PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) is widely considered as the 'gold standard' for the diagnosis of food allergy. However, in adult patients, this procedure is rather rarely performed outside the academic context. This review article aims to reappraise the pros and cons of DBPCFC and to elicit some critical thoughts and discussions about the real indications of this diagnostic procedure in adult patients in everyday practice. RECENT FINDINGS: There are many data showing that the DBPCFC poses a number of critical problems that are difficult to overcome in normal outpatient clinics and hospitals, and that are generally not addressed in most articles dealing with this issue. SUMMARY: Performing DBPCFC poses a number of practical problems and has several pitfalls, which make its routine use in normal clinical settings generally impossible. This review article shows that the need for this procedure in adult patients seems in effect very little and specifies new, more limited indications to its use in everyday practice. Further, it suggests a role for the open challenge, which lacks several of the disadvantages of DBPCFC.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) is widely considered as the 'gold standard' for the diagnosis of food allergy. However, in adult patients, this procedure is rather rarely performed outside the academic context. This review article aims to reappraise the pros and cons of DBPCFC and to elicit some critical thoughts and discussions about the real indications of this diagnostic procedure in adult patients in everyday practice. RECENT FINDINGS: There are many data showing that the DBPCFC poses a number of critical problems that are difficult to overcome in normal outpatient clinics and hospitals, and that are generally not addressed in most articles dealing with this issue. SUMMARY: Performing DBPCFC poses a number of practical problems and has several pitfalls, which make its routine use in normal clinical settings generally impossible. This review article shows that the need for this procedure in adult patients seems in effect very little and specifies new, more limited indications to its use in everyday practice. Further, it suggests a role for the open challenge, which lacks several of the disadvantages of DBPCFC.
Authors: Benjamin Misselwitz; Daniel Pohl; Heiko Frühauf; Michael Fried; Stephan R Vavricka; Mark Fox Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Wenchao Sun; Zeynep Araci; Mohammed Inayathullah; Sathish Manickam; Xuexiang Zhang; Marc A Bruce; M Peter Marinkovich; Alfred T Lane; Carlos Milla; Jayakumar Rajadas; Manish J Butte Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2013-05-03 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: Thuy-My Le; Els van Hoffen; Ischa Kummeling; James Potts; Barbara K Ballmer-Weber; Carla Afm Bruijnzeel-Koomen; Ans Fm Lebens; Jonas Lidholm; Titia M Lindner; Alan Mackie; En Clare Mills; Ronald van Ree; Stefan Vieths; Montserrat Fernández-Rivas; Peter G Burney; André C Knulst Journal: Clin Transl Allergy Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 5.871
Authors: E E Guhsl; G Hofstetter; N Lengger; W Hemmer; C Ebner; R Fröschl; M Bublin; C Lupinek; H Breiteneder; C Radauer Journal: Allergy Date: 2014-11-30 Impact factor: 13.146
Authors: Andrew W O'Keefe; Sarah De Schryver; Jennifer Mill; Christopher Mill; Alizee Dery; Moshe Ben-Shoshan Journal: J Asthma Allergy Date: 2014-10-24
Authors: R Treudler; A Franke; A Schmiedeknecht; B K Ballmer-Weber; M Worm; T Werfel; U Jappe; T Biedermann; J Schmitt; R Brehler; A Kleinheinz; J Kleine-Tebbe; H Brüning; F Ruëff; J Ring; J Saloga; K Schäkel; T Holzhauser; St Vieths; J C Simon Journal: Clin Transl Allergy Date: 2016-11-07 Impact factor: 5.871
Authors: Johanna Petronella Margaretha van der Valk; Birgit Nagl; Roy Gerth van Wljk; Barbara Bohle; Nicolette Wilma de Jong Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 5.717