This European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guideline provides recommendations for diagnosing IgE‐mediated food allergy and was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Food allergy diagnosis starts with an allergy‐focused clinical history followed by tests to determine IgE sensitization, such as serum allergen‐specific IgE (sIgE) and skin prick test (SPT), and the basophil activation test (BAT), if available. Evidence for IgE sensitization should be sought for any suspected foods. The diagnosis of allergy to some foods, such as peanut and cashew nut, is well supported by SPT and serum sIgE, whereas there are less data and the performance of these tests is poorer for other foods, such as wheat and soya. The measurement of sIgE to allergen components such as Ara h 2 from peanut, Cor a 14 from hazelnut and Ana o 3 from cashew can be useful to further support the diagnosis, especially in pollen‐sensitized individuals. BAT to peanut and sesame can be used additionally. The reference standard for food allergy diagnosis is the oral food challenge (OFC). OFC should be performed in equivocal cases. For practical reasons, open challenges are suitable in most cases. Reassessment of food allergic children with allergy tests and/or OFCs periodically over time will enable reintroduction of food into the diet in the case of spontaneous acquisition of oral tolerance.

Allergen-immunotherapy (AIT) is an efficacious and disease-modifying treatment option for IgE-mediated diseases. Among these allergic rhinitis, insect venom allergy, food allergy, and allergic asthma are the most common candidates for AIT. AIT gives rise to clinical immunotolerance which may last for years after the treatment cessation. Mechanisms of AIT include suppression of allergic inflammation in target tissues and stimulation of the production of blocking antibodies, especially IgG4 and IgA. These mechanisms are followed by a reduction of underlying allergen-specific Th2 cell-driven responses to the allergens. Tolerance induction takes place through the desensitization of effector cells and stimulation of regulatory T cells that show their effects by mechanisms involving cell-cell cross-talk, but also other mechanisms, e.g., by the production of immunomodulatory cytokines such as, e.g., IL-10 and TGF-beta. From a personalized medical perspective, there is a need for clinical biomarkers of value in selecting responders and optimizing patient care during AIT. Also, a deeper understanding of underlying mechanistic processes will improve AIT’s future outcomes. In this paper, the current knowledge of mechanisms in AIT is reviewed with a special focus on biomarkers of this therapy.

Background Food anaphylaxis is commonly elicited by unintentional ingestion of foods containing the allergen above the tolerance threshold level of the individual. While labelling the 14 main allergens used as ingredients in food products is mandatory in the EU, there is no legal definition of declaring potential contaminants. Precautionary allergen labelling such as “may contain traces of” is often used. However, this is unsatisfactory for consumers as they get no information if the contamination is below their personal threshold. In discussions with the food industry and technologists, it was suggested to use a voluntary declaration indicating that all declared contaminants are below a threshold of 0.5 mg protein per 100 g of food. This concentration is known to be below the threshold of most patients, and it can be technically guaranteed in most food production. However, it was also important to assess that in case of accidental ingestion of contaminants below this threshold by highly allergic patients, no fatal anaphylactic reaction could occur. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to assess whether a fatal reaction to 5mg of protein or less has been reported, assuming that a maximum portion size of 1kg of a processed food exceeds any meal and thus gives a sufficient safety margin. Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until 24^th January 2021 for provocation studies and case reports in which one of the 14 major food allergens was reported to elicit fatal or life-threatening anaphylactic reactions and assessed if these occurred below the ingestion of 5mg of protein. A Delphi process was performed to obtain an expert consensus on the results. Results In the 210 studies included, in our search no reports of fatal anaphylactic reactions reported below 5 mg protein ingested were identified. However, in provocation studies and case reports, severe reactions below 5mg were reported for the following allergens: eggs, fish, lupin, milk, nuts, peanuts, soy, and sesame seeds. Conclusion Based on the literature studied for this review it can be stated that cross-contamination of the 14 major food allergens below 0.5 mg/100 g is likely not to endanger most food allergic patients when a standard portion of food is consumed. We propose to use the statement “this product contains the named allergens in the list of ingredients, it may contain traces of other contaminations (to be named, e.g. nut) at concentrations less than 0.5 mg per 100 g of this product” for a voluntary declaration on processed food packages. This level of avoidance of cross-contaminations can be achieved technically for most processed foods, and the statement would be a clear and helpful message to the consumers. However it is clearly acknowledged that a voluntary declaration is only a first step to a legally binding solution. For this, further research on threshold levels is encouraged.

Background: As in many fields of medical care, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) resulted in an increased uncertainty regarding the safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Therefore, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) aimed to analyze the situation in different countries and to systematically collect all information available regarding tolerability and possible amendments in daily practice of sublingual AIT (SLIT), subcutaneous AIT (SCIT) for inhalant allergies and venom AIT.Methods: Under the framework of the EAACI, a panel of experts in the field of AIT coordinated by the Immunotherapy Interest Group set‐up a web‐based retrospective survey (SurveyMonkey^®) including 27 standardized questions on practical and safety aspects on AIT in worldwide clinical routine.Results: 417 respondents providing AIT to their patients in daily routine answered the survey. For patients (without any current symptoms to suspect COVID‐19), 60% of the respondents informed of not having initiated SCIT (40% venom AIT, 35% SLIT) whereas for the maintenance phase of AIT, SCIT was performed by 75% of the respondents (74% venom AIT, 89% SLIT). No tolerability concern arises from this preliminary analysis. 16 physicians reported having performed AIT despite (early) symptoms of COVID‐19 and/or a positive test result for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2).Conclusions: This first international retrospective survey in atopic diseases investigated practical aspects and tolerability of AIT during the COVID‐19 pandemic and gave no concerns regarding reduced tolerability under real‐life circumstances. However, the data indicate an undertreatment of AIT, which may be temporary, but could have a long‐lasting negative impact on the clinical care of allergic patients.