No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

SUMMARYFor both wheat allergy and coeliac disease the dietary avoidance of wheat and other gluten-containing cereals is the only effective treatment. Estimation of the maximum tolerated amount of gluten for susceptible individuals would support effective management of their disease.Literature was reviewed to evaluate whether an upper limit for gluten content in food, which would be safe for sufferers from both diseases, could be identified. When setting gluten limits for coeliac disease sufferers, the overall potential daily intake should be considered, while for wheat allergy limits should be based on single servings. For coeliac disease sufferers this limit should lie between 10 and 100 mg daily intake. For wheat allergy, lowest eliciting doses for children lie in the lower milligram range, while for adults they are most significantly higher.Gliadins (part of the gluten proteins) not only trigger coeliac disease, but are also major allergens in wheat allergy. Therefore, measurement of gliadins with validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay methods provides an appropriate marker for assessing gluten and/or wheat protein contents in food. Available data suggest that a maximum gluten content for 'gluten-free' foods could be set, which protects both wheat allergy sufferers and coeliac patients.

Background Carbohydrate‐specific IgE antibodies present on nonprimate mammalian proteins were incriminated recently in delayed meat anaphylaxis. The aim of this study was to explore whether anaphylaxis to mammalian kidney is also associated with galactose‐α‐1,3‐galactose (αGal)‐specific IgE. Methods Fourteen patients with anaphylaxis to pork or beef kidney underwent prick tests to meat and kidney. Some patients also underwent skin tests to Erbitux® (cetuximab). IgE antibodies to αGal, swine urine proteins, beef and pork meat, serum albumin proteins, cat, and rFel d 1 were measured by ImmunoCAP®. The αGal levels were estimated in meats and kidney by ELISA inhibition assay. Cross‐reactivity between αGal and pork kidney was studied with the ImmunoCAP® inhibition assay. Results Among the 14 patients, 12 presented with anaphylactic shock. Reactions occurred within 2 h from exposure in 67% of patients. Associated risk factors were observed in 10 cases, and alcohol was the main cofactor. Three patients underwent an oral challenge to pork kidney, and anaphylaxis occurred after ingestion of small quantities (1–2 g). Prick tests to kidney were positive in 54% of patients. All tested patients showed positive skin tests to Erbitux®. All patients tested positive for IgE to αGal, with levels ranging from 0.4 to 294 kU/l. IgE binding to αGal was inhibited by raw pork kidney extract (mean, 77%; range, 55–87%), which showed a high amount of αGal determinants. Conclusions Pork or beef kidney anaphylaxis is related to αGal IgE. Its peculiar severity could be due to an elevated content of αGal epitopes in kidney.