Sally Kilburn

BACKGROUND: Current clinical advice regarding peanut allergy is based on small series of patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine, in a large group of peanut allergic subjects, the patterns of clinical severity, symptom progression and availability and use of rescue medications. METHODS: Questionnaire study of 622 self-reported allergic subjects. RESULTS: A total of 406 patients (66%) reported symptoms on contact with peanut. Only 121 (19%) had been knowingly exposed to peanut before the first documented reaction, implying a high frequency of occult sensitization. Severe symptoms were more common in adults. Abdominal symptoms were significantly associated with collapse. Fifty per cent reported reactions in the previous year. Only 82 (13%) had been admitted to hospital because of a reaction. Adrenaline was carried in some form by 65% though only 78 subjects (12.5%) had ever received injected adrenaline. Only 18/43 subjects (41%) who collapsed were given adrenaline. Skin-prick test weal size correlated weakly with severity but there were large overlaps between the groups. Peanut-specific IgE peaked in the teenage group, but did not correlate with severity. CONCLUSIONS: Peanut allergy is characterized by more severe symptoms than other food allergies and by high rates of symptoms on minimal contact. Skin-prick testing and peanut-specific IgE levels do not predict clinical severity. Avoidance of peanut is difficult. Many people suffering severe relations are inadequately treated. Sufferers need education and training in the use of rescue medication.

BACKGROUND: The severity of allergic reactions to food appears to be affected by many interacting factors. It is uncertain whether challenge-based reactions reflect the severity of past reactions or can predict future risk. OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationship of a subject's clinical history of past reactions to the severity of reaction elicited by a low-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) with peanut. METHOD: Cross-sectional questionnaire assessment of community-based allergic reactions and low-dose DBPCFC in self-selected peanut-allergic subjects. Reaction severity was assessed using a novel scoring system, taking account of the dose of allergen ingested. RESULTS: Forty subjects (15 males, 23 children, 23 asthmatics by history) were studied. Only the most recent community reaction predicted the severity of reaction in the DBPCFC, but even this association was weak (r=0.37, P=0.03). Peanut-specific IgE (PsIgE) and skin prick test (SPT) weal size were not associated with community score but PsIgE level correlated well with the challenge score (r=0.6, P=0.001). Asthma did not affect the eliciting dose or challenge score directly but the association of PsIgE and challenge score was stronger in those without asthma (r=0.72, P=0.001) than in those with asthma (r=0.48, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The scoring system developed appears to improve the sensitivity of assessment of reactions induced by DBPCFC. This is the first prospective study showing an association between PsIgE levels and clinical reactivity in DBPCFC, an effect that is more pronounced in non-asthmatics. This finding has important implications for the clinical care of subjects with food allergy. There is a poor correlation between the severity of reported reactions in the community and the severity of reaction elicited during low-dose DBPCFC with peanut.

BACKGROUND: Cellulitis and erysipelas are now usually considered manifestations of the same condition, a skin infection associated with severe pain and systemic symptoms. A range of antibiotic treatments are suggested in guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of interventions for non-surgically-acquired cellulitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: In May 2010 we searched for randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the ongoing trials databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials comparing two or more different interventions for cellulitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 studies with a total of 2488 participants. Our primary outcome 'symptoms rated by participant or medical practitioner or proportion symptom-free' was commonly reported. No two trials examined the same drugs, therefore we grouped similar types of drugs together.Macrolides/streptogramins were found to be more effective than penicillin antibiotics (Risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97). In 3 trials involving 419 people, 2 of these studies used oral macrolide against intravenous (iv) penicillin demonstrating that oral therapies can be more effective than iv therapies (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98).Three studies with a total of 88 people comparing a penicillin with a cephalosporin showed no difference in treatment effect (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.43).Six trials which included 538 people that compared different generations of cephalosporin, showed no difference in treatment effect (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to1.06).We found only small single studies for duration of antibiotic treatment, intramuscular versus intravenous route, the addition of corticosteroid to antibiotic treatment compared with antibiotic alone, and vibration therapy, so there was insufficient evidence to form conclusions. Only two studies investigated treatments for severe cellulitis and these selected different antibiotics for their comparisons, so we cannot make firm conclusions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We cannot define the best treatment for cellulitis and most recommendations are made on single trials. There is a need for trials to evaluate the efficacy of oral antibiotics against intravenous antibiotics in the community setting as there are service implications for cost and comfort.