Skin testing with ultra-heat-treated (UHT) cow's milk in children with cow's milk allergy

Baked milk and egg diets revisited

Most children with milk and egg allergy are nonreactive to modified forms of milk and egg in bakery products such as muffins because of conformational changes in proteins. These baked milk (BM) and baked egg (BE) diets have become commonplace in the management of milk and egg allergy, respectively. Current laboratory- and skin test-based diagnostic approaches remain limited in their ability to predict BM/BE tolerance, resulting in various approaches to introduce these foods. One approach to introduce BM/BE is to offer a medically supervised oral food challenge and then advise dietary introduction of baked products for children who have tolerance. Another approach is adapted from a home-based protocol of graded ingestion of BM or BE originally intended for non-IgE mediated allergy, often referred to as a "ladder." The ladder advises home ingestion of increasing amounts of BM or BE. For children who have allergy to BM or BE, the ladder is essentially oral immunotherapy, although not always labeled or recognized as such. Risk assessment and education of patients suitable for home introduction are essential. A home approach that may be called a ladder can also be used to escalate diets after demonstrated tolerance of baked forms by introducing lesser cooked forms of milk or egg after tolerating BM or BE. A randomized controlled trial provided clear evidence that baked diets can hasten the resolution of IgE-mediated milk allergy. Moreover, BM/BE foods have an emerging role in the treatment of non-IgE-mediated allergy. There is tangential evidence for BM and BE diets in the prevention of IgE-mediated allergy.

Comparison of commercial allergen extract with various milk products of skin prick tests in diagnosing cow's milk protein allergy

Introduction: In this study, we aimed to solve the incompatibilities between the skin prick test (SPT) result and the clinical picture encountered among patients. Thus, we used various milk products (raw, ultrahigh temperature [UHT], and pasteurized cow's milk) with commercial milk allergen extract in patients we think may have cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) and made a comparison among the milk types. Methods: This study was conducted retrospectively between February 1, 2019, to June 1, 2019, at a pediatric allergy polyclinic of the university training/research hospital. A pair of 79 individuals, as control and patient groups, ages between 1 month and 21 years who were presented with a suspicion of CMPA and defined with SPT and/or allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels were included in the study. Allergen-specific IgE tests (specific IgE cow's milk, β-lactoglobulin, α-lactalbumin, casein) were evaluated. SPT was performed with fresh/raw, UHT, and pasteurized (daily) cow's milk besides the standard used commercial extract. Results: In the group included in the study and defined as IgE-mediated CMPA, 52.9% of the 79 patients were boys (n = 46), 47.1% were girls (n = 33), and the median age was 6 months (5.0-8.0 months). In the group of specific IgE cow's milk reaction that was sought, frequency and wheal (induration) size of SPT reaction to fresh/raw milk was also found to be statistically significant between positive- and negative-reaction groups, not detected against other milk products. The area under the curve for the diagnostic value of fresh milk was 93.1%. For the cutoff value of 2.50 mm, 88.1% sensitivity and 90.8% specificity were determined. In the group of specific IgE β-lactoglobulin reaction searched, there was a statistically significant difference in the frequency of SPT positivity and wheal size against UHT, fresh, and daily/pasteurized milk between positive and negative reaction groups. When the correlations of the mean induration axis in the tests were examined, it was found that, among raw milk, daily milk, cow's milk allergen extract, and UHT milk, a strong positive correlation was also statistically significant. Conclusion: The positivity that could not be detected with SPT when using allergen extract in a patient with positive specific IgE cow's milk result in the clinic can be detected with SPT made with fresh (raw) milk, which can be an alternative. In addition, specific IgE β-lactoglobulin seems to be the most compatible with the SPT wheal size (induration) of other milk types rather than extract. Comparative studies of SPT allergen extracts and various milk types used in the diagnosis of CMPA are very scarce in the literature, and more studies are needed on this subject.

