The incidence of food allergy (FA) has continued to rise over the last several decades, posing significant burdens on health and quality of life. Significant strides into the advancement of FA diagnosis, prevention, and treatment have been made in recent years. In an effort to lower reliance on resource-intensive food challenges, the field has continued work toward the development of highly sensitive and specific assays capable of high-throughput analysis to assist in the diagnosis FA. In looking toward early infancy as a critical period in the development of allergy or acquisition of tolerance, evidence has increasingly suggested that early intervention via the early introduction of food allergens and maintenance of skin barrier function may decrease the risk of FA. As such, largescale investigations are underway evaluating infant feeding and the impact of emollient and steroid use in infants with dry skin for the prevention of allergy. On the other end of the spectrum, the past few years have been witness to an explosive increase in clinical trials of novel and innovative therapeutic strategies aimed at the treatment of FA in those whom the disease has already manifested. A milestone in the field, 2020 marked the approval of the first drug, oral peanut allergen, for the indication of peanut allergy. With a foundation of promising data supporting the safety and efficacy of single- and multi-allergen oral immunotherapy, current efforts have turned toward the use of probiotics, biologic agents, and modified allergens to optimize and improve upon existing paradigms. Through these advancements, the field hopes to gain footing in the ongoing battle against FA.

Background: The global epidemiology of asthma among COVID-19 patients presents striking geographic differences defining high and low [asthma and COVID-19] co-occurrence prevalence zones (1). The objective of the present study was to compare asthma prevalence among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in major global hubs across the world with the application of common inclusion criteria and definitions. Methods: We built a network of six academic hospitals in Stanford (Stanford University)/USA, Frankfurt (Goethe University), Giessen (Justus Liebig University) and Marburg (Philipps University)/Germany, and Moscow (Clinical Hospital 52 in collaboration with Sechenov University)/Russia. We collected clinical and laboratory data for patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. Comorbidities reported were based on the 2020 International Classification of Diseases-10th Revision codes. Results: Asthmatics were overrepresented among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Stanford and underrepresented in Moscow and Germany as compared to the prevalence among adults in the local community. Asthma prevalence was similar among ICU and hospital non-ICU patients, which implied that the risk for developing severe COVID-19 was not higher among asthmatics. The number of males and comorbidities was higher among COVID-19 patients in the Stanford cohort, and the most frequent comorbidities among these asthma patients were other chronic inflammatory airway disorders such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Conclusion: Observed disparity in COVID-19-associated risk among asthmatics across countries and continents is connected to varying prevalence of underlying comorbidities, particularly COPD. Public health policies in the future will need to consider comorbidities with an emphasis on COPD for prioritization of vaccination and preemptive treatment.

There is increasing understanding, globally, that climate change and increased pollution will have a profound and mostly harmful effect on human health. This review brings together international experts to describe both the direct (such as heat waves) and indirect (such as vector-borne disease incidence) impacts of climate change depending on their vulnerability (i.e., diseases) on an international, economic, political and environmental context. This unique review also expands on these issues to address a third category of potential longer-term impacts on global health: famine, population dislocation, and environmental justice and education. This scholarly resource explores these issues fully, linking them to global health in urban and rural settings in developed and developing countries. The review finishes with a practical discussion of action that health professionals around the world in our field can yet take.

