Another Person’s Peril: Peanut Allergy, Risk Perceptions, and Responsible Sociality

This article examines perceptions of health risk when some individuals within a shared space are in heightened danger but anyone, including unaffected others, can be a vector of risk. Using the case of peanut allergy and drawing on qualitative content analysis of the public comments submitted in response to an unsuccessful 2010 U.S. Department of Transportation proposal to prohibit peanuts on airplanes, we analyze contention over the boundaries of responsibility for mitigating exposure to risk. We find three key dimensions of proximity to risk (material, social, and situational) characterizing ardent claims both for and against policy enactment. These proximity concerns underlay commenters’ sensemaking about fear, trust, rights, moral obligations, and liberty in the act of sharing space with others, while allowing them to stake positions on what we call “responsible sociality”—an ethic of discernible empathy for proximate others and of consideration for public benefit in social and communal settings. We conclude by discussing the insights our case affords several other areas of scholarship attentive to the intractable yet timely question of “for whom do we care?”

White paper peanut allergy—part 2: Diagnosis of peanut allergy with special emphasis on molecular component diagnostics

Summary Background Peanut allergy is an immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated immune response that usually manifests in childhood and can range from mild skin reactions to anaphylaxis. Since quality of life maybe greatly reduced by the diagnosis of peanut allergy, an accurate diagnosis should always be made. Methods A selective literature search was performed in PubMed and consensus diagnostic algorithms are presented. Results Important diagnostic elements include a detailed clinical history, detection of peanut-specific sensitization by skin prick testing and/or in vitro measurement of peanut (extract)-specific IgE and/or molecular components, and double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge as the gold standard. Using these tools, including published cut-off values, diagnostic algorithms were established for the following constellations: 1) Suspicion of primary peanut allergy with a history of immediate systemic reaction, 2) Suspicion of primary peanut allergy with questionable symptoms, 3) Incidental findings on sensitization testing and peanut ingestion so far or 4) Suspicion of pollen-associated peanut allergy with solely oropharyngeal symptoms. Conclusion The most important diagnostic measures in determining the diagnosis of peanut allergy are clinical history and detection of sensitizations, also via component-based diagnostics. However, in case of unclear results, the gold standard—an oral food challenge—should always be used.

White paper on peanut allergy: treatment pathway

Summary Background Peanuts are a member of the legume family (botanical family Leguminosae) and peanut allergies are the most common cause of food anaphylaxis in many countries. The prevalence of peanut allergy is increasing. Methods Experts from Germany and Austria performed a standardized literature search and published their consensus recommendations in a White Paper on Peanut Allergy, which this care pathway is based upon, thus, providing a comprehensive diagnosis and treatment algorithm. Results The most important diagnostic key elements include a detailed clinical medical history, evidence of peanut-specific sensitization by means of skin prick testing and/or in vitro determination of the peanut (extract)-specific IgE and/or the molecular component diagnostics (most important Ara h 2-specific IgE, sometimes also Ara h1-, 3-, 6-, 8- and 9-specific IgE) as well as the gold standard, the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. The diagnostic algorithms were created for the following constellations: Suspected primary peanut allergy with a clear history of systemic immediate-type reaction, suspected primary peanut allergy with questionable symptoms, suspected secondary (possibly pollen-associated) peanut allergy with a history of solely oropharyngeal symptoms and incidental finding of sensitization and no peanut ingestion so far. Conclusions After established diagnosis the standard of care is counseling to avoid peanut contact and prescription of emergency medications (oral antihistamines, oral steroids, inhaled β2-agonists, injectable intramuscular epinephrine) as needed. Instruction on the use of these emergency medications should be provided. A preparation for oral immunotherapy (OIT) for 4 to 17 years old peanut allergic children/ adolescents has been recently approved by the regulatory authorities. OIT for peanut allergy shows high efficacy and an acceptable safety profile, improves quality of life, and health economic aspects. Thus it offers a therapeutic option for peanut allergic children and adolescents.