Diagnosis and management of food allergy-associated gastroesophageal reflux disease in young children-EAACI position paper

Diagnosis and management of food allergy-induced constipation in young children-An EAACI position paper

The recognition of constipation as a possible non-Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated allergic condition is challenging because functional constipation (unrelated to food allergies) is a common health problem with a reported worldwide prevalence rate of up to 32.2% in children. However, many studies in children report challenge proven cow's milk allergy and constipation as a primary symptom and have found that between 28% and 78% of children improve on a cow's milk elimination diet. Due to the paucity of data and a focus on IgE-mediated allergy, not all food allergy guidelines list constipation as a symptom of food allergy. Yet, it is included in all cow's milk allergy guidelines available in English language. The Exploring Non-IgE-Mediated Allergy (ENIGMA) Task Force (TF) of the European Academy for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) considers in this paper constipation in the context of failure of standard treatment and discuss the role of food allergens as culprit in constipation in children. This position paper used the Delphi approach in reaching consensus on both diagnosis and management, as currently published data are insufficient to support a systematic review.

Pediatric Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: An Evidence-Based Review

Purpose: Pediatric laryngopharyngeal reflux (P-LPR) is associated with the development of common otolaryngological symptoms and findings. In the present study, the findings about epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic and therapeutic outcomes of pediatric population were reviewed. Methods: A PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus literature search was conducted about evidence-based findings in epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic and therapeutic outcomes of P-LPR. Findings: The prevalence of LPR remains unknown in infant and child populations. The clinical presentation depends on age. Infants with LPR symptoms commonly have both gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and laryngopharyngeal reflux and related digestive, respiratory and ear, nose and throat symptoms. The GERD prevalence appears to decrease over the growth, and the clinical picture is increasingly associated with LPR symptoms and findings without GERD. The prevalence of LPR and proximal acid and nonacid esophageal reflux events may be high in some prevalent otolaryngological conditions (chronic otitis media, laryngolomalacia and apnea). However, the lack of use of hypopharyngeal–esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance pH monitoring (HEMII-pH) limits the establishment of etiological associations. Proton pump inhibitors are less effective in P-LPR patients compared to GERD populations, which may be related to the high prevalence of weakly or nonacid reflux events. Conclusions: Many gray areas persist in P-LPR and should be not resolved without the establishment of diagnostic criteria (guidelines) based on HEMII-pH. The unavailability of HEMII-pH and the poor acid-suppressive therapeutic response are all issues requiring future investigations. Future controlled studies using HEMII-pH and enzyme measurements in ear, nose or throat fluids may clarify the epidemiology of P-LPR according to age and its association with many otolaryngological conditions.

The use of amino acid formulas in pediatric patients with allergy to cow's milk proteins: Recommendations from a group of experts

One of the most common food allergies in children is cow's milk allergy (CMA). In breast-fed infants with CMA, the mother is encouraged to avoid dairy products. If this is not possible, or in formula fed infants, use of hypoallergenic replacement formulas such as extensively hydrolyzed formulas (EHF) is recommended. However, in ∼5% of patients EHFs are not tolerated and/or allergy symptoms can persist. When EHFs are ineffective and in severe forms of CMA, amino acid-based formulas (AAF) should be considered. Six pediatric gastroenterologists with extensive experience in food allergy management reviewed scientific publications and international clinical practice guidelines to provide practical recommendations on AAF. The guidelines reviewed had discrepancies and ambiguities around the specific indications for using formulas as a milk substitute. The panel recommends AAFs as the first therapeutic option in anaphylaxis due to CMA, in acute and chronic severe food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome, in CMA associated with multiple food allergy, and in cases of eosinophilic esophagitis not responding to an extended exclusion diet or not eating solids. The main benefit of AAF is its absence of residual allergenicity, making it a safe treatment option in severe CMA patients who do not tolerate or respond to an EHF.

Impact of a dietitian in general practice: paediatric food allergy

BACKGROUND

Food allergy in infants and young children places a significant burden on primary care. This study evaluated a dietetic-led paediatric food allergy service, which attempts to provide more rapid access to the dietitian and reduce the need for general practitioner (GP) and secondary care appointments.

METHODS

Two community dietetic services for children referred with food allergy were compared. The first was dietetic-led care where dietitians train community children's nurses to recognise potential cases of food allergy, undertake basic diagnostic assessment and subsequently refer to the dietitian. The other was a more traditional dietetic community service where patients were referred predominantly by the GP or secondary care.

RESULTS

In dietetic-led care 86 patients were seen, compared to 96 in dietetic community care. Dietetic-led care received fewer referrals from the GP, 36% versus 67% (p < 0.001); GP appointments for allergy-related conditions prior to dietetic referral were lower, 3 versus 6 visits (p = 0.001); and input from secondary care was also lower, 8 versus 25 patients (p = 0.002) compared with dietetic community care. Children referred to dietetic-led care were younger, 78% <6 months versus 40% (p < 0.001) in dietetic community care.

CONCLUSIONS

Dietetic-led care describes a model that has the potential to reduce GP and secondary care appointments, identify patients more quickly and reduce the time to receive dietetic input, thereby resolving symptoms more quickly and reducing prescribed medications. This model demonstrates the importance of integrated care and multidisciplinary working, offering a solution to reducing GP workload while maintaining or improving patient care.