Title :Shrimp-Allergic Patients in a Multi-Food Oral Immunotherapy TrialAuthors :Diem-Tran I. Nguyen MD1, Sayantani B. Sindher MD2,3, R. Sharon Chinthrajah MD2,3, Kari Nadeau MD PhD2,3, Carla M. Davis MD1,41Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States2Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA3Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Dept of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.4Section of Immunology, Allergy and Retrovirology, Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, TX, United StatesCorresponding Author:Carla M. [email protected] Count: 978To the Editor:Shellfish allergy is one of the most common food allergies in the United States accounting for approximately 25% of adulthood and 20% of childhood food allergies (FA).1,2Of the different types of shellfish, shrimp are considered the most allergenic. The prevalence of shellfish allergy in children is substantial at 1.3% and may result in a greater prevalence in the adult population (3%) given that shellfish allergies have a low rate of spontaneous resolution.2,3Shrimp allergy (SA) is a leading cause of severe food reactions and results in high rates of healthcare usage.4Nearly 50% of patients with SA experience at least one lifetime food allergy related Emergency Department visit, yet only 42% of adults and 61% of children with SA reported having a physician confirmed diagnosis.1,2The lack of physician confirmation of SA is concerning given the potentially life threatening consequences of accidental exposure.5Currently, there is no cure and the only management strategies are avoidance and treatment for severe reactions with epinephrine.6 However, avoidance can be difficult due to the high incidence of cross-contamination, requiring strict dietary limitations.Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has emerged as a promising treatment for FA. In OIT, patients ingest increasing doses of the allergenic food with the goal of achieving desensitization so that reactions are less severe. Once a maintenance dose is achieved, the allergen needs to be regularly ingested to preserve the desensitized state. Although OIT has been recently approved by the FDA for peanut allergies, there has been little data in shrimp allergic patients. In this case-series, we discuss a subset of three patients who received shrimp OIT as part of a phase II, multi-food, omalizumab-facilitated OIT clinical trial.Multi-food allergic patients were recruited to a multi-site clinical trial between January 1 and November 30, 2016. Full details of trial design, inclusion criteria, and exclusion criteria have been previously reported.7Patients initially underwent testing with skin prick testing (SPT), specific IgE testing, and double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) to confirm their allergy to their culprit foods. To be included, patients were required to have a positive SPT of> 6 mm wheal diameter, specific IgE> 0.35 kU/L, a total IgE <2,000 kU/L, and a clinical reaction with DBPCFCs at < 125 mg dose.Patients enrolled in this clinical trial received 0.016 mg/kg (IU/mL) omalizumab per month or 0.008 mg/kg (IU/mL) every two weeks (based on asthma dosing guidelines)7 from week 1-16. At week 8, multi-food OIT was started and escalated under an investigator-supervised multi-OIT up-dosing regimen to reach a maintenance dose of > 1g of each allergen. Participants who reached maintenance by week 28-29 were randomized and received week 30 DBPCFC to assess desensitization to the allergenic foods. Patients were then randomized to one of three arms: high dose maintenance (1000 mg), low dose maintenance (300 mg), or placebo (0 mg). This randomized dose was dispensed at the last week 30 DBPCFC and consumed until week 36. At week 36, DBPCFC was repeated to assess sustained unresponsiveness with differing daily doses of protein.A total of 70 patients were enrolled, with three found to have SA. Their demographic data and baseline characteristics are detailed in Table 1. All three patients also had asthma, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis. Each had a convincing clinical history, elevated total IgE, and positive SPT to a mixture of white, brown, and pink shrimp extract from Greer. The diagnosis was confirmed by a reaction during DBPCFC withLitopenaeus setiferus shrimp flour that was manufactured at a Good Manufacturing Practice facility at Stanford University.Clinical outcomes and adverse events are detailed in Table 2. All 3 patients tolerated dose escalation without serious adverse events or epinephrine requirement, were able to achieve maintenance dose, and did not have an allergic reaction at the Week 30 DBPCFC. Patient A was randomized to the placebo treatment arm while the other two patients were randomized to the 300 mg maintenance OIT arm. At Week 36, Patient A and Patient B had sustained unresponsiveness to 12,000 mg of shrimp extract. Patient C did not follow-up for assessment.It is encouraging that all 3 shrimp allergic patients in this multi-food OIT clinical trial were able to reach maintenance dose OIT (> 1g), and 2 out of 3 had no reaction with the 12g DBPCFC dose at Week 30. These results suggest that OIT is a potentially efficacious treatment for SA and warrants further study. There is little data on the optimal shrimp allergen product, dose escalation regimen, and adjunct therapies such as omalizumab to achieve desensitization.There are several known target allergens that contribute to SA. The first major allergen is tropomyosin, a heat-stable, actin-binding protein found in both muscle and non-muscle cells. Tropomyosin has been implicated as the source of significant cross-reactivity between species of mollusks, crustaceans, and non-shellfish such as cockroaches and mites.8,9Other shrimp allergens that have been identified include arginine kinase, myosin light chain, sarcoplasmic calcium-binding protein, hemocyanin, and troponin C.8,9 It is possible that patients with allergies to different shrimp components may have varied responses to OIT, and thus additional research is necessary to determine which patient subgroups are most likely to benefit from shrimp OIT.Our case series is limited by small sample size, with only three patients receiving shrimp OIT and two following up at week 36. Although all patients appeared to develop short-term tolerance by week 30, it is unclear how durable this response would be with long-term follow up. Furthermore, there are risks associated with OIT.SA is a common and serious food allergy that is underdiagnosed and often lifelong. There are currently no effective treatments other than strict avoidance, which can be difficult to achieve and lead to poor quality of life. Our case series presents initial evidence suggesting that shrimp OIT may be an effective strategy of addressing grave reactions faced by SA patients. Larger studies need to be performed to validate these findings.References :1. Gupta, R. S. et al.Prevalence and Severity of Food Allergies Among US Adults. JAMA Netw Open 2, e185630 (2019).2. Wang, H. T., Warren, C. M., Gupta, R. S. & Davis, C. M. Prevalence and Characteristics of Shellfish Allergy in the Pediatric Population of the United States. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 8, 1359–1370.e2 (2020).3. Zotova, V. et al.Low resolution rates of seafood allergy. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 7, 690–692 (2019).4. Ross, M. P. et al.Analysis of food-allergic and anaphylactic events in the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol.121, 166–171 (2008).5. Tuano, K. T. S. et al. Improved diagnostic clarity in shrimp allergic non-dust-mite sensitized patients. Allergy Asthma Proc. 39, 377–383 (2018).6. Davis CM, Gupta RS, Aktas ON, Diaz V, Kamath SD, Lopata AL. Clinical Management of Seafood Allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Jan;8(1):37-44.7. Andorf, S. et al. A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Multisite Study Using Omalizumab-facilitated Rapid Desensitization to Test Continued Discontinued Dosing in Multifood Allergic Individuals.EClinicalMedicine 7, 27–38 (2019).8. Faber, M. A. et al.Shellfish allergens: tropomyosin and beyond. Allergy 72, 842–848 (2017).9. Ruethers T, Taki AC, Johnston EB, Nugraha R, Le TTK, Kalic T, McLean TR, Kamath SD, Lopata AL. Seafood allergy: A comprehensive review of fish and shellfish allergens. Mol Immunol. 2018 Aug;100:28-57.

