BACKGROUND Wine appears to be a significant trigger for asthma. Although sulfite additives have been implicated as a major cause of wine induced asthma, direct evidence is limited. Two studies were undertaken to assess sulfite reactivity in wine sensitive asthmatics. The first study assessed sensitivity to sulfites in wine using a single dose sulfited wine challenge protocol followed by a double blind, placebo controlled challenge. In the second study a cumulative dose sulfited wine challenge protocol was employed to establish if wine sensitive asthmatics as a group have an increased sensitivity to sulfites. METHODS In study 1, 24 asthmatic patients with a strong history of wine induced asthma were screened. Subjects showing positive responses to single blind high sulfite (300 ppm) wine challenge were rechallenged on separate days in a double blind, placebo controlled fashion with wines of varying sulfite levels to characterise their responses to these drinks. In study 2, wine sensitive asthmatic patients (n=12) and control asthmatics (n=6) were challenged cumulatively with wine containing increasing concentrations of sulfite in order to characterise further their sensitivity to sulfites in wine. RESULTS Four of the 24 self-reporting wine sensitive asthmatic patients were found to respond to sulfite additives in wine when challenged in a single dose fashion (study 1). In the double blind dose-response study all four had a significant fall in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) (>15% from baseline) following exposure to wine containing 300 ppm sulfite, but did not respond to wines containing 20, 75 or 150 ppm sulfite. Responses were maximal at 5 minutes (mean (SD) maximal decline in FEV₁ 28.7 (13)%) and took 15–60 minutes to return to baseline levels. In the cumulative dose-response study (study 2) no significant difference was observed in any of the lung function parameters measured (FEV₁, peak expiratory flow (PEF), mid phase forced expiratory flow (FEF_25–75)) between wine sensitive and normal asthmatic subjects. CONCLUSIONS Only a small number of wine sensitive asthmatic patients responded to a single dose challenge with sulfited wine under laboratory conditions. This may suggest that the role of sulfites and/or wine in triggering asthmatic responses has been overestimated. Alternatively, cofactors or other components in wine may play an important role in wine induced asthma. Cumulative sulfite dose challenges did not detect an increased sensitivity to sulfite in wine sensitive asthmatics and an alternative approach to identifying sulfite/wine sensitive asthma may be required.

Alcoholic drinks are capable of triggering a wide range of allergic and allergic-like responses, including rhinitis, itching, facial swelling, headache, cough and asthma. Limited epidemiological data suggests that many individuals are affected and that sensitivities occur to a variety of drinks, including wine, beer and spirits. In surveys of asthmatics, over 40% reported the triggering of allergic or allergic-like symptoms following alcoholic drink consumption and 30 - 35% reported worsening of their asthma. Sensitivity to ethanol itself can play a role in triggering adverse responses, particularly in Asians, which is due mainly to a reduced capacity to metabolize acetaldehyde. In Caucasians, specific non-alcohol components are the main cause of sensitivities to alcoholic drinks. Allergic sensitivities to specific components of beer, spirits and distilled liquors have been described. Wine is clearly the most commonly reported trigger for adverse responses. Sensitivities to wine appear to be due mainly to pharmacological intolerances to specific components, such as biogenic amines and the sulphite additives. Histamine in wine has been associated with the triggering of a wide spectrum of adverse symptoms, including sneezing, rhinitis, itching, flushing, headache and asthma. The sulphite additives in wine have been associated with triggering asthmatic responses. Clinical studies have confirmed sensitivities to the sulphites in wine in limited numbers of individuals, but the extent to which the sulphites contribute to wine sensitivity overall is not clear. The aetiology of wine-induced asthmatic responses may be complex and may involve several co-factors.

(See the Editorial Commentary by Holmberg, on pages 782–3 .) Background. A large outbreak of hepatitis A affected individuals in several Australian states in 2009, resulting in a 2-fold increase in cases reported to state health departments compared with 2008. Two peaks of infection occurred (April–May and September–November), with surveillance data suggesting locally acquired infections from a widely distributed food product. Methods. Two case-control studies were completed. Intensive product trace-back and food sampling was undertaken. Genotyping was conducted on virus isolates from patient serum and food samples. Control measures included prophylaxis for close contacts, public health warnings, an order by the chief health officer under the Victorian Food Act 1984, and trade-level recalls on implicated batches of semidried tomatoes. Results. A multijurisdictional case-control study in April–May found an association between illness and consumption of semidried tomatoes (odds ratio [OR], 3.0; 95% CI 1.4–6.7). A second case-control study conducted in Victoria in October–November also implicated semidried tomatoes as being associated with illness (OR, 10.3; 95% CI, 4.7–22.7). Hepatitis A RNA was detected in 22 samples of semidried tomatoes. Hepatitis A virus genotype IB was identified in 144 of 153 (94%) patients tested from 2009, and partial sequence analysis showed complete identity with an isolate found in a sample of semidried tomatoes. Conclusions. The results of both case-control studies and food testing implicated the novel vehicle of semidried tomatoes as the cause of this hepatitis A outbreak. The outbreak was extensive and sustained despite public health interventions, the design and implementation of which were complicated by limitations in food testing capability and complex supply chains.

Background: Aspirin intolerant asthma (AIA) is a clinically distinct syndrome characterised by the precipitation of asthma attacks following the ingestion of aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The prevalence of AIA among Australian asthmatic patients has not previously been reported. Methods: Three populations were surveyed to establish the prevalence of AIA among Australian asthmatics. Two surveys were completed in patients recruited from the metropolitan area in Perth, Western Australia, one comprising 150 recruited from hospital based sources (hospital cohort) and the second comprising 366 from the membership of the Asthma Foundation of Western Australia (Asthma Foundation cohort). In a third study 1298 individuals were randomly selected from the rural community of Busselton in Western Australia. Results: The prevalence of AIA in the hospital and Asthma Foundation cohorts was found to be 10.7% and 10.4%, respectively. Univariate analyses in the Asthma Foundation cohort indicated that AIA was associated with more severe asthma (OR = 2.4, 95% CI 1.18 to 4.86), nasal polyposis (OR=3.19, 95% CI 1.52 to 6.68), atopy (OR=2.96, 95% CI 1.48 to 5.89), sulfite sensitivity (OR=3.97, 95% CI 1.87 to 8.41), and sensitivity to wine (OR=3.27, 95% CI 1.65 to 6.47). Multivariate analyses indicated that atopy (OR=2.80, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.70), nasal polyposis (OR=3.39, 95% CI 1.57 to 7.29), and the number of asthma attacks in the previous 12 months (OR=1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.42) were independent predictors for AIA, as was wine sensitivity (OR=2.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 4.72). The prevalence of AIA among asthmatic patients in the Busselton cohort was 10.9%. In addition, 2.5% of non-diagnosed asthmatics in this cohort reported asthma symptoms following aspirin ingestion. Conclusion: The prevalence of respiratory symptoms triggered by aspirin/NSAID use was found to be 10–11% in patients with asthma and 2.5% in non-asthmatics. Aspirin sensitivity appears to be a significant problem in the community and further investigations of the mechanisms of these responses and the possible link between this syndrome and other food and chemical sensitivities are required.