Oral food challenge using different target doses and time intervals between doses

Pearls and Pitfalls of Weaning an Infant with Severe Atopic Dermatitis and Sensitization/Allergy to Food

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic inflammatory skin disorder in childhood. Skin barrier impairment exposes infants to food allergens, potentially causing sensitization followed by IgE-mediated food allergy. We describe the case of an infant with severe AD in whom several sensitizations to foods are detected, with consequently difficult weaning, and a history of anaphylaxis to cashew nut. Foods for which skin tests were negative were introduced into the infant's diet. Then, when AD control was managed, oral food challenges (OFCs) for foods to which the patient was sensitized, with the exception of cashew nut, were performed. The simultaneous presence of sensitization toward multiple foods made it difficult to introduce them using classic OFC. Therefore, it was decided to perform the low-dose, gradual controlled OFC. This led to an introduction of sensitized foods into the infant's diet, with the exception of cashew nut, avoiding allergic reactions. Absolute recommendations on how, when, and where to perform OFCs with allergenic food to which the child with AD is sensitized are lacking so far. In our opinion, OFCs and the subsequent ntroduction of allergenic foods should be individualized, evaluating some factors such as their social and nutritional importance, the patient's age and clinical phenotype (including the history of anaphylaxis), and the sensitization profile. There is agreement on the fact that the dietary approach in children with moderate-severe AD should no longer include a strict elimination diet. We believe that an early, gradual controlled introduction of all allergenics to identify the amount of food tolerated in the absence of reactions, even if low dose, may improve patients' and families' quality of life. However, even if discussing a vast relevant literature, the limitation of our work is that we describe the management of a single patient. Extensive and high-quality research is needed in this field to improve the available evidence in the area.

A 60-minute dosing interval is safer than a 30- or 40-minute interval in oral food challenge

BACKGROUND

The interval between antigen ingestion may influence the safety of oral food challenge tests (OFCs), especially in patients with severe food allergies.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review of OFCs eliciting objective reactions to wheat, egg, and milk that were performed between April 2012 and January 2021 evaluated an equivalent number of low-dose OFCs performed at 30-, 40-, or 60-min intervals. To avoid the influence of the potential allergy severity of the patients, the prediction scores of all intervals were matched. We evaluated the total symptom score (TS), total ingested dose, and the proportions of severe reactions (TS ≥ 30) and adrenaline use.

RESULTS

We analyzed 945 OFCs (wheat, n = 186; egg, n = 561; milk, n = 198). The 60-min OFC had significantly lower TS than the 30- and 40-min OFC methods in wheat (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively), egg (p < 0.001 for both), and milk (p < 0.001 and p = 0.018, respectively). The total dose in the 60-min method was significantly lower than in the 30-min method (p < 0.001 for all). The proportion of severe reaction (TS ≥ 30) in the 60-min method was significantly lower than that in the 30-min method for the egg and milk OFCs (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). There was no difference in the rates of adrenaline injection.

CONCLUSIONS

The 60-min interval is safer than 30- or 40-min intervals in wheat, egg, and milk OFCs in patients with a low threshold dose for food allergy.

Consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of cow's milk protein allergy of the Latin American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition

Cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) is the most frequent cause of food allergy in the first months of life. Despite the fact that there are different guidelines and recommendations on the management of children with CMPA, there continues to be great variability in diagnostic and therapeutic criteria in Latin America. The Food Allergy Working Group of the Latin American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition summoned a group of Latin American experts to reach a consensus and formulate a document to unify diagnostic and therapeutic criteria for CMPA. Three teams were formed, each with a coordinator, and the members of each team developed a series of statements for their corresponding module: a) clinical manifestations and diagnosis; b) diagnostic tools, and c) treatment. A search of the medical literature was carried out to support the information presented in each module and 28 statements were then selected. The statements were discussed, after which they were evaluated by all the experts, utilizing the Delphi method. Their opinions on statement agreement or disagreement were anonymously issued. The final statements selected were those with above 75% agreement and their corresponding recommendations were formulated, resulting in the document presented herein.

Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy-a US Regulatory Perspective

The recent approval of Palforzia for treatment of peanut allergy by the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) predicts that additional products for oral immunotherapy (OIT) are on the horizon. In this article, the authors review the legal framework by which the USFDA regulates products for OIT of food allergy and the clinical data that demonstrated that the safety and effectiveness profile of Palforzia supported approval and conclude with a discussion of oral food challenge (OFC) as a clinical endpoint to demonstrate safety and effectiveness of OIT products.

Innovation in Food Challenge Tests for Food Allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review incorporates findings from studies of oral food challenges (OFC) over the last decade and highlights the latest innovations and understanding of the procedure.

RECENT FINDINGS

PRACTALL guidelines are widely used in OFC research, but there is still no international consensus on the OFC protocol in clinical practice. Guidelines for performing OFC in clinical practice have been updated to include oral food challenges for infants. There have been advances in predictive models for outcomes and severity of reaction during OFC that take into account multiple clinical data as well as newer laboratory modalities. Low-dose OFC and eliciting threshold dose determination are being examined for additional diagnostic and therapeutic use in the management of food allergy. Quality-of-life considerations have also been reviewed, as well as post-OFC assessment and care. The OFC remains an important diagnostic tool in the management of food allergy and in clinical research. Advances in the field should improve safety and broaden the clinical applications of this essential procedure.