Cow's milk and hen's egg anaphylaxis: A comprehensive data analysis from the European Anaphylaxis Registry

Dietary Advancement Therapy Using Milk and Egg Ladders Among Children With a History of Anaphylaxis

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis has been increasing in recent years, with common triggers in infants being milk and eggs. Currently, the mainstay of treatment for milk and/or egg allergy is strict avoidance. Recently, new therapies have emerged including stepwise introduction of allergens via a ladder approach. The suitability of infants for the ladders is debated.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to focus on the use of food ladders in children with anaphylaxis to egg or milk.

METHODS

Retrospective review of pediatric patients diagnosed with immunoglobulin E-mediated milk and/or egg allergy between 2011 and 2021. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Anaphylaxis was defined as per the World Allergy Organization-amended criteria 2020. Data analysis utilized SPSS Version 28.

RESULTS

We reviewed 1,552 patient charts, and excluded 1,094, leaving a total sample size of 458. Seventy infants had anaphylaxis at diagnosis (milk n = 36; egg n = 34). A range of 77.8% to 85.2% of infants with anaphylaxis successfully completed the ladder, 88.9% to 92.9% without anaphylaxis were successful. Children who successfully completed the ladder did so at similar rates. A range of 20.6% to 50% children presenting with anaphylaxis at diagnosis experienced allergic symptoms during treatment, compared with 17.3% to 40.7% without anaphylaxis. Reactions were mild, mostly cutaneous and not requiring medical attention. Patients experiencing allergic symptoms while on the ladder were less likely to successfully complete treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Milk and egg ladders are a safe and effective way of inducing tolerance in infants, including those with a history of anaphylaxis at diagnosis. There are no obvious predictors for who will experience allergic reactions while on the ladder; however, these children are less likely to complete the ladder, so parents should be educated in management of mild allergic reactions at home.

Clinical characteristics and management of pediatric egg-induced anaphylaxis: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Egg is the third most common food allergy in children; however, data on pediatric egg-induced anaphylaxis are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of pediatric egg-induced anaphylaxis.

METHODS

Children presenting with anaphylaxis were recruited from 13 emergency departments as part of the Cross-Canada Anaphylaxis Registry, from which data on anaphylaxis triggered by egg were extracted. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with prehospital epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) use and to compare anaphylaxis triggered by egg with other triggers of food-induced anaphylaxis (FIA).

RESULTS

We recruited 302 children with egg-induced anaphylaxis. The mean age was 2.6 years (SD = 3.6), and 55.3% were male. Only 39.4% had previously been diagnosed with an egg allergy. Prehospital EAI use was 32.1%, but this was not significantly lower than in other triggers of FIA (P = .26). Only 1.4% of patients required hospital admission. Relative to other triggers of FIA, patients with egg-induced anaphylaxis were significantly younger (P < .001) and exhibited more vomiting (P = .0053) and less throat tightness (P = .0015) and angioedema (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest published cohort of pediatric egg-induced anaphylaxis. In this cohort, prehospital EAI use was very low. In addition, we identified certain symptoms that distinguish egg-induced from other triggers of FIA. Taken together, high suspicion is crucial in identifying egg-induced anaphylaxis, given the younger patient demographic and frequent lack of FIA history.

Mobile App/Web Platform for Monitoring Food Oral Immunotherapy in Children: Longitudinal Clinical Validation Study

BACKGROUND

Milk and egg allergies significantly impact the quality of life, particularly in children. In this regard, food oral immunotherapy (OIT) has emerged as an effective treatment option; however, the occurrence of frequent adverse reactions poses a challenge, necessitating close monitoring during treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the ability of a new mobile/web app called OITcontrol to monitor milk and egg OIT.

METHODS

Patients undergoing milk or egg OIT were recruited and divided into 2 groups: the active group used the OITcontrol app in conjunction with standard written monitoring methods, whereas the control group relied solely on written diaries. Investigators documented hospital doses, hospital reactions, and administered treatments on the website. Patients recorded their daily allergen home-dose intake, home reactions, and administered treatments using the app. The following variables were compared between both groups: number and severity of hospital and reported home reactions, patient's adhesion to the OITcontrol app or written diary or both in terms of daily home-dose intake and home reactions recording, and treatment and dose adjustment compliance at home in case of reaction.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients were assigned to be monitored using the OITcontrol app along with additional written methods (active group), while 14 patients relied solely on a written paper diary (control group). A similar distribution was observed in terms of sex, age, basal characteristics, allergen treated in OIT, premedication, and sensitization profile. Active patients reported a comparable number of hospital and home reactions compared with the control group. In terms of recording system usage, 13/16 (81%) active patients used the OITcontrol app, while 10/14 (71%) control patients relied on the written diary. Among active patients, 6/16 (38%) used both methods, and 1 active patient used only written methods. However, control patients recorded home reactions more frequently than active patients (P=.009). Among active patients, the app was the preferred method for recording reactions (59/86, 69%), compared with the written diary (15/86, 17%) or both methods (12/86, 14%; P<.001). Treatment compliance in home-recorded reactions was similar between both groups (P=.15). However, treatment indications after an adverse reaction were more frequently followed (P=.04) in reactions recorded solely in the app (36/59, 61%) than in the written diary (29/71, 41%) or both systems (4/12, 33%). Moreover, compliance with dose adjustments after a moderate-severe reaction in home-recorded reactions was higher in the active group than in the control group (P<.001). Home reactions recorded only in the app (16/19, 84%) were more likely to follow dose adjustments (P<.001) than those recorded in the written diary (3/20, 15%) or using both methods (2/3, 67%).

CONCLUSIONS

The OITcontrol app appears to be a valuable tool for monitoring OIT treatment in children with food allergies. It proves to be a suitable method for recording daily home dose intakes and reactions, and it seems to enhance adherence to treatment indications following an adverse reaction as well as compliance with dose adjustments in home reactions. However, additional studies are necessary to comprehensively grasp the benefits and limitations of using the OITcontrol app in the management of OIT.