Background: It is unclear if asthma and its allergic phenotype are risk factors for hospitalization or severe disease from SARS-CoV-2. Methods: All patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 between March 1 and September 30, 2020, were retrospectively identified and characterized through electronic analysis at Stanford. A sub-cohort was followed prospectively to evaluate long-term COVID-19 symptoms. Results: 168,190 patients underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing, and 6,976 (4·15%) tested positive. In a multivariate analysis, asthma was not an independent risk factor for hospitalization (OR 1·12 [95% CI 0·86, 1·45], p=0·40). Among SARS-CoV-2 positive asthmatics, allergic asthma lowered the risk of hospitalization and had a protective effect compared to non-allergic asthma (OR 0·52 (0·28, 0·91), p=0·026); there was no association between baseline medication use as characterized by GINA and hospitalization risk. Patients with severe COVID-19 disease had lower eosinophil levels during hospitalization compared to patients with mild or asymptomatic disease, independent of asthma status (p=0.0014). In a patient sub-cohort followed longitudinally, asthmatics and non-asthmatics had similar time to resolution of COVID-19 symptoms, particularly lower respiratory symptoms. Conclusions: Asthma is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19 disease. Allergic asthmatics were half as likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared to non-allergic asthmatics. Lower levels of eosinophil counts (allergic biomarkers) were associated with more severe COVID-19 disease trajectory. Recovery was similar among asthmatics and non-asthmatics with over 50% of patients reporting ongoing lower respiratory symptoms three months post-infection.

Vaccines are essential public health tools with a favorable safety profile and prophylactic effectiveness that have historically played significant roles in reducing infectious disease burden in populations, when the majority of individuals are vaccinated. The COVID-19 vaccines are expected to have similar positive impacts on health across the globe. While serious allergic reactions to vaccines are rare, their underlying mechanisms and implications for clinical management should be considered to provide individuals with the safest care possible. In this review, we provide an overview of different types of allergic adverse reactions that can potentially occur after vaccination and individual vaccine components capable of causing the allergic adverse reactions. We present the incidence of allergic adverse reactions during clinical studies and through post-authorization and post-marketing surveillance and provide plausible causes of these reactions based on potential allergenic components present in several common vaccines. Additionally, we review implications for individual diagnosis and management and vaccine manufacturing overall. Finally, we suggest areas for future research.