonizing and devouring the tissue beneath it.

Read more of this article in The Scientist.

At the beginning of 1991—almost ten years after the cause of AIDS had been identified—researchers thought they might have a vaccine. Evidence from several laboratories suggested that it was possible to develop a vaccine against HIV by inoculating individuals with a crippled version of the virus that could not replicate—a time-tested strategy similar to that used to produce effective measles, mumps, and polio vaccines. In animal experiments, researchers used an HIV-like virus called simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) which infects rhesus macaque monkeys. Over time, infected monkeys developed AIDS-like symptoms, much like humans. Researchers inactivated SIV, injected it into monkeys, and tested whether the animals were protected against live SIV infection. Most vaccinated monkeys were indeed protected, encouraging AIDS researchers to believe that an effective human AIDS vaccine would soon follow. However, in October 1991, a brief article was published that sent AIDS vaccine research into a tailspin. For the complete article, see The Scientist.