Search

Background: Oral food challenge (OFC) is commonly used to diagnose food allergy. This test is time and resource intensive, and conclusions are not always unequivocal as this relies on the interpretation of symptoms. Therefore, an objective marker would improve the accuracy of the diagnostic workup of food allergy. Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate whether tryptase can be detected in saliva of children following OFC. Method: Children from 3 to 18 years of age were eligible for inclusion if an OFC for peanut or tree nut had been recommended. Saliva samples were collected prior to the first dose and 5, 10, and 15 min following the last administered dose during OFC. Assay precision, spike-and-recovery, and assessment of lower limit of detection of the tryptase immunoassay were examined before analysis of tryptase in saliva was performed. Results: A total of 30 children were included (median age 8 years, 63.3% male, 53.3% positive OFC outcome). Tryptase was detected in saliva samples. The mean of the change in baseline tryptase value to each saliva collecting time point was significantly different in patients with a positive OFC outcome compared to a negative outcome (p < 0.01). Conclusions: This study showed that tryptase can be detected in saliva of children following OFC. Increased levels of tryptase compared to baseline were found if the OFC outcome was positive, suggesting that measuring tryptase in saliva may be useful in the diagnosis of food allergy. Further research is needed to evaluate the potential association between tryptase levels and symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is of major importance to diagnose food allergy accurately. Current guidelines support the use of oral food challenges to do so. The double‐blind placebo‐controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) has been regarded as the 'gold standard' for decades. However, DBPCFCs are costly, and time‐ and resource‐intensive procedures. Structural implementation of less demanding open food challenges will only find support if research demonstrates that their outcome is comparable to DBPCFC, yet this has been proven difficult to investigate. Methods: We performed a literature review to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of oral food challenges and interviewed 19 parents of children with proven or suspected food allergy about the design of a trial to study this. Results: An overview of the dilemma of diagnosing food allergy using oral food challenges, and the methodological issues and parents' opinions to study this. No comparative studies have been performed using the latest guidelines on oral food challenges. Conclusions: There is an urgent need to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of different oral food challenge protocols. We present the rationale and design of the ALDORADO trial (ALlergy Diagnosed by Open oR DOuble‐blind food challenge) that has been set up to investigate whether the outcome of the open food challenge is comparable to DBPCFC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) is widely regarded as the "gold standard" to diagnose food allergy. Maximum efforts are made to reduce bias, yet DBPCFCs are costly, time-, and resource-intensive. Less demanding open food challenges are increasingly used in clinical practice. However, recommendations regarding the use of these challenges are based on low certainty of evidence, and no comparative studies have been performed using the most recent international food challenge guidelines. We hypothesised that the open food challenge is non-inferior to DBPCFC in children suspected of allergy to cashew nuts, hazelnuts or peanuts., Methods: A total of 63 children, aged 4 years and older, were included if referred for suspected IgE-mediated allergy to cashew nut, hazelnut, or peanut. All study participants underwent DBPCFC first, followed by an open food challenge for the same food. Challenge outcomes were assessed by predefined criteria into positive, negative, or inconclusive., Results: DBPCFC and open food challenge outcomes were the same for 36/41 (87.8%) patients. Sensitivity and specificity of the open food challenge were 0.91 (95% CI 0.79, 1.03) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.63, 1.01), respectively, with an AUC value of 0.87. Eliciting and stop doses were not significantly different between both food challenges., Conclusion: The Diagnostic accuracy of open food challenge is non-inferior to that of DBPCFC. This finding implies less demanding open food challenges can be implemented for children from the age of 4 years suspected to be cashew nut, hazelnut, or peanut allergic. Further research is necessary to validate our findings and to investigate the diagnostic accuracy for other major food allergens., (© 2024 The Author(s). Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Frenotomy of the lingual and maxillary labial frenula in neonates is considered a safe procedure and is increasingly performed globally. However, there is no consistent evidence for the indication and effectiveness of this intervention. In this clinical lesson, we show that frenotomy of the lingual and maxillary labial frenula in neonates is controversial and can have serious complications. We describe a patient that, in addition to pain and the risk of infection, was in a life-threatening haemorrhagic shock after frenotomy of the lingual and maxillary labial frenula. Frenotomy should only be considered after a multi-disciplinary approach of neonates with breastfeeding problems in whom a medical cause is excluded and no contraindications have been identified.

Background: Failure of milk introduction after a negative food challenge test is reported in a substantial number of patients. For this reason, guidelines recommend that the total dose of milk protein for a food challenge test should be comparable to a normal serving., Objective: Our aim is to compare the success rate of milk introduction after a negative double-blind placebo-controlled challenge test performed with different doses of milk protein and different milk products., Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 485 patients challenged with a low or high dose of milk protein. Pasteurized milk and milk protein powder were used for the low-dose challenge tests, and condensed milk for the high-dose challenge tests. Successful introduction was defined as regular milk consumption, and discontinuation of further introduction due to the reappearance of symptoms as unsuccessful introduction. We also evaluated the association between milk products and successful introduction., Results: The outcome of 288 (59.4%) double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge tests was negative. There were no significant differences between the low and high dose of milk protein in patient characteristics, percentage of patients lost to follow-up (15% vs 20%), in whom introduction had not yet been performed (4% vs 3.1%), reappearance of symptoms (18% vs 17%), and successful introduction (88.0% and 83.4%). Age, gender, specific immunoglobulin E for milk, dose of milk protein, and atopy were not associated with successful introduction. Children who experienced symptoms during the introduction were less likely to consume milk (P < .001). There was a nonsignificant trend toward higher successful introduction rate if pasteurized milk was used as test material compared to milk protein powder, and condensed milk., Conclusion and Clinical Relevance: Successful introduction of milk after a negative challenge test is independent of the total dose of milk protein, and milk product used during the challenge test., (© 2020 The Authors. Immunity, Inflammation and Disease published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)