The effect of applied force and device design on skin prick test performance

BACKGROUND

Skin prick tests (SPTs) are difficult to standardize, and SPT performance mainly relies on the clinician's expertise. So far, the effect of various factors such as device types, shape, variety of material type, and applied force on the performance of SPT has not been extensively investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of various factors, including type or shape of devices, material type, and applied force, on the performance of SPT.

METHODS

Four SPT devices with different shapes and materials were applied on 12 subjects under 3 different applied forces (30, 45, and 60 g). The results were compared with standard method using an ALK lancet pricked by an experienced clinician.

RESULTS

A total of 480 pricks were conducted on 12 subjects. The wheal sizes and sensitivities of all devices increased with higher applied forces. The thinner lancets with a long sharp tip had relatively higher analytical sensitivities and provided 100% sensitivity at applied forces of 45 g and above. The pain scores of all devices at applied forces of 30 to 60 g ranged from 1.00 to 1.81 with minimal incidences of bleeding (0%-4.17%), whereas the pain score of the standard method by the ALK lancet was 2.08 with much higher incidences of bleeding at 27.08%.

CONCLUSION

The type/shape of the SPT device and applied force are the essential factors affecting the performance of SPT. The study result could pave the way toward higher performance and standardized SPT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Thai Clinical Trials Registry identification number: TCTR20220627004 (https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20220627004).

Allergen Risk Assessment for Specific Allergy to Small Ruminant's Milk: Development of Sensitive Immunoassays to Detect Goat's and Sheep's Milk Contaminations in Dairy Food Matrices

Despite a high level of sequence identity between cow's, goat's, and sheep's milk (CM, GM, and SM, respectively) proteins, some patients tolerant to CM are allergic to GM and SM. In most cases, this specificity is due to the presence of IgE antibodies that bind only to caprine and ovine caseins. The patients may then develop severe allergic reactions after ingestion of CM products contaminated with low amounts of GM or SM. We thus aimed to develop an assay able to detect traces of caprine/ovine β-caseins in different food matrices, irrespective of the presence of the bovine homolog. We produced monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) specific to caprine caseins in mice tolerized to the bovine whole casein then sensitized to the caprine whole casein. In order to develop a two-site immunometric assay, we selected mAbs that could discriminate the caprine β-casein from its bovine homolog. Characteristics and performances of two tests were determined with various dairy products. Results were analyzed in relation with the IgE-immunoreactivity of the food matrices, thanks to sera from CM, GM/SM allergic patients. Our two-site immunometric assays demonstrated a high sensitivity with a detection limit of 1.6–3.2 ng/mL of caprine and ovine β-caseins. The tests were able to detect contaminations of GM in CM at the ppm level. Heat-treatment, ripening and coagulation processes, usually applied to dairy products that exhibit a very high IgE-immunoreactivity, did not impair the test sensitivity. These quantitative assays could then be useful for the risk assessment of food products potentially contaminated with GM and SM in order to prevent adverse reactions in patients specifically allergic to these milks.

Cow's Milk Processing-Friend or Foe in Food Allergy?

Cow’s milk (CM) is an integral part of our daily diet starting in infancy and continuing throughout our lifetime. Its composition is rich in proteins with a high nutritional value, bioactive components, milk minerals including calcium, and a range of immunoactive substances. However, cow’s milk can also induce a range of immune-mediated diseases including non-IgE-mediated food allergies and IgE-mediated food allergies. Cow’s milk allergens have been identified and characterized and the most relevant ones can be assigned to both, the whey and casein fraction. For preservation a range of processing methods are applied to make cow’s milk and dairy products safe for consumers. However, these methods affect milk components and thus alter the overall immunogenic activity of cow’s milk. This review summarizes the current knowledge on cow’s milk allergens and immunoactive substances and the impact of the different processes up- or downregulating the immunogenicity of the respective proteins. It highlights the gaps of knowledge of the related disease mechanisms and the still unidentified beneficial immunomodulating compounds of cow’s milk.